Journal of Business Research 132 (2021) 838–847

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jbusres

The generous consumer: Interpersonal generosity and pro-social

dispositions as antecedents to cause-related purchase intentions
Molly Inhofe Rapert a, *, Anastasia Thyroff b, Sarah C. Grace c
a
Sam M. Walton College of Business, University of Arkansas, Walton Business Building 312, Fayetteville, AR 72701, United States
b
Powers College of Business, Clemson University, United States
c
Sam M. Walton College of Business, University of Arkansas, United States

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Cause-related marketing is prevalent in today’s marketing environment. The purpose of this research is to build
Interpersonal generosity and test a conceptual model surrounding the idea of a generous consumer – and what may lead a consumer to
Cause-related marketing buy products affiliated with cause-related marketing. To do this, we examine the impact of pro-social consumer
Pro-social behavior
behaviors (i.e., social responsibility, empathy, moral reasoning, and self-report altruism (SRA) past helpfulness)
Purchase intentions
on interpersonal generosity. Further, we explore the role of both pro-social consumer behaviors and interper­
sonal generosity on cause-related purchase intentions. Findings indicate that several pro-social consumer be­
haviors are predictors of cause-related purchasing intentions. Additionally, it is found that interpersonal
generosity mediates other pro-social behaviors in determining consumer receptiveness to cause-related market
exchanges.

We are at a turning point. naturally are (Unilever, 2019).

Only businesses that help people and the planet thrive will succeed. This isn’t simply altruism on the part of companies, it is a sound
We have to scale our impact through partnership, collaboration and trust. business strategy that resonates with consumers, serves as a buffer
Paul Polman, former CEO, Unilever against the competition, and positively impacts the bottom line. The
Cone Communications CSR Study revealed that 87% of consumers will
purchase a product because a company advocates for an issue they care
1. Introduction
about while 76% will refuse to purchase a company’s products or ser­
vices upon learning it supported an issue contrary to their beliefs (Cone,
What do world starvation, tobacco, and positive body image have in
2017). In Unilever’s Sustainable Living Plan, Unilever makes the case
common? They are all causes aligned with marketing tactics being used
that brands with the strongest purpose orientations have significantly
to lure consumers to change the world with their wallets. Firms today
outperformed their less sustainable counterparts. Kantar Consulting
offer a litany of ways to combine purchases with social change oppor­
backs up this claim through their Purpose 2020 study which maintains
tunities. Purchase a meal, and Tacos 4 Life will donate a meal in a
that brands with a high sense of purpose have seen their brand valuation
developing country, hoping to decrease childhood starvation through
increase by 175% over past 12 years compared to a growth rate of 70%
their Meal 4 Meal program (Tacos4Life, 2018). CVS continues to ban the
for brands with a low sense of purpose (Curry & Smith, 2018).
sale of tobacco in its stores in an effort to create the nation’s first
As the world of cause-related marketing continues to capture the
tobacco-free generation, augmenting their cause-marketing campaign
attention of consumers, brands, and companies, it is important to
with multi-million-dollar donations to support smoking prevention
explore the antecedents and implications of this phenomenon. There­
programs (Japsen, 2018). Unilever didn’t adopt a cause as much as it
fore, the purpose of this research is to build and test a conceptual model
created one: raising self-esteem through positive body images. Uni­
surrounding the idea of a generous consumer – and what may lead a
lever’s Dove Soap has built a plethora of marketing campaigns around
consumer to buy products affiliated with cause-related marketing. Our
the concept of feeling confident and comfortable about the way you
research centers on three themes. First, there is an increased interest in

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: mrapert@walton.uark.edu (M.I. Rapert).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.10.070
Received 19 October 2019; Received in revised form 29 October 2020; Accepted 31 October 2020
Available online 19 November 2020
0148-2963/© 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
M.I. Rapert et al.
cause-related marketing, as evidenced by both the number of companies
involved and the breadth of industry applications. Second, the extant
literature in pro-social behaviors and dispositions provides helpful
insight into understanding why individuals engage in pro-social be­
haviors, which can be used to explore consumer participation in cause-
related marketing initiatives. Third, research in the domain of gener­
osity provides a foundation for linking generous tendencies with pur­
chase intentions.
2. Conceptual framework
The extant literature on cause-related marketing provides insight
into what types of consumers might be attracted to this purpose-driven
technique. However, little attention has been paid to the role that pro-
social behaviors of consumers play in this domain. Pro-social perspec­
tives have garnered attention in other contexts of marketplace activity,
including charitable giving and donations. Given that cause-related
marketing is often aligned with the giving of time, knowledge, and re­
sources to capture the hearts and wallets of consumers, pro-social
research may be applicable to this setting as well.
In this section, we expand on our understanding of cause-related
marketing, pro-social behaviors, and interpersonal generosity. By
exploring these three domains, this research hopes to clarify the ante­
cedents to cause-related marketing and consumption behaviors. A
summary of the conceptual model we build in this section can be found
in Fig. 1. Hypotheses that complement the conceptual model will be
given throughout this section as well.
2.1. Cause-related marketing
Cause-related marketing is a growing phenomenon in the business
world as a strategic means of appealing to consumers who are interested
in supporting social causes through their consumption decisions. IEG
reports that corporate giving generated from cause-related marketing is
predicted to reach $2.23 billion in 2019, a projected increase of nearly
5% over 2018 (Sponsorship Report, 2019). Varadarajan and Menon
(1988, pp. 60) define cause-related marketing as “an offer from the firm
to contribute a specified amount to a designated cause when customers
engage in revenue-providing exchanges that satisfy organizational and
individual objectives.“ Cause-related marketing is a mutually beneficial
collaboration for both the firm and society, as companies are able to
generate revenue while simultaneously supporting a charitable cause
(Eastman, Smalley, & Warren, 2019).
Firms may participate in several types of cause-related marketing
campaigns. Two of the most common are traditional cause-related
marketing and one-for-one corporate tie-ins (Eastman et al., 2019).
Traditional cause-related occurs when a company donates a portion of
+H4a-d*
Interpersonal
Social +H2a
Responsibility Generosity
Empathic
Concern
+H3
Moral
Reasoning
+H1d Purchase
Past Helpfulness Intentions
Fig. 1. Conceptual Model. *Indicates mediation hypothesis.
839
Journal of Business Research 132 (2021) 838–847
its sales/revenue to a particular charity. For example, Patagonia sells
outdoor clothing and goods, and 1% of their sales goes toward sus­
tainability causes. Newman’s Own is a natural food company that do­
nates all of its profits to charity. One-for-one cause-related marketing
occurs when a company donates a matched item for every item sold. For
instance, TOMS donates a pair of shoes for every pair of TOMS shoes
sold. Similarly, for a campaign, Pampers diapers partnered with UNICEF
to provide tetanus vaccines, where one pack of diapers = one vaccine.
Popular business press is replete with studies on the popularity,
attraction, and profit-potential of cause-marketing initiatives. Similarly,
the extant academic literature reflects both long-standing and renewed
interest in cause-related marketing issues. In general, past research falls
into three categories, ranging from macro and micro issues: 1) under­
standing the strategic role of corporate social responsibility (CSR), 2)
examining firm strategy and the execution of cause-related marketing
tactics, including the measurement of their outcomes, 3) and under­
standing the predispositions and traits of consumers interested in cause-
related marketing.
Firms have several strategic incentives for participating in cause-
related marketing. Positive CSR has been found to have a significant
effect on consumers’ intent to purchase (Mohr, Webb, & Harris, 2001).
Krishna and Rajan (2009) focus on the role of cause marketing products
within the portfolio of brands a firm may have, concluding that a
spillover effect exists whereby firms benefit across the portfolio when
they have one brand that is tied to a cause. Arora and Henderson (2007)
find that cause promotions can be more effective than price discounts of
comparable value on the same product.
It is important that CSR activities closely align with both the core
business of the firm (de Jong & van der Meer, 2017) and the values of
consumers (Lee, Park, Rapert, & Newman, 2012). A similar logic holds
true for firms engaging in a cause-related marketing activity; past
research explains the importance of the fit between charity and com­
pany or brand (e.g., Basil & Herr, 2006; Hyllegard, Yan, Ogle, & Att­
mann, 2010; Vanhamme, Lindgreen, Reast, & Van Popering, 2012;
Zdravkovic, Magnusson, & Stanley, 2010). For instance, using balance
theory as a framework, Basil and Herr (2006) find that organizations are
viewed as stronger and as more favorable when there is a fit between a
charity and a marketing effort. Further, Zdravkovic et al. (2010) find
that managers need to consider the natural fit between a cause and
brand, as well as how to communicate the fit to consumers. However,
managers have to worry about fit less with consumers who are familiar
with the cause.
Another interesting phenomenon relates to public sentiment on the
role of government. Gallinari (Mintel, 2018) explains that Americans,
frustrated with the government’s inability to act quickly, are increas­
ingly turning to charitable organizations to facilitate aid for those in
need. In fact, Edelman (2018) reports that consumers believe that CEOs
should take the lead on social change rather than waiting on the gov­
ernment to be involved. Gallinari posits that this creates an environment
in which corporations can use cause marketing to build affinity with a
consumer base that has a predilection for charitable support. Kotler,
Kartajaya, and Setlawan (2010) believe that marketing must engage
people in ways that provide solutions to their desires to make the world
a better place.
Ultimately, the continuance of cause-related marketing activity is
driven by consumer demand. Accenture (2018) reports that 62% of
global consumers want companies to take a stand on issues they are
passionate about, and 64% find brands that actively communicate their
purpose more appealing. Shelton (2018) maintains that 86% of con­
sumers believe that companies should take a stand for social issues and
finds that consumers are very likely to purchase a product if the com­
pany demonstrates a social commitment.
Nearly two-thirds of Gen Z and millennials prefer brands that stand
for something (Curry & Smith, 2018). For example, Dove, a top brand
with Gen Z and millennial males (YP, 2018), promotes fatherhood and
takes actionable steps on this mission in order to foster trust in the
M.I. Rapert et al.
brand. Specifically, Dove Men + Care does this by promoting paid pa­
ternity leave through the creation of a paid paternity fund, developing a
paternity pledge, and fostering social groups that allow advocates for
paternity leave to connect (Unilever, 2020). Edelman (2019) echoes that
67% of consumers will try a company’s product based on their reputa­
tion, but will stop shopping with the company if they do not build trust –
which emphasizes the importance of marketing to these consumers.
Further, when brands are considered trustworthy, consumers are more
likely to buy first, stay loyal, advocate for, and defend the brand
(Edelman, 2019).
Evidently, consumers support cause-related marketing. But what
types of consumers are most attracted to cause strategies? Mohr et al.
(2001) find that socially responsible individuals exhibit a higher pur­
chase intentions for companies engaging in CSR than individuals who
are not socially responsible. Koschate-Fischer, Stefan, and Hoyer (2012)
find that individuals who have a positive attitude towards helping others
and a strong warm glow motive exhibit higher willingness to pay for
products associated with cause-related donations than individuals who
do not share these characteristics. Such explorations of the role of con­
sumer predispositions provide an insightful contribution to the cause-
related marketing domain and highlights the necessity to explore
other pro-social tendencies.
2.2. The role of pro-social behaviors
The pro-social domain provides a deep theoretical framework for
understanding the affinity that consumers may have for cause-related
marketing. Pro-social is a summary term for a broad category of inter­
personal actions within a given socio-cultural system, where the benefit
of others is a primary goal of the behavior (Habashi, Graziano, & Hoo­
ver, 2016; Hinde & Groebel, 1991). In their review of the pro-social
behavior literature, Penner, Dovidio, Piliavin, and Schroeder (2005)
call for research that recognizes the diverse influences that promote pro-
social behavior as well as the ways in which pro-social behavior can be
manifested. Dovidio, Piliavin, Schroeder, and Penner (2006) also survey
the status of pro-social research from a multilevel perspective, exploring
the influences that promote actions for the benefit of others, the myriad
ways that pro-social actions can be manifested, the processes that un­
derlie the broad spectrum of pro-social behavior, and areas that remain
to be explored. Within this research stream, four pro-social behaviors
seem particularly applicable to cause-related marketing: social re­
sponsibility, empathy, moral reasoning, and self-report altruism (SRA)
past helpfulness.
As a pro-social behavior, much research on social responsibility in
the domain of marketing focuses on socially responsible consumption
behavior, defined as an individual making consumption decisions based
on a desire to minimize or eliminate harmful effects while maximizing
societal impact (Mohr et al., 2001). Research on this topic has focused on
socially responsible behaviors such as gift-giving (Green & Tinson,
2016), socially responsible engagement in the music industry (Green,
Sinclair, & Tinson, 2016), and engagement with specific socially
responsible behaviors, such as recycling (Cho, Thyroff, Rapert, Park, &
Lee, 2013). While these are important research streams, we are focusing
on social responsibility as part of the pro-social battery, which encom­
passes a willingness to help others and make decisions that are in the
best interest of society (Hewstone, Stroebe, & Jonas, 2012). This sense of
social responsibility drives consumption behaviors while also corre­
lating with charitable giving and donations (Dutta-Bergman, 2006; Hur,
2006). Youn and Kim (2008) identified social responsibility as one of the
most important psychographic factors in consumer attitudes toward
cause-related marketing based on the rationale that individuals who are
socially responsible in their personal lives are more likely to be engaged
in efforts to purchase products that align with social causes.
Empathy is another important pro-social behavior, referring to
sensitivity towards, and understanding of, the mental states of others
(Hollin, 1994). It is an affective response that is more linked to someone
840
Journal of Business Research 132 (2021) 838–847
else’s situation than one’s own (Hoffman, 1987). In their thorough re­
view of empathy research, Verhaert and Van den Poel (2011) explains
that people who feel empathic concern will focus on the person in need,
with a desire to reduce their stress. In marketing, this empathic concern
has been found to positively affect consumers in their donation decisions
and their engagement with corporate social responsibility campaigns.
The authors find that donors with high levels of empathic concern focus
on alleviating the suffering of others through the act of making a
donation. Lee (2016) posits that CSR marketing evoking empathy can
elicit positive responses from consumers and increase customer’s will­
ingness to pay. As Lee (2016) explains, empathy alters the valuation
approach in that it can motivate consumers to behave altruistically to­
ward products with social claims (Smith, 2006) while also leading to
behaviors that can be characterized as selfless (Cialdini, Brown, Lewis,
Luce, & Neuberg, 1997).
Moral reasoning, as part of the pro-social battery, has primarily
been incorporated in the marketing literature from the perspective of its
impact on consumer decisions. Thφgersen (1999) emphasized the
importance of moral reasoning in the decision-making process, partic­
ularly when aligned with causes that are relevant to the individual. A
stronger personal norm with respect to a moral issue will result in
increased attention paid to cues and persuasive communications, ulti­
mately resulting in consumer choices that are aligned with that norm.
Moral consciousness arises when individuals see into the complexity of a
situation, steadfastly consider all of the possibilities, and analyze the
impact of each possible action with respect to the moral outcomes.
Moral reasoning is impacted by the pressure that consumer society
places on individuals through their marketing messages, sometimes in
positive ways and often in negative. For example, a consumer may love
Nike and view them as a morally conscious brand when hearing about
signing the equal pay pledge, which promises to pay all of their em­
ployees equally regardless of gender (Nike, 2016). However, consumers
may still be conflicted in their decision to shop with the brand when
reminded of the history of poor labor conditions in their supply chain
(Spar & Burns, 2000). Similarly, Zara is a popular brand with GenZ and
Millennials for its affordable yet fashion-forward assortments, and has
recently been praised for its human rights and sustainability initiatives,
including its new “Join Life” line. However, consumer activist groups
still raise concerns about the brands’ transparency and the ethics of its
fast fashion business model, causing consumers to reconsider purchasing
from the brand (Bain, 2019).
To the extent that consumers understand the moral implications of
their decisions, they will move away from a focus on self to a desire to
serve others (McGregor, 2006). Kavak, Gürel, Eryiğit, and Tektaş (2009)
maintain that the development stage of an individual’s moral reasoning
and beliefs can impact their ethical attitudes and behaviors. Extending
this research on morality, Kim and Johnson (2013) find the study of
moral emotions to be particularly relevant in the context of explaining
why consumers would support cause-related marketing efforts for rea­
sons other than personal benefit. Viewing the role of negative moral
emotions, Grappi, Romani, and Bagozzi (2013) illustrate that consumer
reaction to corporate irresponsibility is impacted by negative moral-
based emotions and moral virtues. Moral constructs have also been
found to play a role in driving consumers’ pro-social responses of
donating and volunteering via the impact of moral elevation (Romani &
Grappi, 2014).
When Rushton, Chrisjohn, and Fekken (1981) first introduced their
scale for self-report altruism (SRA) past helpfulness (which we will now
refer to as past helpfulness), they probably couldn’t fully envision the
breadth of contexts within which past helpfulness would be explored.
The construct is defined as a self-reported history of engaging in helpful
actions and an absence of ego-centric reactions to people’s distress
(Penner, Midili, & Kegelmeyer, 1997). A substantive body of work has
developed with helping/helpfulness as it relates to formal volunteering
(Penner, 2002), informal volunteering (Finkelstein & Brannick, 2007),
charitable donations (Piliavin & Charng, 2003), feelings such as
M.I. Rapert et al.
competence and confidence (Penner, Fritzsche, Craiger, & Freifeld,
1995), and more. However, as the pro-social battery was incorporated
into the business realm, past helpfulness caught the attention of re­
searchers. Penner et al. (1997) explain that organizations can maximize
attempts to elicit pro-social behaviors by developing persuasive appeals
that target the motives most important to the recipient of the appeal.
Past helpfulness in a particular area indicates a past involvement or
experience with the issue or situation of concern. Penner’s body of work
with past helpfulness and other pro-social tendencies have played an
important role in understanding organizational citizenship behavior.
Within marketing, past helpfulness, as part of the pro-social battery,
has mainly been incorporated into studies of the nonprofit sector. In
exploring why individuals would have a positive attitude towards a
charitable organization, Briggs, Peterson, and Gregory (2010) find that
people who tend to help others are more likely to have a favorable
perspective of charitable organizations and issues. An interesting
extension focuses on consumer responses to corporations via boycotts
(Klein, Smith, & John, 2004), showing that helpfulness/helping with a
cause arises from evaluations of the costs and benefits involved. The
higher the net benefit of helping, the more likely it is that help will be
given. Similarly, the higher the net benefit of boycotting (a helping
behavior), the more likely the consumer will participate.
While many streams of research have focused on the important role
that economic reasoning plays in consumption decisions, pro-social
behaviors help provide meaning to our understanding of how in­
dividuals navigate their world and decision-making. In addition to the
aforementioned studies, pro-social behaviors have been found to be
influenced (either attenuated or exaggerated) by emotions and empathy
(Bagozzi & Moore, 1994), sympathetic closeness to the social issue
(Small & Simonsohn, 2007), gender (Moosmayer & Fuljahn, 2010), and
religion (Saroglou, Pichon, Trompette, Verschueren, & Dernelle, 2005).
Based on the seminal work of Azjen and Fishbein (1980), psychographic
factors are considered residues of past experiences, which, in turn, in­
fluence the beliefs and attitudes of individuals. As with Youn and Kim
(2008), this study adopts pro-social behavior as the theoretical framing
for understanding consumer support of cause-related marketing initia­
tives. Therefore, knowing what we know about pro-social behaviors and
cause-related marketing, we hypothesize that:
H1a-d: A direct positive relationship exists between (a) social re­
sponsibility, (b) empathetic concern, (c) moral reasoning, (d) past
helpfulness, and cause-related purchase intentions.
However, we also propose that understanding pro-social behaviors is
only part of the story for understanding cause-related purchase in­
tentions. Therefore, we now turn our attention to understanding gen­
erosity as it pertains to marketing and consumers.
2.3. Interpersonal generosity
Cause-marketing initiatives are different than other promotions in
that they entice purchase intentions by connecting with consumers
through causes in which they may be interested, motivating individuals
to give by choosing that CRM brand over another. The literature on
giving is replete with pro-social studies that examine why people choose
to donate their time, attention, or resources. Pro-social theories help to
fill the gap left by economic models of behavior, which rely on the
assumption that people will rationally seek to maximize their utility, a
view which doesn’t always lend itself to understanding why people give
(Bekkers, 2004). The literature on generosity runs deep as an area of
interest across many research streams: psychology, sociology, interper­
sonal relations, and more. Recently, generosity has also played an
explanatory role in the domains of charitable giving, volunteer work,
and CSR initiatives.
Generosity remains to be defined as a unique construct in business
literature. Generosity is used synonymously with constructs such as
841
Journal of Business Research 132 (2021) 838–847
donation behavior (Duclos & Barasch, 2014; Verhaert & Van den Poel,
2011), volunteering (Briggs et al., 2010), corporate giving (Gal­
askiewicz, 1985; Marquis & Lee, 2013), or hospitality (Hemmington,
2007). It is relevant and timely to delineate generosity’s role in a more
intentional way, building on the aforementioned studies. Herein, we
examine interpersonal generosity’s links to our four pro-social measures:
social responsibility, empathy, moral reasoning, and past helpfulness. In
addition, we explore interpersonal generosity’s role as a mediator be­
tween these four and cause-related purchase intentions.
Our view of generosity centers on interpersonal generosity, which
measures the degree to which individuals attempt to enhance the well-
being of others by spending their attention, time, emotion, and energy.
Interpersonal generosity is associated with pro-social behaviors, yet is a
distinct concept in many ways. For one, as the name implies, interper­
sonal generosity reflects the connectedness between people and their
social relationships. Further, interpersonal generosity measures the
giving of resources related to the subjective self-such as time, energy,
attention, and emotion, as opposed to objectifiable resources (e.g.,
money, labor). Additionally, interpersonal generosity may not always be
purely altruistic – as the giver may also hope or expect to receive reci­
procity in the future (Smith & Hill, 2009).
We propose interpersonal generosity is important to better under­
stand the sources, contexts, and consequences of cause-related market­
ing. Past research agrees that the power of generosity is underestimated,
particularly in its ability to maintain or build trust in relationships
(Klapwijk & Van Lange, 2009). To do this, we also explore the rela­
tionship between pro-social behaviors and generosity.
The relationship between social responsibility and generosity
traces back nearly a half-century to early work in pro-social behavior in
child development. Researchers examining how generosity emerges
identified that, early in life, children progress from being generous
under situations of anticipated reciprocity to behaving generously as
social responsibility norms become salient to them (Harris, 1970).
Harris summarizes that these early studies also focused on the impact on
generosity that arises from observing socially responsible behavior and
absorbing that behavior as a norm. However, there is an important gap
in current research, as identified by Collett and Morrissey (2007), who
affirm that people are both constrained and enabled by their conceptions
of social identity as much as they are by their personal identities. They
call for future work in generosity that intentionally includes social,
group-level determinants of generosity, such as group norms. Norms of
social responsibility fall squarely in this call. Anecdotal evidence in the
popular business press also underscores the alignment of social re­
sponsibility and generosity, with studies that show the parallel growth in
both (Butler, 2018; Goins, 2019).
Empathy and generosity have likewise been examined in the
context of child development. Both empathic concern and empathic
distress have been shown to significantly alter children’s pro-social
giving behaviors in early childhood (Cowell et al., 2017; Li, Li, Dec­
ety, & Lee, 2013). As children begin connecting with others and expe­
riencing shared emotions and situations, their generosity becomes more
pronounced. In adults, Barraza and Zak (2009) adopt an interesting
approach through the lens of neuroscience to study the physiological
changes that take place when adults experience empathy towards
strangers. In addition to a release of oxytocin, responsible for the widely
cited ‘warm glow’ phenomenon, the authors find that an increase in
experienced empathy is associated with greater generosity, specifically
more generous monetary offers towards strangers. Across studies and
settings, feelings of empathy and compassion are repeatedly associated
with increased generosity (Allen, 2018).
The relationship between moral reasoning and generosity fol­
lowed a similar path of early pro-social attention, followed by per­
spectives of child development, and final neuroscience studies.
Underwood and Moore (1982) summarized a series of early studies
within which moral reasoning was positively correlated to generosity. In
child development studies, differences seen in specific online
M.I. Rapert et al. Journal of Business Research 132 (2021) 838–847

electrophysiological responses to morally laden stimuli reliably pre­
dicted the generosity with which children would behave (Cowell, 2015).
Research in the neurological basis for moral development has identified
specific regions of the brain that are engaged in the process of moral
cognitions. These have suggested strong neurological linkages between
“doing the right thing” and engaging in generous behaviors (Smith &
Davidson, 2018).
Past helpfulness and generosity have been linked in a variety of
ways, including general predispositions to help, past evidence of help­
fulness, and being a recipient of help. Involvement in the past is an
important motivation for pro-social behaviors. Interestingly, when in­
dividuals participate in costly pro-social behaviors, they are more likely
to engage in future pro-social behaviors, perhaps because these costly
forms of helping make a person see oneself as having a pro-social
identity (Gneezy, Imas, Brown, Nelson, & Norton, 2012). Additionally,
a person’s history of helping with a cause that they closely identify with
positively affects their future generosity towards the cause in addition to
providing protection from compassion fade, the psychological process
that dampens people’s charitable responses over time (Allen, 2018).
While most of the research connecting helpfulness and generosity fo­
cuses on the degree to which an individual helps others, an interesting
extension is in the form of people who receive help. Tsvetkova and Macy
(2014) find that when a person receives help, there is an increased
willingness to be generous toward others.
Generosity outcomes have not focused specifically on cause-related
purchase intentions. However, the rationale for generous people being
predisposed to “give” to causes provides insight into why generous
consumers might have higher cause-related purchase intentions. Herzog
and Price (2016) completed an extensive review of why people give,
defining nine forms of giving, including the “Big 3” of donations: cash,
time spent volunteering, and political or civic activity. Based on an in­
dividual’s socio-relational context, they believe that the modern indi­
vidual belongs to a spoke-like web of group affiliations. These include
personal affiliations through family, work, and other networks that can
include a variety of calls to actions. They believe that these contexts and
relationships create varied levels of “generous self-identities,”
concluding that people with generous self-identities are more likely to
be givers, and to give more if their social circles are also generous.
Hence, they believe that giving, in any form, is influenced by circles of
generosity.
Using the aforementioned literature as our theoretical guidelines, we
propose the following hypotheses:
seconds before they could move on. They were also given two knowl­
edge check questions that they had to get correct before they could move
on with the rest of the survey. This resulted in 400 respondents who
completed the survey. A summary of the sample’s demographics is
found in Table 1.
3.2. Measures
All constructs were measured using scales developed in prior
research. Baker and Churchill (1977) 4-item purchase intentions scale
was used to measure cause-related purchase intentions. Similar to
Griffith and Chen (2004)’s use of the scale, it was modified to measure
cause-related purchase intentions. Items were measured on a seven-
point Likert scale ranging from definitely no to definitely yes. Penner
(2002)’s 7-item social responsibility scale was used to measure social
responsibility. Davis (1980)’s 7-item empathetic concern scale and 4-
item other moral reasoning scale were used to measure empathetic
concern and moral reasoning, respectively. Following Leffel, Oakes
Mueller, Ham, Curlin, and Yoon (2017)’s example, 6-items from Smith
and Hill (2009) interpersonal generosity scale were used to measure
interpersonal generosity. Social responsibility, empathetic concern,
moral reasoning, and interpersonal generosity were measured on a
seven-point Likert scale ranging from strongly agree to strongly
disagree. Penner (2002)’s SRA past helpfulness scale was used to mea­
sure past helpfulness. The scale was measured on a seven-point Likert
scale ranging from never to all of the time.
3.3. Measurement model
AMOS 26 was used to run a confirmatory factor analysis. One item
from the social responsibility scale regarding treating people well was
shown to have a weak standardized factor loading (i.e., 0.40) and was
removed. Further, an analysis of the standardized residual covariance
matrix, as well as the modification indices of the cross loading, revealed
that one item from purchase intentions (actively seeking) was prob­
lematic and there was also removed from the analysis. Next, a quick
glance at validity and reliability was conducted, and past helpfulness
Table 1
Sample demographics.
Variable Name Values Frequency %

Age 18–25 39 9.75%

H2a-d: A direct positive relationship exists between (a) social re­ 26–35 116 29.0%
sponsibility, (b) empathetic concern, (c) moral reasoning, (d) past 36–45 45 11.25%
helpfulness, and interpersonal generosity. 46–55 77 19.25%
56–65 76 19.0%
H3: A direct, positive relationship exists between interpersonal 66+ 47 11.75%
generosity and cause-related purchase intentions.
Sex Male 214 53.5%
H4a-d: Interpersonal generosity mediates the relationship between
Female 184 46.0%
(a) social responsibility, (b) empathetic concern, (c) moral Intersex 2 0.5%
reasoning, (d) past helpfulness, and cause-related purchase
Marital Status Married 197 49.3%
intentions.
Divorced 42 10.5%
Widowed 13 3.3%
3. Methodology Single 148 37.0%

Household Income <$15,000 26 6.5%

3.1. Sample $15,001–$35,000 74 18.5%
$35,001–$50,000 82 20.5%
Data were collected using an online panel of American citizens. The $50,001–$75,000 96 24.0%
$75,001–$100,000 64 16.0%
survey contained questions that measured cause-related purchase in­ $100,001–$125,000 19 4.8%
tentions, social responsibility, empathetic concern, moral reasoning, and $125,001–$150,000 19 4.8%
past helpfulness. To educate panelists on what cause-related marketing $150,001+ 20 5.0%
is, panelists recieved information on cause-related marketing inspired Highest Level Edu. High school grad 35 8.8%
by Eastman et al. (2019). Specifically, panelists were given a definition Some college 71 17.8%
of cause-related marketing, as well as examples of both portion of sales College grad 176 44.0%
and one-for-one types of cause-related marketing. Respondents were Technical school grad 14 3.5%
Graduate degree 104 26.0%
timed to be sure they stayed on the information page for at least 25

842
M.I. Rapert et al. Journal of Business Research 132 (2021) 838–847

was found to have less than acceptable convergent validity (i.e., 0.49). Table 2
Therefore, the problematic item (letting someone go ahead of you in a Items and statistics for each construct.
line) was also removed. Construct/ Measure Factor
At each decision point, the authors considered the theory behind Loadings
each scale to ensure that the item removal did not challenge the study’s Social Responsibility (CR = 0.90 AVE = 0.60)
theoretical integrity. It was also confirmed that Baker and Churchill I would feel less bothered about leaving litter in a dirty park than in 0.77+
(1977)’s purchase intention scale is used in a two or three item format a clean one.
frequently (Bruner, 2009). The confirmatory factor analysis model with Depending on what a person has done, there may be an excuse for 0.82+
taking advantage of them.
the five removed items was considered good [X2 390) = 893.42, CFI = With the pressure of grades and the widespread cheating in school 0.86+
0.94, IFI = 0.94, TLI = 0.93, RMSEA = 0.06, SRMR = 0.05]. Convergent nowadays, the individual who cheats occasionally is not really as
validity was confirmed with all variance extracted (AVE) greater than much at fault.
0.5. Further, reliability was confirmed with composite reliability scores It doesn’t make much sense to be very concerned about how we act 0.83+
when we are sick and feeling miserable.
of about 0.7 (Hair, Hult, Ringle, & Sarstedt, 2014). An HTMT analysis
If I broke a machine through mishandling, I would feel less guilty if 0.67+
was performed to determine discriminant validity and was passed it was already damaged before I used it.
(Henseler, Ringle, & Sarstedt, 2015). Table 2 presents each item used in When you have a job to do, it is impossible to look out for everyone’s 0.67+
the scales along with reliability and average variance extracted for the best interest.
constructs and factor loadings for each item in the scales. Table 3 pre­ Empathetic Concern (CR = 0.93, AVE = 0.62)
sents a component correlation matrix. When I see someone being taken advantage of, I feel kind of 0.83
protective towards them.
Other people’s misfortunes usually disturb me a great deal. 0.67
4. Results
When I see someone being treated unfairly, I usually feel pity for 0.79
them.
A structural model was constructed based on the theoretically driven I am often quite touched by things that I see happen. 0.82
hypotheses (see Fig. 1). The structural model showed good fit [X2 (390) I often have tender, concerned feelings for people less fortunate than 0.87
= 893.42, CFI = 0.94, IFI = 0.94, TLI = 0.93, RMSEA = 0.06, SRMR = me.
I often feel very sorry for other people when they are having 0.84
0.05]. Squared multiple correlations of the endogenous variables indi­ problems.
cated that the model explained 66% of the variance in interpersonal I would describe myself as a pretty soft-hearted person. 0.81
generosity, and 32% of the variance in purchase intentions. Structural
Moral Reasoning (CR = . 91, AVE = 0.72)
equation modeling was used to test the path hypotheses (direct effects), My decisions are usually based on my concern for other people. 0.89
and bootstrapping via user-defined estimands was used to test for the I choose a course of action that maximizes the help other people 0.84
mediation effects. receive.
First, we examined the direct relationship between the four pro- My decisions are usually based on concern for the welfare of others. 0.94
I choose alternatives that minimize the negative consequences to 0.70
social behaviors on purchase intentions. Specifically, the direct rela­ other people.
tionship between social responsibility and purchase intentions was
Past Helpfulness (CR = . 82, AVE = 0.54)
positive and significant (b = 0.20, pvalue < .01), confirming H1a. The
I have helped carry a stranger’s belongings (e.g., books, packages, 0.70
direct relationship between empathetic concern and purchase intentions groceries, etc.).
was positive and significant (b = 0.26, pvalue < .01), confirming H1b. I have let a neighbor whom I didn’t know too well borrow an item of 0.76
The direct relationship between moral reasoning and purchase in­ some value (e.g., tools, a dish, etc.).
tentions was not significant (b = 0.01, pvalue = .88), rejecting H1c. The I have, before being asked, voluntarily looked after a neighbor’s pet 0.72
or children without being paid for it.
direct relationship between past helpfulness and purchase intentions
I have offered to help a handicapped or elderly stranger (e.g., to 0.76
was not significant (b = 0.09, pvalue = .16), rejecting H1d. These cross a street, to lift something, etc.)
disparate findings on the relationship between pro-social behaviors and
Interpersonal Generosity (CR = 0.91, AVE = 0.62)
purchase intentions warrant additional attention. It would be interesting When one of my loved ones needs my attention, I really try to slow 0.72
to explore whether potential interacting variables such as materialism down and give them the time and help they need.
(Thyroff & Kilbourne, 2018), virtue-signaling (Wallace, Buil, & de I am known by family and friends as someone who makes time to 0.82
Chernatony, 2020), vanity (Netemeyer, Burton, & Lichtenstein, 1995), pay attention to other’s problems.
I’m the kind of person who is willing to go the “extra mile” to help 0.83
and fit (Zdravkovic et al., 2010) help us to understand the varying
take care of my friends, relatives, and acquaintances.
relationships. When friends or family members experience something upsetting or 0.80
Next, we examined the direct relationships between pro-social be­ discouraging, I make a special point of being kind to them.
haviors on interpersonal generosity. Specifically, the direct relationship It makes me very happy to give to other people in ways that meet 0.80
between social responsibility and interpersonal generosity was signifi­ their needs.
I make it a point to let my friends and family know how much I love 0.76
cant (b = 0.18, pvalue < .01), confirming H2a. The direct relationship and appreciate them.
between empathetic concern and interpersonal generosity was positive
Cause-related Purchase Intentions (CR = 0.88, AVE = 0.70)
and significant (b = 0.55, pvalue < .01), confirming H2b. The direct
Would you be willing to try cause-related products in the future? 0.81
relationship between moral reasoning and interpersonal generosity was Would you buy cause-related products if you happened to see one in 0.84
positive and significant (b = 0.23, pvalue < .01), confirming H2c. The the store?
direct relationship between past helpfulness and interpersonal gener­ Would you purchase cause-related products if given the option? 0.86
osity was positive and significant (b = .11pvalue < .05), confirming *All factor loadings standardized with p-values < .01
H2d. +reverse scale item; CR = composite reliability; AVE = average variance
H3 posited a positive direct relationship between interpersonal extracted.
generosity and purchase intentions. This relationship was also found to
be positive and significant (b = .21pvalue < .05), confirming H3. The mediation of interpersonal generosity on the direct relationship
A bootstrapping procedure to test if indirect effects were different between social responsibility and purchase intentions was found to be
than zero (e.g., Preacher & Hayes, 2008) was used to examine the positive and significant (b = 0.02, pvalue < .05, LLCI = 0.00, ULCI =
mediation hypotheses. To do this, user-defined estimands were imple­ 0.06), confirming H4a. The mediation of interpersonal generosity on the
mented (e.g., Thyroff & Kilbourne, 2018), and a bootstrapping sample of direct relationship between empathetic concern and purchase intentions
2000 was used.

843
M.I. Rapert et al.
Table 3
Component Correlation Matrix.
1 2 3 4 5 6
Social Responsibility (1) –
Empathetic Concern (2) 0.255 – derstand the phenomenon of cause-related marketing. Our findings
Moral Reasoning (3) − 0.072 0.571 – imply that the more socially responsible, the more empathetic, the more
Past Helpfulness (4) − 0.224 0.227 0.475 – moral and more helpful a consumer is, the more generous they tend to
Interpersonal Generosity (5) 0.275 0.671 0.492 0.225 – be. Further, it is the generous consumer who helps us best understand
Purchase Intentions (6) 0.234 0.441 0.300 0.159 0.437
–
‘ addition, the literature on the intergenerational transmission of gener­
was found to be positive and significant (b = 0.06, pvalue < .05, LLCI =
0.01, ULCI = 0.13), confirming H4b. The mediation of interpersonal
generosity on the direct relationship between moral responsibility and
purchase intentions was found to be significant (b = 0.04, pvalue < .05,
LLCI = 0.01, ULCI = 0.09), confirming H4c. Lastly, H4d, which tested
the mediation of interpersonal generosity on the direct relationship
between past helpfulness and purchase intentions was found to not be
significant (b = 0.02, pvalue = .07 LLCI = 0.00, ULCI = 0.07), rejecting
H4d.
5. Discussion
Given the continued and growing interest in cause-related marketing
initiatives, our research is important, as it contributes to the under­
standing of the dispositions and behaviors that precede consumer
engagement with such activities. Our exploration of pro-social behav­
iors, and the development of consumer generosity, in particular, pro­
vides important insight for future theoretical development and
managerial action. Our research centered on three themes: 1) an
increased interest in cause-related marketing initiatives in the market­
place reinforces the importance of studying the precedents of such ac­
tivity, 2) pro-social behaviors help to explain why cause-related
marketing activity resonates with consumers, and 3) a focus on inter­
personal generosity unlocks theoretical insight and market opportunity.
5.1. Theoretical contributions
First, we have shown that pro-social behavior explains why cause-
related marketing activity resonates with consumers. The model we
developed tested the direct relationship of four pro-social behaviors (i.
e., social responsibility, empathetic concern, moral reasoning and past
helpfulness) on purchase intentions. We found that two of the four pro-
social behaviors indeed play a significant role on purchase intentions.
Specifically, social responsibility and empathic concern both play a
significant, positive role on purchase intentions. Interestingly, contrary
to our hypothesis, both moral reasoning, and past helpfulness were not
directly related to purchase intentions.
Second, our study identifies the pro-social behavior of generosity as
an important precedent to generous purchase intentions. We find that
the construct of generosity helps us better understand the relationship
between previously identified pro-social behaviors and purchase in­
tentions related to cause-related marketing activity. Specifically, all four
pro-social behaviors are positively and significantly related to inter­
personal generosity. Further, interpersonal generosity mediates the
relationship between three of the four pro-social behaviors on purchase
intentions.
Generosity is a specific type of pro-social behavior that has not been
explored yet in the business literature in the context of traditional, B2C
exchange relationships (outside of charitable giving or donations). In the
market literature, generosity is used synonymously with constructs such
as “donation behavior” (Duclos & Barasch, 2014; Verhaert & Van den
Poel, 2011), “volunteering” (Briggs et al., 2010), “corporate giving”
(Galaskiewicz, 1985; Marquis & Lee, 2013), or “hospitality” (Hem­
mington, 2007). The interpersonal generosity scale developed by Smith
and Hill (2009) is borrowed from the pro-social behavior literature and
844
Journal of Business Research 132 (2021) 838–847
provides novel insights when utilized in a context of market-exchange.
Importantly, our exploration of generosity in the context of cause-
related marketing activities helps us develop the notion of a generous
consumer. This theoretical contribution can be utilized to better un­
why someone may be willing to purchase cause-related products. In
osity suggests that children learn generosity from their parents (Wil­
helm, Brown, Rooney, & Steinberg, 2008), opening the door to brand-
building across generations for CRM brands that attract generous con­
sumers. Therefore, marketers will want to focus their attention on tar­
geting generous consumers.
5.2. Managerial implications
In a market environment fascinated with cause-related marketing
activities, understanding how to effectively operationalize the cause-
related strategy in the marketplace is crucial. The findings of this
paper provide strategic context for the growing interest in cause-related
marketing initiatives. Cause-related marketing is a sound business
strategy that resonates with consumers, but managers need to know
which consumers this strategy will most resonate with in order to stra­
tegically segment their audience, target consumer groups, and position
their cause-related propositions. As quoted by Mike Gallinari (Mintel,
2018): “Cause marketing should be treated like any other kind of mar­
keting – different demographic and consumer segments have different
opinions and priorities, and concerns about controversy can be managed
with intelligent cause marketing strategy.”
Cause-focused shoppers are generally segmented and targeted by
demographic rather than psychographic. Popular business media discuss
social goods and cause marketing within the frame of generational
segments, usually emphasizing millennials’ preference for socially-
conscious or socially-beneficial companies (Engage for Good, 2019;
Gay, 2017; Good360, 2018; Sabrina, 2017). Academic research has also
touted the benefits of engaging the millennial generation in social and
cause marketing strategies (Cui, Trent, Sullivan, & Matiru, 2003; Paulin,
Ferguson, Jost, & Fallu, 2014 Paulin, Ferguson, Schattke, & Jost, 2014).
Therefore, cause-related marketing campaigns often position offerings
to meet the needs of a specific generation rather than trying to reach
consumers with a shared attitudinal or behavioral disposition. As a
result, firms miss the opportunity to market social goods to potentially
interested consumers who fall outside of the target demographic, ulti­
mately resulting in missed opportunities for sales, market share, and
awareness of the social cause.
While early research advocated for segmenting consumers of cause-
related market offerings by various demographic measures (Roberts,
1996), more recent research finds that motivations of pro-social be­
haviors vary minimally based on age or gender (Shelley & Jay Polonsky,
2002) and that psychographic segmentation of potential consumers for
cause-related market exchange is a more fruitful strategy (Youn & Kim,
2008). The findings of this paper can further assist managers in under­
standing the real motives behind cause-related purchase intentions.
By changing the default segmentation from demographic or gener­
ation to psychographic or pro-social behavior, firms can more accurately
identify, target, and cater to potential consumers. Specifically, in
knowing that generosity as a pro-social behavior is an antecedent to
consumers’ generous purchase intentions, managers can more effec­
tively segment and reach potential consumers who exhibit behaviors of
interpersonal generosity.
5.3. Limitations and future research
There are two major limitations to our research. First, generosity is
M.I. Rapert et al.
culture bound, and as such, so too is our construction of the generous
consumer. Our research was conducted within the confines of US cul­
ture. As generosity is a cultural construct (King, 2001), the finding that
interpersonal generosity affects generous purchasing intentions may
potentially differ across cultures. Past research has examined this phe­
nomenon of cultural difference in relation to other pro-social behaviors
such as volunteering, consumer ethics, and moral emotions (Belk,
Devinney, & Eckhardt, 2005; Briggs et al., 2010; Kim & Johnson, 2013).
Future research should examine cultural differences in the context of
consumer generosity and generous purchasing intentions.
Second, we also recognize that this paper is just the beginning of a
conceptual development of a generous consumer archetype. Now that
we have defined the generous consumer broadly, future experiments can
tell us more about how the generous consumer engages with cause-
related marketing strategies under unique conditions in the market­
place, and how marketers can motivate the generous consumer. Litera­
ture mentioned previously in this paper can provide a starting point for
identifying important mediators and moderators in the relationship
between interpersonal generosity and cause-related purchase intentions.
For example, Zdravkovic et al. (2010) bring up the important issue of fit
between a brand and a cause, as well as the communication of this fit to
consumers. We believe that how well this fit is communicated to
generous consumers could moderate the effect on cause-related pur­
chase intentions. Zdravkovic et al. (2010) specifically delineate ten
micro sub-dimensions of fit as well as the two macro sub-dimensions of
prominence and marketing strategy. Their research into the roles that
the sub-dimensions play is also worth further exploration in the context
of factors influencing consumers to act on their generous pre­
dispositions. Following Koschate-Fischer et al. (2012), we are also
interested in the willingness-to-pay differential of generous consumers
versus non-generous consumers, and what role (if any) the warm glow
effect has on cause-related purchasing decisions for the generous con­
sumer type. Additionally, we are interested in identifying factors that
would encourage switching behavior from regular to cause-related
products.
Notably, cause-related purchase intentions indicate a type of pro-
social response in the marketplace. Previous reviews of the pro-social
battery (e.g., Penner et al., 2005) delineate between ‘other-oriented
empathy’ scales (e.g., empathetic concern, social responsibility, and
moral reasoning as used in this paper) and ‘helpfulness’ scales (e.g., SRA
past helpfulness as used in this paper). The findings of this paper suggest
that ‘other-oriented empathy’ scales are important for understanding
the generous consumer type as they are focused on the processes that
facilitate a pro-social response. In other words, empathy, social re­
sponsibility, and moral reasoning can help us understand how con­
sumers prepare to act upon generous purchase intentions. Conversely,
measures of ‘helpfulness’ are the pro-social responses themselves.
Therefore, if our goal is to further understand the precedents of generous
consumption behavior, measures of ‘other-oriented empathy’ can guide
such efforts.
Other areas of potential research include continuing to examine the
relationship between interpersonal generosity, cause-related purchase
intentions, and previously documented pro-social behaviors. This paper
explored the four pro-social behaviors of social reasoning, empathetic
concern, moral reasoning, and past helpfulness, but other pro-social
behaviors (such as preference for charitable support, sharing, or civic
participation) may interact uniquely with the generous consumer type
and cause-related purchase intentions. Additionally, we are curious
about the mediating or moderating effect of additional traits, values, and
motivations that the generous consumer may possess. For example,
materialism provides another natural extension to the current concep­
tual framework. Focusing on the outcome side of the model, the work of
Bansal, Taylor, and St. James (2005), which examines why consumers
would choose to switch providers, is an interesting avenue to pursue in
terms of understanding the role that generosity and pro-social behaviors
play as a pivotal factor in those decisions. While the identification of a
845
Journal of Business Research 132 (2021) 838–847
‘generous consumer’ archetype is promising for researchers and man­
agers alike, we still have much to learn about this unique segment of pro-
social purchasers.
6. Conclusion
In today’s competitive environment, business leaders must craft
intelligent strategies that resonate with the desires of consumers beyond
traditional economic models of value and reasoning. To such ends, many
brands have begun to engage in cause-related marketing strategies in
hopes of creating a competitive advantage in the marketplace. This
paper engages this phenomenon by exploring the antecedents of
engagement in cause-related marketing. We present new research that
further clarifies the pro-social characteristics of consumers who are
likely to participate in cause-related marketing campaigns. Specifically,
we introduce the notion of the generous consumer, a psychographic
characteristic of generous disposition that influences future generous
purchase intentions. If businesses are to truly ‘help people and the planet
thrive’ through the scaling of impact, sound consumer strategy is
necessary, and an understanding of the generous consumer archetype
can unlock potential for understanding cause-related marketing strate­
gies in a for-profit, business-to-consumer context.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
References
Accenture (2018). Global Consumer Pulse Research. Retrieved from https://newsroom.
accenture.com/news/majority-of-consumers-buying-from-companies-that-take-a-
stand-on-issues-they-care-about-and-ditching-those-that-dont-accenture-study-finds.
html.
Allen, S. (2018). The Science of Generosity. Greater Good Science Center. Retrieved from
ggsc.berkeley.edu.
Arora, N., & Henderson, T. (2007). Embedded premium promotion: Why it works and
how to make it more effective. Marketing Science, 26(4), 514–531.
Azjen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Moore, D. J. (1994). Public service advertisements: Emotions and
empathy guide pro-social behavior. Journal of Marketing, 58(1), 56–70.
Bain, M. (2019). Zara’s Sustainable Sweatshirt Raises Troubling Fashion Ethics Issues.
Quartz. Retrieved from: https://qz.com/quartzy/1752597/how-a-zara-shirt-raises
-ethical-issues-in-sustainable-fashion/.
Baker, M. J., & Churchill, G. A., Jr (1977). The impact of physically attractive models on
advertising evaluations. Journal of Marketing Research, 14(4), 538–555.
Bansal, H. S., Taylor, S. F., & St. James, Y. (2005). “Migrating” to new service providers:
To a unifying framework of consumers’ switching behaviors. Journal of the Academy
of Marketing Science, 33(1), 96–115.
Barraza, J. A., & Zak, P. J. (2009). Empathy toward stranger triggers oxytocin release and
subsequent generosity. In O. Vilarroya, S. Atran, A. Navarro, K. Ochsner, &
A. Tobena (Eds.), Values, Empathy, and Fairness across Social Barriers.
Basil, D. Z., & Herr, P. M. (2006). Attitudinal balance and cause-related marketing: An
empirical application of balance theory. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16(4),
391–403.
Bekkers, R. H. F. P. (2004). Giving and volunteering in the Netherlands: Sociological and
psychological perspectives. Utrecht University.
Belk, R., Devinney, T., & Eckhardt, G. (2005). Consumer ethics across cultures.
Consumption Markets & Culture, 8(3), 275–289.
Briggs, E., Peterson, M., & Gregory, G. (2010). Toward a better understanding of
volunteering for nonprofit organizations: Explaining volunteers’ pro-social attitudes.
Journal of Macromarketing, 30(1), 61–76.
Bruner, G. C. (2009). Marketing Scales Handbook (Vol. 5). GCBII Productions.
Butler, A. (2018). Generosity is good for business. Forbes. Dec 27.
Cho, Y., Thyroff, A., Rapert, M., Park, S. Y., & Lee, H. J. (2013). To be or not to be green:
Exploring individualism and collectivism as antecedents of environmental behavior.
Journal of Business Research, 66(8), 1052–1059.
Cialdini, R., Brown, S. L., Lewis, B. P., Luce, C., & Neuberg, S. L. (1997). Reinterpreting
the empathy-altruism relationships: When one into one equals oneness. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 73(3), 481–494.
Collett, J. L., & Morrissey, C. A. (2007). The social psychology of generosity: The state of
current interdisciplinary research. University of Notre Dame Center for the Science of
Generosity.
Cone. (2017). Cone Communications CSR Study. Retrieved from Cone: A Porter novelli
Company website: http://www.conecomm.com/research-blog/2017-csr-study.
M.I. Rapert et al.
Cowell, J. M. (2015). The neuroscience of implicit moral evaluation and its relation to
generosity in early childhood. Report, 25(1), 93–97.
Cowell, J. M., Lee, K., Malcolm-Smith, S., Selcuk, B., Zhou, X., & Decety, J. (2017). The
development of generosity and moral cognition across five cultures. Developmental
Science, 20(4).
Cui, Y., Trent, E. S., Sullivan, P. M., & Matiru, G. N. (2003). Cause-related marketing:
How generation Y responds. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management,
31(6), 310–320.
Curry, A., & Smith, J.W. (2018). Podcast: The Future of Consumption: Purpose 2020 and
Purpose-Led Businesses. http://consulting.kantar.com/our-thinking/purpose-2020/.
Davis, M. H. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy.
JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 10, 85.
de Jong, M. D. T., & van der Meer, M. (2017). How does It fit? Exploring the congruence
between organizations and their corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities.
Journal of Business Ethics, 143(1), 71–83.
Dovidio, J. R., Piliavin, J. A., Schroeder, D. A., & Penner, L. A. (2006). The Social
Psychology of Pro-social Behavior. New York: Psychology Press.
Duclos, R., & Barasch, A. (2014). Pro-social behavior in intergroup relations: How donor
self-construal and recipient group-membership shape generosity. Journal of
Consumer Research, 41(1), 93–108.
Dutta-Bergman, M. J. (2006). The Demographic and Psychographic Antecedents of
Attitude toward Advertising. Journal of Advertising Research, 46(2), 102–112.
Eastman, J. K., Smalley, K. B., & Warren, J. C. (2019). The impact of cause-related
marketing on Millennials’ product attitudes and purchase intentions. Journal of
Promotion Management, 25(6), 799–826.
Edelman Earned Brand (2019). Retrieved from https://www.edelman.com/sites/g/files
/aatuss191/files/2019-06/2019_edelman_trust_barometer_special_report_in_
brands_we_trust.pdf.
Edelman Trust Barometer (2018). Retrieved from https://www.edelman.com/research
/2018-edelman-trust-barometer.
Engage for Good. (2019). Social Impact Statistics You Should Know. Retrieved from
Engage for Good website: https://engageforgood.com/guides/statistics-every-cau
se-marketer-should-know/.
Finkelstein, M. A., & Brannick, M. T. (2007). Applying theories of institutional helping to
informal volunteering: Motives, role identity, and prosocial personality. Social
Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 35(1), 101–114.
Galaskiewicz, J. (1985). Social organization of an urban grants economy: A study of business
philanthropy and nonprofit organizations. Elsevier.
Gay, W. (2017). Millennials Are Affecting Change with Social Responsibility. Forbes.
com. Retrieved from Forbes website: https://www.forbes.
com/sites/wesgay/2017/08/11/millennials-social-responsibility/#3449850b17d8.
Gneezy, A., Imas, A., Brown, A., Nelson, L. D., & Norton, M. I. (2012). Paying to be nice:
Consistency and costly prosocial behavior. Management Science, 58(1), 179–187.
Goins, J. (2019). How millennials are changing corporate generosity, Chicago Tribune.
June 24.
Good360 (2018). Companies That Support Social Good Win Over Millennials. Retrieved
Good360 website: https://good360.org/impact-stories/companies-that-support-soci
al-good-win-over-millennials/.
Grappi, S., Romani, S., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2013). Consumer response to corporate
irresponsible behavior: Moral emotions and virtues. Journal of Business Research, 66
(10), 1814–1821.
Green, T., Sinclair, G., & Tinson, J. (2016). Do they Know it’s CSR at all? An Exploration
of Socially Responsible Music Consumption. Journal of Business Ethics, 138(2),
231–246.
Green, T., & Tinson, J. (2016). Giving the Gift of Goodness: An Exploration of Socially
Responsible Gift-Giving. Journal of Business Ethics, 134(1), 29–44.
Griffith, D. A., & Chen, Q. (2004). The influence of virtual direct experience (VDE) on on-
line ad message effectiveness. Journal of Advertising, 33(1), 55–68.
Habashi, M. M., Graziano, W. G., & Hoover. (2016). Searching for the pro-social
personality: A big five approach to linking personality and pro-social behavior.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42(9), 1177–1192.
Hair, J. F., Jr, Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2014). A primer on partial least
squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage Publications.
Harris, M. B. (1970). Reciprocity and generosity: Some determinants of sharing in
children. Child Development., 41(2), 313–328.
Hemmington, N. (2007). From service to experience: Understanding and defining the
hospitality business. The Service Industries Journal, 27(6), 747–755.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing
discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135.
Herzog, P. & Price, H. E. (2016). American Generosity: Who Gives and Why.
Hewstone, M., Stroebe, W., & Jonas, K. (2012). An Introduction to Social Psychology. John
Wiley & Sons.
Hinde, R. A., & Groebel, J. (1991). Cooperation and pro-social behaviour. Cambridge
University Press.
Hoffman, M. L. (1987). The contribution of empathy to justice and moral judgment. In
N. Eisenberg, & J. Strayer (Eds.), Empathy and its development (pp. 47–80).
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Hollin, C. (1994). Forensic (criminological) psychology. In A. Colman (Ed.), Companion
encyclopedia of psychology (pp. 1231–1253). London: Routledge.
Hur, M. H. (2006). Exploring the motivation factors of charitable giving and their value
structure: A case study of Seoul, Korea. Social Behavior & Personality: An International
Journal, 34(6), 661–680.
Hyllegard, K. H., Yan, R.-N., Ogle, J. P., & Attmann, J. (2010). The influence of gender,
social cause, charitable support, and message appeal on Gen Y’s responses to cause-
related marketing. Journal of Marketing Management, 27(1–2), 100–123.
846
Journal of Business Research 132 (2021) 838–847
IEG Sponsorship Report (2019). Retrieved from https://www.sponsorship.com/report.
Japsen, B. (2018). CVS Health Intensifies Anti-Tobacco Fight with Another 10 Million.
Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucejapsen/2018/03/19/cvs-health
-intensifies-anti-tobacco-fight-with-another-10m.
Kavak, B., Gürel, E., Eryiğit, C., & Tektaş, Ö.Ö. (2009). Examining the effects of moral
development level, self-concept, and self-monitoring on consumers’ ethical attitudes.
Journal of Business Ethics, 88(1), 115–135.
Kim, J. E., & Johnson, K. K. (2013). The impact of moral emotions on cause-related
marketing campaigns: A cross-cultural examination. Journal of Business Ethics, 112
(1), 79–90.
King, S. (2001). An all-consuming cause: Breast cancer, corporate philanthropy, and the
market for generosity. Social Text, 19(4), 115–143.
Klapwijk, A., & Van Lange, P. W. A. (2009). Promoting cooperation and trust in noisy
situations: The power of generosity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96,
83–103.
Klein, J. G., Smith, N. C., & John, A. (2004). Why we boycott: Consumer motivations for
boycott participation. Journal of Marketing, 68(3), 92–109.
Koschate-Fischer, N., Stefan, I. V., & Hoyer, W. D. (2012). Willingness to pay for cause-
related marketing: The impact of donation amount and moderating effects. Journal of
Marketing Research, 49(6), 910–927.
Kotler, P., Kartajaya, H., & Setlawan, I. (2010). Marketing 3.0: From Products to Customers
to the Human Spirit. Wiley.
Krishna, A., & Rajan, U. (2009). Cause marketing: Spillover effects of cause-related
products in a product portfolio. Management Science., 55(9), 1469–1485.
Lee, E. J. (2016). Empathy can increase customer equity related to pro-social brands.
Journal of Business Research, 69(9), 3748–3754.
Lee, E. M., Park, S. Y., Rapert, M., & Newman, C. (2012). Does perceived consumer fit
matter in corporate social responsibility issues? Journal of Business Research, 65(11),
1558–1564.
Leffel, M. G., Oakes Mueller, R. A., Ham, S. A., Curlin, F. A., & Yoon, J. D. (2017). Project
on the Good Physician: A proposal for a moral intuitionist model of virtuous caring.
Teaching and Learning in Medicine, 29(1), 75–84.
Li, Y., Li, H., Decety, J., & Lee, K. (2013). Experiencing a natural disaster alters children’s
altruistic giving. Psychological Science, 24(9), 1686–1695.
Marquis, C., & Lee, M. (2013). Who is governing whom? Executives, governance, and the
structure of generosity in large US firms. Strategic Management Journal, 34(4),
483–497.
McGregor, S. L. (2006). Understanding consumers’ moral consciousness. International
Journal of Consumer Studies, 30(2), 164–178.
Mintel (2018). US Cause Marketing Report. Mintel.com. Retrieved from Mintel website:
https://store.mintel.com/us-cause-marketing-market-report.
Mohr, L. A., Webb, D. J., & Harris, K. E. (2001). Do customers expect companies to be
socially responsible? The impact of corporate social responsibility on buying
behavior. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 35(1), 45–72.
Moosmayer, D. C., & Fuljahn, A. (2010). Consumer perceptions of cause related
marketing campaigns. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 27(6), 543–549.
Netemeyer, R. G., Burton, S., & Lichtenstein, D. R. (1995). Trait aspects of vanity:
Measurement and relevance to consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 21
(4), 612–626.
Nike. (2016). Nike signs White House equal pay pledge. Retrieved from Nike global
company website: https://news.nike.com/news/white-house-equal-pay-pledge.
Paulin, M., Ferguson, R. J., Jost, N., & Fallu, J. M. (2014a). Motivating millennials to
engage in charitable causes through social media. Journal of Service Management, 25
(3), 334–348.
Paulin, M., Ferguson, R. J., Schattke, K., & Jost, N. (2014b). Millennials, social media,
pro-social emotions, and charitable causes: The paradox of gender differences.
Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 26(4), 335–353.
Penner, L. A. (2002). Dispositional and organizational influences on sustained
volunteerism: An interactionist perspective. Journal of Social Issues, 58, 447–467.
Penner, L. A., Dovidio, J. F., Piliavin, J. A., & Schroeder, D. A. (2005). Pro-social
behavior: Multilevel perspectives. Annu. Rev. Psychol., 56, 365–392.
Penner, L. A., Fritzsche, B. A., Craiger, J. P., & Freifeld, T. R. (1995). Measuring the pro-
social personality. Advances in Personality Assessment, 10, 147–163.
Penner, L. A., Midili, A. R., & Kegelmeyer, J. (1997). Beyond job attitudes: A personality
and social psychology perspective on the causes of organizational citizenship
Behavior. Human Performance, 10(2), 111–131.
Piliavin, J. A., & Charng, H. W. (2003). Altruism: A review of recent theory and research.
Annual Review of Sociology, 16, 27–65.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing
and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research
Methods, 40(3), 879–891.
Roberts, J. A. (1996). Will the real socially responsible consumer please step forward?
Business Horizons, 39(1), 79–84.
Romani, S., & Grappi, S. (2014). How companies’ good deeds encourage consumers to
adopt pro-social behavior. European Journal of Marketing, 48(5/6), 943–963.
Rushton, J. P., Chrisjohn, R. D., & Fekken, G. C. (1981). The altruistic personality and the
self-report altruism scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 2(4), 293–302.
Sabrina, D. (2017). Rising Trend: Social Responsibility is High on Millennials’ List.
Huffpost.com. Retrieved from Huffpost website: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/ri
sing-trend-social-respo_b_14578380.
Saroglou, V., Pichon, I., Trompette, L., Verschueren, M., & Dernelle, R. (2005). Pro-social
behavior and religion: New evidence based on projective measures and peer ratings.
Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 44(3), 323–348.
Shelley, L., & Jay Polonsky, M. (2002). Do charitable causes need to segment their
current donor base on demographic factors? An Australian examination. International
Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 7(1), 19–29.
M.I. Rapert et al. Journal of Business Research 132 (2021) 838–847

Shelton Group. (2018). Brands and stands: Social purpose is the new black. Retrieved Youn, S., & Kim, H. (2008). Antecedents of consumer attitudes toward cause-related
from https://sheltongrp.com/insights/brands-stands-social-purpose-is-the-new- marketing. Journal of Advertising Research, 48(1), 123–137.
black. YP (YPulse). (2018). Gen Z & Millennial Males’ 10 Favorite Personal Care Brands.
Small, D. A., & Simonsohn, U. (2007). Friends of victims: Personal experience and pro- https://www.ypulse.com/article/2018/08/21/gen-z-millennial-males-10-favorite-
social behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(3), 532–542. personal-care-brands/.
Smith, A. (2006). Cognitive empathy and emotional empathy in human behavior and Zdravkovic, S., Magnusson, P., & Stanley, S. M. (2010). Dimensions of fit between a
evolution. Psychological Record, 56(1), 3. brand and a social cause and their influence on attitudes. International Journal of
Smith, C., & Davidson, H. (2018). The Paradox of Generosity: Giving we Receive, Research in Marketing, 27(2), 151–160.
Grasping we Lose.
Smith, C., & Hill, J. P. (2009). Toward the measurement of interpersonal generosity (IG): An
Molly Rapert, Associate Professor of Marketing at the Sam M. Walton College of Business,
IG scale conceptualized, tested, and validated. University of Notre Dame Center for the
received her undergraduate and masters degrees from the University of Arkansas.
Science of Generosity.
Returning to the University of Arkansas after receiving her doctorate from University of
Spar, D. L., & Burns, J. (2000). Hitting the wall: Nike and international labor practices.
Memphis, Dr. Rapert teaches in the area of Marketing Management and Global Consumers.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing.
She also serves as the director of the Walton Center for Teaching Effectiveness. Her
Tacos4Life. (2018). Join the Team [Tacos 4 Life]. Retrieved from https://tacos4life.
research work has appeared in outlets including Journal of Business Research, Journal of
com/apply/.
the Academy of Marketing Science, and Journal of Managerial Issues. Some of her awards
Thyroff, A., & Kilbourne, W. E. (2018). Self-enhancement and individual competitiveness
include: The UA Baum Teaching Award (2012), the Marketing Management Association
as mediators in the materialism/consumer satisfaction relationship. Journal of
National Teaching Award (2010), and the Arkansas Alumni Association Excellence in
Business Research, 92, 189–196.
Teaching Award (2002).
Thφgersen, J. (1999). The ethical consumer. Moral norms and packaging choice. Journal
of Consumer Policy, 22(4), 439–460.
Tsvetkova, M., & Macy, M. W. (2014). The social contagion of generosity. Plos One, 9(2). Anastasia Thyroff, Associate Professor of Marketing at Clemson University, received her M.
Underwood, B., & Moore, B. S. (1982). The generality of altruism in children. In M.R. from the University of Georgia and Ph.D. from the University of Arkansas (2013). Dr.
N. Eisenberg (Ed.), The Development of Pro-social Behavior (pp. 25–52). Thyroff’s research interests are in market systems and macromarketing. Dr. Thyroff is
Unilever. (2019). Dove. Retrieved from Unilever global company website: https://www. comfortable using a wide-range of methodologies to answer the research questions at
unilever.com/brands/personal-care/dove.html. hand. Her research has appeared in outlets including the Journal of Business Research,
Unilever. (2020). Dove+MenCare. Retrieved from Unilever global company website: http Journal of Interactive Marketing, Marketing Theory and the Journal of Consumer Affairs.
s://www.dove.com/us/en/men-care/paternity-leave.html. Some of her recent awards include: The SMA Paper in Conference Award (2013), The SMA
Vanhamme, J., Lindgreen, A., Reast, J., & Van Popering, N. (2012). To do well by doing Solomon Best Paper in Buyer Behavior Track (2012), Outstanding Graduate Student
good: Improving corporate image through cause-related marketing. Journal of Teaching Award (2012), and The Journal of Consumer Affairs Best Article Award (2011).
Business Ethics, 109(3), 259–274.
Varadarajan, P. R., & Menon, A. (1988). Cause-related marketing: A coalignment of
Sarah Grace is a Ph.D. Candidate in Marketing at the University of Arkansas. Her research
marketing strategy and corporate philanthropy. Journal of Marketing, 52(3), 58–74.
explores the intersection of markets and culture, with the aim of understanding market­
Verhaert, G. A., & Van den Poel, D. (2011). Empathy as added value in predicting
ing’s contributions to society. Recent recognitions include: The AMS Review/Sheth
donation behavior. Journal of Business Research, 64(12), 1288–1295.
Foundation Doctoral Competition for Conceptual Articles (2019), The Macromarketing
Wallace, E., Buil, I., & de Chernatony, L. (2020). ‘Consuming Good’ on Social Media:
Best Doctoral Student Conference Paper (2018), and University of Arkansas Distinguished
What Can Conspicuous Virtue Signalling on Facebook Tell Us About Prosocial and
Doctoral Fellowship (2017).
Unethical Intentions? Journal of Business Ethics, 162, 577–592.
Wilhelm, M. O., Brown, E., Rooney, P. M., & Steinberg, R. (2008). The intergenerational
transmission of generosity. Journal of Public Economics, 92, 2146–2156.

847