Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science

, Volume 28, Issue 2, pp 248–262 | Cite as

The influence of cause-related marketing on consumer choice: Does one good turn deserve another?

  • Michael J. Barone
  • Anthony D. Miyazaki
  • Kimberly A. Taylor


Are consumers more likely to select brands offered by companies that engage in cause-related marketing (CRM)? Somewhat surprisingly, little evidence exists that directly addresses this issue. Accordingly, the present examination investigates whether and when CRM efforts influence consumer choice. The results from several studies indicate that information regarding a company’s support of social causes can affect choice. However, CRM’s influence on choice is found to depend on the perceived motivation underlying the company’s CRM efforts as well as whether consumers must trade off company sponsorship of causes for lower performance or higher price. The results also indicate that CRM cues affect choice primarily through compensatory strategies involving trade-offs rather than through noncompensatory strategies. Implications of the current findings for existing theory are discussed along with directions for future research.


Purchase Intention Choice Probability Brand Choice Persuasion Knowledge Market Science Spring 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abelson, R. P., and A. Levi. 1985. “Decision Making and Decision Theory.” InHandbook of Social Psychology, 3d ed., Vol. 1. Eds. G. Lindzey and E. Aronson. New York: Random House, 231–309.Google Scholar
  2. Baron, Jonathan. 1997. “Biases in the Quantitative Measurement of Values for Public Decisions.”Psychological Bulletin 122 (1): 72–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. — and Mark Spranca. 1997. “Protected Values.”Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 70 (1): 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beattie, Jane and Jonathan baron. 1991. “Investigating the Effect of Stimulus Range on Attribute Weight.”Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 17, (2): 571–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boush, David M., Marian Friestad, and Gregory M. Rose. 1994. “Adolescent Skepticism Toward TV Advertising and Knowledge of Advertiser Tactics.”Journal of Consumer Research 21 (June): 165–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown, Tom J. and Peter A. Dacin. 1997. “The Company and the Product: Corporate Associations and Consumer Product Responses.”Journal of Marketing 61 (January): 68–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Drumwright, Minette E.. 1996. “Company Advertising With a Social Dimension: The Role of Noneconomic Criteria.”Journal of Marketing 60 (October): 17–87.Google Scholar
  8. Einhorn, Hillel J. and Robin M. Hogarth. 1981. “Behavioral Decision Theory: Processes of Judgment and Choice.”Annual Review of Psychology 32: 53–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Elsbach, Kimberly D. and Robert J. Sutton. 1992. “Acquiring Organizational Legitimacy Through Illegitimate Actions: A Marriage of Institutional and Impression Management Theories.”Academy of Management Journal 35 (4): 699–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fishbein, Martin and Icek Ajzen. 1975.Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  11. Friestad, Marian and Peter Wright. 1994. “The Persuasion Knowledge Model: How People Cope With Persuasion Attempts.”Journal of Consumer Research 21 (June): 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Heath, Timothy B., Michael S. McCarthy, and David L. Mothersbaugh. 1994. “Spokesperson Fame and Vividness Effects in the Context of Issue-Relevant Thinking: The Moderating Role of Competitive Setting.”Journal of Consumer Research 20 (March): 520–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hogarth, Robin M., 1987.Judgment and Choice. 2d ed. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
  14. “It Pays to Behave.” 1995.Advertising Age, October 23, p. 3.Google Scholar
  15. Keeney, Ralph and Howard Raiffa. 1976.Decisions With Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
  16. Kroll, Carol. 1996. “Consumers Note Marketers’ Good Causes: Roper.”Advertising Age, November 11, p. 51.Google Scholar
  17. Lussier, Dennis A. and Richard W. Olshavsky. 1979. “Task Complexity and Contingent Processing in Brand Choice.”Journal of Consumer Research 6 (September): 154–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Miniard, Paul W., Deepak Sirdeshmukh, and Daniel E. Innis. 1992. “Peripheral Persuasion and Brand Choice.”Journal of Consumer Research 19 (September): 226–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Murphy, I. P. 1997. “Pillsbury Proves Charity, Marketing Begins at Home.”Marketing News, February 17, p. 16.Google Scholar
  20. Obermiller, Carl and Eric Spangenberg. 1997. “Development of a Scale to Measure Consumer Skepticism Toward Advertising.”Journal of Consumer Psychology 7, (2): 159–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Payne, John W. 1982. “Contingent Decision Behavior.”Psychological Bulletin 92, (September): 382–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. —, James R. Bettman, and Eric J. Johnson. 1988. “Adaptive Strategy Selection in Decision Making.”Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 14 (July): 534–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Quelch, John A. and Tammy Bunn Hiller. 1988.Reebok International Ltd. Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing Division.Google Scholar
  24. “Report: Consumers Swayed by Good Causes.” 1997.Marketing News, February 17, p. 16.Google Scholar
  25. Ross, John K. III, Larry T. Patterson, and Mary Ann Stutts. 1992. “Consumer Perceptions of Organizations That Use Cause-Related Marketing.”Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 20 (1): 93–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sen, Sankar and Vicki G. Morwitz. 1996. “Consumer Reactions to a Provider’s Position on Social Issues: The Effect of Varying Frames of Reference.”Journal of Consumer Psychology 5 (1): 27–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Slovic, Paul. 1975. “Choice Between Equally Valued Alternatives.”Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 1 (3): 280–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Smith, Geoffrey and Ron Stodghill III. 1994. “Are Good Causes Good Marketing?”Business Week, March 21, pp. 64, 66.Google Scholar
  29. Tate, Nancy T., 1995. “And Now a Word From Our Sponsor.”American Demographics, June, p. 46.Google Scholar
  30. Tversky, Amos. 1972. “Elimination by Aspects: A Theory of Choice.”Psychological Review 79: 281–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. —, Schmuel Sattath, and Paul Slovic. 1988. “Contingent Weighting in Judgment and Choice.”Psychological Review 95 (3): 371–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Varadarajan, P. Rajan and Anil Menon. 1988. “Cause-Related Marketing: A Coalignment of Marketing Strategy and Corporate Philanthropy.”Journal of Marketing 52 (July): 58–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Von-Neumann, John and Oskar Morgenstern. 1947.Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. 2d ed. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Webb, Deborah J. and Lois A. Mohr. 1998. “A Typology of Consumer Responses to Cause-Related Marketing: From Skeptics to Socially Concerned.”Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 17 (Fall): 226–238.Google Scholar
  35. Wright, Peter. 1985. “Schemer Schema: Consumers’ Intuitive Theories About Marketers’ Influence Tactics.” InAdvances in Consumer Research, Vol. 13. Ed. Richard J. Lutz. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 1–3.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Academy of Marketing Science 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael J. Barone
    • 1
  • Anthony D. Miyazaki
    • 2
  • Kimberly A. Taylor
    • 3
  1. 1.Iowa State UniversityUSA
  2. 2.University of MiamiMiamiUSA
  3. 3.Florida International UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations