This article was downloaded by: [137.189.74.

205] On: 02 February 2018, At: 01:24

Publisher: Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences (INFORMS)
INFORMS is located in Maryland, USA

Management Science
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://pubsonline.informs.org

Everything We Do, You Do: The Licensing Effect of

Prosocial Marketing Messages on Consumer Behavior
Maryam Kouchaki, Ata Jami

To cite this article:

Maryam Kouchaki, Ata Jami (2018) Everything We Do, You Do: The Licensing Effect of Prosocial Marketing Messages on
Consumer Behavior. Management Science 64(1):102-111. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2016.2571

Full terms and conditions of use: http://pubsonline.informs.org/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used only for the purposes of research, teaching, and/or private study. Commercial use
or systematic downloading (by robots or other automatic processes) is prohibited without explicit Publisher
approval, unless otherwise noted. For more information, contact permissions@informs.org.

The Publisher does not warrant or guarantee the article’s accuracy, completeness, merchantability, fitness
for a particular purpose, or non-infringement. Descriptions of, or references to, products or publications, or
inclusion of an advertisement in this article, neither constitutes nor implies a guarantee, endorsement, or
support of claims made of that product, publication, or service.

Copyright © 2016, INFORMS

Please scroll down for article—it is on subsequent pages

INFORMS is the largest professional society in the world for professionals in the fields of operations research, management
science, and analytics.
For more information on INFORMS, its publications, membership, or meetings visit http://www.informs.org
 MANAGEMENT SCIENCE
Vol. 64, No. 1, January 2018, pp. 102–111
http://pubsonline.informs.org/journal/mnsc/ ISSN 0025-1909 (print), ISSN 1526-5501 (online)

Everything We Do, You Do: The Licensing Effect of Prosocial

Marketing Messages on Consumer Behavior
Downloaded from informs.org by [137.189.74.205] on 02 February 2018, at 01:24 . For personal use only, all rights reserved.

Maryam Kouchaki,a Ata Jamib

a Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois 60208; b College of Business Administration, University of
Central Florida, Orlando, Florida 32816
Contact: m-kouchaki@kellogg.northwestern.edu (MK); ata.jami@ucf.edu (AJ)

Received: January 15, 2015
Revised: September 3, 2015; February 3, 2016
Accepted: June 10, 2016
Published Online in Articles in Advance:
October 13, 2016
https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2016.2571
Copyright: © 2016 INFORMS
Abstract. Do prosocial corporate marketing messages promote consumers’ altruistic
behaviors, or do they advance self-interested and self-indulgent actions? To answer this
question, the current research investigates the impact of different framings of prosocial
marketing messages on consumers’ behaviors and choices more generally. Results from
six laboratory studies and a field experiment demonstrate that exposure to messages
that praise customers for good deeds can increase subsequent self-interested and self-
indulgent behaviors more than messages that publicize a company’s good deeds or thank
consumers for their patronage. Our findings demonstrate the possibility that a temporary
boost in one’s self-concept drives this observed effect. In addition, the recipient’s level
of support for the issue praised for moderates the effect of customer-praise messages on
the recipient’s less altruistic behaviors. This paper concludes with a discussion of the
theoretical and managerial implications.

History: Accepted by Pradeep Chintagunta, marketing.

Supplemental Material: The supplemental material is available at https://doi.org/10.1287/
mnsc.2016.2571.

Keywords: licensing • praise • message framing • corporate societal marketing • morality

Introduction can have negative consequences for the firm (Torelli

YOU. Are a pioneer in using recycled cups. Everything
we do, you do. Your business lets Starbucks do business
in a way that’s better for the planet. Like leading the
way in cup technology with the first U.S. hot cups made
with 10% post-consumer recycled fiber, and cup sleeves
that use 60%. Starbucks is working on a cup that’s 100%
recyclable too. It’s what we can do, because of what you
do. Good for you, you.
—Message from a Starbucks coffee cup (Figure 1)
The above message printed on a Starbucks cup is one
example of many socially and environmentally respon-
sible corporate messages consumers encounter. These
messages are framed to praise customers for their indi-
rect good deeds resulting from their decision to pur-
chase the company’s product or service.
Environmentally and socially responsible concerns
have reshaped the organizational landscape, push-
ing companies toward socially responsible practices
(Menon and Menon 1997). Each year, companies spend
billions of dollars on corporate philanthropy, sponsor-
ships, and cause-related marketing (Bonini et al. 2006,
Brown and Dacin 1997, Luo and Bhattacharya 2009).
Corporations’ participation in corporate social respon-
sibility (CSR) activities and programs tends to elicit
favorable responses from stakeholders (e.g., Sen et al.
2006). However, there is a small body of literature
that investigates situations in which engaging in CSR
102
et al. 2012, Wagner et al. 2009). For example, research
reveals that a luxury brand communicating its CSR
actions causes disfluency and a decline in brand eval-
uations (Torelli et al. 2012). We depart from the focus
of prior research on either positive or negative conse-
quences of CSR for a firm and focus on consequences
of CSR messages on consumers’ unrelated actions. We
posit that corporate societal marketing (CSM) not only
invokes company-related behavior and responses, but
also influences consumers’ behaviors more generally.
Prior research shows that CSM is persuasive and
can significantly affect consumers’ behaviors and atti-
tudes toward the company and its products (Brown
and Dacin 1997, Drumwright 1996, Du et al. 2007,
Hoeffler and Keller 2002, Olsen et al. 2014, Sen and
Bhattacharya 2001). Because CSR programs seek to cre-
ate value for the firm’s shareholders, most research
investigates the effects of socially responsible initiatives
and/or CSM on consumers’ attitudes, behaviors, and
decisions related to the company (Lichtenstein et al.
2004, Olsen et al. 2014, Sen and Bhattacharya 2001).
Currently, only a dearth of research addresses the psy-
chological mechanisms that drive consumer behavior
after their exposure to CSR messages. Thus, compa-
nies and consumers are not necessarily considering the
possible consequences of CSM broadly.
It may seem intuitive that socially responsible mes-
sages would help make consumers aware of many
 Kouchaki and Jami: The Licensing Effect of Prosocial Marketing Messages
Management Science, 2018, vol. 64, no. 1, pp. 102–111, © 2016 INFORMS
Figure 1. (Color online) Starbucks Cup (Customer-Praise
Message)
Downloaded from informs.org by [137.189.74.205] on 02 February 2018, at 01:24 . For personal use only, all rights reserved.
social/environmental issues and therefore promote
subsequent altruistic behaviors and choices. How-
ever, we posit that in some circumstances, the oppo-
site occurs. Environmental and social messages could
license consumers to act less altruistically and more
self-interestedly. Specifically, messages that credit indi-
vidual customers for their indirect or direct contribu-
tion to the good acts (Figure 1) enhance consumers’
self-concept, unlike messages focused exclusively on
the group’s behavior. This enhanced self-concept
can decrease the consumer’s propensity for altruistic
behaviors and choices. Despite the potential benefits of
CSM messages for a company, such frames could there-
fore harm society and consumers as a whole. There-
fore, we revisit the link between CSM and consumer
behavior, taking into account research on the psy-
chological mechanisms that drive consumer responses
to CSM to examine whether or not CSM messages
increase consumers’ self-indulgent and self-interested
behaviors.
Our research contributes to literature in a number
of important ways. First, this study complements prior
research that has examined the impact of CSR mes-
sages and initiatives on consumers’ specific behaviors
and attitudes toward the company and/or its products
(e.g., Hoeffler and Keller 2002, Sen and Bhattacharya
2001, Torelli et al. 2012). However, our approach dif-
fers from existing research by focusing on the underly-
ing psychological processes that drive individual con-
sumers’ broader responses to CSR messages and the
effects on their unrelated behavior more generally. Sec-
ond, by predicting consumer behavior after their expo-
sure to different socially responsible message framings
and identifying circumstances that might result in neg-
ative consequences, we contribute to the domain of
103
backfire effects of CSR messages (Torelli et al. 2012,
Wagner et al. 2009). Although there are obvious ben-
efits to CSM, our research indicates that there may be
a negative by-product of such messages. Support for
our predictions would suggest that organizations must
weigh the benefits of CSM with the potential negative
effects of their messages on consumers and society.
More than 90% of U.S. organizations participate in
some sort of social and environmental activism, and
this number has been increasing every year (Sheehan
2004). Accordingly, our study will provide organiza-
tions, marketers, and policy makers with information
to better design CSM messages that promote altruistic
behaviors. Our research evaluates exposure to a rel-
atively impersonal company message, which mirrors
real-life commercials or mass mailings that consumers
often receive. As such, we emphasize that companies
must carefully consider the wider consequences of the
framing of their CSR communications to their con-
sumers. Doing so will more effectively link their CSR
efforts to improve the greater good for society as a
whole.
Theoretical Background
Despite an ongoing debate about the positive effects
of CSR activities in augmenting profitability and firm
value (e.g., Margolis and Walsh 2003), participating
in CSR and CSM activities may be a necessity for
firms today. Highlighting the consumer as a key stake-
holder, prior research suggests that consumer aware-
ness of a firm’s CSR activities can modify consump-
tion behavior and/or investment decisions to influence
the firm’s value (Bhattacharya and Sen 2004, Sen
and Bhattacharya 2001, Sen et al. 2006). Regardless
of whether the CSR activities derive from moral or
economic concerns, companies need to communicate
these actions to their stakeholders to collect the asso-
ciated benefits. We seek to examine the effects of dif-
ferent framings of CSM messages on ensuing con-
sumer behaviors. Cognitive models of information
processing and social-psychological approaches to self-
perception provide insights into how people selectively
perceive, evaluate, and interpret messages according to
the implications for their self-concept (Bandura 2001).
One potential difference in the framing of CSR mes-
sages that may have relevance to the recipient is the
consumer versus company referencing (you versus
us/other) invoked in the message. In the consumer-
referencing frame, the focus is on the individual read-
ing the message—the person is directly being credited
for their involvement in the CSR actions (referred to
as “you” in the message)—whereas in the company-
referencing frame, the CSR message focuses on the
actions of the company/group and its members.
We suggest that receiving a customer-praise (“you”)
message compared to a company-praise message
 Kouchaki and Jami: The Licensing Effect of Prosocial Marketing Messages
104
increases consumers’ self-indulgent and self-interested
behaviors. Generally, people wish to make choices that
reflect positively on themselves both privately and
publicly (Rosenberg 1979). In matters of self-interest
and self-indulgence, people are torn between their self-
ish desires and maintaining a positive self-concept. We
argue that in an attempt to find a balance between the
Downloaded from informs.org by [137.189.74.205] on 02 February 2018, at 01:24 . For personal use only, all rights reserved.
two forces, while pursuing multiple, conflicting goals
(Mullen and Monin 2016), people use contextual cues
that allow them to engage in limited self-interest and
self-indulgence (Mazar et al. 2008). In fact, a temporary
boost to one’s self-concept helps one avoid guilty feel-
ings that may result from self-indulgent choices and
self-interested behaviors.
We rely on multiple accounts to argue that receiv-
ing a customer-praise (“you”) message compared to
a company-praise message can lead to a temporary
boost in individuals’ self-concept. First, research on
moral licensing shows that prior prosocial actions can
help people boost their self-concept, liberating them
to engage in compensatory behaviors (Khan and Dhar
2006, Kouchaki 2011). For example, Khan and Dhar
(2006) show that even imagining engagement in an
altruistic act (e.g., volunteering for charity) can lead
participants to establish an altruistic self-concept (e.g.,
“I am a helpful person”). This can motivate them to
prefer a luxury good (e.g., designer jeans) over a neces-
sity (e.g., vacuum cleaner). Fishbach and Dhar (2005)
find that when people were led to believe they made
progress toward weight loss goals, they subsequently
chose a chocolate bar over an apple as a snack. Thus,
focus on goal progress can reduce motivation to act
consistently with the goal. Additionally, work on vicar-
ious licensing demonstrates that observing other peo-
ple’s good deeds can enhance one’s self-concept, lead-
ing to less altruistic behaviors.
Additionally, a customer-praise message provides in-
formation for self-evaluation. Social comparison the-
ory suggests that individuals are motivated to de-
fine and evaluate themselves relative to others in
regards to the dimension under evaluation (Festinger
1954). Given individuals’ desire for self-enhancing
evaluations (Leary 2007), a customer-praise message
(compared to a company-praise message) can make
individuals feel better about themselves and better
compared to others in the dimension under evalua-
tion by influencing their perceptions of the described
behaviors’ prevalence. The perception of prevalence has
been shown to govern behavior (Cialdini 2003, Cialdini
et al. 1990).
Finally, a customer-praise message employs a self-
referencing strategy (Burnkrant and Unnava 1995).
Consumer research demonstrates that self-referencing
prompts higher involvement with messages and facil-
itates retrieval of self-relevant information (Sood
and Forehand 2005, Symons and Johnson 1997).
A customer-praise (“you”) message compared to a
Management Science, 2018, vol. 64, no. 1, pp. 102–111, © 2016 INFORMS
company-praise can thus increase retrieval of self-
relevant thoughts related to behaviors in the message.
This increase leads to a temporary boost in the indi-
vidual’s self-concept related to the dimension in the
message, leading people to avoid the feelings of guilt
that might result from engaging in self-interested, self-
indulgent behavior.
In sum, in the context of CSR consumer-framing
messages, we argue that a message can boost individu-
als’ self-concept related to the dimension stated in the
message, which in turn can increase consumers’ like-
lihood to engage in self-indulgent and self-interested
behaviors.
In the first three studies, we test our main predic-
tion using different variations of praise messages with
different participant groups across both field and lab
settings. In Studies 1a and 1b, we examine the effects
of two real-world customer-praise messages compared
with company-praise messages (i.e., messages that
publicize the company’s good deeds) on subsequent
altruistic and self-indulgent decisions. In Study 1c, we
test whether performing a good deed influences par-
ticipants’ reaction to customer- and company-praise
messages. Then, in Study 2, we conduct a field exper-
iment to test our prediction in a real-world setting.
In Study 3, we add an additional control condition
with no praise. In Study 4, we conduct a mediation
analysis to examine the possibility that a temporary
boost in one’s self-concept explains the proposed effect
of customer-praise messages. Finally, in Study 5, we
examine the impact of variations in the recipient’s level
of support for the issue praised for in customer-praise
messages.
Study 1a
Method
Participants. Fifty individuals were recruited to com-
plete a short, paid online study on Amazon’s Mechan-
ical Turk website. Three individuals who did not
respond to questions regarding the study variables of
interest were excluded from analyses. The final sam-
ple consisted of 47 participants (36% male, mean age 
33.2 years, SD  11.8).
Design and Procedure. The study employed a be-
tween-participants design with two conditions (cus-
tomer praise and company praise). To minimize suspi-
cion, the instructions indicated that participants would
participate in several unrelated tasks, and the first task
required them to evaluate a company’s commercial.
Participants were randomly assigned to watch a short
video clip and then choose between green (environ-
mentally friendly) and nongreen products in several
categories. They watched a short, 40-second commer-
cial and then answered filler questions about the com-
mercial. The commercials were actual Starbucks text-
heavy commercials, in which Starbucks praised either
 Kouchaki and Jami: The Licensing Effect of Prosocial Marketing Messages
Management Science, 2018, vol. 64, no. 1, pp. 102–111, © 2016 INFORMS
its customers or itself for choosing fair trade certified
coffee (for the transcript, see the online supplemental
material). In the customer-praise condition, Starbucks
acknowledged its customers for buying fair trade cer-
tified coffee and mentioned, “Everything we do, you
do.” For the company-praise condition, we chose a
commercial similar in length and content, describing
Downloaded from informs.org by [137.189.74.205] on 02 February 2018, at 01:24 . For personal use only, all rights reserved.
the benefits of buying fair trade coffee and crediting
Starbucks for doing so.
Participants then chose two products in ran-
dom order: a backpack and batteries (adapted from
Griskevicius et al. 2010). For each product, they con-
sidered both green and traditional options, equal in
price and made by the same company. The two versions
appeared at the same time on the screen, and partic-
ipants were asked, “If you were shopping for a back-
pack/batteries, which of these two products would
you buy?” We considered choices of green products
altruistic (Griskevicius et al. 2010).
Results and Discussion
We predicted that watching the customer-praise clip,
rather than the company-praise clip, would increase
the likelihood of choosing the traditional, nongreen
product. Indeed, participants in the customer-praise
condition were less likely to choose the green bat-
teries (33.3% chose green, 66.7% chose traditional)
and the green backpack (25.0% green, 75% tradi-
tional). In contrast, in the company-praise condition,
participants tended to choose the green batteries
(69.6% green, 30.4% traditional) and had no preference
between the backpack options (52.2% green, 47.8% tra-
ditional). Consistent with our prediction, participants
who watched the customer-praise commercial selected
the green products significantly less frequently than
participants who watched the company-praise com-
mercial (batteries, χ2 (1)  6.17, p  0.01; backpack,
χ2 (1)  3.67, p  0.05). This study offers an initial
demonstration of the impact of exposure to praise mes-
sages on consumers’ purchase intentions. A customer-
praise message lowers intentions to buy green prod-
ucts, illustrating the effect of consumer-praising CSR
messages on altruistic behaviors.
In the next study, we consider a different depen-
dent variable, namely, self-indulgent choices. Prior re-
search has generally assumed that the purchase of lux-
ury goods is associated with guilt and thus negative
self-attributions (Dahl et al. 2003, Kivetz and Simonson
2002), because of an inability to justify the purchase
(Okada 2005).
Study 1b
Method
Participants. Sixty-seven students participated in the
study for partial course credit. Two individuals who
105
did not respond to questions regarding the study vari-
ables of interest were excluded from analyses. The final
sample consisted of 65 participants (66% male, mean
age  25.1 years, SD  4.8).
Design and Procedure. The study had two between-
participant conditions: customer praise and company
praise. Participants were randomly assigned to view
one of the messages printed on a company cup (see the
online supplemental material). To minimize suspicion,
the instructions indicated that the participants would
participate in multiple unrelated tasks, and the first
study involved evaluations of a company’s coffee cup.
The message for the customer-praise condition came
from actual Starbucks cups. In the company-praise con-
dition, the message had similar information but did
not praise customers. Next, participants responded to
filler items about the cup. For the dependent variable
(adapted from Khan and Dhar 2006), we asked par-
ticipants to engage in an ostensibly unrelated product
preference task by indicating their relative preference
for a pair of designer jeans (relative luxury) or a vac-
uum cleaner (relative necessity), on a scale ranging
from (1) “most likely to buy the vacuum cleaner” to
(7) “most likely to buy the designer jeans.” They were
to imagine that they were at a mall that was having
a sale and that they had to choose between the two
products, both priced at $50. Participants were told to
assume that they had been planning to buy both items
but could afford only one at the moment.
Results and Discussion
As predicted, relative preference for the designer
jeans in the customer-praise condition was signifi-
cantly higher (mean  3.50, SD  2.20) than in the
company-praise condition (mean  2.36, SD  1.61,
t(63)  2.38, p  0.02). Accordingly, Study 1b replicated
and extended the results of Study 1a, providing addi-
tional evidence that customer-praise messages affect
subsequent choices and behavior.
In Studies 1a and 1b, participants are exposed to a
message that thanks them for something they may not
have done. To further demonstrate the influence of cus-
tomer praise, in Study 1c, participants actually perform
a good deed and are then praised for the good deed
they have done.
Study 1c
Method
Participants. One hundred sixty individuals were re-
cruited to complete a short, paid online study on Ama-
zon’s Mechanical Turk website. Nine individuals who
did not respond to questions regarding the study vari-
ables of interest were excluded from analyses. The final
sample consisted of 151 participants (38% male, mean
age  33.8 years, SD  11.7).
 Kouchaki and Jami: The Licensing Effect of Prosocial Marketing Messages
106
Design and Procedure. Similar to previous studies,
the instructions indicated that they would participate
in several unrelated tasks. All participants first com-
pleted a filler task. Then they were introduced to a
nonprofit organization (Sharetix) and were informed
that Sharetix is planning to expand and is targeting
more communities. Thus, the organization is looking
Downloaded from informs.org by [137.189.74.205] on 02 February 2018, at 01:24 . For personal use only, all rights reserved.
for help from community members to answer a few
survey questions. After introducing the nonprofit in
detail, participates answered a few filler questions,
ostensibly helping Sharetix. Afterward, participants
were randomly assigned to receive a thank you note
from Sharetix that differed with respect to whether the
message was framed as “you,” thus praising the recip-
ient uniquely for the help, or was more inclusive and
praised the “donors and volunteers” for their help (for
the notes, see the online supplemental material). In the
subsequent task, participants indicated their relative
preference for a luxury product, similar to Study 1b.
Results and Discussion
Similar to previous studies, the relative preference for
the designer jeans in the self-praise condition was
significantly higher (mean  2.58, SD  1.95) than
in the volunteer-praise condition (mean  1.96, SD 
1.55, t(149)  2.16, p  0.03). The results confirm that
the customer-praise message leads to self-indulgent
behavior even when participants receive well-deserved
praise.
So far we have provided support for the effect of
consumer framing of CSR messages on behaviors in
controlled settings. In our next study, we attempt to
replicate our findings in a real setting. We believe there
is a need for research to move beyond the controlled
empirical contexts to paint a more externally valid pic-
ture of the forces determining consumers’ reactions to
CSR initiatives and their compensatory behaviors. We
ran a field experiment in which participants randomly
received a version of a thank you email from their
volunteering group and subsequently chose a product
offered to them as a gift. In this study, rather than mea-
suring what participants would do, we measured their
real choices, as whether they choose the more indul-
gent choice or not.
Study 2
Method
We ran a field experiment at an American volunteer-
ing group. A random sample of active members of a
volunteer group (n  200) received a thank you email
from the director’s office. To test the effect of framing
of the thank you message, participants were randomly
assigned to one of two messages that differed with
respect to whether the message was framed as “you,”
thus praising the recipient uniquely for hours volun-
teered (similar to the Starbucks cup) or praised the
Management Science, 2018, vol. 64, no. 1, pp. 102–111, © 2016 INFORMS
“group members” for hours volunteered. The contents
of the messages were similar aside from the self- versus
member-praise manipulation (see the online supple-
mental material). At the bottom of the email, recipients
read that they would receive a gift as a thank you.
Then, they were asked to click on a link within seven
days to choose their gift and receive instructions for
gift pickup.
To test the effect of the framing of the message on
recipients’ subsequent self-indulgent behavior, we pro-
vided the recipients with a choice of two bags for which
their perception of indulgence might differ. The bags
were equal in price and were made by the same com-
pany. Given that this was a naturalistic field experi-
ment, we did not provide any information about the
bags to the participants and displayed the images of
each, labeled “Backpack” and “Travel Utility Bag,”
respectively, and asked them to select one.
To find potential gift options, we consulted the vol-
unteering group’s management. They noted that they
have used promotional items such as T-shirts and
pens before. Given that we wanted to provide partici-
pants with a relatively self-indulgent option, we chose
a premier backpack versus a travel utility bag. We
conducted a pilot study with a group of participants
(n  56) from the study population. Participants in the
pilot study were presented with the same images and
labels of the two options that participants in the real
field experiment would receive.
In the pilot, we asked participants to imagine that
they were to choose one of the following two options
as a gift to receive. Participants were then asked two
questions in random order: “Which one would you
choose?” and “If you were to indulge yourself, which
one would you choose?” Participants recorded their
choices on a seven-point scale (1  “definitely the Back-
pack,” 7  “definitely the Travel Utility Bag”). A paired-
sample t-test was conducted to compare participants’
choice of product when indulging themselves with
their general choice. Participants were more likely to
prefer the premier backpack when indulging them-
selves (mean  3.14, SD  2.09) than in general (mean 
3.63, SD  2.15, t(55)  2.26, p  0.02; the order of the
questions was counterbalanced). The findings show
that the backpack is perceived as a relatively self-
indulgent choice compared to the travel utility bag.
Results and Discussion
We predicted that those participants who received
the self-praise email, rather than the member-praise
email, would choose the self-indulgent product (pre-
mier backpack) more. Examining the number of mem-
bers who followed the link and chose a product
(92 members in total), there was no significant differ-
ence between the two message conditions (p  0.4). In
other words, those in the self-praise condition were
 Kouchaki and Jami: The Licensing Effect of Prosocial Marketing Messages
Management Science, 2018, vol. 64, no. 1, pp. 102–111, © 2016 INFORMS
no more likely to choose a gift than were those in the
member-praise condition (50% versus 42%). Consistent
with our prediction, participants receiving the self-
praise message selected the self-indulgent backpack
(42 of 50, 84%) significantly more frequently than those
participants who received the member-praise message
(27 of 42, 64%; χ2 (1)  4.73, p  0.03). In sum, the
Downloaded from informs.org by [137.189.74.205] on 02 February 2018, at 01:24 . For personal use only, all rights reserved.
results in a naturalistic field experiment demonstrate
that a message praising individuals for their good
deeds increases the likelihood of their subsequent self-
indulgent behaviors.
The findings from the previous two studies pro-
vide support for our hypothesis; however, these stud-
ies use simple, two-cell designs, such that they lack
a “no praise” control group. Therefore, we introduce
a control condition, which also enables us to test for
the effects of company praise and explore whether it
prompts more consistent behavior than no praise as a
result of social influence. Additionally, in Study 3, we
implement a behavioral measure to engage people’s
self-interest (Mazar and Zhong 2010).
Study 3
Method
Participants. Ninety-six students participated in the
study for partial course credit. Seven individuals who
did not respond to questions regarding the study vari-
ables of interest were excluded from analyses. The final
sample consisted of 89 participants (63% male, mean
age  24.2 years, SD  3.9).
Design and Procedure. The study featured three be-
tween-participant conditions: customer praise, com-
pany praise, and no praise. Participants were ran-
domly assigned to view one of the messages, all
written from the perspective of the chief executive offi-
cer (CEO) of an ostensibly real company. They evalu-
ated a praise message, whether it praised customers
or the company, for using recyclable cans and bot-
tles (the content was adapted from Coca-Cola’s recy-
cling program, but we did not use the brand name),
or the control message, which simply thanked cus-
tomers for their loyalty (see the online supplemen-
tal material). After reading the message, participants
responded to filler items. We again minimized suspi-
cion by telling participants that they would participate
in several unrelated tasks, including an evaluation of
a company’s message.
The measurement of self-interested behavior came
from participants’ actions while playing a dictator
game (Mazar and Zhong 2010). Specifically, they were
led to believe they were allocating $20 between them-
selves and another participant in the room. They were
assured their identity would be kept confidential. The
task thus included an allocator, who kept whatever was
not offered, and one recipient, who chose to accept or
reject the offer. The recipient’s choice did not affect the
allocator’s outcome. In reality, all participants served
107
as allocators. All participants were told that some par-
ticipants would be randomly selected to receive money
earned in the task. After reading the instructions, par-
ticipants indicated how much they would offer the
recipient.
Results and Discussion
An analysis of variance of the amount of money given
to the recipient (in dollars) revealed significant vari-
ation among the three conditions (F(2,86)  10.60,
p < 0.001). Participants in the customer-praise con-
dition shared less money (mean  $4.87, SD  4.54)
than those in the no-praise condition (mean  $7.85,
SD  4.44, t(57)  2.55, p  0.01) or company-praise
condition (mean  $10.50, SD  5.07, t(57)  4.49, p <
0.001). Participants in the company-praise condition
(mean  $10.50, SD  5.07) shared significantly more
money than those in the no-praise condition (mean 
$7.85, SD  4.44, t(58)  2.15, p  0.04). Thus, Study 3
demonstrates that exposure to a customer-praise mes-
sage led to more self-interested behavior, compared
with exposure to a no-praise message. Consistent with
social influence literature, exposure to a company-
praise message produced less self-interested behavior
overall.
Temporary Boost in One’s Self Concept as
a Potential Explanation
Self-concept refers to individuals’ beliefs about who
they are (Baumeister 1999). Self-concept is generally
viewed as a collection of numerous self-aspects, only
a few of which are active in focal awareness at any
given time (Baumeister 2010). Prior studies on compen-
satory responses have reported support for a tempo-
rary boost in one’s self-concept as the underlying psy-
chological explanation (Khan and Dhar 2006, Kouchaki
2011). None of the prior examinations explicitly dif-
ferentiated between one’s general positive self-concept
and the specific self-concept more relevant to the ini-
tial act. We argue that customer-praise messages boost
individuals’ specific self-concept relevant to the CSR
action in the message (compared to a general positive
self-concept), which in turn increases self-indulgent
behaviors. As such, we are able to provide a more
nuanced understanding of how consumers regulate
their socially desirable behaviors. In the next study,
we test our proposition by measuring boosts both in
one’s general positive self-concept and the specific self-
concept relevant to the CSR action to examine the
contribution of each in explaining the observed phe-
nomenon.
Study 4
Method
Participants. One hundred individuals were recruited
to complete a short, paid online study on Amazon’s
 Kouchaki and Jami: The Licensing Effect of Prosocial Marketing Messages
108
Mechanical Turk website. Eight individuals who did
not respond to questions regarding the study variables
of interest were excluded from analyses. The final sam-
ple consisted of 92 participants (40% male, mean age 
37.5 years, SD  13.3).
Design and Procedure. The study had two between-
Downloaded from informs.org by [137.189.74.205] on 02 February 2018, at 01:24 . For personal use only, all rights reserved.
participant conditions: customer praise and no praise.
The manipulation of praise was similar to that in
Study 3, where the participants viewed a message
written from the perspective of the CEO of a com-
pany. After the filler questions, participants were asked
to rate themselves on a number of traits. The items
were presented in a random order on a seven-point
scale (1  “strongly disagree,” 7  “strongly disagree”).
Four items (helpful, compassionate, generous, and car-
ing; α  0.95) measured general positive self-concept
(adapted from Khan and Dhar 2006). Since the mes-
sages praised customers for their help in reducing envi-
ronmental footprint, one item (environment friendly)
measured this specific self-concept relevant to the
praise. Next, in an unrelated task similar to Studies 1b
and 1c, participants indicated preferences between a
pair of designer jeans (relative luxury) or a vacuum
cleaner (relative necessity) both priced at $50.
Results and Discussion
Relative preference for the designer jeans in the
customer-praise condition was significantly higher
(mean  2.60, SD  2.04) than in the no-praise con-
dition (mean  1.68, SD  1.18, t(90)  2.63, p 
0.01). Moreover, participants rated themselves as more
environment-friendly in the customer-praise condition
(mean  4.23, SD  1.36) than in the no-praise condi-
tion (mean  3.61, SD  1.45, t(90)  2.10, p  0.04).
However, there were no significant differences on the
general positive self-concept items (customer praise,
mean  4.45, SD  1.16 versus no praise, mean  4.15,
SD  1.23; t(90)  1.21, p  0.23). Looking at each of the
other four positive attributes individually, none were
significantly different between conditions.
Next, we ran a multiple mediation analysis follow-
ing procedures recommended by Preacher and Hayes
(2008). We included both the general positive self-
concept and the domain-specific self-concept simulta-
neously in the model to examine whether they sig-
nificantly mediate the effect of message condition on
indulgent choice. The results of the bootstrapping
analysis (with 5,000 iterations) indicated that specific
self-concept (being environment friendly; confidence
interval [0.003, 0.513]), rather than the general posi-
tive self-concept (confidence interval [−0.384, 0.029]),
mediated the effect of message condition on indulgent
choice.
These results provide initial evidence for the pos-
sibility that a temporary boost in specific self-concept
relevant to the CSR action in the message drives the
increases in self-indulgent behaviors.
Management Science, 2018, vol. 64, no. 1, pp. 102–111, © 2016 INFORMS
Consumer Support of the Issue
Thus far, we have examined the aggregated effect
of praise messages across respondents. However, we
expect consumers’ support of an issue and their per-
sonal values toward the cause highlighted in the CSR
activity to influence their responses to the company’s
messages (Du et al. 2010). First, for licensing effect to
occur, individuals must pursue multiple, conflicting
goals; that is, there should be some tension between
doing the right thing and self-interest (Mullen and
Monin 2016). As such, in the case of proenvironmental
praise messages, we do not expect to observe the licens-
ing effects of praise for consumers with high envi-
ronmental consciousness because they do not experi-
ence any temptation of conflict. Moreover, relying on a
psychological approach to self-perceptions, we should
take into account the level of the relevant self-concept
for each individual. For example, proenvironmental
praise allows people with low environmental values to
boost this aspect of their self-concept, allowing for sub-
sequent self-interested or self-indulgent behaviors. In
contrast, for consumers that value their environmen-
tal activism highly, praise does not boost this aspect of
their self-concept significantly. Thus, they should not
exhibit the increase in self-interested or self-indulgent
behaviors that usually results from customer-praise
messages. This moderating factor allows us to further
examine the possibility that the relationship between
customer-praise messages and self-interested or self-
indulgent behaviors is explained through licensing and
a boost in specific self-concept relevant to the CSR
action in the message.
Study 5
Method
Participants. Fifty-four students participated in the
study for partial course credit. Four individuals who
did not respond to questions regarding the study vari-
ables of interest were excluded from analyses. The final
sample consisted of 50 participants (60% male, mean
age  23.8 years, SD  4.9).
Design and Procedure. The study featured two be-
tween-participant conditions: customer praise and
no praise. To minimize suspicion, participants were
informed that they would participate in several unre-
lated tasks. They received a comprehensive survey
containing a variety of questionnaires from different
research projects, beginning with a seemingly unre-
lated questionnaire that measured their environmental
values.
For this study, we used a 10-item version of the
Schwartz Value Survey (Schwartz 1992). Participants
considered descriptions of various people and their
goals and values, and then indicated the extent to
which the descriptions reflected their personal char-
acteristics, using a six-point scale from (1) “does not
 Kouchaki and Jami: The Licensing Effect of Prosocial Marketing Messages
Management Science, 2018, vol. 64, no. 1, pp. 102–111, © 2016 INFORMS
describe me at all” to (6) “very much describes me.”
One item measured environmental values—“Looking
after the environment is important to this person; to
care for nature.” Furthermore, we introduced an addi-
tional direct measure of environmental values in which
participants reviewed various proenvironmental activ-
ities (Wade-Benzoni et al. 2007) and rated the impor-
Downloaded from informs.org by [137.189.74.205] on 02 February 2018, at 01:24 . For personal use only, all rights reserved.
tance of each activity (e.g., “Supportive of addressing
environmental issues/problems”) to them on a seven-
point scale ranging from (1) “not at all important” to (7)
“extremely important.” We then averaged these items
to form a proenvironmental value importance score
(α  0.92).
We isolated the environmental values measures
from the main study by asking participants to complete
several tasks from different research projects for about
30 minutes. Then participants were randomly pre-
sented with one of the two messages used in Study 3
and responded to some filler items. Finally, they played
the dictator game (see Study 3).
Results and Discussion
Consistent with the previous studies, the amount
of money allocated to the recipient (in dollars) was
significantly lower in the customer-praise condition
(mean  $5.04, SD  4.21) than in the no-praise condi-
tion (mean  $8.04, SD  3.77, t(48)  2.66, p  0.01). In
a regression analysis, we also examined the hypoth-
esized moderating effect of environmental values on
the relationship between the praise message (−1 
no praise, 1  customer praise) manipulation and the
amount of money allocated to the recipient. The anal-
yses revealed a significant main effect of the praise
message (b  −1.50, t(46)  −2.75, p  0.01) and a sig-
nificant interaction between the praise message condi-
tion and participants’ environmental values (b  0.84,
t(46)  1.99, p  0.05). However, the main effect of envi-
ronmental values was not significant (b  0.46, t(46) 
1.09, p  0.28). In support of our prediction, Figure 2
Figure 2. Mean Amount of Money Allocated in Study 5


-ONEYGIVENTORECIPIENT


DOLLARS

 cause on the relationship between praise messages and
 self-interested behavior. Participants with a lower envi-
 %NVVALUE3$
 %NVVALUEn3$
 ticipants with stronger proenvironmental values.
.OPRAISE #USTOMERPRAISE
Notes. The figure shows a two-way interaction of condition and
environmental value importance. The plus and minus signs rep-
resent values one standard deviation above and below the mean,
respectively.
109
shows no difference in the behavior of people with rela-
tively higher environmental value scores across condi-
tions but an increase in self-interested behavior among
those with relatively lower scores on environmental
values in the customer-praise versus no-praise condi-
tions. We used the second measure of environmental
values, that is, the proenvironmental value importance
score, to test our prediction. Consistent with the first
measure, the regression analyses revealed a significant
interaction between the praise message condition and
participants’ proenvironmental values score (b  1.17,
t(46)  2.15, p  0.04) and a significant main effect for
the praise message condition (b  −1.48, t(46)  −2.69,
p  0.01), but no significant main effect of environmen-
tal values (b  0.38, t(46)  0.69, p  0.50).
The results of this study indicate that participants
with relatively lower scores on both measures of envi-
ronmental values allocated less money (i.e., more self-
interested behavior) after reading the customer-praise
message than the participants that received the no-
praise message. For participants with stronger proenvi-
ronmental values, the praise message did not influence
their behavior.
General Discussion
We examine the proposition that customer-praise mes-
sages used in CSM can lead to consumers’ self-
interested and self-indulgent behaviors more gener-
ally. Studies 1a–1c provide empirical support for our
main hypothesis by showing that participants behave
less altruistically and more self-indulgently after their
exposure to customer-praise messages rather than
company-praise messages. In Study 2, in a natural-
istic field experiment, we demonstrate that praising
individuals for their good deeds increases the like-
lihood of subsequent self-indulgent behaviors. With
Study 3, we generalize the effect of praise on subse-
quent behavior using the realistic dictator game. We
add a control condition of no praise and reveal that
exposure to customer-praise messages prompts more
self-interested behavior than exposure to company-
praise or no-praise messages. Study 4 demonstrates
the possibility that a temporary boost in the domain-
specific self-concept drives the observed phenomenon.
In Study 5, we provide evidence for the moderating
role of consumers’ internal support of the company’s
ronmental value score exhibited the proposed effect of
praise messages, whereas no such effect arose for par-
Theoretical and Practical Contributions
This research contributes to the existing literature on
corporate social marketing. Most research has focused
on the positive and negative consequences of CSM for
 Kouchaki and Jami: The Licensing Effect of Prosocial Marketing Messages
110
the company. The more recent literature on backfire
effects of CSR messages focuses on the negative effects
for the evaluations of the company or its products
(Torelli et al. 2012, Wagner et al. 2009). Although prior
work addresses consumers’ behaviors, it has focused
relatively narrowly on attitudes, behaviors, and deci-
sions pertaining to the company, rather than on evalu-
Downloaded from informs.org by [137.189.74.205] on 02 February 2018, at 01:24 . For personal use only, all rights reserved.
ating positive or negative consequences for individual
consumers. Departing from studying corporate out-
comes, we focus on the consequences of social con-
cerns for individual behaviors and thus reveal that in
societal marketing settings, customer-praise messages
can lead to less socially desirable behavior and more
self-interested behavior, whereas company-praise mes-
sages produce more socially desirable behavior and
less self-interested behavior. Moreover, we discuss the
underlying psychological processes that drive con-
sumers’ responses to CSR messages and provide ini-
tial evidence for the possibility that a temporary boost
in the self-concept relevant to the CSR action explains
the preference for self-indulgent and self-interested
behaviors.
This paper also contributes to literature on the rel-
ative effectiveness of message framing on persuasion
and intentions to perform prosocial (e.g., environmen-
tal) or health-related behaviors (Block and Keller 1995,
White et al. 2011). Our research suggests that the ref-
erence point (you or we) invoked in a persuasive com-
munication could impact recipients’ subsequent choice
of action.
This research in turn has important practical impli-
cations for marketing practitioners, proenvironmental
groups, and corporate social responsibility programs.
Although CSR programs can enhance consumers’
attitudes toward the firm (Brown and Dacin 1997),
and nonprofit organizations in particular can use
CSR to instill positive attitudes toward the organiza-
tion and increase consumers’ donations (Lichtenstein
et al. 2004), our findings specify that CSR pro-
grams should avoid customer-praise messages, which
dampen prosocial and proenvironmental behaviors
more generally. In particular, customer-praise mes-
sages may reduce customers’ donations to corporate
or nonprofit programs, diminishing their effective-
ness. Instead, company-referencing messages augment
prosocial behaviors and are likely to increase dona-
tions. In brief, companies should think about the “net
effect” of businesses to make sure that they benefit soci-
ety significantly more than they harm society.
Limitations and Future Directions
Despite the good empirical rigor and generalizabil-
ity we achieved by using commercials and messages
employed by a real corporation and different types of
participants, both online and student participants, the
conclusions drawn from this research must take the
Management Science, 2018, vol. 64, no. 1, pp. 102–111, © 2016 INFORMS
inherent limitations of our studies into account. For
instance, we used a single-item measure for the specific
self-concept. Additionally, even though we adapted
messages from the brands (Starbucks, Coca-Cola) that
are ubiquitous enough that all participants are poten-
tial users, we did not use the brand names and did not
measure participants’ frequency of their use. Another
issue that warrants consideration is the generalizability
of our findings in terms of the messages and prod-
ucts used. At a theoretical level, we believe that the
types of messages and products we used reflect con-
sumers’ common marketplace decisions. Further stud-
ies employing different methods and populations are
needed to confirm this claim.
Although our findings and implications provide an
important extension of previous examinations of CSM,
they also spark new questions. First, individual dif-
ferences in self-esteem could be potential moderators.
Second, our study evaluated the effects of CSM mes-
sages on one subsequent decision; we hope further
research expands this finding by focusing on multi-
ple decisions. Also, it would be interesting to observe
the effects of these messages over time, exploring their
magnitude and gradual depreciation.
Acknowledgments
Both authors contributed equally.
References
Bandura A (2001) Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective.
Annual Rev. Psych. 52(1):1–26.
Baumeister RF (1999) The Self in Social Psychology (Psychology Press,
Philadelphia).
Baumeister RF (2010) The self. Baumeister RF, Finkel EJ, eds.
Advanced Social Psychology: The State of the Science (Oxford Uni-
versity Press, New York), 139–176.
Bhattacharya CB, Sen S (2004) Doing better at doing good: When,
why and how consumers respond to corporate social initiatives.
Calif. Management Rev. 47(1):9–24.
Block LG, Keller PA (1995) When to accentuate the negative: The
effects of perceived efficacy and message framing on intentions
to perform a health-related behavior. J. Marketing Res. 32(2):
192–203.
Bonini SMJ, Mendonca LT, Oppenheim JM (2006) When social issues
become strategic. McKinsey Quart. 2(2):20–31.
Brown TJ, Dacin PA (1997) The company and the product: Corpo-
rate associations and consumer product responses. J. Marketing
61(1):68–84.
Burnkrant RE, Unnava HR (1995) Effects of self-referencing on per-
suasion. J. Consumer Res. 22(1):17–26.
Cialdini RB (2003) Crafting normative messages to protect the envi-
ronment. Current Directions Psych. Sci. 12(4):105–109.
Cialdini RB, Reno RR, Kallgren CA (1990) A focus theory of nor-
mative conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce
littering in public places. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 58(6):
1015–1026.
Dahl DW, Honea H, Manchanda RV (2003) The nature of self-
reported guilt in consumption contexts. Marketing Lett. 14(3):
159–171.
Drumwright ME (1996) Company advertising with a social dimen-
sion: The role of noneconomic criteria. J. Marketing 60(4):
71–87.
 Kouchaki and Jami: The Licensing Effect of Prosocial Marketing Messages
Management Science, 2018, vol. 64, no. 1, pp. 102–111, © 2016 INFORMS
Du S, Bhattacharya CB, Sen S (2007) Reaping relational rewards from
corporate social responsibility: The role of competitive position-
ing. Internat. J. Res. Marketing 24(3):224–241.
Du S, Bhattacharya CB, Sen S (2010) Maximizing business returns to
corporate social responsibility (CSR): The role of CSR commu-
nication. Internat. J. Management Rev. 12(1):8–19.
Festinger L (1954) A theory of social comparison processes. Human
Relations 7(2):117–140.
Downloaded from informs.org by [137.189.74.205] on 02 February 2018, at 01:24 . For personal use only, all rights reserved.
Fishbach A, Dhar R (2005) Goals as excuses or guides: The liberat-
ing effect of perceived goal progress on choice. J. Consumer Res.
32(3):370–377.
Griskevicius V, Tybur JM, Bergh BV (2010) Going green to be seen:
Status, reputation, and conspicuous conservation. J. Personality
Soc. Psych. 98(3):392–404.
Hoeffler S, Keller KL (2002) Building brand equity through cor-
porate societal marketing. J. Public Policy Marketing 21(1):
78–89.
Khan U, Dhar R (2006) Licensing effect in consumer choice. J. Mar-
keting Res. 43(2):259–66.
Kivetz R, Simonson I (2002) Earning the right to indulge: Effort as
a determinant of customer preferences toward frequency pro-
gram rewards. J. Marketing Res. 39(2):155–170.
Kouchaki M (2011) Vicarious moral licensing: The influence of oth-
ers’ past moral actions on moral behavior. J. Personality Soc.
Psych. 101(4):702–715.
Leary MR (2007) Motivational and emotional aspects of the self.
Annual Rev. Psych. 58:317–344.
Lichtenstein DR, Drumwright ME, Braig BM (2004) The effect of cor-
porate social responsibility on customer donations to corporate-
supported nonprofits. J. Marketing 68(4):16–32.
Luo X, Bhattacharya CB (2009) The debate over doing good: Cor-
porate social performance, strategic marketing levers, and firm-
idiosyncratic risk. J. Marketing 73(6):198–213.
Margolis JD, Walsh JP (2003) Misery loves companies: Rethinking
social initiatives by business. Admin. Sci. Quart. 48(2):268–305.
Mazar N, Zhong C (2010) Do green products make us better people?
Psych. Sci. 21(4):494–98.
Mazar N, Amir O, Ariely D (2008) The dishonesty of honest people:
A theory of self-concept maintenance. J. Marketing Res. 45(6):
633–644.
Menon A, Menon A (1997) Enviropreneurial marketing strategy: The
emergence of corporate environmentalism as market strategy.
J. Marketing 61(1):51–67.
111
Mullen E, Monin B (2016) Consistency versus licensing effects of past
moral behavior. Annual Rev. Psych. 67:363–385.
Okada EM (2005) Justification effects on consumer choice of hedonic
and utilitarian goods. J. Marketing Res. 42(1):43–53.
Olsen MC, Slotegraaf RJ, Chandukala SR (2014) Green claims and
message frames: How green new products change brand atti-
tude. J. Marketing 78(5):119–137.
Preacher KJ, Hayes AF (2008) Asymptotic and resampling strategies
for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple media-
tor models. Behav. Res. Methods 4(3):879–891.
Rosenberg M (1979) Conceiving the Self (Robert E. Krieger, Mal-
abar, FL).
Schwartz SH (1992) Universals in the content and structure of val-
ues: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries.
Zanna MP, ed. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 25
(Academic Press, New York), 1–65.
Sen S, Bhattacharya CB (2001) Does doing good always lead to doing
better? Consumer reactions to corporate social responsibility.
J. Marketing Res. 38(2):225–243.
Sen S, Bhattacharya CB, Korschun D (2006) The role of corpo-
rate social responsibility in strengthening multiple stakeholder
relationships: A field experiment. J. Acad. Marketing Sci. 34(2):
158–166.
Sheehan KB (2004) Controversies in Contemporary Advertising (Sage,
Thousand Oaks, CA).
Sood S, Forehand M (2005) On self-referencing differences in
judgment and choice. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes
98(2):144–154.
Symons CS, Johnson BT (1997) The self-reference effect in memory:
A meta-analysis. Psych. Bull. 121(3):371–394.
Torelli CJ, Monga AB, Kaikati A (2012) Doing poorly by doing good:
Corporate social responsibility and brand concepts. J. Consumer
Res. 38(5):948–963.
Wade-Benzoni KA, Li M, Thompson LL, Bazerman MH (2007) The
malleability of environmentalism. Analyses Soc. Issues Public Pol-
icy 7(1):163–89.
Wagner T, Lutz RJ, Weitz BA (2009) Corporate hypocrisy: Overcom-
ing the threat of inconsistent corporate social responsibility per-
ceptions. J. Marketing 73(6):77–91.
White K, MacDonnell R, Dahl DW (2011) It’s the mind-set that mat-
ters: The role of construal level and message framing in influenc-
ing consumer efficacy and conservation behaviors. J. Marketing
Res. 48(3):472–485.