When and how is corporate social responsibility profitable?

Firms in various markets such as health care, financial services, software, consumer goods, etc. spend a significant amount of money on corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities. The literature suggests that consumers take into consideration firms' CSR activities when making purchase decisions, noting that and doing so either increases their purchase intention or makes them willing to pay higher prices for the firms' products and services. Unfortunately, notwithstanding its strategic benefits, the empirical findings regarding the impact of CSR on firms' financials are mixed. In this paper we explore when and why investing in CSR can have positive or negative impact on a firm's profitability. In doing so, we model two types of CSR (i.e., company ability relevant CSR (CSR-CA) and company ability irrelevant CSR (CSR-NCA)). We allow firms to choose which one to pursue if they decide to invest in CSR, and we incorporate the indirect effect of CSR through expectancy disconfirmation on consumers' utility, which has been ignored by the extant literature. Our analysis reveals the conditions under which it is optimal to invest in CSR and of what type. Then, we extend our analysis by investigating how the increase in consumers' appreciation of CSR and increase in consumers' sensitivity to evaluative context affect firms' optimal CSR strategies

Abstract

I owe thanks to many people, whose assistance was indispensable in completing this dissertation. First among these is Dr. Patriya Tansuhaj, my mentor and committee chair, for her encouragement, advice, patience and friendship. Without her on-going feedback and support, thorough and prompt reviews, it would have been impossible to maintain the standard of scholarship that this dissertation required. Her contagious enthusiasm has been a major driving force through my graduate career. I would like to express my gratitude to my committee members, Dr. Joe Cote and Dr. Jeff Joireman. Dr. Cote’s insightful comments at different stages of my research were thoughtprovoking and helped me focus my ideas. I am grateful to him for the long discussions that helped me sort out the details of my research. I would like to thank Dr. Joireman for guiding my research for the past several years and helping me to develop my background in experimental design. I am especially grateful to Dr. Darrel Muehling for guiding me through hurdles of my doctoral program and providing support. The acknowledgements would not be complete without heartfelt thanks to Ms. Chris Talbott who assisted and encouraged me in various ways during my course of studies. I also would like to thank my students at Washington State University whom I was privileged to teach and from whom I also learned a lot. And last, but not least, I thank my family for their unconditional support and encouragement to pursue my interests

Consumer attachment styles and preference for participating in sharing systems

Sharing encompasses “all activities and processes of distributing what is ours to others for their use and receiving or taking something from others for our use” (Belk 2007, 126). Following Belk (2013), we distinguish between non-market and market-based sharing systems and adopting Hazan and Shaver’s (1987) three attachment style model, show that consumers’ attachment styles determine their likelihood to participate in such sharing systems. We suggest that basic relational dynamics of relationships should construct the basis of consumer relationships with sharing communities. Whereas non-market based sharing economies involve interdependence and opportunities for intra-community friendship and closeness (Ozanne and Ballatine 2010), market based economies are centered on self-interests. Anxious individuals are at ease with closeness. However, they worry about being rejected. As anxious individuals lack self-esteem, they constantly seek to gain acceptance and validation from others (Bartholomew and Shaver 1998). We propose that anxious consumers view non-market based sharing systems as a way to boost self-esteem as such sharing settings provide consumers with a sense of belonging and connectedness (Ozanne and Ballatine 2010). Avoidant consumers, on the other hand, view others as untrustworthy and prefer to distance themselves from others. Commercial nature of market based systems provides avoidant consumers with a means to enhance trust (Morgan and Hunt 1995). Thus, H1: There will be an interaction between attachment style and sharing system. Such that while anxious consumers’ likelihood to use a non-market based system is higher than a market based system, avoidant consumers’ likelihood to use a market based system is higher than a non-market based system. H2: For anxious consumers, the effect of sharing system on likelihood to use is mediated by self-esteem. For avoidant consumers the effect of sharing system on likelihood to use is mediated by trust. Sharing in all forms include some form of previous contact of another user. Mauss (1972) define contagion as physical contact with the mediation of objects and places, suggesting that there is a transmission of essence from a source to a target when an object changes hands. The essence exchanged could be physical, mental, or moral in nature (Newman & Dhar, 2014). Contagion theory includes the possibility of transfer of positive qualities (Argo, Dahl, & Morales 2008). Sharing of previously touched objects is seen as an indicator of close relationships (Miller et al. 1998). Drawing from previous research on positive contagion, it is postulated that as contagion level increases, the sense of connectedness will attenuate. It is suspected, however, that this effect will only be observed among anxious individuals as those are the ones who look for belonging and connectedness. Formally, hypothesis is, H3: There will be a significant interaction between attachment styles (secure and anxious) and contagion level (high and low). Only for anxious consumers, high levels of contagion will lead to greater likelihood to use non-market mediated services. Study 1 We employed a 2 (attachment: anxious vs. avoidant) x 2 (non-market based vs. market based) between subject experimental design on randomly assigned 386 participants. We followed Bartz and Lyndon (2004)’s procedure to manipulate attachment styles. Results We performed a regression on likelihood to stay with sharing system type (market based and non-market based), attachment styles (anxious and avoidant) and their interaction. Confirming H1, the results show a significant two-way interaction between sharing type and attachment styles. Anxiety-primed participants’ likelihood to stay in non-market based home-sharing system is significantly higher than avoidance primed participants (p< .01). Study 2 2(attachment: anxious vs. avoidant) x 2(non-market vs. market) between subject experimental design was employed on randomly assigned 247 participants. Results Using Hayes (2013)’s Conditional Process Analysis, results suggest that attachment styles impact likelihood to participate in sharing systems. For anxious consumers, non-market based sharing systems have a self-esteem enhancing role. On the other hand, for avoidant consumers, market based sharing systems provide trust, impacting such individuals’ likelihood to participate in such settings. Study 3 We employed 2(attachment: anxious vs. secure) x 2(contagion level: high vs. low) between subject experimental design was employed. Results A moderation analysis of Hayes (2013) were performed on likelihood to wear with contagion level, attachment styles and their interaction. Model confirmed the main effect of contagion level and moderation role of anxiety (F(3,149)=2.9064, p< .05). More importantly, in slope examination, results showed that the slope was significant only anxious participants (B=-.8278, t=-2.06, p<.05, CI:1.62,-.03). H3 is confirme

Combating the fear of COVID-19 through shared accommodations: Does perceived human presence create a sense of social connectedness?

Among other shared systems, sharing accommodations offer several social benefits. Although previous work has mainly focused on social means to fulfill connectedness needs, in this research, we demonstrate that such needs can be satisfied through symbolic means. As such, we explore how human presence (a sense of personalness and warmth of a human being) can be conveyed in shared accommodations through personalized decorative elements, without any actual human presence. Across four studies (two surveys and two experiments), this research reveals that imbuing shared accommodations with human presence dissipates the negative effect of the fear of contracting COVID-19 on staying likelihood. The findings offer important theoretical contributions to both sharing economy and social connectedness literature

Gracefully yours: would snap judgments of one’s subtle graceful movements lead to inferences about their emotional intelligence?

Subtle bodily movements such as gracefulness (defined as smoothness, control and elegance in movements) are readily legible by others and these movements might serve as important cues to other people’s personal characteristics. The results of four studies contribute theoretically to research on the relationship between movements and emotional intelligence. In study 1, manipulating grace in movements using the Laban Movement Analysis (LMA) system, a person who moves gracefully was found to be judged as more emotionally intelligent (EI) than one who does not move gracefully. In Study 2, EI was shown to predict gracefulness, with EI self-reported by the participants and gracefulness rated by raters. Study 3 demonstrated that a person who moves gracefully (vs. non-gracefully) is judged as more suitable to be a salesperson/spokesperson for a company, mediated by perceived EI. Study 4 showed that a brand whose logo moves gracefully (vs. non-gracefully) is judged as more adaptable and as having higher service quality. Current research documents a consequential impact of such cues on consumption and have substantial practical implications for marketers

Seemingly incidental anchoring: the effect of incidental environmental anchors on consumers' willingness to pay

This article explores the influence of seemingly incidental numbers on willingness to pay as a function of internal reference price strength. Four experiments suggest that anchoring effects occur only when consumers hold weak internal reference prices for the target product. For products with strong internal reference prices, anchoring occurs if the numerical value is part of the product identity and resembles a price

An empirical investigation of consumers' willingness-to-pay and the demand function: the cumulative effect of individual differences in anchored willingness-to-pay responses

Extant literature on anchoring demonstrates that priming affects willingness-to-pay (WTP), but it mainly focuses on average WTP values, neglecting the aggregate effects of priming on WTP distributions. In this research, we argue that when priming is in effect, WTP distribution rather than the average should be analyzed because important pricing decisions, such as optimal price determination or price customization, require an assessment of distributions. Therefore, the objective of this research is to uncover how priming affects WTP distributions and, consequently, the demand curve. The results of these two studies suggest that priming affects not only the average but also the whole distribution and that this effect is in the form of a shift/stretch to the right for high-priming manipulations and to the left for low-priming manipulations