Could CSR save an organization during a crisis?

Could CSR save an organization during a crisis?

The effect of perceived interactivity and communication of CSR motives

in customers’ brand perceptions during a crisis and the role of ethical

consumer behavior.

July 20, 2017

Master Thesis

Business Communication and Digital Media

Tilburg School of Humanities

Author: Cut Vilda Azwar (u1279543)

Supervisor: Dr. Jos Bartels

Second Reader: Ms. E.A.J. Croes

Cut Vilda Azwar (u1279543)

2

Acknowledgements

First of all, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my supervisor Dr. Jos Bartels,

without whom, the completion of this thesis would not have been possible. His timely advice,

support, and guidance have helped me to a very great extent to accomplish this master thesis.

I would also like to thank my second reader, Ms. E.A.J. Croes who contributed in giving me

insight and feedback during the go-or-no go moment (preliminary assessment).

These acknowledgments would not be complete without mentioning my seminar group members,

Nikos and Anna. I truly enjoyed working with them. Thank you for all the ideas and the laugh,

particularly during those chaotic moments.

In addition, I also owe a deep sense of gratitude to my family and my dearest friends in the

Netherlands, Japan, Indonesia, and other parts of the world that I cannot mention one by one, for

their endless love, understanding, and support. None of this would have been possible without

them. Thank you for keep supporting me throughout my study.


3

Abstract

Crisis communication is inevitable for many organizations. In this situation, Corporate Social

Responsibility (CSR) implementation is believed able to help the company maintain its

reputation and restore customers’ trust. However, the appliance of CSR during crisis

communication is still questionable. The main purpose of this study is to examine the effect of

perceived interactivity and communication of CSR motives in customers’ brand perceptions

during a crisis and the role of ethical consumer behavior. A 2 (intrinsic motives vs. extrinsic

motives) X 2 (Facebook vs. Corporate Blogs) between-subject design experiment was conducted.

The results showed insignificant relationships between perceived interactivity, communication of

CSR motives, and the moderating effect of ethical consumer behavior in customers’ brand

perceptions during a crisis. The study later suggested that organizations could use either intrinsic

or extrinsic motives. Concerning the type of medium, the study suggested that organizations

could utilize either Facebook or corporate blogs as a communication platform.


4

Contents 1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 5

2. Theoretical Framework ...................................................................................................................... 8

2.1 Corporate Social Responsibility ...................................................................................................... 8

2.2 CSR during a crisis ........................................................................................................................... 9

2.3 The role of social media in promoting CSR during a crisis ........................................................ 10

2.4 CSR Motives .................................................................................................................................... 11

2.5 Ethical Consumer Behavior ........................................................................................................... 12

3. Method ............................................................................................................................................... 14

3.1. Participants and Study Design ...................................................................................................... 14

3.2. Procedure ........................................................................................................................................ 14

3.3. Stimulus Material ........................................................................................................................... 14

3.4. Pre-test ............................................................................................................................................ 15

3.5. Measures of the main study........................................................................................................... 16

4. Results ................................................................................................................................................ 18

4.1. Manipulation check ....................................................................................................................... 18

4.2. Analysis and Results ...................................................................................................................... 18

5. Discussion........................................................................................................................................... 21

5.1. Summary of the findings ............................................................................................................... 21

5.2. Theoretical Implications ................................................................................................................ 22

5.3. Practical Implications .................................................................................................................... 24

5.4. Limitations ...................................................................................................................................... 25

5.5. Future Research ............................................................................................................................. 25

5.6. Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................... 26

6. References .......................................................................................................................................... 27

7. Appendix ............................................................................................................................................ 36

7.1. Manipulation Materials ................................................................................................................. 36

7.2. Measurements ................................................................................................................................ 38


5

1. Introduction

Customers’ brand perceptions and organizations’ reputations could negatively switch

when a brand faces crisis communication, which refers to an unpredictable crisis, faced by an

organization while conducting its business that has the possibility to damage the stakeholders’

well-being regarding their health, financial matters, and environmental surrounding (Coombs,

2014). Crisis communication is occasionally unavoidable for many organizations, regardless of

how big they are. Several reasons exist for its occurrence, but product or service failure are the

most common ones (Larkin, 2002). Larkin (2002) mentions that the situation exacerbates when

such product or service failure has led to death, injury, material loss, and environmental

destruction. The discovery of high amount of Monosodium Glutamate (MSG) in Maggi noodles

in India, and harmful Coca-Cola cans in Belgium are some of the examples of such crises that

happened a few years ago. Based on these examples, Coombs (2014) said that immunity to a

crisis is nigh impossible for an organization; thus, implementation of a proper communication

response strategy is imperative, as it could prevent an organization’s downfall by minimizing the

impact of such crisis (Coombs, 2007). According to Kim and Lee (2015), corporate social

responsibility (CSR) is one of the strategies that could repair an organization’s reputation during

a crisis.

The concept of CSR was evoked in 1950 and its advent became a catalyst that

revolutionized organizations’ method of obtaining customer sympathy (Mirfazli, 2008). In

general, CSR is depicted as a responsible act of a business towards the society, its stakeholders,

and the environment (Forbes, 2012). According to some beliefs, CSR could bring advantages to

businesses who implement it; for example, increases in profit (Ruf, Muralidhar, Brown, Janney,

& Paul, 2001), higher customers’ brand perceptions (Hur, Kim, & Woo, 2014) and as a crisis

communication tool (Kim & Lee, 2015).

Kim and Lee (2015) discovered that CSR could be an effective response strategy to

mitigate the negative impact of crisis communication on brand reputation and maintain

customers’ brand perceptions during crises. It is believed that good reputation of organizations

could minimize the negative impact of crisis because it creates a ‘buffering effect’ (Coombs &

Holladay, 2006). According to Kim and Lee (2015), a buffering effect exists in CSR practices

where it has the ability to generate favorable customer response based on previous CSR activities


6

as it shows how active the organization is in engaging with and contributing to the welfare of the

communities (Kim & Lee, 2015). An example of buffering effect could be taken from the Disney

case. In 2013, Forbes listed Disney as one of the leading organizations well-known for its CSR

reputation (Smith, 2013). As a result, Disney managed to maintain its reputation as one of the

leading entertainment organizations and is rated highly by Reputation Institute (Strauss, 2016)

even after facing several crises.

Organizations’ motive in implementing CSR is one of the factors that will determine the

likelihood of them generating positive customer brand perception during a crisis. Kim and Lee

(2015) confirmed that CSR could help organizations in creating a good impression during a crisis

if they emphasized more on intrinsic attributes than extrinsic attributes in their CSR motives. The

term intrinsic motives refers to public-serving motives whereas extrinsic motives are expected to

enhance customer brand perception. For instance, with intrinsic motives, organizations will

emphasize more on altruistic or selfless motives; hence, it is natural that CSR activities with

intrinsic motives could be more effective in combating crisis communication as customers

consider them to be selfless acts (Du, Bhattacharya, & Sen, 2007).

Another important factor that might influence customers’ likelihood to create positive

customer brand perception is the perceived interactivity of a medium during a crisis where it

refers to how customers feel about a communication medium’s interactivity. Users’ perceived

interactivity is an important aspect in communicating CSR because perceived interactivity is

strongly related with customer trust (Wu, Hu, & Wu, 2010) and customer loyalty (Labrecque,

2014). Facebook is one of the online platforms that is assumed to have a higher degree of

perceived interactivity compared to a blog, as a blog is often used to write short statements and

essays, while Facebook promotes interaction between users through its platform where posting

ideas, updates, and receiving quick notifications for it are some of its features (Ebner &

Schiefner, 2008).

During a crisis, ethical consumers might express more sympathy towards an organization

with positive previous CSR activities; thus, ethical consumers’ behavior might positively

influence the relationship between communicating CSR and customers’ brand perceptions.

Ethical consumers are a group of “conscientious customers” who prioritize and put an effort to

purchase a product based on ethical principles (Dawkins & Lewis, 2003). Ethical Customers

with ethical consumption preferences are predicted to respect a brand with favorable CSR


7

histories, in which it could lead to positive customer brand perception (Ethical Consumerism

Report, 2011).

The author of this paper assumes that CSR plays a crucial role as a corporate reputation

tool. Despite CSR having its benefits on tackling crisis communication, the usage of CSR as a

crisis communication tool is still debatable. Coombs and Holladay (2015) argued that the

implementation of CSR during a crisis will create a complex problem where it might backfire if

the organization is perceived to be socially irresponsible in the eyes of the customer; thus, the

author attempts to delve deeper into this topic and aims to analyze the role of communicating

CSR on brand perceptions during a crisis by proposing the following research question:

RQ: “What is the effect of perceived interactivity and communication of CSR motives in

customers’ brand perceptions during a crisis? What is the role of ethical consumer behavior in

this relationship?”


8

2. Theoretical Framework

2.1 Corporate Social Responsibility

Public has positive perceptions towards organizations that are responsible toward society

(Mohr, Webb, & Harris, 2001). Several types of research found that organizations started to

utilize CSR with the expectation that CSR can enhance corporate reputation (Fombrun, 2005;

Fombrun, & Shanley, 1990; Tate, Ellram, & Kirchoff, 2010). As CSR and reputation could be

enhanced based on customers’ preferences, CSR has become a corporate evaluation tool to boost

reputation (Coombs, 2014). Aside from the expectation to improve corporate reputation,

organizations implement CSR with the intention of gaining positive customer perception. CSR

has the potential to influence customers’ behavior as customers are not only focusing on the

quality of a product, but also are willing to give their support to a socially responsible

organization (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2004).

Turker (2009) unraveled that stakeholders (i.e. social and non-social stakeholders,

employees, and customers) perceived CSR positively; thus, an organization that is socially

responsible is expected to have a better corporate image. Additionally, the element of positive

corporate associations in CSR could persuade customers to purchase new products from a brand

(Brown & Dacin, 1997). Brown and Dacin (1997) elaborated that CSR is found to be a source

that could cover the missing product attributes when customers tried to identify the absent

attributes from a new established product. The two scholars mentioned product sophistication to

be one of the examples of missing product attributes. CSR, in this context, has a role in providing

customers with the product’s related information to cover the missing product attributes values

(Brown & Dacin, 1997).

Moreover, CSR initiatives could lead to better customer satisfaction, organizations’

reputations, and brand equity, as customers feel more fascinated towards socially responsible

organizations (Hsu, 2012). Hsu (2012) explained that with this positive impression, customers

are more likely to reward organizations with positive brand equity. The study also revealed that

CSR could be used as an instrument to build brand awareness and brand associations, as CSR is

perceived to be informative as well as persuasive.


9

2.2 CSR during a crisis

Even though some experts argue that the use of CSR during crisis might harm

organizations, but Yelkikalan and Köse (2011), and Souto (2009) claim that implementing CSR

during crisis can actually be a good opportunity. Yelkikalan and Köse (2011) added that CSR

could help organizations to avoid the negative impact of crises by spreading its positive values

on stakeholders and the business itself. CSR activities might potentially mitigate the impact of

crises, as CSR initiatives cover a broad range of social responsibility (Coombs, 2014). A study

by Tsarenko and Tojib (2015) found that customers’ sympathy could save organizations from the

downfall that crisis communication caused. However, the feeling of sympathy only occurred if

the interpersonal relationship between customers with the organizations is established (Tsarenko

& Tojib, 2015). From the results of their study, Tsarenko & Tojib (2015) discovered that the

relationship between customer sympathy and the appliance of CSR during brand crises could

help organizations in obtaining a greater understanding about the customers.

Nevertheless, Kim, Kim and Cameron (2009), and Vanhamm and Grobben (2009)

emphasized the importance of planning a CSR strategy, as this strategy could backfire on

organizations if CSR is not adjusted to the factors involved in the crisis. In this context, Sheikh

and Beise-Zee (2011) explained that CSR could be an effective crisis management tool, but only

when the CSR initiatives have a high similarity with the crisis cause. The incompatibility

between CSR initiatives and crisis cause might trigger the occurrence of customers’ skepticism.

In a crisis, customers’ skepticism might occur and potentially damage organizations.

Customers’ skepticism might decrease if organizations have a long history of CSR involvement

compared to a short one (Vanhamme & Grobben, 2009). Furthermore, Klein and Dawar (2004)

also found that neutral or positive records on a CSR report can save an organization from the

damage that occurs during crises. The study by Klein and Dawar (2004) claimed that during

crises, CSR could directly influence customers’ brand evaluation as well as customers’

attribution. The effect of CSR on customers’ attribution will be significant when customers have

a concern regarding CSR practices and ethical issues.

More recently, Kim and Choi (2016) observed that congruence between crisis issue and

CSR initiative has the ability to dampen negative responses during crises. Their study further

suggests that to make CSR an effective crisis management tool, post-crisis CSR initiative does

not need to be similar to the pre-crisis CSR initiatives if the crisis is related to the pre-crisis CSR


10

initiatives. Conversely, an organization is suggested to maintain CSR initiatives similar to the

previous one if a relationship between the crisis and the pre-crisis CSR initiatives does not exist.

2.3 The role of social media in promoting CSR during a crisis

Crisis communication is inevitable for many organizations regardless of how big they are.

Schultz, Utz, and Göritz (2011) argued that medium plays a crucial role during crisis

communication as the choice of platforms during crisis communication is as important as

creating a proper crises response. Using social media as a medium could prevent crises from

spreading out as long as organizations have the proper knowledge in utilizing it; for example, the

knowledge about handling different customer complaints through social media (Grégoire, Salle,

& Tripp, 2015). A study observed that a majority of the respondents felt that during a crisis, they

received less information compared to the amount of information they were supposed to have

(Palen, 2008). In this situation, the presence of an organization’s interactive social media is

crucial as a platform to not only share the missing information, but also obtain more factual and

accurate information (Palen, 2008).

Social media has a ‘listening function’ that allows organizations to monitor users’

opinion, criticism, and advice (Crawford, 2009). According to Crawford (2009), the listening

function of social media has three values: hearing the community’s positive and negative views,

lowering customer service cost, and building global awareness.

The use of social media can contribute to building awareness concerning organizations’

CSR and can also be beneficial in terms of spreading eWOM (electric word of mouth) (Du et al.,

2010). Alexander (2014) found that usage of social network sites (i.e. Facebook) as a corporate

tool can help organizations to establish a two-way interaction between organizations and

customers where users can act not only a receiver but also a contributor. By having a two-way

interaction, organizations can improve their service according to the public opinion because

social media enables organizations to collect distinct types of ideas directly from the users

(Briones, Kuch, Liu, & Jin, 2011)

Additionally, the use of social media enables an organization to share their brand

personality online and it can enhance an organization’s reputation, as users feel that the

organization is listening to their feedback (Eberle, Berens, & Li, 2013; Lee, Hosanagar, & Nair,

2014). Ultimately, proper utilization of social media could be beneficial for a CSR campaign as

it can mitigate the negative impact of crisis communication through the aforementioned benefits.


11

Thorson and Rodgers (2006) defined perceived interactivity as “the extent to which users

perceive their experience as a simulation of interpersonal interaction and sense that they are in

the presence of a social other” (p. 36). The two scholars further argued that a high perceived

interactivity medium generate better customers’ attitude than a low perceived interactivity

medium. Eberle et al. (2013) found that perceived interactivity in online CSR could lead to

higher message credibility and stronger organization identification, which in turn enhances a

brand’s reputation. In this research, the author assumes that Facebook has a higher perceived

interactivity compared to corporate blogs. The main reasoning behind this assumption can be

attributed to a paper written by Kaplan and Haenlein (2010) revealing that social networking

sites (i.e., Facebook) are richer than blogs in terms of their features especially concerning the

quality of interactive communication with the customers. They argued that blogs are perceived to

be less interactive, as they only allow text-based exchange of messages. Meanwhile, a higher

perceived interactive medium such as Facebook enables its users to exchange messages not only

in the form of text, but also in the form of pictures and videos (Kaplan and Haenlein, 2010).

Based on the literature above, the first hypothesis is proposed:

H1: During a crisis, higher perceived interactivity of the medium leads to more positive

customers’ brand perceptions than lower perceived interactivity.

2.4 CSR Motives

Aside from perceived interactivity, organizations’ choice of CSR motives is crucial in

determining customers’ brand perception during a crisis. In general, there are two types of CSR

motives: extrinsic and intrinsic (Du et al., 2007). These two terms are also known as ‘firm-

serving motives’ and ‘public-serving motives’ (Forehand & Grier, 2003). In explaining these

terms, Du et al. (2007) described that extrinsic motives are similar to self-interest motives, where

the primary intention is to improve organizations’ welfare and profit, whereas intrinsic motives

are related to selfless motives. Organizations with intrinsic motives are interested in being

responsible to society; for example, by focusing on community wellbeing. The extrinsic and

intrinsic motives of organizations can be associated with four types of customer attributions:

strategic, egoistic, values-driven, and stakeholder-driven motives (Ellen, Webb, & Mohr, 2006).

Ellen at al. (2006) conceptualized that strategic (e.g., customer acquisition) and egoistic motives

(e.g., profit maximization) are perceived to be part of extrinsic motives. Meanwhile, values-


12

driven (e.g., morally obligated) and stakeholder driven (e.g., helping victims) motives are

classified as part of intrinsic motives.

Each organization has different motives behind its social responsibility program, and the

difference in motives for CSR could lead to different customers’ attribution. Several studies have

discovered that customers’ attribution is related to customers’ beliefs towards a brand’s CSR

practice because those beliefs will be built based on the core motives of an organization (Menon

& Kahn, 2003; Sen, Bhattacharya, & Korschun, 2006); thus, as customers’ belief towards a

brand’s CSR practice increases, customers’ will be able to sympathize more with the brand.

Yoon, Gürhan-Canli, and Schwarz (2006) mentioned that when customers are conscious

about organizations’ extrinsic motives, they are more likely to evaluate organizations negatively

compared to when they recognize organizations’ intrinsic motives. This negative evaluation

occurs due to customers’ skepticism (Du et al., 2007; Yoon et al., 2006). Conversely, intrinsic

motives can minimize skepticism and limit the reputation damage (Forehand & Grier, 2003).

Another study also revealed that when an organization accentuates its motives to improve the

long-term wellbeing of a community, they would receive greater customer loyalty and greater

purchase intention than an organization that emphasizes CSR initiatives with extrinsic motives

(Yoon et al., 2006; Pirsch, Gupta, & Grau, 2007). During crises, Klein and Dawar (2004)

revealed that attributions would influence customers, particularly customers who favor CSR

practices. Based on the above arguments, it can be assumed that the implementation of CSR

could lessen the negative impact of crises; thus, the following hypotheses were formulated:

H2: During a crisis, communicating CSR with intrinsic motives will lead to more positive

customers’ brand perceptions than communicating CSR with extrinsic motives.

H3: During a crisis, intrinsic motives with higher perceived interactivity leads to highest

brand perceptions compared to intrinsic motives with lower perceived interactivity,

extrinsic motives with higher perceived interactivity, and extrinsic motives with lower

perceived interactivity.

2.5 Ethical Consumer Behavior

In this research, ethical consumer behavior might moderate the relationship between CSR

and a crisis. Ethical consumer behavior is a term that defines how a customer considers society’s

well-being as their primary concern in purchasing goods (Sudbury-Riley & Kohlbacher, 2016).

Ethical consumers will mainly focus on ethical issues as the underlying reason for purchasing


13

items instead of the physical looks of the items (Ethical Consumerism Report, 2011; Shaw,

Grehan, Shiu, Hassan, and Thomson, 2005).

In the context of ethical consumer behavior, consumer purchasing decisions are built

based on three different aspects: “animal welfare,” “social welfare,” and “environmental welfare”

(Low & Davenport, 2007). Even though a perception that customers in millennium era have less

interest in ethical consumption exists (Carrigan, & Attalla, 2001), Low and Davenport (2007)

argued that customers already have “an absolute ethical bottom line” that they would not cross

where animal cruelty and child labor are some of its examples. Hence, most customers might

always consider the ethical aspect of a brand when purchasing a product, but its degree might not

be as significant as ethical customers with a high ethical awareness.

Ethical consumer attitude also influences customers’ brand perceptions during a crisis, as

socially responsible people will hesitate in buying products from organizations with bad

reputation in their business ethics (Mohr et al., 2001); thus, the final hypothesis that will be

proposed in this paper is:

H4: The relationship between online CSR communication and stakeholders’ brand

perceptions is moderated by customers’ ethical awareness. During crises, costumers with

high ethical awareness are more likely to have positive customers’ brand perceptions

towards an organization that practices CSR than customers with low ethical awareness.

Figure 1. Conceptual Model.


14

3. Method 3.1. Participants and Study Design

The hypotheses and research question were examined using a 2 (intrinsic motives vs.

extrinsic motives) x 2 (Facebook vs. corporate blogs) between-subjects design; every participant

was exposed to one of the four conditions. The author of this study was using Facebook and

corporate blogs as the media for the type of medium condition. Facebook is an example of a

social media platform that has a higher perceived interactivity; thus, the author decided to use it

as one of the conditions. Concerning blogs, since corporate blogs are often used by organizations

in developing a better relationship with the customers (Ahuja & Medury, 2010), they were

chosen as a condition that represents a medium with a lower perceived interactivity.

The independent variables of the study were CSR motives and type of medium. The

dependent variable was customers’ brand perception, and the moderating variable was ethical

consumer behavior. The questionnaire was created in Qualtrics.

The sample of the questionnaire consisted of 214 participants (97 male and 117 female),

and the majority of them were Indonesian (N = 127). Most of the participants were between 18 to

24 years old (N = 116).

3.2. Procedure

Participants were obtained using convenience, and snowball sampling method and the

questionnaire was distributed via social network sites and email. The author explained the

language requirements on the questionnaire’s introduction page. Aside from these requirements,

a short introductory text about the experiment, information about the survey and privacy, the

length of the questionnaire, and author contact information were included on the introduction

page. A crisis case was added before each manipulation. Following that, the participants were

randomly assigned to one of the four manipulated communicating CSR campaigns. Afterwards,

the participants stated their level of agreement on the manipulation check questions, brand

perceptions, and control questions. Lastly, demographic questions, such as gender, age, and

nationality were asked.

3.3. Stimulus Material

An online experiment was conducted to measure the effects of CSR motives and type of

medium on customers’ brand perceptions and the moderating effect of ethical consumer behavior.


15

The author used a non-fictitious brand for this analysis, namely Disney. The campaign poster

materials (i.e., images) were collected from Google images and edited using the Photoshop

software.

The author added a non-fictional case regarding Disney and its crisis communication

situation. Following the case, the author created two different volunteer campaigns, one each on

a fictitious company’s Facebook page as well as a fictitious company’s blog page. The intrinsic

motive texts for both the Facebook page and the corporate blog were derived directly from the

Disney CSR webpage. Meanwhile, the extrinsic motives texts were manipulated by the author.

To check the CSR motives (intrinsic motives vs. extrinsic motives) manipulation and the

type of medium manipulation (Facebook vs. corporate blog), a pre-test was distributed to 53

participants. The pre-test respondents did not participate in the main experiment.

3.4. Pre-test

To analyze the results, an independent t-test was performed to see whether there were

differences on manipulation of the four conditions.

Type of Medium

To examine if the manipulation of the medium worked, a crosstab analysis was

performed. The test concluded that only 65.4% of the participants in the Facebook manipulation

saw a display of the Facebook page. Meanwhile, regarding company blog, only 77.8% of the

participants aware of the company blog manipulation. In other words, participants did not realize

the manipulation they were supposed to see.

Type of Motives

The Levene test showed that the variances of the motives (intrinsic vs extrinsic)

manipulation in the intrinsic motives (p = .12) and in the extrinsic motives (p = .39) were

homogeneous. The result showed that the difference in intrinsic motives perceptions between

intrinsic (M = 4.9, SD = 1.15) and extrinsic (M = 4.3, SD = 1.67) condition was not significant

(Mdif = .64, t(51) = 1.5, p = .15). Concerning extrinsic motives, the difference between

perceptions between intrinsic (M = 4.8, SD = 1.3) and extrinsic (M = 4.8, SD = 1.4) condition

was not significant (Mdif = .82, t(51) = .24, p = .82). Thus, in the pre-test, CSR motive

manipulation both in intrinsic and extrinsic motives did not work.

The manipulation for each condition was adapted after the pre-test (Appendix 7.1.).

Regarding the medium, several changes were made. For example, in the company blog condition,


16

a picture, name, and position of the blog contributor, as well as date created, were included to

create a realistic manipulation. In terms of motives, the second paragraph of each text in each

condition was manipulated. For example, based on Ellen et al. (2006), in the extrinsic motive,

brand awareness aspect was emphasized in the second paragraph (e.g., “An important aim of

Disney’s VoluntEARS is to create awareness about our Corporate Social Responsibility

program.”).

To investigate if participants paid attention to the manipulation, the author added a

picture of a woman as a blog contributor only in the blog condition. Later, in the questionnaire of

all the conditions, the participants were asked if they saw a picture of a woman.

3.5. Measures of the main study

To measure all the variables, the author used established measures that were developed

from extant research to enhance the reliability of the study.

Manipulation check measures

A manipulation check of the motives was included to examine whether the participants

were aware of the manipulation. The scale was adapted from Ellen et al. (2006). The participants

were asked to indicate their agreement with the following statements for each CSR motives

condition on a seven-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree); for example,

“I think Disney is feeling morally obligated to help” (intrinsic motives), or “I think Disney is

taking advantage of the cause to help their own business” (extrinsic motives). The intrinsic

scales (α = .77) and extrinsic scales (α = .78) had a good reliability.

For the type of medium manipulation check, participants were required to indicate their

level of agreement of the following statements on a seven-point Likert scale (1 = strongly

disagree, 7 = strongly agree): “I just saw a Disney volunteer campaign on Facebook” (Facebook

condition), “I just saw a Disney volunteer campaign on corporate blog” (corporate blog

condition).

Dependent Variable

A scale developed by Hsu (2012) was used to measure customers’ brand perceptions

(seven-point Likert scale, 1 = “completely disagree”, 7 = “completely agree”). The scale

consisted of five items (e.g., “Disney has a good reputation”). The scale had a good reliability (α

= .91).


17

Moderating Variable

For the moderating variable, the ethical minded consumer behavior (EMCB) scale

(seven-point Likert scale, 1 = “completely disagree”, 7 = “completely agree”) by Sudbury-Riley

and Kohlbacher (2016) was used. The scale consisted of 10 items (e.g., “I will not buy a product

if I know that the company that sells it is socially irresponsible”). The scale had a good reliability

(α = .93)

Control Variables

Brand identification and dispositional skepticism were included as control variables in

this study. These variables are used because previous studies stated that brand identification

(Keller, 2003) and skepticism (Du et al., 2007) could affect customers’ brand perception. To

measure how participants identified with Disney, a social identification with brand scale

developed by Leach, van Zomeren, Zebel, Vliek, Pennekamp, Doosje, Ouwerkerk, and Spears

(2008) was used (seven-point Likert scale, 1 = “completely disagree”, 7 = “completely agree”).

The scale consisted of three items (e.g., “I feel a bond with Disney”). The scale had a high

reliability (α = .90).

To measure skepticism, a dispositional skepticism scale based on Obermiller and

Spangenberg (1998) was used (seven-point Likert scale, 1 = “completely disagree”, 7 =

“completely agree”). The scale consisted of three items (e.g., “I find Disney unreliable”). The

scale had a good reliability (α = .83).


18

4. Results 4.1. Manipulation check

Type of Medium

The manipulation check test revealed that for the type of medium manipulation, 89% of

the participants were aware that they were exposed to the Facebook condition, and 82.7% of

them realized that they were exposed to the company blog condition. Based on the percentage, it

can be concluded that the manipulation in the main study was better than in the pre-test.

Type of Motives

The Levene test showed that the variances of the motives (intrinsic vs extrinsic)

manipulation in the intrinsic motives (p = .08) and in the extrinsic motives (p = .61) were

homogeneous. The result indicated that the difference in intrinsic motives perceptions between

intrinsic (M = 4.6, SD = 1.3) and extrinsic (M = 4.6, SD = 1.4) condition was not significant

(Mdif = -.00, t(212) = -.01, p = .98). Concerning extrinsic motives, the difference between

perceptions between intrinsic (M = 4.9, SD = 1.4) and extrinsic (M = 5.1 SD = 1.4) condition was

not significant (Mdif = -.09, t(212) = -.49, p = .63). Therefore, CSR motive manipulation both in

intrinsic and extrinsic motives did not seem to work.

Picture of a woman

In the main study, a picture of a woman was inserted in the company blog condition.

From the crosstab analysis, it was discovered that in the Facebook condition, 92.5% of the

participants correctly stated that they did not see a picture of a woman. For the company blog

condition, only 86.9% participants realized that there was a picture of a woman presented in the

company blog. Hence, it can be concluded that the manipulation did not seem to work.

4.2. Analysis and Results

To test the first, the second, and the third hypotheses, ANCOVA (Analysis of Covariance)

using IBM SPSS statistics software analysis was used. In this analysis, brand identification and

dispositional skepticism as covariates were included.

The test revealed that the main effect of the type of medium was not significant (F (1,

208) =.06, p = .81, 2 =.00), rejecting the first hypothesis. The test revealed that during a crisis,

higher perceived interactivity (i.e., Facebook) (M = 5.6, SD = .10) of the medium did not lead to

more positive customers’ brand perceptions than lower perceived interactivity (i.e., company

blog) (M = 5.7, SD = .10).


19

There was no significant main effect of CSR motives on customers’ brand perception (F (1, 208)

= 1.3, p = .25, 2 = .01), indicating that during a crisis, communicating CSR with intrinsic

motives (M = 5.6, SD = .09) did not lead to more positive customers’ brand perceptions than

communicating CSR with extrinsic motives (M = 5.7, SD = .10); thus, the second hypothesis is

rejected.

Regarding the interaction effect (Figure 1), there was no significant interaction effect

between the type of medium and CSR motives (F (1, 208) = 2.4, p = .12, 2 = .01); thus,

rejecting the third hypothesis, too. The results showed that during a crisis, intrinsic motives with

higher interactivity (M = 5.4, SD = .15) did not lead to highest brand perceptions compared to

intrinsic motives with low interactivity (M = 5.7, SD = .14), extrinsic motives with high

interactivity (M = 5.8, SD = .15), and extrinsic motives with low interactivity (M = 5.6, SD = .15).

Brand identification as a control variable had a significant effect on customers’ brand

perception (F (1, 208) = 29.69, p <. 001, 2 = .13), showing that the higher the participants’

brand identification, the higher the customers’ brand perception. The analysis also revealed that

the covariate, dispositional skepticism, was significantly related to the costumers’ brand

perception (F (1, 208) = 5.7, p = .02, 2 = .03); thus, as the dispositional skepticism decreases,

customers’ brand perception increases.

Moderation Analysis

To investigate the fourth hypothesis in which it was stated that the relationship between

communicating CSR and stakeholders’ brand perceptions is moderated by consumers’ ethical

awareness, a moderation test using PROCESS model 1 was conducted (Hayes, 2013). The result

shows that ethical consumer behavior was not a significant predictor of customers’ brand

perception (b = .16, 95% CI [-.10, .40], t = .14, p = .20). The overall model was not significant

R2 = .07, F(7, 206) = 1.5, p = .17, rejecting the fourth hypothesis. Thus, ethical consumer

behavior did not moderate the relationship between type of medium, type of motives, and

consumers’ brand perception.

Descriptive statistics and correlations

An additional analysis was performed to investigate the relationship between brand

identification, dispositional skepticism and ethical consumer behavior on customers’ brand

perception. The descriptive statistics analysis was performed to see the mean of each variable.

Meanwhile, the correlation test was conducted to investigate the relationship of the variables.


20

Table 1 below shows the means, standard deviations, and the correlation coefficients of the

variables. First, the results revealed that brand identification (r = .35, p < .001) and ethical

consumer behavior (r = 23, p < .001) positively correlated with customer brand perception.

Meanwhile, dispositional skepticism (r = -.15, p = .03) negatively correlated with customer

brand perception. It is found that ethical consumer behavior positively correlated with brand

identification (r = .14, p = .04). Based on this analysis, it was found that there were two

insignificant correlations: 1) dispositional skepticism did not significantly correlate with brand

identification; and 2) ethical consumer behavior did not significantly correlate with dispositional

skepticism.

Table 1.

Means and standard deviations of the independent variables, the moderator variable, and the

dependent variable, as well as their correlations (N = 214).

Mean

(SD)

Customer

Brand

Perception

Brand

Identifica

tion

Dispositional

Skepticism

Ethical

Consumer

Behavior

Customer Brand Perception 5.7 (1.1) 1

Brand Identification 3.9 (1.4) .35 1

Dispositional Skepticism 3.9 (1.2) -.15 .004 1

Ethical Consumer Behavior

4.7 (1.3)

.23

.14 -.09 1

Note. Significant correlations are in boldface.

In this study, the participants’ ages were grouped into four different categories: 1) 18 – 24 years

old, 2) 25 – 34 years old, 3) 35 – 44 years old, and 4) above 45 years old. Additional analysis

was developed to see whether different age groups have an effect on customers’ brand

perceptions. From the analysis, it was found that there was no significant effect of participants’

age on customers’ brand perception (F (1, 210) = .52, p = .67, 2 = .01).


21

5. Discussion 5.1. Summary of the findings

This study aimed to examine the effect of communicating CSR motives on customers’

brand perceptions during a crisis. This study was designed to examine whether the role of ethical

consumer behavior moderates the relationship between communicating CSR motives and

customers’ brand perceptions.

In this research, the first hypothesis investigated whether, during a crisis, Facebook as a

medium with higher perceived interactivity can lead to more positive customers’ brand

perceptions compared to a company blog as a medium with a lower perceived interactivity.

However, the statistical analysis showed that Facebook did not lead to more positive customers’

brand perceptions compared to a company blog; hence, the first hypothesis was rejected.

The second hypothesis examined whether, during a crisis, a CSR message with intrinsic

motives will lead to more positive customers’ brand perceptions than a CSR message with

extrinsic motives. Since there was no difference found in this relationship, the second hypothesis

was rejected. Therefore, using intrinsic motives did not seem to lead to higher customers’ brand

perception.

The third hypothesis observed the interaction effect between the type of medium and

CSR motives. The third hypothesis expected that during a crisis, intrinsic motives with higher

perceived interactivity leads to more positive customers’ brand perceptions. However, based on

the analysis, the third hypothesis was not confirmed, indicating that intrinsic motives with higher

perceived interactivity did not contribute to a higher customers’ brand perception.

Finally, the fourth hypothesis stated that ethical consumer behavior could moderate the

relationship between the type of medium and CSR motives. The overall statistical model of the

moderation analysis showed there was no relationship, rejecting the fourth hypothesis; thus, it

can be concluded that ethical consumer behavior did not moderate the relationship between the

type of medium, CSR motives and costumers’ brand perception.

This research developed a further analysis with a correlation test. It was found that brand

identification and ethical consumer behavior have a positive relationship with customers’ brand

perception; thus, the higher the brand identity and ethical consumer behavior, the higher the

customers’ brand perception. Ethical consumer behavior, however, had a negative relationship to


22

customers’ brand perception, in which, when skepticism decreases, customers’ perception

towards a brand increases.

5.2. Theoretical Implications

This research attempted to investigate the relationship between the type of medium, CSR

motives, and customers’ brand perception. The research question suggests that the type of

medium and CSR motives plays a major role in enhancing customers’ brand perception,

particularly during a crisis. This research undertook to examine whether the ethical consumer

behavior moderates the relationship between communicating CSR motives and customers’ brand

perceptions.

Regarding the type of medium, this research concludes that Facebook as a higher

perceived medium did not have a relationship with customers’ brand perception. This result is

not in line with a study by Eberle et al. (2013) who argued that perceived interactivity could lead

to higher message credibility, which is expected to enhance a brand’s reputation. The perceived

level of credibility of a medium could be one of the reasons that can support the finding

regarding the type of medium. Weber (2009) quoted a survey conducted by a public relations

firm which investigated the effect of different marketing communication tools and the level of

trustworthiness. Weber (2009) stated that the firm discovered that regardless of the

communication channel type, as long as the messages conveyed were delivered directly from the

company, people could build more trust on the communication medium. According to Chaudhuri

and Holbrook (2001), the sense of credibility could positively influence customers’ attitudes

towards a brand. In the blog manipulation, the author included non-fictitious information about

the blog contributor, including picture and position. This factor might increase the credibility of

the company blog as an organizational communication channel. Therefore, because the

manipulation of the medium in this research showed a display of Disney’s official page,

participants might have put more trust on both Facebook and company blog and perceived fewer

differences between the two media.

Another possible reason is the tone of voice used in the type of medium manipulation.

Both Facebook and company blog manipulation adopted an informal tone of voice in their

messages. Kelleher and Miller (2006) stressed that the use of informal tone of voice in the online

context could enhance users’ trust and satisfaction because of the sense of “openness” and

“assurance” the informal tone of voice created. Kelleher & Miller (2006) further discussed that


23

because of the candid conversational style, the use of informal tone of voice makes people feel

that they are invited to join a conversation and are welcome. Based on Kelleher and Miller’s

(2006) arguments, it can be assumed that an informal tone of voice has the ability to encourage

customers to actively participate in the conversation regardless of the type of communication

channels. In other words, even though Facebook has a higher perceived interactivity, participants

perceived less difference between Facebook and company blog because both the media used an

informal tone of voice.

Concerning CSR motives, further findings lead to the conclusion that the use of intrinsic

motives did not necessarily influence customers’ brand perception. This finding is inconsistent

with a study by Pirsch et al. (2007) who argued that emphasizing on improving community well-

being could lead to better customer loyalty and greater purchase intention than focusing on short-

term profit. Du et al. (2010), however, have an opposite argument concerning preferred CSR

motives. Du et al. (2010) indicated that stakeholders find satisfaction when organizations apply

mixed CSR motives that is where organizations use both intrinsic and extrinsic motives in

conveying their CSR messages. In their study, Ellen et al. (2006) mentioned that customers often

recognize organizations’ extrinsic motives through their CSR programs and they tolerate it. Ellen

at al. (2006) further argued that the combination of both intrinsic and extrinsic motives on CSR

might lead to positive customers’ attitude towards a brand. Based on an Ellen at al. (2006) study,

the combination of both intrinsic and extrinsic motives in CSR would result in a better outcome

than only focusing on one of the motives. Therefore, this preference could explain the result of

the current research regarding the insignificant difference between the two distinct CSR motives.

In this study, the author did not find any moderating effect of ethical consumer behavior.

Mohr et al. (2001) believed that ethical consumer behavior positively shapes customers’

perception of a brand, in which a customer who considered themselves an ethical customer will

avoid purchasing goods from an unethical company. Based on this assumption, this research

included ethical consumer consumption as a moderator variable. However, from the moderation

analysis, it was found that there is no moderation found; thus, ethical consumer behavior did not

influence the relationship between CSR motives and customers’ brand perception. One of the

reasons probably is that Disney might have neutral customers’ company evaluation, where

participants were neither disagreed nor agreed concerning Disney brand identification. The

current research found that even though participants considered themselves somewhat ethical,


24

but they have neutral brand identification regarding Disney CSR initiatives. Participants have

neutral views because they probably could not identify Disney CSR values; thus, they have

difficulties in perceiving Disney as part of the ethical consumption community. Cherrier (2006)

claimed that ethical consumers tend to consider themselves as part of a particular community that

applies the same foundation. Yoon et al. (2006) stated that in building a relationship with a brand,

customers tend to evaluate organizations’ social responsibility initiatives in the first place.

Evaluation of a brand is expected to enhance customers’ attitude, as brand evaluation is often

associated with customers’ propensity to purchase a product from a specific brand (Lievens &

Highhouse, 2003). In this study, even though most participants considered themselves ethical

consumers, they felt uncertain about Disney’s CSR initiatives; thus, participants feel unsure

whether they have to think ethically or not when they have to purchase goods from Disney.

5.3. Practical Implications

There are several insights that marketers and practitioners can gain from this research.

Firstly, based on the results, regarding the CSR motives, organizations could use either extrinsic

(i.e., egoistic motives) or intrinsic motives (i.e., values-driven motives). Organizations could also

incorporate the use of both intrinsic and extrinsic motives, as literature by Ellen at al. (2006) and

Du et al. (2010) argued that the use of both motives could lead to better customer satisfaction.

The same goes with the type of medium; organizations could utilize Facebook or corporate blogs

as a platform. Organizations could also continue to use the platform they currently use. Secondly,

during a crisis, organizations might want to focus on enhancing the credibility of the medium

rather than placing an emphasis on the efficiency of different types of online media, for example,

by adding blog contributor information. When customers have more trust in the medium as well

as the brand, this improvement could lead to a better customers’ understanding about corporate

social initiatives. Thirdly, the implementation of CSR should be cautiously implemented. This

study discovered that customers’ brand identification could affect customers’ brand perceptions.

Therefore, before determining crisis strategies, organizations need to make sure that they have a

positive customers’ brand identification. Lastly, in communicating their CSR, organizations can

apply the use of an informal tone of voice, which could enhance the relationship between

organizations and its customers during a crisis by creating the impressions of being present and

open.


25

5.4. Limitations

This research has several limitations. The first limitation is regarding the manipulation of

the type of medium. Through statistical analysis, it was found that the manipulations of the type

of medium condition were not clear; thus, participants could not differ Facebook from a

company blog. Furthermore, participants were not able to recognize the difference between

intrinsic and extrinsic motives. The second limitation is participants’ environment. Because the

experiment was conducted online, participants’ environment might vary. Online experiment

participants might encounter distinct levels of noise, light exposure, and different speeds of

internet access (Dandurand, Shultz, & Onishi, 2008). These three aspects might have caused

distraction, thus influencing participants’ comprehension when they participated in the online

experiment, which might also influence participants’ perception about an organization. It is

found that online participants tend to be more skeptical towards a brand than lab participants

(Eaton & Struthers, 2002). Eaton and Struthers (2002) discovered that online participants are

more likely to have negative perceptions towards a brand because they are aware that their

information will remain anonymous. However, lab participants are more cautious in giving their

answer because they are aware about their physical presence and the researcher’s presence in the

lab (Eaton and Struthers, 2002). The third limitation is that this study only used one dependent

variable, which is customers’ brand perception. Based on the result, however, the current study

did not find any significant effect between the independent variables, the mediator variable, and

the dependent variable. The fourth limitation is that this study used a fictitious brand as a

stimulus material. Participants might have had prior perceptions towards Disney as an

organization.

5.5. Future Research

As highlighted in the discussion section, the reliability of medium could influence

people’s perception towards a brand (Weber, 2009). Because the current research did not

measure the reliability of the medium, future research could replicate the study and include

medium reliability as a mediator variable. By adding medium reliability as a moderator, future

research can investigate how reliability of a medium moderates the relationship between

communicating CSR and customers’ brand perception. Additionally, the researcher could

examine whether a medium’s reliability has a direct effect on customers’ brand perception.


26

In the discussion section, the effect of tone of voice is predicted to play a major role.

Even though each condition of the current research used an informal tone of voice, the author did

not include the tone of voice as a predictor. Future research could extend the design of the

research by involving tone of voice as one of the predictors. By adding tone of voice as a

predictor, future research could compare the effectiveness of the two tones of voice (informal

tone of voice vs formal tone of voice) and its relationship with other variables.

Future research could replicate the study by conducting the experiment in the lab. It is

expected that lab environment will help participants in being more focused during the

experiment. In the lab environment, participants are expected to be less exposed to disturbances.

Future research may use a new variable as a dependent variable. For example, customers’

skepticism, as a study by Kim (2014) found that CSR motives could influence customers’

skepticism.

Because the current study used a non-fictitious organization as a stimulus material, future

research may use a fictitious organization to avoid prior knowledge about the brand. The use of a

fictitious organization allows researcher to compare the results between a study that used a non-

fictitious organization and a study that used a fictitious organization.

5.6. Conclusion

The current analysis concluded that there are no significant effects of perceived

interactivity, communication of CSR motives, and the moderating effect of ethical consumer

behavior on customers’ brand perception. As a suggestion, during crises, despite relying on only

one type of CSR motive, organizations could use a combination of intrinsic and extrinsic motives

regardless of the type of medium. The same goes for choosing the type of medium, in which

organizations could utilize either Facebook or corporate blogs. However, organizations need to

keep in mind that other factors such as credibility of a medium and the type of tone of voice

might influence how customers perceived a medium’s interactivity. Based on these arguments, it

can be concluded that the use of CSR during crises should be cautiously implemented by

considering other distinct factors aside from CSR motives and perceived interactivity.


27

6. References

Ahuja, V., & Medury, Y. (2010). Corporate blogs as e-CRM tools–Building consumer

engagement through content management. The Journal of Database marketing &

Customer Strategy Management, 17(2), 91-105.

Alexander, D. E. (2014). Social media in disaster risk reduction and crisis management. Science

and Engineering Ethics, 20(3), 717-733.

Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2004). Doing better at doing good: When, why, and how

consumers respond to corporate social initiatives. California management review, 47(1), 9-

24.

Briones, R. L., Kuch, B., Liu, B. F., & Jin, Y. (2011). Keeping up with the digital age: How the

American Red Cross uses social media to build relationships. Public relations

review, 37(1), 37-43.

Bowen, H. R. (1953). Social responsibilities of the businessman. New York: Harper & Row.

Brown, T. J., & Dacin, P. A. (1997). The company and the product: Corporate associations and

consumer product responses. The Journal of Marketing, 68-84.

Carrigan, M., & Attalla, A. (2001). The myth of the ethical consumer–do ethics matter in

purchase behaviour? Journal of consumer marketing, 18(7), 560-578.

Carlson, B. D., Todd Donavan, D., & Cumiskey, K. J. (2009). Consumer-brand relationships in

sport: brand personality and identification. International Journal of Retail & Distribution

Management, 37(4), 370-384.

Carroll, A.B. (1999). Corporate social responsibility: Evolution of a definitional construct,

Business and Society, 38(3), 268-295.

Chaudhuri, A., & Holbrook, M. B. (2001). The chain of effects from brand trust and brand affect

to brand performance: the role of brand loyalty. Journal of marketing, 65(2), 81-93.

Cherrier, H. (2006). Consumer identity and moral obligations in non‐plastic bag consumption: a

dialectical perspective. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 30(5), 515-523.


28

Coombs, W. T. (2007). Protecting Organization Reputations During a Crisis: The Development

and Application of Situational Crisis Communication Theory. Corporate Reputation

Review, 10(3), 163-176.

Coombs, W. T. (2014). Ongoing crisis communication: Planning, managing, and responding.

Sage Publications.

Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2006). Unpacking the halo effect: Reputation and crisis

management. Journal of Communication Management, 10(2), 123-137.

Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. (2015). CSR as crisis risk: expanding how we conceptualize the

relationship. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 20(2), 144-162.

Crawford, K. (2009). Following you: Disciplines of listening in social media. Continuum:

Journal of Media and Cultural Studies, 23(4), 525–535.

Dandurand, F., Shultz, T. R., & Onishi, K. H. (2008). Comparing online and lab methods in a

problem-solving experiment. Behavior research methods, 40(2), 428-434.

Dahlsrud, A. (2008). How corporate social responsibility is defined: An analysis of 37

definitions. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 15(1), 1-13.

Dawkins, J., & Lewis, S. (2003). CSR in Stakeholder Expectations: And Their Implication for

Company Strategy. Journal of Business Ethics, 44(2), 185-193.

Delin, J. (2005). Brand tone of voice. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 2, 1-44.

Du, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2007). Reaping relational rewards from corporate social

responsibility: The role of competitive positioning. International journal of research in

marketing, 24(3), 224-241.

Du, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2010). Maximizing business returns to corporate social

responsibility (CSR): The role of CSR communication. International Journal of

Management Reviews, 12(1), 8-19.

Eaton, J., & Struthers, C. W. (2002). Using the Internet for organizational research: a study of

cynicism in the workplace. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 5(4), 305-313.


29

Eberle, D., Berens, G., & Li, T. (2013). The impact of interactive corporate social responsibility

communication on corporate reputation. Journal of Business Ethics, 118(4), 731-746.

Ellen, P. S., Webb, D. J., & Mohr, L. A. (2006). Building corporate associations: Consumer

attributions for corporate socially responsible programs. Journal of the Academy of

Marketing Science, 34(2), 147-157.

Ethical Consumerism Report (2011). The co-operative group. London.

Forbes (2012). Six Reasons Companies Should Embrace CSR. Retrieved April 12, 2017, from

https://www.forbes.com/sites/csr/2012/02/21/six-reasons-companies-should-embrace-

csr/#31e68f8e3495

Forehand, M. R., & Grier, S. (2003). When is honesty the best policy? The effect of stated

company intent on consumer skepticism. Journal of consumer psychology, 13(3), 349-356.

Fombrun, C. J. (2005). A world of reputation research, analysis and thinking—building

corporate reputation through CSR initiatives: evolving standards. Corporate Reputation

Review, 8(1), 7-12.

Fombrun, C., & Shanley, M. (1990). What's in a name? Reputation building and corporate

strategy. Academy of management Journal, 33(2), 233-258.

Gazzola, P. (2014). Corporate Social Responsibility and companies’ reputation. Network

Intelligence Studies, (03), 74-84.

Grégoire, Y., Salle, A., & Tripp, T. M. (2015). Managing social media crises with your

customers: The good, the bad, and the ugly. Business Horizons, 58(2), 173-182.

Haws, K., Winterich, K. P., & Naylor, R. W. (2011). It’s All About the Greens: Conflicting

Motives and Making Green Work. NA-Advances in Consumer Research, 38.

Hsu, K. T. (2012). The advertising effects of corporate social responsibility on corporate

reputation and brand equity: Evidence from the life insurance industry in Taiwan. Journal

of business ethics, 109(2), 189-201.


30

Hur, W. M., Kim, H., & Woo, J. (2014). How CSR leads to corporate brand equity: Mediating

mechanisms of corporate brand credibility and reputation. Journal of Business

Ethics, 125(1), 75-86.

Ismail, H. B., & Panni, M. F. A. K. (2008). Consumer perceptions on the consumerism issues

and its influence on their purchasing behavior: A view from Malaysian food

industry. Journal of Legal, Ethical and Regulatory Issues, 11(1), 43.

Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and

opportunities of Social Media. Business horizons, 53(1), 59-68.

Keller, K. L. (2003). Brand synthesis: The multidimensionality of brand knowledge. Journal of

consumer research, 29(4), 595-600.

Kelleher, T., & Miller, B. M. (2006). Organizational blogs and the human voice: Relational

strategies and relational outcomes. Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication, 11(2),

395-414.

Kim, J., Kim, H. J., & Cameron, G. T. (2009). Making nice may not matter: The interplay of

crisis type, response type and crisis issue on perceived organizational responsibility. Public

Relations Review, 35(1), 86-88.

Kim, S., & Choi, S. M. (2016). Congruence Effects in Post-crisis CSR Communication: The

Mediating Role of Attribution of Corporate Motives. Journal of Business Ethics, 1-17.

Ki, E. J., & Nekmat, E. (2014). Situational crisis communication and interactivity: Usage and

effectiveness of Facebook for crisis management by Fortune 500 companies. Computers in

Human Behavior, 35, 140-147.

Kim, H. S., & Lee, S. Y. (2015). Testing the buffering and boomerang effects of CSR practices

on consumers’ perception of a corporation during a crisis. Corporate Reputation

Review, 18(4), 277-293.

Klein, J., & Dawar, N. (2004). Corporate social responsibility and consumers' attributions and

brand evaluations in a product–harm crisis. International Journal of research in

Marketing, 21(3), 203-217.


31

Kim, Y. (2014). Strategic communication of corporate social responsibility (CSR): Effects of

stated motives and corporate reputation on stakeholder responses. Public Relations

Review, 40(5), 838-840.

Labrecque, L. I. (2014). Fostering consumer–brand relationships in social media environments:

The role of parasocial interaction. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 28(2), 134-148.

Lai, C. S., Chiu, C. J., Yang, C. F., & Pai, D. C. (2010). The effects of corporate social

responsibility on brand performance: The mediating effect of industrial brand equity and

corporate reputation. Journal of business ethics, 95(3), 457-469.

Larkin, J. (2002). Strategic reputation risk management. Springer.

Leach, C. W., Van Zomeren, M., Zebel, S., Vliek, M. L., Pennekamp, S. F., Doosje, B., ... &

Spears, R. (2008). Group-level self-definition and self-investment: a hierarchical

(multicomponent) model of in-group identification. Journal of personality and social

psychology, 95(1), 144.

Lee, D., Hosanagar, K., & Nair, H. S., (2014). The Effect of Social Media Marketing Content on

Consumer Engagement: Evidence from Facebook. Retrieved from:

http://misrc.umn.edu/wise/2014_Papers/5.pdf

Lievens, F., & Highhouse, S. (2003). The relation of instrumental and symbolic attributes to a

company's attractiveness as an employer. Personnel psychology, 56(1), 75-102.

Low, W., & Davenport, E. (2007). To boldly go… Exploring ethical spaces to re‐politicise

ethical consumption and fair trade. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 6(5), 336-348.

MacKenzie, S. B., & Lutz, R. J. (1989). An empirical examination of the structural antecedents

of attitude toward the ad in an advertising pretesting context. The Journal of Marketing, 48-

65.

Marin, L., Ruiz, S., & Rubio, A. (2009). The role of identity salience in the effects of corporate

social responsibility on consumer behavior. Journal of business ethics, 84(1), 65-78.

http://misrc.umn.edu/wise/2014_Papers/5.pdf


32

Melo, T., & Garrido‐Morgado, A. (2012). Corporate reputation: A combination of social

responsibility and industry. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental

Management, 19(1), 11-31.

Menon, S., & Kahn, B. E. (2003). Corporate sponsorships of philanthropic activities: when do

they impact perception of sponsor brand?. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13(3), 316-

327.

Mirfazli, E. (2008). Evaluate corporate social responsibility disclosure at Annual Report

Companies in multifarious group of industry members of Jakarta Stock Exchange (JSX),

Indonesia. Social Responsibility Journal, 4(3), 388-406.

Mohr, L. A., Eroǧlu, D., & Ellen, P. S. (1998). The development and testing of a measure of

skepticism toward environmental claims in marketers' communications. Journal of

consumer affairs, 32(1), 30-55.

Mohr, L. A., Webb, D. J., & Harris, K. E. (2001). Do consumers expect companies to be socially

responsible? The impact of corporate social responsibility on buying behavior. Journal of

Consumer affairs, 35(1), 45-72.

Palen, L. (2008). Online social media in crisis events. Educause Quarterly, 31(3), 76-78.

Pirsch, J., Gupta, S., & Grau, S. L. (2007). A framework for understanding corporate social

responsibility programs as a continuum: An exploratory study. Journal of business

ethics, 70(2), 125-140.

Ruf, B. M., Muralidhar, K., Brown, R. M., Janney, J. J., & Paul, K. (2001). An empirical

investigation of the relationship between change in corporate social performance and

financial performance: A stakeholder theory perspective. Journal of business ethics, 32(2),

143-156.

Schultz, F., Utz, S., & Göritz, A. (2011). Is the medium the message? Perceptions of and

reactions to crisis communication via twitter, blogs and traditional media. Public relations

review, 37(1), 20-27.


33

Sengupta, A. S., Balaji, M. S., & Krishnan, B. C. (2015). How customers cope with service

failure? A study of brand reputation and customer satisfaction. Journal of Business

Research, 68(3), 665-674.

Sen, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Korschun, D. (2006). The role of corporate social responsibility

in strengthening multiple stakeholder relationships: A field experiment. Journal of the

Academy of Marketing science, 34(2), 158-166.

Shaw, D., Grehan, E., Shiu, E., Hassan, L., & Thomson, J. (2005). An exploration of values in

ethical consumer decision making. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 4(3), 185-200.

Sheikh, S. U. R., & Beise-Zee, R. (2011). Corporate social responsibility or cause-related

marketing? The role of cause specificity of CSR. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 28(1),

27-39.

Simmons, C. J., & Becker-Olsen, K. L. (2006). Achieving marketing objectives through social

sponsorships. Journal of Marketing, 70(4), 154-169.

Simonin, B. L., & Ruth, J. A. (1998). Is a company known by the company it keeps? Assessing

the spillover effects of brand alliances on consumer brand attitudes. Journal of marketing

research, 30-42.

Smith, J. (2013). The Companies with the Best CSR Reputations. Retrieved July 08, 2017, from

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jacquelynsmith/2013/10/02/the-companies-with-the-best-csr-

reputations-2/#1f72774734ff

Souto, B.F.-F. (2009), “Crisis and corporate social responsibility: threat or opportunity?”,

International Journal of Economic Sciences and Applied Research, 2(1), 36-50.

Story, J., & Neves, P. (2015). When corporate social responsibility (CSR) increases performance:

exploring the role of intrinsic and extrinsic CSR attribution. Business Ethics: A European

Review, 24(2), 111-124.

Strauss, K. (2016). The World's Most Reputable Companies, 2016. Retrieved July 08, 2017, from

https://www.forbes.com/sites/karstenstrauss/2016/03/22/the-worlds-most-reputable-

companies-2016/#49b2f6fa2338


34

Sweetser, K. D., & Metzgar, E. (2007). Communicating during crisis: Use of blogs as a

relationship management tool. Public Relations Review, 33(3), 340-342.

Sudbury-Riley, L., & Kohlbacher, F. (2016). Ethically minded consumer behavior: Scale review,

development, and validation. Journal of Business Research, 69(8), 2697-2710.

Tate, W. L., Ellram, L. M., & Kirchoff, J. F. (2010). Corporate social responsibility reports: a

thematic analysis related to supply chain management. Journal of supply chain

management, 46(1), 19-44.

Thorson, K. S., & Rodgers, S. (2006). Relationships between blogs as eWOM and interactivity,

perceived interactivity, and parasocial interaction. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 6(2),

5-44.

Turker, D. (2009). How corporate social responsibility influences organizational

commitment. Journal of Business Ethics, 89(2), 189-204.

Tuškej, U., Golob, U., & Podnar, K. (2013). The role of consumer–brand identification in

building brand relationships. Journal of Business Research, 66(1), 53-59.

Tsarenko, Y., & Tojib, D. (2015). Consumers’ forgiveness after brand transgression: the effect of

the firm’s corporate social responsibility and response. Journal of Marketing

Management, 31(17-18), 1851-1877.

Vanhamme, J., & Grobben, B. (2009). “Too good to be true!”. The effectiveness of CSR history

in countering negative publicity. Journal of Business Ethics, 85, 273-283.

Weber, L. (2009). Marketing to the social web: How digital customer communities build your

business. John Wiley & Sons.

Wu, G., Hu, X., & Wu, Y. (2010). Effects of perceived interactivity, perceived web assurance

and disposition to trust on initial online trust. Journal of Computer ‐ Mediated

Communication, 16(1), 1-26.

Yelkikalan, N. and Köse, C. (2011), “The effects of the financial crisis on corporate social

responsibility”, International Journal of Business and Social Science, 3(3), 292-300.


35

Yoo, B., & Donthu, N. (2001). Developing and validating a multidimensional consumer-based

brand equity scale. Journal of business research, 52(1), 1-14.

Yoo, B., Donthu, N., & Lee, S. (2000). An examination of selected marketing mix elements and

brand equity. Journal of the academy of marketing science, 28(2), 195-211.

Yoon, Y., Gürhan-Canli, Z., & Schwarz, N. (2006). The effect of corporate social responsibility

(CSR) activities on companies with bad reputations. Journal of consumer

psychology, 16(4), 377-390.


36

7. Appendix

7.1. Manipulation Materials

Crisis Case

Recently, five guests and one cast member were injured when an emergency exit platform

malfunctioned Disney's Animal Kingdom in Walt Disney World Resort, Orlando. The guests

were exiting a Kali River Rapids raft during a ride stoppage triggered by a monitoring sensor.

The raft was on a steep incline and the emergency exit platform was designed to allow guests to

easily access the emergency stairs from the incline. After an investigation determined that the

platform "disengaged and slid", it was removed and an alternate evacuation procedure was

adopted. The six people were taken to local hospitals for major and minor injuries. One victim is

still in the hospital while the other five were later released.

Facebook with Intrinsic Motives


37

Facebook with Extrinsic Motives

Corporate Blogs with Intrinsic Motives


38

Corporate Blogs with Extrinsic Motives

7.2. Measurements

Message’s source

What is the source of the message?

1. I just saw Disney's volunteer campaign on Facebook.

2. I just saw Disney's volunteer campaign on a company blog.

Motives (7 Likert Scale, 1 = Strongly Disagree, 7 = Strongly Agree) (Ellen et al., 2006)

I think Disney is:

1. Feeling morally obligated to help. (intrinsic motives)

2. Having long-term interest in the community. (intrinsic motives)

3. Taking advantage of the cause to help their own business. (extrinsic motives)

4. Wanting to get publicity. (extrinsic motives)


39

Customers’ brand perceptions (7 Likert Scale, 1 = Strongly Disagree, 7 = Strongly Agree) (Hsu,

2012)

Disney:

1. Has a good reputation.

2. Is well respected.

3. Is well thought of.

4. Has a status.

5. Is reputable.

Ethical Consumer Behavior (7 Likert Scale, 1 = Strongly Disagree, 7 = Strongly Agree)

(Kohlbacher, 2016)

1. When there is a choice, I always choose the product that contributes to the least amount

of environmental damage.

2. I have switched products for environmental reasons.

3. If I understand the potential damage to the environment that some products can cause, I

do not purchase those products.

4. I do not buy household products that harm the environment.

5. Whenever possible, I buy products packaged in reusable or recyclable containers.

6. I make every effort to buy paper products (toilet paper, tissues, etc) made from recycled

paper.

7. I will not buy a product if I know that the company that sells it is socially irresponsible.

8. I do not buy products from companies that I know use sweatshop labor, child labor, or

other poor working conditions.

9. I have paid more for environmentally friendly products when there is a cheaper

alternative.

10. I have paid more for socially responsible products when there is a cheaper alternative.

Brand Identification (7 Likert Scale, 1 = Strongly Disagree, 7 = Strongly Agree) (Keller, 2003)

I feel:

1. A bond with Disney.


40

2. Solidarity with Disney.

3. Committed to Disney.

Dispositional Skepticism (7 Likert Scale, 1 = Strongly Disagree, 7 = Strongly Agree) (Du et al.,

2007)

Disney’s volunteer campaign:

1. Is unreliable.

2. Is misleading.

3. I am skeptical towards this campaign.

A picture of Woman

Did you see a picture of a woman in the second text you have read?

1. Yes.

2. No.

Could CSR save an organization during a crisis?

Documents

Transcript of Could CSR save an organization during a crisis?