building a case for the unfamiliar cause in cause-related
TRANSCRIPT
University of South FloridaScholar Commons
Graduate Theses and Dissertations Graduate School
11-15-2004
Building a Case for the Unfamiliar Cause in Cause-Related Marketing: The Importance of CauseVested InterestCharles G. O'BrienUniversity of South Florida
Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etdPart of the American Studies Commons
This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in GraduateTheses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected].
Scholar Commons CitationO'Brien, Charles G., "Building a Case for the Unfamiliar Cause in Cause-Related Marketing: The Importance of Cause Vested Interest"(2004). Graduate Theses and Dissertations.https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/1181
Building a Case for the Unfamiliar
Cause in Cause-Related Marketing:
The Importance of Cause Vested Interest
by
Charles G. O’Brien
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Art Department of Mass Communications
College of Arts and Sciences University of South Florida
Major Professor: Scott Liu, Ph.D. Kimberly Golombisky, Ph.D.
Randy Miller, Ph.D.
Date of Approval: November 15, 2004
Keywords: CRM, brand-cause alliance, branding, vested interest, charities
© Copyright 2004, Charles G. O’Brien
i
Table of Contents List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... iii List of Figures .................................................................................................................... iv Abstract ................................................................................................................................v Chapter One: Introduction ..................................................................................................1 Background..............................................................................................................2 Chapter Two: Literature Review ........................................................................................8 Business ...................................................................................................................9 Brand......................................................................................................................11 CRM.......................................................................................................................13 Alliance ..................................................................................................................18 Cause......................................................................................................................19 Vested Interest .......................................................................................................21 Chapter Three: Hypotheses...............................................................................................24 Main Effects...........................................................................................................25 Interaction Effects of Familiarity and CVI ............................................................26 Chapter Four: Methodology..............................................................................................28 Design ....................................................................................................................28 Independent Variables ...........................................................................................28 Dependent Variables..............................................................................................29 Subjects ..................................................................................................................30 Stimuli....................................................................................................................31 Procedure ...............................................................................................................32 Chapter Five: Results........................................................................................................34 Manipulation Checks .............................................................................................34 Reliability of Dependent Measures........................................................................34 Tests of Hypotheses ...............................................................................................35 Chapter Six: Discussion....................................................................................................43 Limitations .............................................................................................................45 Chapter Seven: Conclusion...............................................................................................47
ii
References..........................................................................................................................50 Appendices.........................................................................................................................55 Appendix A: Questionnaire 1 ...............................................................................56 Appendix B: Questionnaire 2................................................................................60 Appendix C: Questionnaire 3................................................................................64 Appendix D: Questionnaire 4 ...............................................................................68 Appendix E: Questionnaire 5................................................................................72 Appendix F: Questionnaire 6 ................................................................................76 Appendix G: Questionnaire 7 ...............................................................................80 Appendix H: Questionnaire 8 ...............................................................................84 Appendix I: Pretest Questionnaire ........................................................................88
iii
List of Tables Table 1 Measurement of Brand Knowledge Constructs Related to Customer-Based Brand Equity ..................................................................13 Table 2 2 x 2 x 2 Experimental Design...................................................................28 Table 3 Causes with High/Low Familiarity and High/Low Vested Interest...........32 Table 4 Means and Standard Deviations of ATTB in Experimental Conditions....36
Table 5 Summary of ANOVA Results: Effects of Independent Variables on ATTB ..............................................37 Table 6 Means and Standard Deviations of ATTC in Experimental Conditions....38 Table 7 Summary of ANOVA Results: Effects of Independent Variables on ATTC ..............................................39 Table 8 Means and Standard Deviations of ATTA in Experimental Conditions ...40 Table 9 Summary of ANOVA Results: Effects of Independent Variables on ATTA ..............................................41 Table 10 Summary of Hypotheses Testing Results ..................................................42
iv
List of Figures Figure 1 Dependent Variable: ATTB (Attitude Towards the Brand) .....................36 Figure 2 Dependent Variable: ATTC (Attitude Towards the Cause) .....................38 Figure 3 Dependent Variable: ATTA (Attitude Towards the Alliance) .................40 Figure 4 The Soup and Sub Kitchen Corp ...............................................................48
v
Building a Case for the Unfamiliar Cause in Cause-related Marketing:
The Importance of Cause Vested Interest
Charles G. O’Brien
ABSTRACT
Marketing and advertising practitioners are currently matching up a brand with a
cause and broadcasting the association to consumers in a practice called cause related
marketing (CRM). Scholars are building a stream of academic research which seeks to
understand the relationship between a brand and a cause (a.k.a., alliance) in relation to the
final outcome of a CRM campaign. Ostensibly, both partners benefit from this alliance,
although many CRM studies seek to understand how to optimize this relationship for
each partner.
In professional practice and academic research both practitioners and researchers
have focused on established, popular, well-known causes in consideration of successful
alliances. Less established, unfamiliar, unknown causes have yet to be considered for
possible alliances.
This research seeks to build a case for the successful alliance between a brand and an
unfamiliar cause with an outcome that will outperform an alliance between the same
brand and an established, popular, well-known cause. An experiment was conducted in
which familiarity with the brand, familiarity with the cause, and vested interest in the
cause were manipulated, and their effects on attitude towards the brand, attitude towards
the cause, and attitude towards the brand-cause alliance measured. Results indicated that
vi
cause vested interest had a significant influence on attitude towards the brand and attitude
towards the cause, regardless of brand and cause familiarity.
1
Chapter One
Introduction
Cause Related Marketing (CRM) is an area of study and practice slowly amassing
case studies. The first publicized CRM campaign occurred in 1991, when American
Express joined with a non-profit group to promote fine arts in San Francisco. Profits of
$1.7 million, from increased use of American Express cards, were donated to the
organization. American Express called its link with charity “cause related marketing”
and registered the term as a service mark with the U.S. Patent Office (Smith and Higgins,
2000).
Too few years have passed since this first campaign to determine whether CRM is to
become a basic staple of sound marketing or simply a passing advertising trend. The
altruistic implications for CRM (e.g., increased donations to causes, greater awareness of
societal problems, larger numbers of volunteers) make this researcher believe that it is
one of the most important new advertising practices to understand in order to optimize its
chances for success.
The initial research questions of this thesis center on how consumer attitudes towards
an association between a brand and a cause are formed. How will the brand and the
cause benefit? What dimensions of the brand, the cause, and the alliance can be
identified? How might consumer behavior change or be influenced?
While researching the study and practice of CRM, one specific trend begins to stand
out. Causes that are considered as more favorable in a brand-cause alliance tend to be
2
well-known, popular, and established causes. Several reasons for this trend will be
discussed later in the research. If familiar causes are indeed becoming the standard
practice and study of CRM, then the inference is that unfamiliar causes might become
ignored. An even worse scenario is that unfamiliar causes go unnoticed, unmentioned,
and unsupported. Suddenly, the unfamiliar cause becomes a relevant cause. Child abuse,
rape, and AIDS are just three examples of once unfamiliar causes which have escalated
into relevant societal dilemmas.
Another goal of this thesis is to explore whether an unfamiliar cause can perform
better than a familiar cause by some standard of measure that is important to the alliance.
If a brand-unfamiliar cause alliance can simply match the performance of a brand-
familiar cause alliance, then perhaps the evidence can improve CRM before it matures
into a standardized practice of strictly brand-familiar cause alliances. This thesis
attempts to create empirical evidence to support the claim that an unfamiliar cause in a
brand-cause alliance can perform as well, if not better, than a familiar cause in a similar
alliance. Specifically, it attempts to show that unfamiliar causes can outperform familiar
causes when there is a high level of vested interest in the unfamiliar causes.
Background
In the United States, brands rule the world of consumerism. Choice is rampant in
nearly every category of consumer goods, products, and services. Choice has spurned
parity, which has necessitated the need for differentiation, more often than not through
branding.
3
In its simplest form, branding simply differentiates. A rancher would use a branding
iron to identify his cattle as belonging to him, as opposed to his neighbors, should a steer
stray into neighboring pastures. A modern consumer also depends on branding to
distinguish among any number of products or services. Branding is far from this simple
in the modern world of consumerism.
Today, successful branding can lead to an increased perception in value. This
perception of value influences many constituencies who have an interest in the branded
product – owners, manufacturers, retailers (customers), shareholders, stakeholders,
distributors, salespeople, employees, prospective employees, special interest groups,
societal groups, advocacy groups, industry analysts, government, and last, but definitely
not least, consumers. Simple differentiation through branding can lead to preferences for
specific “brands,” which can lead to increased demand for specific “brands.” Increased
demand means increased value; therefore, individual consumer demand generates less
overall value than a mass of consumers with a common demand.
Branding has so deeply infiltrated the American cultural lexicon that brands
themselves become synonymous with the entire product category, such as Kleenex® for
tissue. Branding seeks to exploit every conceivable avenue of differentiation through all
available human senses, real or perceived, to create preferences.
This rarely happens without the aid of communication. The study of the evolution of
media is yet another vast area of research and practice that has culminated into a world
called mass communications. Again, stated far too simply, the ability to communicate to
a larger number of consumers creates a greater possibility of generating a larger mass of
consumers with a common preference for a specific branded product or service. This
4
creation of demand has value to those constituencies wishing to differentiate their brands,
and this demand, through the years, has subsidized the creation of media to broadcast
these messages of differentiation. Advertisers simply view each medium as a space to
place their messages for exposure to a mass audience, and armies of specialists make
careers crafting messages of differentiation. Because consumers are as varied as the
combination of products, media, and messages that they receive, an entire field of study
called Consumer Behavior studies the vast array of individual differences that create
either brand loyalty or staunch disbelief.
Anything can be branded, including people. Familiarity with brands can win
elections. Branding messages have the power to convince us to become dissatisfied with
ourselves if we are too fat, do not wear the “right” clothes, or are not embarrassed by how
our bodies smell. Brands wield an influence Americans so casually accept that it is has
been easy to sell the excitement of death through smoking and the absolute cheerfulness
of alcoholism with little public protest. Brands have the power to persuade people how to
behave.
Branding in advertising has its own history of evolution. A simple demonstration of
attributes can be a compelling point of differentiation for a product or service. Attributes
can create benefits. But differentiation also can border on the ludicrous and trivial,
especially when the differences have no grounding in reality.
If parity of attributes between competitors is too similar, then efforts often escalate to
image advertising in order to create differences. Image advertising is limited only by the
imagination of those who create the ads.
5
Whether a product or service resorts to attributes or image, both forms are compelled
by a goal to create consumer demand or preference.
Image advertising has escalated to socially conscious advertising. In its early stages, it
has been practiced as a sort of “no MSG” strategy. For example: The Body Shop
proclaims “no animal testing” in the development of its cosmetics. Socially conscious
advertising has become a viable marketing practice, although research studies are finding
that in certain conditions consumers may find these types of messages to be irrelevant
and arrogant.
Perhaps in response to a socially conscious segment of consumer, a number of
marketers have recognized the need to state their own social awareness. A number of
American corporations have contributed time, resources and money to good causes.
Nevertheless, these marketers cannot merely claim to be socially conscious. Skeptical
consumers expect some degree of authenticity. In response to this need a new practice
has arisen called cause related marketing (CRM). Other terminologies for this concept
include commercial co-venture , strategic giving, and pragmatic altruism (Smith &
Higgins, 2000).
Currently, CRM entails matching a brand with a cause and broadcasting the
association to consumers. How the brand and cause are matched together is claimed by
some practitioners to be a proprietary skill acquired through experience and unique
insight. Academic researchers have begun to study this phenomenon as the brand-cause
“fit” and are attempting to discover variables which influence favorable and unfavorable
conditions of the “fit” as well as the influences on both the brand and the cause.
6
Ostensibly, as consumers become aware of the brand-cause association, a more
favorable perception of the brand ensues, leading to a preference. This could translate
into an important field of marketing practice and study. With so many important causes
in need of support the importance of substantiating this practice seems sensible. Even if
the intention of the brand is not altogether altruistic, the support to the cause could prove
to be valuable.
A marketer has to decide what cause to support. In the past, these decisions may have
been arbitrary (Pringle & Thompson, 1999). With CRM, the brand-cause association is
becoming a marketing function with implications for consumer perception of the brand.
In the early stages of developing CRM, marketers are faced with associating with an
already organized and known charity, or developing an ownable brand-cause association
independently. Current practice and research suggests developing a “fit” that will
enhance both the brand and the cause. Academic research into CRM currently has
developed experiments that test known brands and known causes. General findings
support the notion that greater consumer awareness of the cause will more favorably
influence the awareness and attitudes towards the brand (Lafferty, 1999). Cause is being
studied as if it bears the same properties as a brand. Much of this research stems from the
use of co-branding, brand extension, and product bundling research (Keller, 1993).
From 1990 to 1993, corporate spending on alliances between nonprofit organizations
and companies increased more than 150% to reach nearly $1 billion (Smith & Stodghill,
1994).
7
Few would dispute the importance of, for example, the American Red Cross or the
American Cancer Society, or any number of relatively popular and well-known causes.
Worrisome are the causes that have yet to become popularized – the unfamiliar causes.
The unfamiliar cause is about the unpopularized and undiscovered needs of society,
rather than the known causes with which the consumer may have more or less familiarity.
The unfamiliar cause has relevance as a need that may or may not merit concern.
Association between a brand and an unfamiliar cause could be a more powerful
marketing practice than branding through attributes, image, or social consciousness.
Perhaps it could be more effective than alliances between a brand and a known cause.
Instead of the current trend of multiple brands rushing to gather around a popular cause,
maybe research can state a case for associating with unknown but worthy causes, which
may languish without resources to generate awareness and public concern.
On the other hand, if too many brands rush to support a common cause, the value of
the association to the brands may become diluted. Ten years ago, Avon and breast cancer
awareness were inextricably linked. Today, that association benefits many more brands
than simply Avon. Avon can choose to maintain an altruistic stance and continue to
support the cause, but the benefits as a marketer may have diminished regarding the once
unique relationship between Avon and a cause affecting one in nine women, despite the
obvious advantage to the cause. The exponential growth of awareness surrounding breast
cancer thanks to CRM illustrates how rapidly the practice is developing as well as the
urgent need to study CRM, in general, and unfamiliar causes, specifically, as this thesis
attempts to do.
8
Chapter Two
Literature Review
What are the basic components of a brand-cause alliance in the current practice and
study of CRM? Why should a business enter into an alliance? What does an alliance
entail? What is a brand? What is a cause – both familiar and unfamiliar? What relevant
factors need to be considered when choosing a cause? Does a cause even need to be
relevant to create a successful alliance? These questions build the premise of this thesis.
This literature review will explain the myriad factors surrounding a brand-cause alliance,
finally positing a focus on the brand, the familiar cause, and the unfamiliar cause.
Although brand equity is not the focus of this thesis, a claim can be made that all
research here is presented in response to Hoeffler and Keller (2002). Drawing from
CRM literature and case studies, Hoeffler and Keller (2002) identify 13 research
propositions through which corporate societal marketing (CSM) programs can build
brand equity. Their seventh proposition relates directly to relevance and meaningfulness
of the cause: “Consumers will have greater levels of relevance for a brand when the
CSM program partner has a higher perceived personal impact.”
Interestingly, Hoeffler & Keller (2002) seem only to lay out research propositions that
they personally believe relevant to the greater understanding of CRM. None of it is
grounded in theory, nor do they offer any support other than arguments supported by case
studies.
9
Business
Friedman (1962) describes the dominant politics of the 1980s that believed business
had no social responsibility other than the generation of profit for its owners.
Involvement in social welfare could not be justified because corporate funds were not the
directors’ to give away. Friedman (1962) concluded, “There is one and only one social
responsibility of business – to use its resources and engage in activities designed to
increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game” (p. 133). Smith and
Higgins (2000) trace these sentiments to the evolution of distrust of marketing practices,
which ultimately manifested more concretely in the consumerist movement.
Smith and Higgins’ (2000) research presents a variety of arguments that defended
consumerism as pro-marketing because it offered a chance to do things right.
Marketing’s poor reputation was simply due to a few firms that betrayed consumer trust
in favor of profits. The defense of marketing led to the development of humanistic
marketing, proposed by Kotler (1987), whom Smith and Higgins (2000) quote:
Humanistic marketing is a marketing philosophy that takes as its central objective
the earning of profits through the enhancement of the customer’s long run well
being. It assumes that the consumer is active and diligent; seeks satisfaction of
both immediate needs and larger interests and favors companies that develop
products, services and communications that enrich the customer’s life possibilities
(p. 272).
Smith and Higgins (2000) assert that its central rhetoric remains predominantly
concerned with exchange. A belief dominates that only through exchange can a
10
marketing concept of greater social responsibility be realized – hence the development of
cause-related marketing (CRM).
Smith and Higgins (2000) acknowledge a definition of CRM put forth by Varadarajan
and Menon (1998) in their seminal article on CRM: “The process of formulating and
implementing marketing activities that are characterized by an offer from the firm to
contribute a specified amount to a designated cause when customers engage in revenue-
producing exchanges that satisfy organizational and individual objectives” (p. 60). While
acknowledging this definition, Smith and Higgins (2000) favor a more broadly defined
version put forth by Hawkes and Stead (1996) that does not limit CRM to specific
transactions: “Any marketing activity undertaken by a company designed to
simultaneously benefit the company and the charity, or similar cause. The emphasis is on
marketing” (p. 4).
Drumwright (1996) insists that CRM is merely an innovative and effective form of
advertising, to be assessed by traditional criteria but with the belief that mutual benefits
can accrue. Drumwright (1996) points out:
There is not a company in the U.S. or the world that would spend money on
advertising in a way that is not economic. The only reason, absolutely the only
reason, that money is spent on advertising is to move people toward economic
payoffs for the product and the company. (p. 74)
The principles of “enlightened self-interest” and “doing well by doing good” have
always been an overt characteristic of corporate philanthropy (Fisher, 1980).
Corporations continuously grapple with the issues surrounding profit responsibilities
versus social responsibilities. Stroup and Norbert (Stroup, Norbert & Anderson, 1987)
11
offer a counter argument to pure profit motivations: Philanthropy has been regarded as
the first expression of social responsibility in most corporations, although managers view
philanthropic efforts as competing for corporate resources. Shareholders view
philanthropy as competing for dividends. Prior to 1954, corporate giving was limited by
law to donations that could be justified as being in the stockholder’s interest (Varadarajan
& Menon, 1988).
Regulatory actions became the motivation for social responsibility as it evolved. Not
to be confused with CRM, internal causes such as equal employment opportunities are
part of the rubric of social responsibility. Stroup and Norbert (1987) stress that, as social
responsibility has evolved from voluntary action to mandated action, it now needs to take
the next step of overcoming the dominant resentment towards socially responsible
expenditures as detrimental to the firm. They present a view of social responsibility as an
investment in the long-term performance of an enterprise. One example the authors cite
is the concept of day care. While some opponents view day care as simply another form
of philanthropy, many case studies attest to the recruitment and retention of both a higher
quantity and higher quality of employee as a direct result of “doing good.” While not a
direct contribution to profitability, practicing social responsibility has direct implications
for enhancing the value of a business.
Nevertheless, the attitude that CRM is not a profitable venture persists.
Brand
Much of the CRM literature attempts to compare brand-cause associations to brand
extensions, which may or may not be appropriate.
12
David Ogilvy (1983) defines brand as, “The intangible sum of a product’s attributes:
Its name, packaging, and price, its history, its reputation, and the way it’s advertised.”
This definition is synonymous with brand equity.
Branding has many definitions. Academic peer-reviewed rigor demands definition,
yet the following statement from brand research literature is a good indication of the state
of affairs on one variation of branding – brand equity. Winters (1991) observes, “There
has been a lot of interest lately in measures of brand equity. However, if you ask ten
people to define brand equity, you are likely to get ten (maybe 11) different answers as to
what it means.”
In a general sense, brand equity is defined in terms of the marketing effects uniquely
attributable to the brand – for example, when certain outcomes result from the marketing
of a product or service because of its brand name that would not occur if the same
product or service did not have that name.
Keller (1993) draws on the associative network memory model to lay the foundations
of his framework on customer-based brand equity. This model views semantic memory
or knowledge as consisting of a set of nodes and links. Nodes are stored information
connected by links that vary in strength. A node becomes a potential source of activation
for other nodes either when external information is being encoded or when internal
information is retrieved from long-term memory. Activation can spread from this node to
other linked nodes in memory. When activation of another node exceeds some threshold
level, the information contained in that node is recalled. Thus, the strength of the
association between the activated node and all linked nodes determines the particular
13
information that can be retrieved from memory. Recall and recognition, shown in Table
1, are used to measure brand awareness.
Table 1 Measurement of Brand Knowledge Constructs Related to Customer-Based Brand Equity
Construct Measure(s) Purpose of Measure(s) Brand Awareness Recall Correct identification of brand
given product category of some other type of probe
Capture “top-of-mind” accessibility of brand in memory
Recognition Correct discrimination of brand as having been previously seen or heard
Capture potential retrievability or availability of brand in memory
Keller (1993) presents guidelines to help marketers better manage customer-based
brand equity, ending with a guideline that branches out into brand extensions. Brand
extensions can facilitate acceptance of a new product or service by providing two
benefits. First, awareness for the extension may be higher because the brand node is
already present in memory. Second, inferred associations for the attributes, benefits, and
overall perceived quality may be created.
In summary, brand knowledge starts with awareness of the brand.
CRM
Webb and Mohr (1998) used semistructured interviews of consumers to present a
qualitative study exploring perceptions of CRM campaigns. Ostensibly, if corporations
are not inherently committed to social responsibility, then consumer demand could prove
to be the driving motivation. The authors sought to develop an exploratory typology of
consumer responses to CRM. They identify four unique consumer groups who vary in
responses to CRM concerns: Skeptics, who are predisposed to distrust; Balancers, who
are positive towards CRM; Attribution-Oriented, who view companies as having
14
unselfish motives for CRM; and Socially Concerned, who invest time and effort to
understand CRM. Nearly 80% of their sample was judged as having a strong knowledge
of CRM.
It is interesting to note that Webb and Mohr’s (1998) findings center on the brand as
opposed to the cause. The findings identify several types of consumer responses that
have implications in assessing CRM campaigns:
• Honesty, fairness, and the amount of help given to the cause.
• Attribution of reasons for the firm’s participation in CRM.
• Consistency of the firm’s social responsibility programs.
• Traditional purchase criteria still play an important role.
• Change in company image can be influenced by CRM.
• Change in purchase behavior can be influence by CRM.
Another study supporting these results is the most notable commercial research that
addresses consumer reactions to CRM, the 1997 Cone/Roper Cause-Related Marketing
Trends Report, which is based on a 1993 benchmark study and a follow-up study
conducted in 1996 (Cone Communications Press Release, 1997). In 1996, 76% of the
consumers surveyed stated that, when price and quality are equal, they would be likely to
switch to brands or retailers associated with a cause or issue about which they care. A
cause which they care about is another way of saying a cause in which they have a vested
interest.
In consumer-oriented research into CRM, both quantitative and qualitative, consumers
rarely mention any concerns about the cause. Only one qualitative study (Webb & Mohr,
15
1998) mentioned a woman who had boycotted Dominos Pizza when the company
conducted a CRM campaign associated with the highly volatile cause of abortion.
Varadarajan and Menon (1988) seem to be the first researchers to build a
comprehensive overview of CRM and to have set some dimensions for a future research
stream. The authors narrowly define CRM as “the process of formulating and
implementing marketing activities that are characterized by an offer from the firm to
contribute a specified amount to a designated cause when customers engage in revenue-
producing exchanges that satisfy organizational and individual objectives” (p. 60).
“Specified amount” and “revenue-producing exchange” however, do not account for
many of the case studies that would qualify as CRM, which entail barter or less tangible
profits. For example, HelpAd is an advertising medium in the United Kingdom in which
a brand owner barters space on its product packaging, similar to the missing children on
the side of milk cartons here in the United States. CSM – corporate societal marketing –
has all the qualities of CRM and could easily be considered a CRM practice, or vice
versa.
Although Varadarajan and Menon (1988) are considered to have authored the seminal
research on CRM, they too have opted to discuss brand versus cause. The authors draw
on research from areas such as marketing for non-profit organizations, the promotion
mix, corporate philanthropy, corporate social responsibility, fund-raising management,
and public relations. The major dimensions of CRM that they outline are all brand
centric.
16
Varadarajan and Menon (1988) also cite the goal systems that most firms tend to
cluster around regarding CRM programs. Four goals are identified and each can be
measured on a continuum:
1. Profit maximization, social goals incidental.
2. Profit growth, social goals also important.
3. Social goals, break even on money.
4. Social goals, money losses acceptable.
Interestingly, the notion that a brand-cause alliance could generate profit is not
represented.
Corporate reputation rankings of companies are regularly published in periodicals
such as Fortune and The Wall Street Journal. One of the most comprehensive polls is
conducted using the Harris-Fombrun Reputation QuotientSM (RQ). Twenty attributes
comprising six dimensions are used to compare companies. Social responsibility is one
of the dimensions, with three attributes: Supports good causes, is an environmentally
responsible company, and maintains high standards in the way it treats people. These
measures are consistent with limited benefits that companies hope to realize by
participating in CRM alliances.
Dacin and Brown (2002) present a recent study suggesting a framework for
researching corporate associations. “Corporate associations” is used as a generic label
for all the information about a company that a person holds in memory. Dacin and
Brown (2002) argue the importance of paying attention to external constituencies in
current practices for building a positive corporate image. Specifically, both the consumer
and CRM associations hold more importance in the present business climate than past
17
notions of successful marketing have identified. Consumer expectations have evolved
and so should marketing.
Due to the imprecise definitions of cause marketing, corporate issue promotion
(Andreson 1996), CRM, CSM, and CSR, none has been categorized to a generally
accepted standard. Mastercard’s Charge Against Hunger, Ronald McDonald House, Paul
Newman’s Salad Dressings, Avon’s Breast Cancer Awareness Crusade, Ben & Jerry’s,
and Liz Claibourne’s Women’s Work campaign against domestic violence are regularly
held up as examples of successful alliances between a brand and a cause.
Pringle and Thompson (1999) present several of the most comprehensive case studies
available in their book for the Saatchi & Saatchi Cause Connection based in the United
Kingdom. Their CRM practitioner counterpart in the states is Cone Communications
(http://www.coneinc.com). Carol Cone originated Avon’s CRM program and rallied her
success into a PR firm dedicated exclusively to Cause Branding®. Due to the proprietary
nature of information about CRM practices, most case studies are little more than
boastful accounts of success generated on behalf of the brand and the cause.
Insights into motivations and behind-the-scene discussions are virtually nonexistent,
except for one qualitative study by Drumwright (1996), who conducted interviews with
elite decision makers behind 22 campaigns – 11 with social dimensions and 11 standard
campaigns. Although anonymity was a condition of the interviews, the author uncovered
general motivations for engaging in CRM. The 22 campaigns were a mix of economic,
noneconomic, and mixed economic intentions with no type of campaign particularly
outperforming the other with regards to consumer reactions. Resistance came from
salespeople and retailers who argued that advertising was not bringing people in the door
18
or making the cash register ring, even when a campaign was successful in achieving its
objectives. The author states that organizational identification may be the route through
which advertising with a social dimension achieves company-oriented goals. The 11
campaigns with social dimensions significantly motivated the work force, communicated
the essence of the company mission, increased job satisfaction and intraorganizational
cooperation, as well as enhanced relationships with interorganizational partners through
“a different sort of bonding.”
Advertising is the most visible form of acknowledging an association between a brand
and a cause. Because social responsibility is such an abstract concept, advertising is a
more concrete form of communication used by many researchers to test consumer
perceptions of CRM. Advertising also integrates products, services, companies, and
sponsors into a form readily understood by consumers. The levels of association between
a firm and a cause can occur at the organizational level, at the product line/division level,
or at the brand level.
Alliance
Many issues surrounding the successful alliance between the brand and the cause have
already been presented. Till and Nowak (2000) used associative learning principles and
classical conditioning in a conceptual article describing “fit” characteristics. A research
proposition that they propose implies that CRM can affect consumers’ overall attitude
toward the sponsoring company or brand.
In the conclusion of their review, Till and Nowak (2000) contribute three of their own
original insights. A synthesis of their findings suggests that charity links have changed
19
from a corporation’s tactical response to a more strategic approach. The alliance is more
substantial and engages more that just the public presentation of the brand. Second,
CRM should be a long-term commitment from the firm to create a more permanent
connection between its brand and the cause, where it matters, in the mind of the
consumer.
Others discuss alternative associations between the brand and the cause. Pringle and
Thompson (1999) ask, “Charity, cause, or hybrid?” Hoeffler and Keller (2002) suggest
one of three scenarios: Create own self-branded cause, cobrand link to existing cause, or
jointly link brand to existing cause. Barnes and Fitzgibbons (1991) discuss one-shot
versus ongoing. Drumwright (1996) stresses that social campaigns are more effective
when they focus on fewer causes, perhaps one, versus the cause portfolio approach cited
by Varadarajan and Menon (1988).
The study of alliances in CRM is in its infancy. Attitude is the starting point.
Cause
Among CRM research, there is consensus that the cause should be consistent with the
image the company is seeking to build or sustain for its brand. Ironically, of the cited
research has defined “cause.” Additionally, CRM research focuses only on familiar
causes. For the purposes of this research, a cause will be defined as organized efforts or
activities designed to alleviate a societal problem.
Gallup has been asking the MOP question in polls since 1935, “What do you think is
the most important problem in America today?” A respondent cannot answer with a
cause that is unknown to him or her. CRM research claims that the “cause” needs to be
20
positive (Till & Nowak, 2000), which again suggests that it needs to be familiar. A
“cause” with a greater appeal or a larger audience segment than a lesser known brand or
new product introduction will have greater benefit to the brand (Dacin & Brown, 2002) –
again focusing on the familiar cause. To date, CRM research has focused primarily on
familiar causes and their alliances with known brands.
A cause can also be an unidentified societal need – the unfamiliar cause. The
unfamiliar cause is not established as a non-profit organization. It is unfamiliar as a
cause. Special interest groups have yet to join forces to build awareness of the unfamiliar
cause. The unfamiliar cause is not going to make the Top 10 on this year’s MOP
question. The unfamiliar cause is a societal need waiting to be noticed. Child abuse was
an unfamiliar cause, as was rape, and AIDS, and child labor, in addition to unfamiliar
causes that exist today, but have yet to surface.
If marketers are looking for brand-cause alliances, then the unfamiliar cause should be
part of their decision set. If marketing practitioners and researchers sustain the current
trend of restricting their exploration of causes to only those that are familiar, then society
as a whole will not benefit from the wealth of opportunities available. Unfamiliar causes
need to become a consistently included alternative, especially if CRM proves to be
consistently valuable as a marketing practice.
No reliable decisions about the effectiveness of CRM can be made when the cause
choices are restricted to familiarity. As stated by Hoeffler and Keller (2002), consumers
relate strongly to relevance. To presuppose that an unfamiliar cause does not possess as
much relevance as a familiar cause completely ignores the potential of CRM. A
successful alliance with an unfamiliar cause high in personal relevance could turn the
21
practice of CRM into a profitable venture. This statement could be true, yet CRM
research has yet to explore unfamiliar causes.
Vested Interest
Theories of persuasion suggest that, in choosing a brand-cause alliance, relevance of
the cause to consumer could be one of the most important considerations in regards to
attitude formation.
Petty and Cacioppo’s (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986a, 1986b) Elaboration Likelihood
Model (ELM) is one of the more articulated theories of persuasion in the reception of
advertising messages by consumers.
According to ELM, level of involvement determines the depth and outcome of
information processing. Depending on three antecedent variables – motivation,
opportunity, and ability to process – a person will process the communication with either
a higher or lower level of involvement. Involvement refers to the perceived personal
relevance of the information. The processing of an ad can be partitioned into two phases,
an initial very basic comprehension (“decoding” the stimulus) of the message and a
subsequent elaboration. In the elaboration stage, internal responses to the decoded
stimulus, including counterarguments and inferences, are generated. Both
comprehension and elaboration are influenced by the activated schema (i.e., organized set
of knowledge about an object or event that is stored in memory).
High involvement information processing occurs via the central route of persuasion,
while low involvement occurs via the peripheral route. In attitude and belief change via
the central route, the consumer pays more attention to the message and processes it at a
22
deeper level. Consequently, the consumer will generate more cognitive responses –
favorable and unfavorable thoughts – about the message. Depending on the extent to
which the cognitive responses support the message, belief changes can occur. Change in
belief leads to change in attitude, which, in turn, leads to behavior change. When
changes in belief and attitude occur via the central route, the effects are relatively
enduring and predictive of behavior.
In explicating the concept of involvement, Petty and Cacioppo (1986a, 1986b)
maintain that high levels of personal relevance lead to more intensive processing of
attitude-relevant communications and, ultimately, to attitudes of greater strength.
Personal relevance thus constitutes the essence of involvement.
Agans and Crano (1962) introduced the concept of vested interest as a more restrictive
definition of the involvement-elaboration-attitude strength dynamic. Vested interest
refers to the extent to which an attitude is relevant for the attitude holder. The personal
consequences associated with an object determine vested interest. Not all variables that
enhance attitude-behavior consistency involve attitude objects of great personal
consequence. But attitude objects that are personally consequential will be vested, and
vested interest, in turn, will foster attitude-consistent action.
The factors hypothesized by Crano (1995) to be component parts of the global concept
of vested interest are: (1) the actor’s stake in a given attitude object, (2) the salience of
the object, (3) the certainty of that specific consequences will ensue from an attitude-
relevant action, (4) the immediacy of these consequences, and (5) the actor’s self-efficacy
to enact the requisite (or attitude-implicated) behaviors.
23
Vested interest is the core concept from which inquiries into the unfamiliar cause and
brand-cause fit will be drawn. It seems especially relevant as it pertains to such
adjectives as meaningful, important, relevant, personal, and local – all cues that suggest a
high degree of personal consequence, and all cues that are easily operationalized into
research questions.
The vested interest inherent in a cause is an essential factor to explore in the study of
CRM. Cause vested interest (CVI) could be a factor used to build a case to explain why
an unfamiliar cause may be as effective as a familiar cause in a brand-cause alliance.
CVI may affect the significance of an alliance. CVI could determine the level of
involvement consumers have with both the brand and the cause in an alliance.
If the consumer pays more attention to the cause with high vested interest, and processes
that information into a favorable response, then a change in belief can occur. A change in
belief can lead to a change in attitude, which, in turn, can lead to behavior change. When
changes in belief and attitude occur via the central route, the effects are relatively
enduring and predictive of behavior. Can the benefits of a society rallying to support an
unfamiliar cause be predicted? Can CRM become an enduring practice?
This research seeks to build a case for the successful alliance between a brand and an
unfamiliar cause with an outcome that will outperform an alliance between the same
brand and a familiar cause. CVI may interact with familiarity in determining CRM
outcomes.
In the next chapter, research hypotheses derived from the concept of vested interest
and other variables – brand and cause familiarity – examined in previous research will be
presented.
24
Chapter Three
Hypotheses
As stated earlier, the broad goal of this thesis is to conduct an experiment which can
support a claim that an unfamiliar cause paired with a brand can create a more favorable
attitude towards the brand (ATTB) than the pairing of a familiar cause with a brand.
Vested interest is a variable that has not been investigated in current CRM studies.
Therefore, a fair amount of preliminary research must be considered in order to establish
a basic understanding of both main effects and interaction effects surrounding brand,
cause, and vested interest. The following hypotheses are presented in an attempt to gain
this greater understanding.
Based on prior research, the effectiveness of brand-cause alliance is a function of
consumer’s vested interest in the cause. When there is a high level of vested interest in
the cause, consumers are likely to pay more attention to the message, process it and
elaborate it more extensively, and generate more favorable and enduring attitudes toward
the brand, the cause, and the brand-cause alliance, regardless of their familiarity with the
brand or the cause. In empirical terms, the reasoning predicts the main effect of cause
vested interest – an effect independent from brand and cause familiarity. An alternative
prediction is the interaction effects between cause vested interest and familiarity: Cause
vested interest will have impact on brand and cause attitude if and only if familiarity with
brand or cause is high. In other words, instead of being an independent source of
influence, cause vested interest only facilitates or reinforces the effects of brand or cause
25
familiarity on attitudes. In what follows, these alternative hypotheses related to cause
vested interest are presented along with other hypotheses pertaining to brand and cause
familiarity.
Main Effects
Main effect of brand familiarity on brand attitude (ATTB):
H1: A familiar brand will lead to a more favorable ATTB than an unfamiliar
brand.
Main effect of cause familiarity on ATTB:
H2: A familiar cause will have a more favorable ATTB than an
unfamiliar cause.
Main effect of cause vested interest on ATTB:
H3: A cause with higher vested interest will have a more favorable ATTB than
a cause with lower vested interest.
Main effect of brand familiarity on cause attitude (ATTC):
H4: A familiar brand will have a more favorable ATTC than an unfamiliar
brand.
Main effect of cause familiarity on ATTC:
H5: A familiar cause will have a more favorable ATTC than an
unfamiliar cause.
Main effect of cause vested interest on ATTC:
H6: A cause with higher vested interest will have a more favorable ATTC than
a cause with lower vested interest.
26
Main effect of brand familiarity on attitude towards the alliance (ATTA):
H7: A familiar brand will have a more favorable ATTA than an unfamiliar
brand.
Main effect of cause familiarity on ATTA:
H8: A familiar cause will have a more favorable ATTA than an
unfamiliar cause.
Main effect of cause vested interest on ATTA:
H9: A cause with higher vested interest will have a more favorable ATTA than
a cause with lower vested interest.
Interaction Effects of Familiarity and CVI
Interaction effect of brand familiarity and cause familiarity:
H10: Cause familiarity can facilitate/reinforce the effects of brand familiarity on
ATTB.
H11: Cause familiarity can facilitate/reinforce the effects of brand familiarity on
ATTC.
H12: Cause familiarity can facilitate/reinforce the effects of brand familiarity on
ATTA.
Interaction effect of brand familiarity and cause vested interest:
H13: Vested interest in a cause can facilitate/reinforce the effects of brand
familiarity on ATTB.
H14: Vested interest in a cause can facilitate/reinforce the effects of brand
familiarity on ATTC.
27
H15: Vested interest in a cause can facilitate/reinforce the effects of brand
familiarity on ATTA.
Interaction effect of Cause Familiarity and Cause Vested Interest:
H16: Vested interest in a cause can facilitate/reinforce the effects of cause
familiarity on ATTB.
H17: Vested interest in a cause can facilitate/reinforce the effects of cause
familiarity on ATTC.
H18: Vested interest in a cause can facilitate/reinforce the effects of cause
familiarity on ATTA.
28
Chapter Four
Methodology
Design
The design for this research used a 2x2x2 (brand familiarity: familiar versus
unfamiliar, cause familiarity: familiar versus unfamiliar, and cause vested interest: high
versus low) full factorial, shown in Table 2.
Table 2 2x2x2 Experimental Design
Cause High Familiarity Low Familiarity High
Vested Interest
Low Vested Interest
High Vested Interest
Low Vested Interest
High Familiarity
United Way/ AT&T
Red Cross/ AT&T
School Crossing/
AT&T
Growing Friends/ AT&T Brand
Low Familiarity
United Way/
cricKet
Red Cross/ cricKet
School Crossing/
cricKet
Growing Friends/ cricKet
Independent Variables
Brand Familiarity: Familiar versus Unfamiliar
The questionnaires contained two questions seeking to confirm the manipulation of
brand familiarity. Both questions required a respondent to circle a response on a five-
point Likert scale ranging from -2 (Strongly disagree) to +2 (Strongly agree). The
questions:
• I am familiar with AT&T (cricKet) Wireless cellular phone service.
29
• AT&T (cricKet) Wireless cellular phone service is known to many people.
Cause Familiarity: Familiar versus Unfamiliar
The questionnaires contained two questions seeking to confirm the manipulation of
cause familiarity. Both questions required a respondent to circle a response on a five-
point Likert scale ranging from -2 (Strongly disagree) to +2 (Strongly agree). The
questions:
• I am familiar with the American Red Cross (alternate cause).
• The American Red Cross (alternate cause) is known to many people.
Vested Interest: High Vested Interest versus Low Vested Interest
The questionnaires contained five questions seeking to confirm the manipulation of
vested interest. Each question required a respondent to circle a response on a five-point
Likert scale ranging from -2 (Strongly disagree) to +2 (Strongly agree). The questions:
• I have a stake in the American Red Cross (alternate cause).
• The American Red Cross (alternate cause) is important to me personally.
• My support of the American Red Cross (alternate cause) will ensure specific
consequences.
• The consequences of my support of the American Red Cross (alternate cause)
will be immediate.
• My support of the American Red Cross (alternate cause) could make a
difference.
Dependent Variables
Attitude towards the brand (ATTB)
30
Attitude toward the brand was measured by asking subjects how they felt about the
brand on four 7-point semantic differential scales (like/dislike, favorable/unfavorable,
good/bad, wanted/unwanted).
Attitude towards the cause (ATTC)
Similarly, attitude toward the cause was measured by asking subjects how they felt
about the cause on four 7-point semantic differential scales (like/dislike,
favorable/unfavorable, good/bad, wanted/unwanted).
Attitude towards the alliance (ATTA)
Four 7-point semantic differentials (positive /negative, favorable, unfavorable,
good/bad, important to me/unimportant to me) were used to measure attitude toward the
brand-cause alliance.
Subjects
Subjects were recruited from undergraduate classes at a large Southern university.
The majority of students were juniors and seniors. Collection of research data took place
during the summer semester, which has notoriously sporadic attendance. This required
numerous visits to many small classes versus a single visit to one large class. Classes
were chosen according to approval by the professors. Professors allowed the researcher
to distribute questionnaires during the first ten minutes of class. Students received no
compensation or credit for participation and could freely choose not to participate. A
total of 176 students participated in the main experiment.
31
Stimuli
The creation of advertising stimuli consisted of two phases. In the first phase, eight
concept print advertisements for wireless cellular telephone service were created, with
each ad containing one pairing of a brand-cause alliance, as shown in Table Y. Headline,
visual and body copy were identical for each ad – only the brand logo and the cause logo
were varied. These concept print advertisements are included in Appendices A through
H.
In the second phase, a pretest was conducted to determine causes with high/low
familiarity and high/low vested interest. Fifty student volunteers participated in the
pretest. These students answered seven questions for each of the 20 causes – a total of
140 questions (see pretest questionnaire used in Appendix X). For each cause, two
questions sought to determine familiarity, while the remaining five questions probed for
vested interest. All questions required a respondent to circle a response on a five-point
Likert scale ranging from -2 (Strongly disagree) to +2 (Strongly agree). The causes
ranged from existing, ostensibly well-known causes in American culture to completely
fictitious causes created for this research.
The pretest results are shown in Table 3. Four causes with distinct differences in
familiarity and vested interest were selected for use in the final design questionnaire:
• High/High – (X̄ familiarity = 1.23, X̄ vested interest = 1.03) – The United Way
• High/Low – (X̄ familiarity = 1.32, X̄ vested interest = .86) – American Red Cross
• Low/High – (X̄ familiarity = 0.10, X̄ vested interest = 1.07) – School Crossing Safety
• Low/Low – (X̄ familiarity = 1.25, X̄ vested interest = 0.82) – Growing Friends
32
Due to the proliferation of mobile phones on college campus, an assumption was
made that wireless cellular telephone service would be familiar to college students even if
the particular brand of service was not. AT&T Wireless cellular phone service was
selected as the brand with higher familiarity and cricKet Wireless cellular phone service
was selected as the brand with lower familiarity. Manipulation checks were conducted in
the main experiment in order to confirm this assumption.
Table 3 Causes with High/Low Familiarity and High/Low Vested Interest
High Familiarity Low Familiarity The United Way School Crossing
Safety Program
Familiarity(Self) Mean 1.20 Familiarity(Self) Mean 0.18 SD 0.86 SD 1.49Familiarity(Others) Mean 1.26 Familiarity(Others) Mean 0.02 SD 0.75 SD 1.10Familiarity(All) Mean 1.23 Familiarity(All) Mean 0.10
High Vested Interest
Vested Interest Mean 1.03 Vested Interest Mean 1.07
American Red Cross
Growing Friends
Familiarity(Self) Mean 1.22 Familiarity(Self) Mean 1.48 SD 0.86 SD 0.68Familiarity(Others) Mean 1.42 Familiarity(Others) Mean 1.02 SD 0.57 SD 0.77Familiarity(All) Mean 1.32 Familiarity(All) Mean 1.25
Low Vested Interest
Vested Interest Mean 0.86 Vested Interest Mean 0.82
Procedure
The main experiment was conducted in several class sessions. Experimental
instructions, advertising stimuli, and response measures were presented in a questionnaire
format. Thirty questionnaires were created for each of the eight experimental conditions,
with a total of 240 questionnaires. The 240 questionnaires were then randomly ordered to
33
allow randomization whereby all participants had an equal chance of being assigned to
different experimental conditions..
At the beginning of each session, a statement of informed consent was read to
students and any student could freely choose not to participate. Subjects were randomly
assigned to eight experimental conditions by receiving randomly ordered questionnaires.
All eight questionnaires are included in Appendices A through H.
Subjects read the general instructions on the first page of the questionnaires which
asked them to look at an ad and answer the questions following the ad. They were given
ten minutes to complete the questionnaire. At the end of the ten-minute time period,
questionnaires were collected and the researcher left the building. A total of 176 subjects
completed questionnaires.
Responses to the completed questionnaires were coded and analyzed with SPSS.
34
Chapter Five
Results
Manipulation Checks
T-tests were used to determine if the experiment successfully manipulated the
independent variables of brand familiarity, cause familiarity, and cause vested interest.
Results indicated that all three independent variables were manipulated successfully:
High familiarity brand (AT&T) scored higher than low familiarity brand (cricKet) (X̄ high
familiarity = .99, X̄ low familiarity = -1.46, t = 22.78, df = 164, p < .001); high familiarity causes
(American Red Cross and United Way) indeed scored higher than low familiarity causes
(School Crossing Safety Program and Growing Friends) (X̄ high familiarity = .1.41, X̄ low
familiarity = -.91, t = 19.61, df = 164, p < .001); and high vested interest causes (United Way
and School Crossing Safety Program) indeed scored higher than low vested interest
causes (American Red Cross and Growing Friends) (X̄ high vested interest = -.13, X̄ low vested
interest = -.54, t = 3.67, df = 163, p < .001).
Reliability of Measures
Cronbach's alpha measures how well a set of items (or variables) measures a single
underlying construct. Alpha coefficient ranges in value from 0 to 1 and may be used to
describe the reliability of multi-point formatted questionnaires or scales. The higher the
alpha value, the more reliable the generated scale is. Nunnaly (1978) has indicated 0.70
35
to be an acceptable reliability coefficient but lower thresholds are sometimes used in the
literature.
All three dependent variables attained high reliability in the present study. The alpha
values for ATTA, ATTC, and ATTA are .96, .98, and .95, respectively.
Tests of Hypotheses
In this study, three-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to determine the
significance of the hypothesized main effects of the independent variables (brand
familiarity, cause familiarity, and vested interest), as well as their interaction effects on
each of the dependent variables (ATTB, ATTC, and ATTB). The main effect is the
simple effect of an independent variable on a dependent variable. In other words, it is the
effect of the independent variable alone averaged across the levels of other independent
variables. An interaction effect is the variation among the differences between means for
different levels of one independent variable over different levels of the other variable(s).
Table 4 presents the means and standard deviations of ATTB in all experimental
conditions. Figure 1 graphs the mean values of ATTB as a function of brand familiarity,
cause familiarity, and cause vested interest. The ANOVA results are presented in Table
5. Supporting Hypothesis 1, the main effect of brand familiarity was significant: Subjects
showed more favorable ATTB towards familiar brands than unfamiliar brands (X¯ familiar
brand = 4.61, X¯ unfamiliar brand = 4.20, F = 5.01, df = 1,158, p < .05).
Hypothesis 2 predicts more favorable ATTB toward brands associated with familiar
causes than unfamiliar causes. Somewhat surprisingly, results showed that subjects
showed slightly more favorable attitudes toward brands associated with unfamiliar causes
36
Table 4 Means and Standard Deviations of ATTB in Experimental Conditions
Brand Familiarity
Cause Familiarity
Cause Vested Interest
Mean Standard Deviation
N
High 4.8000 1.30403 22 Low 4.3351 1.15905 22
High
Total 4.5772 1.23309 44 High 4.7193 1.17202 21 Low 4.5873 1.11008 20
Low
Total 4.3500 1.12711 41 High 4.7307 1.22582 43 Low 4.4732 1.12353 42
High
Total
Total 4.3132 1.17339 85 High 4.3333 1.32101 20 Low 3.7879 .93250 21
High
Total 4.0758 1.17873 41 High 4.5238 1.30201 19 Low 4.1333 1.11029 21
Low
Total 4.3333 1.21335 40 High 4.4419 1.29830 39 Low 3.9524 1.03743 42
Low
Total
Total 4.2000 1.19545 81 High 4.5714 1.31550 42 Low 4.0398 1.09002 43
High
Total 4.3173 1.22572 85 High 4.3137 1.23008 40 Low 4.3359 1.12003 41
Low
Total 4.4897 1.17507 81 High 4.5935 1.23389 82 Low 4.2143 1.10813 84
Total
Total
Total 4.4013 1.20074 133
Figure 1 Dependent Variable: ATTB (Attitude Towards the Brand)
4.37
4.59
3.79
4.13
4.804.72
4.364.52
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
HI CVI LOW CVI
FAMILIAR BRANDFAMILIAR CAUSEFAMILIAR BRANDUNFAMILIAR CAUSEUNFAMILIAR BRANDFAMILIAR CAUSEUNFAMILIAR BRANDUNFAMILIAR CAUSE
37
Table 5 Summary of ANOVA Results: Effects of Independent Variables on ATTB
Source Type III Sum
of Squares
df Mean Square
F Significance
Corrected Model 15.915 7 2.274 1.318 .134 Intercept 3221.297 1 3221.297 2292.838 .000 Brand Familiarity 7.157 1 7.157 5.095 .025 Cause Familiarity 1.084 1 1.084 .771 .381 Cause Vested Interest 3.083 1 3.083 4.330 .039 Brand Familiarity * Cause Familiarity .343 1 .343 .244 .322 Brand Familiarity * Cause Vested Interest .413 1 .413 .294 .589 Cause Familiarity * Cause Vested Interest .317 1 .317 .439 .509 Brand Familiarity * Cause Familiarity * Cause Vested Interest
.033 1 .033 .025 .873
Error 221.977 158 1.405 Total 3454.000 133 Corrected Total 237.893 135
(X¯ unfamiliar cause = 4.49) than familiar causes (X¯ familiar cause = 4.32). However, the main
effect of cause familiarity failed to reach significance (F = .77, df = 1,158, p =.38).
Hypothesis 2 was thus not supported.
Hypothesis 3 predicts that causes that involve high vested interest will produce more
favorable ATTB than causes that involve low vested interest. Results show, as predicted,
that there was a significant main effect of cause vested interest: Subjects in the high cause
vested interest condition showed more favorable ATTB than those in the low cause
vested interest condition (X¯ high vested interest = 4.59, X¯ low vested interest = 4.21, F = 4.33, df =
1,158, p < .05).
Table 6 presents the means and standard deviations of ATTC in experimental
conditions. Figure 2 graphs the mean values of ATTC as a function of brand familiarity,
cause familiarity, and cause vested interest. The ANOVA results are presented in Table 7.
Supporting Hypothesis 4, the main effect of brand familiarity was significant: Subjects
showed more favorable ATTC towards familiar brands than unfamiliar brands (X¯ familiar
brand = 5.28, X¯ unfamiliar brand = 4.87, F = 7.29, df = 1,157, p < .005).
38
Table 6 Means and Standard Deviations of ATTC in Experimental Conditions
Brand Familiarity
Cause Familiarity
Cause Vested Interest
Mean Standard Deviation
N
High 3.4137 .84379 22 Low 5.5553 .92095 22
High
Total 5.9753 .97579 44 High 4.9298 1.28898 21 Low 4.2222 .73980 19
Low
Total 4.5583 1.09489 40 High 5.3923 1.30731 43 Low 4.8889 1.07314 41
High
Total
Total 5.2757 1.25254 84 High 5.8333 1.10330 20 Low 4.8788 1.43040 21
High
Total 5.3712 1.37383 41 High 4.4444 1.13203 19 Low 4.1579 .32231 21
Low
Total 4.3083 .92539 40 High 5.1705 1.31811 39 Low 4.5447 1.19433 42
Low
Total
Total 4.8351 1.29030 81 High 3.1270 1.01734 42 Low 5.2093 1.25993 43
High
Total 5.3327 1.22959 85 High 4.3750 1.21830 40 Low 4.1917 .39548 40
Low
Total 4.4333 1.01521 80 High 5.4187 1.33108 82 Low 4.7189 1.14229 84
Total
Total
Total 5.0337 1.28479 135
Figure 2 Dependent Variable: ATTC (Attitude Towards the Cause)
5.56
4.22
4.88
6.42
4.93
5.86
4.16
4.44
4.00
4.50
5.00
5.50
6.00
6.50
HI CVI LOW CVI
FAMILIAR BRANDFAMILIAR CAUSEFAMILIAR BRANDUNFAMILIAR CAUSEUNFAMILIAR BRANDFAMILIAR CAUSEUNFAMILIAR BRANDUNFAMILIAR CAUSE
39
Table 7 Summary of ANOVA Results: Effects of Independent Variables on ATTC
Source Type III Sum
of Squares
df Mean Square
F Significance
Corrected Model 95.372 7 13.325 12.200 .000 Intercept 4209.817 1 4209.817 3739.499 .000 Brand Familiarity 8.140 1 8.140 7.288 .008 Cause Familiarity 33.245 1 33.245 53.330 .000 Cause Vested Interest 20.734 1 20.734 18.533 .000 Brand Familiarity * Cause Familiarity 1.189 1 1.189 1.035 .304 Brand Familiarity * Cause Vested Interest .227 1 .227 .203 .353 Cause Familiarity * Cause Vested Interest 1.835 1 1.835 1.370 .198 Brand Familiarity * Cause Familiarity * Cause Vested Interest
.733 1 .733 .383 .410
Error 175.339 157 1.117 Total 4503.444 135 Corrected Total 270.711 134 Hypothesis 5 predicts more favorable ATTC toward brands associated with familiar
causes than unfamiliar causes. Consistent with the prediction, ANOVA results showed a
significant main effect of cause familiarity on ATTC: Familiar causes produced more
favorable ATTC than unfamiliar causes (X¯ familiar cause = 5.33, X¯ unfamiliar cause = 4.43,
F=53.33, p<.001).
Table 8 presents the means and standard deviations of ATTA in experimental
conditions. Figure 3 graphs the mean values of ATTA as a function of brand familiarity,
cause familiarity, and cause vested interest. The ANOVA results presented in Table 9
indicated that none of the hypothesized main effects reached statistical significance.
There was no significant difference in attitude toward brand-cause alliance between
familiar and unfamiliar brands (X¯ familiar brand = 5.02, X¯ unfamiliar brand = 4.93, F = .11, df =
1,157, p = .74), between familiar and unfamiliar causes (X¯ familiar cause = 5.09, X¯ unfamiliar
cause = 4.87, F = 1.48, df = 1,157, p = .23), and between high and low cause vested interest
(X¯ high vested interest = 4.87, X¯ low vested interest = 4.99, F = 2.39, df = 1,157, p =.10).
Hypotheses 7, 8, and 9 were not supported.
40
Table 8 Means and Standard Deviations of ATTA in Experimental Conditions
Brand Familiarity
Cause Familiarity
Cause Vested Interest
Mean Standard Deviation
N
High 5.3337 1.22307 22 Low 5.1743 1.41272 22
High
Total 5.2383 1.31038 44 High 4.9349 1.22373 21 Low 4.5714 .98933 20
Low
Total 4.7583 1.11193 41 High 5.1709 1.22533 43 Low 4.8730 1.24273 42
High
Total
Total 5.0135 1.23592 85 High 5.1337 1.25883 20 Low 4.3970 1.24383 21
High
Total 4.9318 1.23078 41 High 5.0335 1.28071 19 Low 4.9000 .80277 21
Low
Total 4.9837 1.03445 40 High 5.1133 1.25543 39 Low 4.7937 1.05140 42
Low
Total
Total 4.9539 1.13359 81 High 5.2319 1.23089 42 Low 4.9302 1.33342 43
High
Total 5.0941 1.28855 85 High 5.0137 1.24023 40 Low 4.7317 .90744 41
Low
Total 4.8724 1.08723 81 High 5.1423 1.23398 82 Low 4.8333 1.14480 84
Total
Total
Total 4.9859 1.19315 133
Figure 3 Dependent Variable: ATTA (Attitude Towards the Alliance)
5.17
4.574.70
4.91
5.37
4.96
5.175.06
4.00
4.50
5.00
5.50
HI CVI LOW CVI
FAMILIAR BRANDFAMILIAR CAUSEFAMILIAR BRANDUNFAMILIAR CAUSEUNFAMILIAR BRANDFAMILIAR CAUSEUNFAMILIAR BRANDUNFAMILIAR CAUSE
41
Table 9 Summary of ANOVA Results: Effects of Independent Variables on ATTA
Source Type III Sum
of Squares
df Mean Square
F Significance
Corrected Model 10.093 7 1.442 1.008 .428 Intercept 4121.111 1 4121.111 2881.315 .000 Brand Familiarity .132 1 .132 .114 .737 Cause Familiarity 2.120 1 2.120 1.482 .225 Cause Vested Interest 3.844 1 3.844 2.388 .103 Brand Familiarity * Cause Familiarity 3.159 1 3.159 2.208 .139 Brand Familiarity * Cause Vested Interest .003 1 .003 .004 .949 Cause Familiarity * Cause Vested Interest .028 1 .028 .020 .888 Brand Familiarity * Cause Familiarity * Cause Vested Interest
.337 1 .337 .433 .493
Error 225.983 158 1.430 Total 4332.778 133 Corrected Total 233.078 135 Hypotheses 10 through 18 predict that the extent to which an independent variable
exerts its influence on the dependent variables is a function of (or dependent upon) other
independent variables. For example, Hypothesis 13 predicts that high cause vested
interest would facilitate or reinforce the effect of brand familiarity on ATTB. Familiar
brands associated with causes of high vested interest would thus produce more favorable
ATTB than familiar brands associated with causes of low vested interest. Similarly,
unfamiliar brands associated with causes of high vested interest would produce more
favorable ATTB than unfamiliar brands associated with causes of low vested interest.
In ANOVA terms, hypotheses 10 through 18 would be supported by showing
significant two-way interaction effects of the independent variables on dependent
measures. Results (see Table 5, 7, and 9) showed, however, that none of the
hypothesized interaction effects reached significance at the .05 level. In other words, the
present study provided insufficient evidence to reject the null hypotheses that the effects
of the independent variables operated independently from each other.
Table 10 summarizes the results of hypotheses testing and relevant statistics.
42
Table 10 Summary of Hypotheses Testing Results
Hypotheses Significance
H1 A familiar brand will lead to a more favorable ATTB than an unfamiliar brand. (X̄ familiar brand = 4.31, X̄ unfamiliar brand = 4.20, F = 5.01, df = 1, p < .05) Significant
H2 A familiar cause will have a more favorable ATTB than an unfamiliar cause. (X̄ familiar cause = 4.32, X̄ unfamiliar cause = 4.49, F = .771, df = 1, p = .38)
Not significant
H3 A cause with higher vested interest will have a more favorable ATTB than a cause with lower vested interest.
(X̄ high vested interest = 4.59, X̄ low vested interest = 4.21, F = 4.33, df = 1,p< .05) Significant
H4 A familiar brand will have a more favorable ATTC than an unfamiliar brand (X̄ familiar brand = 5.28, X̄ unfamiliar brand = 4.87, F = 7.29, df = 1, p < .005) Significant
H5 A familiar cause will have a more favorable ATTC than an unfamiliar cause. (X̄ familiar cause = 5.33, X̄ unfamiliar cause = 4.43, F = 53.33, df = 1, p < .005)
Not significant
H3 A cause with higher vested interest will have a more favorable ATTC than a cause with lower vested interest.
(X̄ high vested interest = 5.42, X̄ low vested interest = 4.72, F = 18.57, df = 1, p < .005) Significant
H7 A familiar brand will have a more favorable ATTA than an unfamiliar brand. (X̄ familiar brand = 5.02, X̄ unfamiliar brand = 4.93, F = .114, df = 1, p = .74)
Not significant
H8 A familiar cause will have a more favorable ATTA than an unfamiliar cause. (X̄ familiar cause = 5.09, X̄ unfamiliar cause = 4.87, F = 1.48, df = 1, p = .22)
Not significant
H9 A cause with higher vested interest will have a more favorable ATTA than a cause with lower vested interest.
(X̄ high vested interest = 5.14, X̄ low vested interest = 4.83, F = 2.39, df = 1, p = .10)
Not significant
H10 Cause familiarity can facilitate/reinforce the effects of brand familiarity on ATTB.
Not significant
H11 Cause familiarity can facilitate/reinforce the effects of brand familiarity on ATTC. Not significant
H12 Cause familiarity can facilitate/reinforce the effects of brand familiarity on ATTA. Not significant
H13 Vested interest in a cause can facilitate/reinforce the effects of brand familiarity on ATTB. Not significant
H14 Vested interest in a cause can facilitate/reinforce the effects of brand familiarity on ATTC. Not significant
H15 Vested interest in a cause can facilitate/reinforce the effects of brand familiarity on ATTA. Not significant
H13 Vested interest in a cause can facilitate/reinforce the effects of cause familiarity on ATTB. Not significant
H17 Vested interest in a cause can facilitate/reinforce the effects of cause familiarity on ATTC. Not significant
H18 Vested interest in a cause can facilitate/reinforce the effects of cause familiarity on ATTA. Not significant
43
Chapter Six
Discussion
Support for H1 seems to be understandably justified. Subjects who are familiar with a
brand would be more likely to favor that brand over a brand they are not familiar with. In
practice, advertisers consistently pursue top of mind consumer awareness and recall for
the brands that they promote. Academic research, such as ELM, into the peripheral route
supports evidence that mere awareness of a brand, void of any deeper processing within
the mind, can lead to purchase behavior.
H3 has been supported by previous vested interest research. A cause with higher
vested interest would have a more favorable attitude than a cause with lower vested
interest. This study replicates previous findings by Crano. Surprisingly, a cause with
higher vested interest also can create a more favorable attitude towards the brand than a
cause with lower vested interest. This is a significant finding which supports the notion
that perhaps familiarity is not the only variable that should be taken into account when
considering a brand-cause alliance. H2 was not significant. A familiar cause will not
necessarily create a more favorable attitude towards the brand than an unfamiliar cause.
This is an exciting discovery for the future research of this thesis. Perhaps brand-cause
alliances could benefit the brand more if vested interest is considered to be an important
variable in the alliance decision process versus the current practice of popularity contests.
H4 is a significant finding for both familiar and unfamiliar causes. If a familiar brand
will result in a more favorable attitude toward the cause than an unfamiliar brand, then
44
people responsible for the causes need to consider the brand alliances carefully. The
perceived “fit” between the brand and the cause might not need to be as relevant to the
consumer as might be expected. The decision might be based on brand familiarity. None
of the main effects on attitude towards the alliance proved to be significant. Could it be
possible that a consumer does not really care what brand is paired with what cause, as
long as the brand is familiar and the cause is relevant?
None of the hypotheses for the interaction effects of familiarity and cause vested
interest were supported. The main effects without interaction simply mean that cause
vested interest could work without cause familiarity – neither seems to depend on the
other based on the findings of the research presented. However theoretically and
intuitively appealing the hypothesized interaction effects might be, their absence does not
necessarily diminish the importance of CVI. The results showed that the effects of the
independent variables are additive (i.e., main effects), rather than multiplicative (i.e.,
interaction effects). That is, each of the independent variables has independent and
unique contribution to CRM effectiveness. With regard to CVI, the present results
suggest that it should be treated as primary factor in its own right, rather than a secondary
or supplemental consideration in CRM planning.
Interaction cuts both ways. Familiar brands may benefit from causes if causes happen
to have high CVI. Theoretically, however, the reverse may also be true--causes with high
vested interest may work better when they are associated with familiar brands. That is,
high CVI in and of itself is not sufficient to produce optimal CRM effects. In the present
context, the absence of interaction may actually strengthen the argument for taking CVI
seriously--its significant main effect indicates that it could be effective regardless of
45
brand and cause familiarity. In other words, high CVI can be effective in promoting
familiar and unfamiliar brands, as well as familiar and unfamiliar causes.
Limitations
Several factors could improve the quality of the research presented. First, sample size
could be vastly improved. Second, results were obtained from students who might not be
at a stage in life where they are concerned about causes, or at least the causes presented in
this particular research. Third, selection of the brand and the causes was extremely
experimental at this first stage. Greater distinction between means for cause familiarity
and cause vested interest could yield results with greater diversity. Figure 1, Figure 2,
and Figure 3 illustrate how similar the dependent variables paralleled each other. A
larger sample size with a larger selection of both brands and causes might also help to
improve generalizability.
Finally, the imperfect design of the stimuli contributed to the results. Students had to
make judgments about the causes based on the name of the cause, rather than a deeper
explanation which would be more true to life in an alliance advertisement.
The manipulations imposed by experimental advertising research necessary to isolate
certain causal factors are often achieved at the expense of external validity and
generalizability. This study is no exception. Before discussing the implications of the
present findings, specific limitations are summarized.
First, the ad stimuli used in the experiments were artificial and described a limited
number of hypothetical brands in a single product category. Second, the conditions for
ad exposure and processing were atypical in several respects: Ad exposure was forced
46
and highly compressed; ads were presented in isolation without surrounding editorial
content; since the experiments were done with college students, the results should be
generalized only to subjects similar to the group of students participated in the study. All
these limitations should be kept in mind when evaluating the results and their
implications.
47
Chapter Seven
Conclusion
Vested interest deserves further exploration regarding to its role as a variable in the
brand-cause alliance. More brands, more causes, and more alliances need to be
considered. Speaking altruistically, the proof will come in CRM practice from the
successful alliance of a relevant unknown cause in a brand-cause alliance. A successful
case study will have far deeper significance in reality than empirical data supporting the
importance of vested interest in theory building.
A cause bears absolutely no resemblance to a brand. If brands are in business to make
money, then causes should be in business to make problems obsolete. Ideally, a
successful brand-cause alliance will last only as long as the problem exists. Realistically,
solutions will not occur on any predictable schedule and a brand will have to hang in for
the long run. This makes cause relevance even more important. The fickle nature of
consumers, who have been trained through advertising to seek out what is popular
(familiar) today cannot be expected to maintain a high level of involvement when the
next popular issue arises tomorrow.
Vested interest can also help to determine what causes to support. Bill Gates has
amassed the greatest personal fortune in modern times. He built his fortune on the
paychecks of millions of consumers, yet he alone will determine what causes to support.
He alone will decide if has wants to support any cause at all. If CRM becomes a standard
marketing practice, then consumers will decide which causes to support. Consumers will
vote with their hard earned money by deciding what brands to purchase. Competing
48
brands will have cause vested interest to counter brand familiarity. Perhaps this is
thinking far too altruistically, but imagine the possibility of consumers taking an active
role in solving societal problems simply by deciding which brands to purchase. Imagine
that the success of a company is dependent on the company it keeps.
CRM programs also can be profit-motivated and cause-related simultaneously.
Subway is one of the largest food franchises in the U.S. As territories become saturated,
Subway is looking for new distribution channels to increase franchise opportunities. The
mobile food service industry is an untapped resource. Most breakfast and lunch vendors
are private small business owners who own their own truck and manage their own food
service. Imagine Subway expanding into the mobile food service with branded trucks
and service. Take one more step into CRM and imagine the Subway Soup & Sub
Kitchen Corp. Wherever disaster strikes, you will see the Subway fleet of trucks serving
free soup and subs to victims and volunteers. This is an economic motivation with an
altruistic capability, which hopefully will prove to be an enduring strength of CRM. The
question is: As a consumer, would you choose to go to Subway?
Figure 4 The Soup and Sub Kitchen Corp
49
Finally, the ideals and values that we are teaching to new advertising students need to
open up creative possibilities. Advertising has an important role in American society, yet
it is constrained by standardized practices and successful norms. Teaching the unfettered
mind of a new student without these constraints about CRM is important. We do not
need to create constraints in the practice of CRM before inventive minds have had a
crack at it. The importance of vested interest is but one possibility in the brand-cause
alliance. How many others are there?
50
References
Aaker, D. A. (1991). Managing brand equity: Capitalizing on the value of a brand
name. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Aaker, D. A. (1993). Building strong brands. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Aaker, D. A. & Biel, A. L. (Eds.). (1993). Brand equity & advertising: Advertising’s
role in building strong brands. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Aaker, D. A. & Joachimsthaler, E. (2000). Brand leadership. New York, NY: The Free
Press.
Aaker, D. A. & Keller, K. L. (1990). Consumer evaluations of brand extensions. Journal
of Marketing, 54(1), 27-41.
Barnes, N. G. & Fitzgibbons, D. A. (1991). Is cause related marketing in your future?
Business Forum, 16(4), 20-23.
Barone, M. J., Miyazaki, A. D., & Taylor, K. A. (2000). The influence of cause-related
marketing on consumer choice: Does one good turn deserve another? Academy of
Marketing Science Journal, 28(2), 248-262.
Broniarczyk, S. M. & Alba, J. A. (1994). The importance of the brand in brand extension.
Journal of Marketing Research, 31(2), 214-228.
Brown, T. J. & Dacin, P. A. (1997). The company and the product: Corporate
associations and consumer product responses. Journal of Marketing, 61(1), 68-84.
Churchill, G. A., Jr. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing
constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16, 64-73.
51
Crano, W. D. (1995). Attitude strength and vested interest in R. E. Petty & J. A. Krosnick
(Eds.) Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences (pp.131-157). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Dacin, P. A. & Brown, T. J. (2002). Corporate identity and corporate associations: A
framework for future research. Corporate Reputation Review, 5, 254-263.
Dalai Lama & Cutler, H. C. (1998). The art of happiness: A handbook for living. New
York, NY: Riverhead Books.
Dillon, W. R., Madden, T. J., Kirmani, A., & Mukherjee, S. (2001). Understanding
what’s in a brand rating: A model for assessing the brand and attribute effects and
their relationship to brand equity. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(4), 415-429.
Drumwright, M. (1996, October). Company advertising with a social dimension: The role
of noneconomic criteria. Journal of Marketing, 60, 71-87.
Drumwright, M. & Murphy, P. E. (2001). Corporate societal marketing. In P. N. Bloom
& G. T. Gundlach (Eds.) Handbook of marketing and society (pp. 162-183).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Exploring Brand Equity: An Insightful Collection of Noteworthy Articles and Papers of
Conceptual, Definitional, Attitudinal, Behavioral, Monetary Worth, and
Multidimensional Aspects of Brand Equity. (1995). New York, NY: Advertising
Research Foundation.
Fisher, D. (1980). American philanthropy and the social science in Britain, 1919-1939:
The reproduction of a conservative ideology. Sociological Review, 28(2), 277-
315.
Friedman, M. (1962). Capitalism and freedom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
52
Hoeffler, S. & Keller, K. L. (2002). Building brand equity through corporate societal
marketing. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 21(1), 78-90.
Jones, J. P. & Slater, J. S. (2003). What’s in a name?: Advertising and the concept of
brands (2nd ed). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
Keller, K. L. (2003). Brand synthesis: The multidimensionality of brand knowledge.
Journal of Consumer Research, 29(4), 595-601.
Keller, K. L. (2001). Editorial: Brand research imperatives. The Journal of Brand
Management, 9(1), 4-7.
Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand
equity. Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 1-22.
Keller, K. L. & Aaker, D. A. (1992). The effects of sequential introduction of brand
extensions. Journal of Marketing Research, 29(1), 35-50.
Kotler, P. (1987). Humanistic Marketing: Beyond the marketing concept. In A. Fuat
Firat, N. Dholakia, & R. Bagozzi (Eds.), Philosophical and radical thought in
marketing (pp. 269-283). New York: Lexington Books.
Lafferty, B. A. (1999). Assessing cause-brand alliance evaluations on subsequent
attitudes toward the cause and the brand. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Florida State University, Florida.
MacKay, M. M. (2001). Evaluation of brand equity measures: Further empirical results.
The Journal of Product and Brand Management, 10(1), 38.
Na, W. B., Marshall, R., & Keller, K. L. (1999). Measuring brand power: Validating a
model for optimizing brand equity. The Journal of Product and Brand
Management, 8(3), 170.
53
Nunnaly, J. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Ogilvy, D. (1983). Ogilvy on advertising. New York, NY: Vintage Books.
Perry, A. & Wisnom, D., III. (2003). Before the brand: Creating the unique DNA of an
enduring brand identity. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Petty, R. E. & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986a). Communication and persuasion: Central and
peripheral routes to persuasion. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
Petty, R. E. & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986b). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion.
In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 123-
205). New York, NY: Academic.
Pringle, H. & Thompson, M. (1999). Brand spirit: How cause related marketing builds
brands. Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons.
Richards, I., Foster, D., & Morgan, R. (1998). Brand Knowledge management: Growing
brand equity. Journal of Knowledge Management, 2(1), 47-55.
Ries, A. & Trout, J. (2001). Positioning: The battle for your mind. New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill.
Schmidt, K. & Ludlow, C. (2002). Inclusive branding: The why and how of a holistic
approach to brands. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Simonin, B. L. & Ruth, J. A. (1998). Is a company known by the company it keeps?
Assessing the spillover effects of brand alliances on consumer brand attitudes.
Journal of Marketing Research, 35(1), 30-42.
Smith, W. & Higgins, M. (2003). Cause-related marketing: Ethics and the ecstatic.
Business and Society, 39(3), 304-322.
Stroup, M. A., Neubert, R. L., & Anderson, J. W., Jr. (1987). Doing good, doing better:
54
Two views of social responsibility. Business Horizons, March-April, 22-25.
Till, B. D. & Nowak, L. I. (2000). Toward effective use of cause-related marketing
alliances. The Journal of Product and Brand Management, 9(7), 472.
VanAuken, B. (2003). Brand aid: An easy reference guide to solving your toughest
branding problems and strengthening your marketing position. New York, NY:
AMACOM.
Van Osselaer, S. J. & Alba, J. W. (2003). Locus of equity and brand extension. Journal of
Consumer Research, 29(4), 539-551.
Varadarajan, P. R. & Menon, A. (1988). Cause-related marketing: A coalignment of
marketing strategy and corporate philanthropy. Journal of Marketing, 52, 58-74.
Washburn, J. H. & Plank, R.E. (2002). Measuring brand equity: An evaluation of a
consumer-based brand equity scale. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice,
10(1), 46-63.
Washburn, J. H., Till, B. D., & Priluck, R. (2000). Co-branding: Brand equity and trial
effects. The Journal of Consumer Marketing, 17(7), 591.
Webb, D. J. & Mohr, L. A. (1998). A typology of consumer responses to cause-related
marketing: From skeptics to socially concerned. Journal of Public Policy &
Marketing, 17(2), 226-238.
Wood, L. (2000). Brands and brand equity: Definition and management. Management
Decision, 38(9), 662.
Yechiam, E., Barron, G., Erev, I., & Erez, M. (2002). On the robustness and direction of
the effect of cause-related marketing. Journal of Consumer Behavior, 2(4), 320-
332.
55
Appendices
56
Appendix A: Questionnaire Version 1
GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS
The following questionnaire is interested in determining your reactions to magazine advertisements. An ad has been provided for you to examine.
Please read the ad as you would normally do. After you read the ad, please answer all of the questions that follow -- then proceed to the next page. Please answer all of the questions before you turn the page. For those questions that have more than one scale to measure them, please make sure that you circle a number on every scale.
Thank you for your help.
1
57
Appendix A Continued
58
Appendix A Continued Please circle the response that most closely represents your feelings. 1. I am familiar with AT&T Wireless cellular phone service:
-2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or
disagree Agree Strongly agree
2. AT&T Wireless cellular phone service is known to many people:
-2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or
disagree Agree Strongly agree
4. My overall impression of AT&T Wireless cellular phone service is: Like Dislike
: 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 :
Favorable Unfavorable : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 :
Good Bad
: 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 :
Wanted Unwanted : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 :
5. I am familiar with the American Red Cross:
-2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or
disagree Agree Strongly agree
6. The American Red Cross is known to many people:
-2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or
disagree Agree Strongly agree
7. I have a stake in the American Red Cross:
-2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or
disagree Agree Strongly agree
8. The American Red Cross is important to me personally:
-2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or
disagree Agree Strongly agree
9. My support of the American Red Cross will ensure specific consequences:
-2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or
disagree Agree Strongly agree
59
Appendix A Continued 10. The consequences of my support of the American Red Cross will be immediate:
-2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or
disagree Agree Strongly agree
11. My support of the American Red Cross could make a difference:
-2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or
disagree Agree Strongly agree
12. My overall impression of the American Red Cross is: Like Dislike
: 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 :
Favorable Unfavorable : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 :
Good Bad
: 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 :
Wanted Unwanted : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 :
13. I feel that AT&T’s alliance with the American Red Cross is: Positive Negative
: 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 :
Favorable Unfavorable : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 :
Good Bad
: 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 :
Important to me Unimportant to me : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 :
14. Based on the ad, how likely is it that you would consider signing up for AT&T Wireless cellular phone service? Very likely Very unlikely
: 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 :
Definitely would consider Definitely would not consider : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 :
Very probable Not probable at all
: 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : 15. Are you currently a user of AT&T Wireless cellular phone service? YES NO
60
Appendix B: Questionnaire 2
GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS
The following questionnaire is interested in determining your reactions to magazine advertisements. An ad has been provided for you to examine.
Please read the ad as you would normally do. After you read the ad, please answer all of the questions that follow -- then proceed to the next page. Please answer all of the questions before you turn the page. For those questions that have more than one scale to measure them, please make sure that you circle a number on every scale.
Thank you for your help.
2
61
Appendix B Continued
62
Appendix B Continued Please circle the response that most closely represents your feelings. 1. I am familiar with AT&T Wireless cellular phone service:
-2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or
disagree Agree Strongly agree
2. AT&T Wireless cellular phone service is known to many people:
-2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or
disagree Agree Strongly agree
4. My overall impression of AT&T Wireless cellular phone service is: Like Dislike
: 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 :
Favorable Unfavorable : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 :
Good Bad
: 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 :
Wanted Unwanted : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 :
5. I am familiar with the United Way:
-2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or
disagree Agree Strongly agree
6. The United Way is known to many people:
-2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or
disagree Agree Strongly agree
7. I have a stake in the United Way:
-2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or
disagree Agree Strongly agree
8. The United Way is important to me personally:
-2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or
disagree Agree Strongly agree
9. My support of the United Way will ensure specific consequences:
-2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or
disagree Agree Strongly agree
63
Appendix B Continued 10. The consequences of my support of the United Way will be immediate:
-2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or
disagree Agree Strongly agree
11. My support of the United Way could make a difference:
-2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or
disagree Agree Strongly agree
12. My overall impression of the United Way is: Like Dislike
: 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 :
Favorable Unfavorable : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 :
Good Bad
: 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 :
Wanted Unwanted : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 :
13. I feel that AT&T’s alliance with the United Way is: Positive Negative
: 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 :
Favorable Unfavorable : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 :
Good Bad
: 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 :
Important to me Unimportant to me : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 :
14. Based on the ad, how likely is it that you would consider signing up for AT&T Wireless cellular phone service? Very likely Very unlikely
: 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 :
Definitely would consider Definitely would not consider : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 :
Very probable Not probable at all
: 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : 15. Are you currently a user of AT&T Wireless cellular phone service? YES NO
64
Appendix C: Questionnaire 3
GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS
The following questionnaire is interested in determining your reactions to magazine advertisements. An ad has been provided for you to examine.
Please read the ad as you would normally do. After you read the ad, please answer all of the questions that follow -- then proceed to the next page. Please answer all of the questions before you turn the page. For those questions that have more than one scale to measure them, please make sure that you circle a number on every scale.
Thank you for your help.
3
65
Appendix C Continued
66
Appendix C Continued Please circle the response that most closely represents your feelings. 1. I am familiar with AT&T Wireless cellular phone service:
-2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or
disagree Agree Strongly agree
2. AT&T Wireless cellular phone service is known to many people:
-2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or
disagree Agree Strongly agree
4. My overall impression of AT&T Wireless cellular phone service is: Like Dislike
: 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 :
Favorable Unfavorable : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 :
Good Bad
: 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 :
Wanted Unwanted : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 :
5. I am familiar with the School Crossing Safety Program:
-2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or
disagree Agree Strongly agree
6. The School Crossing Safety Program is known to many people:
-2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or
disagree Agree Strongly agree
7. I have a stake in the School Crossing Safety Program:
-2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or
disagree Agree Strongly agree
8. The School Crossing Safety Program is important to me personally:
-2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or
disagree Agree Strongly agree
9. My support of the School Crossing Safety Program will ensure specific consequences:
-2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or
disagree Agree Strongly agree
67
Appendix C Continued 10. The consequences of my support of the School Crossing Safety Program will be immediate:
-2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or
disagree Agree Strongly agree
11. My support of the School Crossing Safety Program could make a difference:
-2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or
disagree Agree Strongly agree
12. My overall impression of the School Crossing Safety Program is: Like Dislike
: 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 :
Favorable Unfavorable : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 :
Good Bad
: 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 :
Wanted Unwanted : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 :
13. I feel that AT&T’s alliance with the School Crossing Safety Program is: Positive Negative
: 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 :
Favorable Unfavorable : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 :
Good Bad
: 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 :
Important to me Unimportant to me : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 :
14. Based on the ad, how likely is it that you would consider signing up for AT&T Wireless cellular phone service? Very likely Very unlikely
: 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 :
Definitely would consider Definitely would not consider : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 :
Very probable Not probable at all
: 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : 15. Are you currently a user of AT&T Wireless cellular phone service? YES NO
68
Appendix D: Questionnaire 4
GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS
The following questionnaire is interested in determining your reactions to magazine advertisements. An ad has been provided for you to examine.
Please read the ad as you would normally do. After you read the ad, please answer all of the questions that follow -- then proceed to the next page. Please answer all of the questions before you turn the page. For those questions that have more than one scale to measure them, please make sure that you circle a number on every scale.
Thank you for your help.
4
69
Appendix D Continued
70
Appendix D Continued Please circle the response that most closely represents your feelings. 1. I am familiar with AT&T Wireless cellular phone service:
-2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or
disagree Agree Strongly agree
2. AT&T Wireless cellular phone service is known to many people:
-2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or
disagree Agree Strongly agree
4. My overall impression of AT&T Wireless cellular phone service is: Like Dislike
: 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 :
Favorable Unfavorable : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 :
Good Bad
: 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 :
Wanted Unwanted : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 :
5. I am familiar with Growing Friends:
-2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or
disagree Agree Strongly agree
6. Growing Friends is known to many people:
-2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or
disagree Agree Strongly agree
7. I have a stake in Growing Friends:
-2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or
disagree Agree Strongly agree
8. Growing Friends is important to me personally:
-2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or
disagree Agree Strongly agree
9. My support of Growing Friends will ensure specific consequences:
-2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or
disagree Agree Strongly agree
71
Appendix D Continued 10. The consequences of my support of Growing Friends will be immediate:
-2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or
disagree Agree Strongly agree
11. My support of Growing Friends could make a difference:
-2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or
disagree Agree Strongly agree
12. My overall impression of Growing Friends is: Like Dislike
: 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 :
Favorable Unfavorable : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 :
Good Bad
: 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 :
Wanted Unwanted : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 :
13. I feel that AT&T’s alliance with Growing Friends is: Positive Negative
: 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 :
Favorable Unfavorable : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 :
Good Bad
: 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 :
Important to me Unimportant to me : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 :
14. Based on the ad, how likely is it that you would consider signing up for AT&T Wireless cellular phone service? Very likely Very unlikely
: 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 :
Definitely would consider Definitely would not consider : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 :
Very probable Not probable at all
: 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : 15. Are you currently a user of AT&T Wireless cellular phone service? YES NO
72
Appendix E: Questionnaire 5
GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS
The following questionnaire is interested in determining your reactions to magazine advertisements. An ad has been provided for you to examine.
Please read the ad as you would normally do. After you read the ad, please answer all of the questions that follow -- then proceed to the next page. Please answer all of the questions before you turn the page. For those questions that have more than one scale to measure them, please make sure that you circle a number on every scale.
Thank you for your help.
5
73
Appendix E Continued
74
Appendix E Continued Please circle the response that most closely represents your feelings. 1. I am familiar with CricKet Wireless cellular phone service:
-2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or
disagree Agree Strongly agree
2. CricKet Wireless cellular phone service is known to many people:
-2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or
disagree Agree Strongly agree
4. My overall impression of CricKet Wireless cellular phone service is: Like Dislike
: 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 :
Favorable Unfavorable : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 :
Good Bad
: 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 :
Wanted Unwanted : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 :
5. I am familiar with the American Red Cross:
-2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or
disagree Agree Strongly agree
6. The American Red Cross is known to many people:
-2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or
disagree Agree Strongly agree
7. I have a stake in the American Red Cross:
-2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or
disagree Agree Strongly agree
8. The American Red Cross is important to me personally:
-2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or
disagree Agree Strongly agree
9. My support of the American Red Cross will ensure specific consequences:
-2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or
disagree Agree Strongly agree
75
Appendix E Continued 10. The consequences of my support of the American Red Cross will be immediate:
-2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or
disagree Agree Strongly agree
11. My support of the American Red Cross could make a difference:
-2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or
disagree Agree Strongly agree
12. My overall impression of the American Red Cross is: Like Dislike
: 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 :
Favorable Unfavorable : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 :
Good Bad
: 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 :
Wanted Unwanted : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 :
13. I feel that CricKet’s alliance with the American Red Cross is: Positive Negative
: 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 :
Favorable Unfavorable : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 :
Good Bad
: 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 :
Important to me Unimportant to me : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 :
14. Based on the ad, how likely is it that you would consider signing up for CricKet Wireless cellular phone service? Very likely Very unlikely
: 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 :
Definitely would consider Definitely would not consider : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 :
Very probable Not probable at all
: 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : 15. Are you currently a user of CricKet Wireless cellular phone service? YES NO
76
Appendix F: Questionnaire 6
GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS
The following questionnaire is interested in determining your reactions to magazine advertisements. An ad has been provided for you to examine.
Please read the ad as you would normally do. After you read the ad, please answer all of the questions that follow -- then proceed to the next page. Please answer all of the questions before you turn the page. For those questions that have more than one scale to measure them, please make sure that you circle a number on every scale.
Thank you for your help.
6
77
Appendix F Continued
78
Appendix F Continued Please circle the response that most closely represents your feelings. 1. I am familiar with CricKet Wireless cellular phone service:
-2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or
disagree Agree Strongly agree
2. CricKet Wireless cellular phone service is known to many people:
-2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or
disagree Agree Strongly agree
4. My overall impression of CricKet Wireless cellular phone service is: Like Dislike
: 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 :
Favorable Unfavorable : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 :
Good Bad
: 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 :
Wanted Unwanted : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 :
5. I am familiar with the United Way:
-2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or
disagree Agree Strongly agree
6. The United Way is known to many people:
-2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or
disagree Agree Strongly agree
7. I have a stake in the United Way:
-2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or
disagree Agree Strongly agree
8. The United Way is important to me personally:
-2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or
disagree Agree Strongly agree
9. My support of the United Way will ensure specific consequences:
-2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or
disagree Agree Strongly agree
79
Appendix F Continued 10. The consequences of my support of the United Way will be immediate:
-2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or
disagree Agree Strongly agree
11. My support of the United Way could make a difference:
-2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or
disagree Agree Strongly agree
12. My overall impression of the United Way is: Like Dislike
: 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 :
Favorable Unfavorable : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 :
Good Bad
: 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 :
Wanted Unwanted : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 :
13. I feel that CricKet’s alliance with the United Way is: Positive Negative
: 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 :
Favorable Unfavorable : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 :
Good Bad
: 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 :
Important to me Unimportant to me : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 :
14. Based on the ad, how likely is it that you would consider signing up for CricKet Wireless cellular phone service? Very likely Very unlikely
: 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 :
Definitely would consider Definitely would not consider : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 :
Very probable Not probable at all
: 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : 15. Are you currently a user of CricKet Wireless cellular phone service? YES NO
80
Appendix G: Questionnaire 7
GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS
The following questionnaire is interested in determining your reactions to magazine advertisements. An ad has been provided for you to examine.
Please read the ad as you would normally do. After you read the ad, please answer all of the questions that follow -- then proceed to the next page. Please answer all of the questions before you turn the page. For those questions that have more than one scale to measure them, please make sure that you circle a number on every scale.
Thank you for your help.
7
81
Appendix G Continued
82
Appendix G Continued Please circle the response that most closely represents your feelings. 1. I am familiar with CricKet Wireless cellular phone service:
-2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or
disagree Agree Strongly agree
2. CricKet Wireless cellular phone service is known to many people:
-2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or
disagree Agree Strongly agree
4. My overall impression of CricKet Wireless cellular phone service is: Like Dislike
: 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 :
Favorable Unfavorable : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 :
Good Bad
: 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 :
Wanted Unwanted : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 :
5. I am familiar with the School Crossing Safety Program:
-2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or
disagree Agree Strongly agree
6. The School Crossing Safety Program is known to many people:
-2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or
disagree Agree Strongly agree
7. I have a stake in the School Crossing Safety Program:
-2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or
disagree Agree Strongly agree
8. The School Crossing Safety Program is important to me personally:
-2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or
disagree Agree Strongly agree
9. My support of the School Crossing Safety Program will ensure specific consequences:
-2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or
disagree Agree Strongly agree
83
Appendix G Continued 10. The consequences of my support of the School Crossing Safety Program will be immediate:
-2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or
disagree Agree Strongly agree
11. My support of the School Crossing Safety Program could make a difference:
-2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or
disagree Agree Strongly agree
12. My overall impression of the School Crossing Safety Program is: Like Dislike
: 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 :
Favorable Unfavorable : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 :
Good Bad
: 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 :
Wanted Unwanted : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 :
13. I feel that CricKet’s alliance with the School Crossing Safety Program is: Positive Negative
: 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 :
Favorable Unfavorable : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 :
Good Bad
: 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 :
Important to me Unimportant to me : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 :
14. Based on the ad, how likely is it that you would consider signing up for CricKet Wireless cellular phone service? Very likely Very unlikely
: 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 :
Definitely would consider Definitely would not consider : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 :
Very probable Not probable at all
: 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : 15. Are you currently a user of CricKet Wireless cellular phone service? YES NO
84
Appendix H: Questionnaire 8
GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS
The following questionnaire is interested in determining your reactions to magazine advertisements. An ad has been provided for you to examine.
Please read the ad as you would normally do. After you read the ad, please answer all of the questions that follow -- then proceed to the next page. Please answer all of the questions before you turn the page. For those questions that have more than one scale to measure them, please make sure that you circle a number on every scale.
Thank you for your help.
8
85
Appendix H Continued
86
Appendix H Continued Please circle the response that most closely represents your feelings. 1. I am familiar with CricKet Wireless cellular phone service:
-2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or
disagree Agree Strongly agree
2. CricKet Wireless cellular phone service is known to many people:
-2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or
disagree Agree Strongly agree
4. My overall impression of CricKet Wireless cellular phone service is: Like Dislike
: 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 :
Favorable Unfavorable : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 :
Good Bad
: 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 :
Wanted Unwanted : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 :
5. I am familiar with Growing Friends:
-2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or
disagree Agree Strongly agree
6. Growing Friends is known to many people:
-2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or
disagree Agree Strongly agree
7. I have a stake in Growing Friends:
-2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or
disagree Agree Strongly agree
8. Growing Friends is important to me personally:
-2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or
disagree Agree Strongly agree
9. My support of Growing Friends will ensure specific consequences:
-2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or
disagree Agree Strongly agree
87
Appendix H Continued 10. The consequences of my support of Growing Friends will be immediate:
-2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or
disagree Agree Strongly agree
11. My support of Growing Friends could make a difference:
-2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or
disagree Agree Strongly agree
12. My overall impression of Growing Friends is: Like Dislike
: 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 :
Favorable Unfavorable : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 :
Good Bad
: 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 :
Wanted Unwanted : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 :
13. I feel that CricKet’s alliance with Growing Friends is: Positive Negative
: 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 :
Favorable Unfavorable : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 :
Good Bad
: 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 :
Important to me Unimportant to me : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 :
14. Based on the ad, how likely is it that you would consider signing up for CricKet Wireless cellular phone service? Very likely Very unlikely
: 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 :
Definitely would consider Definitely would not consider : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 :
Very probable Not probable at all
: 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : 15. Are you currently a user of CricKet Wireless cellular phone service? YES NO
Cau
se-R
espo
nse
Que
stio
nnai
re
In
stru
ctio
ns
T
he p
urpo
se o
f thi
s stu
dy is
to m
easu
re p
eopl
e’s i
nvol
vem
ent
with
cau
ses.
We
need
you
to ju
dge
vario
us c
ause
s aga
inst
a
serie
s of d
escr
iptiv
e sc
ales
acc
ordi
ng to
how
you
per
ceiv
e th
e ca
use.
Her
e is
how
to u
se th
ese
scal
es:
P
leas
e ci
rcle
the
resp
onse
that
mos
t clo
sely
repr
esen
ts your
feel
ings
. Fo
r exa
mpl
e, if
you
stro
ngly
agr
ee w
ith a
stat
emen
t co
ncer
ning
the
caus
e, th
en c
ircle
“+2
Stro
ngly
agr
ee.”
-2
-1
0 +1
+2
St
rong
ly
disa
gree
D
isag
ree
Nei
ther
agr
ee
or d
isag
ree
Agr
ee
Stro
ngly
agr
ee
I
f you
stro
ngly
dis
agre
e w
ith a
stat
emen
t con
cern
ing
the
caus
e, th
en c
ircle
“-2
Stro
ngly
dis
agre
e.”
-2
-1
0
+1
+2
Stro
ngly
di
sagr
ee
Dis
agre
e N
eith
er a
gree
or
dis
agre
e A
gree
St
rong
ly a
gree
P
leas
e ci
rcle
onl
y on
e re
spon
se p
er q
uest
ion.
• Am
eric
an R
ed C
ross
™
1. I
am
fam
iliar
with
the
Am
eric
an R
ed C
ross
:
-2
-1
0 +1
+2
St
rong
ly
disa
gree
D
isag
ree
Nei
ther
agr
ee o
r di
sagr
ee
Agr
ee
Stro
ngly
agr
ee
2. T
he A
mer
ican
Red
Cro
ss is
kno
wn
to m
any
peop
le:
-2
-1
0
+1
+2
Stro
ngly
di
sagr
ee
Dis
agre
e N
eith
er a
gree
or
disa
gree
A
gree
St
rong
ly a
gree
3. I
hav
e a
stak
e in
the
Am
eric
an R
ed C
ross
:
-2
-1
0 +1
+2
St
rong
ly
disa
gree
D
isag
ree
Nei
ther
agr
ee o
r di
sagr
ee
Agr
ee
Stro
ngly
agr
ee
4. T
he A
mer
ican
Red
Cro
ss is
impo
rtant
to m
e pe
rson
ally
:
-2
-1
0 +1
+2
St
rong
ly
disa
gree
D
isag
ree
Nei
ther
agr
ee o
r di
sagr
ee
Agr
ee
Stro
ngly
agr
ee
5. M
y su
ppor
t of t
he A
mer
ican
Red
Cro
ss w
ill e
nsur
e sp
ecifi
c co
nseq
uenc
es:
-2
-1
0
+1
+2
Stro
ngly
di
sagr
ee
Dis
agre
e N
eith
er a
gree
or
disa
gree
A
gree
St
rong
ly a
gree
6. T
he c
onse
quen
ces o
f my
supp
ort o
f the
Am
eric
an R
ed C
ross
will
be
imm
edia
te:
-2
-1
0
+1
+2
Stro
ngly
di
sagr
ee
Dis
agre
e N
eith
er a
gree
or
disa
gree
A
gree
St
rong
ly a
gree
7. M
y su
ppor
t of t
he A
mer
ican
Red
Cro
ss c
ould
mak
e a
diff
eren
ce:
-2
-1
0
+1
+2
Stro
ngly
di
sagr
ee
Dis
agre
e N
eith
er a
gree
or
dis
agre
e A
gree
St
rong
ly a
gree
Appendix I: Pretest Questionnaire
88
• The
Sch
ool C
ross
ing
Saf
ety
Pro
gram
™
8. I
am
fam
iliar
with
the
Scho
ol C
ross
ing
Safe
ty P
rogr
am:
-2
-1
0
+1
+2
Stro
ngly
di
sagr
ee
Dis
agre
e N
eith
er a
gree
or
disa
gree
A
gree
St
rong
ly a
gree
9. T
he S
choo
l Cro
ssin
g Sa
fety
Pro
gram
is k
now
n to
man
y pe
ople
:
-2
-1
0 +1
+2
St
rong
ly
disa
gree
D
isag
ree
Nei
ther
agr
ee o
r di
sagr
ee
Agr
ee
Stro
ngly
agr
ee
10.
I hav
e a
stak
e in
the
Scho
ol C
ross
ing
Safe
ty P
rogr
am:
-2
-1
0
+1
+2
Stro
ngly
di
sagr
ee
Dis
agre
e N
eith
er a
gree
or
disa
gree
A
gree
St
rong
ly a
gree
11.
The
Scho
ol C
ross
ing
Safe
ty P
rogr
am is
impo
rtant
to m
e pe
rson
ally
:
-2
-1
0 +1
+2
St
rong
ly
disa
gree
D
isag
ree
Nei
ther
agr
ee o
r di
sagr
ee
Agr
ee
Stro
ngly
agr
ee
12.
My
supp
ort o
f the
Sch
ool C
ross
ing
Safe
ty P
rogr
am w
ill e
nsur
e sp
ecifi
c co
nseq
uenc
es:
-2
-1
0
+1
+2
Stro
ngly
di
sagr
ee
Dis
agre
e N
eith
er a
gree
or
disa
gree
A
gree
St
rong
ly a
gree
13.
The
cons
eque
nces
of m
y su
ppor
t of t
he S
choo
l Cro
ssin
g Sa
fety
Pro
gram
will
be
imm
edia
te:
-2
-1
0
+1
+2
Stro
ngly
di
sagr
ee
Dis
agre
e N
eith
er a
gree
or
disa
gree
A
gree
St
rong
ly a
gree
14.
My
supp
ort o
f the
Sch
ool C
ross
ing
Safe
ty P
rogr
am c
ould
mak
e a
diff
eren
ce:
-2
-1
0
+1
+2
Stro
ngly
di
sagr
ee
Dis
agre
e N
eith
er a
gree
or
dis
agre
e A
gree
St
rong
ly a
gree
• 3rd
Gen
erat
ion
Wel
fare
Ass
ocia
tion
™
15.
I am
fam
iliar
with
the
3rd
Gen
erat
ion
Wel
fare
Ass
ocia
tion:
-2
-1
0 +1
+2
St
rong
ly
disa
gree
D
isag
ree
Nei
ther
agr
ee o
r di
sagr
ee
Agr
ee
Stro
ngly
agr
ee
16.
The
3rd
Gen
erat
ion
Wel
fare
Ass
ocia
tion
is k
now
n to
man
y pe
ople
:
-2
-1
0 +1
+2
St
rong
ly
disa
gree
D
isag
ree
Nei
ther
agr
ee o
r di
sagr
ee
Agr
ee
Stro
ngly
agr
ee
17.
I hav
e a
stak
e in
the
3rd
Gen
erat
ion
Wel
fare
Ass
ocia
tion:
-2
-1
0 +1
+2
St
rong
ly
disa
gree
D
isag
ree
Nei
ther
agr
ee o
r di
sagr
ee
Agr
ee
Stro
ngly
agr
ee
18.
The
3rd
Gen
erat
ion
Wel
fare
Ass
ocia
tion
is im
porta
nt to
me
pers
onal
ly:
-2
-1
0
+1
+2
Stro
ngly
di
sagr
ee
Dis
agre
e N
eith
er a
gree
or
disa
gree
A
gree
St
rong
ly a
gree
19.
My
supp
ort o
f the
3rd
Gen
erat
ion
Wel
fare
Ass
ocia
tion
will
ens
ure
spec
ific
cons
eque
nces
:
-2
-1
0 +1
+2
St
rong
ly
disa
gree
D
isag
ree
Nei
ther
agr
ee o
r di
sagr
ee
Agr
ee
Stro
ngly
agr
ee
20.
The
cons
eque
nces
of m
y su
ppor
t of t
he 3
rd G
ener
atio
n W
elfa
re A
ssoc
iatio
n w
ill b
e im
med
iate
:
-2
-1
0 +1
+2
St
rong
ly
disa
gree
D
isag
ree
Nei
ther
agr
ee o
r di
sagr
ee
Agr
ee
Stro
ngly
agr
ee
21.
My
supp
ort o
f the
3rd
Gen
erat
ion
Wel
fare
Ass
ocia
tion
coul
d m
ake
a di
ffer
ence
:
-2
-1
0 +1
+2
St
rong
ly
disa
gree
D
isag
ree
Nei
ther
agr
ee
or d
isag
ree
Agr
ee
Stro
ngly
agr
ee
Appendix I Continued
89
• The
Sie
rra
Clu
b™
22.
I am
fam
iliar
with
the
Sier
ra C
lub:
-2
-1
0 +1
+2
St
rong
ly
disa
gree
D
isag
ree
Nei
ther
agr
ee o
r di
sagr
ee
Agr
ee
Stro
ngly
agr
ee
23.
The
Sier
ra C
lub
is k
now
n to
man
y pe
ople
:
-2
-1
0 +1
+2
St
rong
ly
disa
gree
D
isag
ree
Nei
ther
agr
ee o
r di
sagr
ee
Agr
ee
Stro
ngly
agr
ee
24.
I hav
e a
stak
e in
the
Sier
ra C
lub:
-2
-1
0 +1
+2
St
rong
ly
disa
gree
D
isag
ree
Nei
ther
agr
ee o
r di
sagr
ee
Agr
ee
Stro
ngly
agr
ee
25.
The
Sier
ra C
lub
is im
porta
nt to
me
pers
onal
ly:
-2
-1
0
+1
+2
Stro
ngly
di
sagr
ee
Dis
agre
e N
eith
er a
gree
or
disa
gree
A
gree
St
rong
ly a
gree
26.
My
supp
ort o
f the
Sie
rra
Clu
b w
ill e
nsur
e sp
ecifi
c co
nseq
uenc
es:
-2
-1
0
+1
+2
Stro
ngly
di
sagr
ee
Dis
agre
e N
eith
er a
gree
or
disa
gree
A
gree
St
rong
ly a
gree
27.
The
cons
eque
nces
of m
y su
ppor
t of t
he S
ierr
a C
lub
will
be
imm
edia
te:
-2
-1
0
+1
+2
Stro
ngly
di
sagr
ee
Dis
agre
e N
eith
er a
gree
or
disa
gree
A
gree
St
rong
ly a
gree
28.
My
supp
ort o
f the
Sie
rra
Clu
b co
uld
mak
e a
diff
eren
ce:
-2
-1
0
+1
+2
Stro
ngly
di
sagr
ee
Dis
agre
e N
eith
er a
gree
or
dis
agre
e A
gree
St
rong
ly a
gree
• UN
ICE
F™
29.
I am
fam
iliar
with
UN
ICEF
:
-2
-1
0 +1
+2
St
rong
ly
disa
gree
D
isag
ree
Nei
ther
agr
ee o
r di
sagr
ee
Agr
ee
Stro
ngly
agr
ee
30.
UN
ICEF
is k
now
n to
man
y pe
ople
:
-2
-1
0 +1
+2
St
rong
ly
disa
gree
D
isag
ree
Nei
ther
agr
ee o
r di
sagr
ee
Agr
ee
Stro
ngly
agr
ee
31.
I hav
e a
stak
e in
UN
ICEF
:
-2
-1
0 +1
+2
St
rong
ly
disa
gree
D
isag
ree
Nei
ther
agr
ee o
r di
sagr
ee
Agr
ee
Stro
ngly
agr
ee
32.
UN
ICEF
is im
porta
nt to
me
pers
onal
ly:
-2
-1
0
+1
+2
Stro
ngly
di
sagr
ee
Dis
agre
e N
eith
er a
gree
or
disa
gree
A
gree
St
rong
ly a
gree
33.
My
supp
ort o
f UN
ICEF
will
ens
ure
spec
ific
cons
eque
nces
:
-2
-1
0 +1
+2
St
rong
ly
disa
gree
D
isag
ree
Nei
ther
agr
ee o
r di
sagr
ee
Agr
ee
Stro
ngly
agr
ee
34.
The
cons
eque
nces
of m
y su
ppor
t of U
NIC
EF w
ill b
e im
med
iate
:
-2
-1
0 +1
+2
St
rong
ly
disa
gree
D
isag
ree
Nei
ther
agr
ee o
r di
sagr
ee
Agr
ee
Stro
ngly
agr
ee
35.
My
supp
ort o
f UN
ICEF
cou
ld m
ake
a di
ffer
ence
:
-2
-1
0 +1
+2
St
rong
ly
disa
gree
D
isag
ree
Nei
ther
agr
ee
or d
isag
ree
Agr
ee
Stro
ngly
agr
ee
90
Appendix I Continued
• Wat
ch f
or M
otor
cycl
es™
36
. I a
m fa
mili
ar w
ith W
atch
for M
otor
cycl
es:
-2
-1
0
+1
+2
Stro
ngly
di
sagr
ee
Dis
agre
e N
eith
er a
gree
or
disa
gree
A
gree
St
rong
ly a
gree
37.
Wat
ch fo
r Mot
orcy
cles
is k
now
n to
man
y pe
ople
:
-2
-1
0 +1
+2
St
rong
ly
disa
gree
D
isag
ree
Nei
ther
agr
ee o
r di
sagr
ee
Agr
ee
Stro
ngly
agr
ee
38.
I hav
e a
stak
e in
Wat
ch fo
r Mot
orcy
cles
:
-2
-1
0 +1
+2
St
rong
ly
disa
gree
D
isag
ree
Nei
ther
agr
ee o
r di
sagr
ee
Agr
ee
Stro
ngly
agr
ee
39.
Wat
ch fo
r Mot
orcy
cles
is im
porta
nt to
me
pers
onal
ly:
-2
-1
0
+1
+2
Stro
ngly
di
sagr
ee
Dis
agre
e N
eith
er a
gree
or
disa
gree
A
gree
St
rong
ly a
gree
40.
My
supp
ort o
f Wat
ch fo
r Mot
orcy
cles
will
ens
ure
spec
ific
cons
eque
nces
:
-2
-1
0 +1
+2
St
rong
ly
disa
gree
D
isag
ree
Nei
ther
agr
ee o
r di
sagr
ee
Agr
ee
Stro
ngly
agr
ee
41.
The
cons
eque
nces
of m
y su
ppor
t of W
atch
for M
otor
cycl
es w
ill b
e im
med
iate
:
-2
-1
0 +1
+2
St
rong
ly
disa
gree
D
isag
ree
Nei
ther
agr
ee o
r di
sagr
ee
Agr
ee
Stro
ngly
agr
ee
42.
My
supp
ort o
f Wat
ch fo
r Mot
orcy
cles
cou
ld m
ake
a di
ffer
ence
:
-2
-1
0 +1
+2
St
rong
ly
disa
gree
D
isag
ree
Nei
ther
agr
ee
or d
isag
ree
Agr
ee
Stro
ngly
agr
ee
• Mar
ch o
f D
imes
™
43.
I am
fam
iliar
with
the
Mar
ch o
f Dim
es:
-2
-1
0
+1
+2
Stro
ngly
di
sagr
ee
Dis
agre
e N
eith
er a
gree
or
disa
gree
A
gree
St
rong
ly a
gree
44.
The
Mar
ch o
f Dim
es is
kno
wn
to m
any
peop
le:
-2
-1
0
+1
+2
Stro
ngly
di
sagr
ee
Dis
agre
e N
eith
er a
gree
or
disa
gree
A
gree
St
rong
ly a
gree
45.
I hav
e a
stak
e in
the
Mar
ch o
f Dim
es:
-2
-1
0
+1
+2
Stro
ngly
di
sagr
ee
Dis
agre
e N
eith
er a
gree
or
disa
gree
A
gree
St
rong
ly a
gree
46.
The
Mar
ch o
f Dim
es is
impo
rtant
to m
e pe
rson
ally
:
-2
-1
0 +1
+2
St
rong
ly
disa
gree
D
isag
ree
Nei
ther
agr
ee o
r di
sagr
ee
Agr
ee
Stro
ngly
agr
ee
47.
My
supp
ort o
f the
Mar
ch o
f Dim
es w
ill e
nsur
e sp
ecifi
c co
nseq
uenc
es:
-2
-1
0
+1
+2
Stro
ngly
di
sagr
ee
Dis
agre
e N
eith
er a
gree
or
disa
gree
A
gree
St
rong
ly a
gree
48.
The
cons
eque
nces
of m
y su
ppor
t of t
he M
arch
of D
imes
will
be
imm
edia
te:
-2
-1
0
+1
+2
Stro
ngly
di
sagr
ee
Dis
agre
e N
eith
er a
gree
or
disa
gree
A
gree
St
rong
ly a
gree
49.
My
supp
ort o
f the
Mar
ch o
f Dim
es c
ould
mak
e a
diff
eren
ce:
-2
-1
0
+1
+2
Stro
ngly
di
sagr
ee
Dis
agre
e N
eith
er a
gree
or
dis
agre
e A
gree
St
rong
ly a
gree
Appendix I Continued
91
• The
Mob
ile S
oup
Kit
chen
™
50.
I am
fam
iliar
with
the
Mob
ile S
oup
Kitc
hen:
-2
-1
0 +1
+2
St
rong
ly
disa
gree
D
isag
ree
Nei
ther
agr
ee o
r di
sagr
ee
Agr
ee
Stro
ngly
agr
ee
51.
The
Mob
ile S
oup
Kitc
hen
is k
now
n to
man
y pe
ople
:
-2
-1
0 +1
+2
St
rong
ly
disa
gree
D
isag
ree
Nei
ther
agr
ee o
r di
sagr
ee
Agr
ee
Stro
ngly
agr
ee
52.
I hav
e a
stak
e in
the
Mob
ile S
oup
Kitc
hen:
-2
-1
0 +1
+2
St
rong
ly
disa
gree
D
isag
ree
Nei
ther
agr
ee o
r di
sagr
ee
Agr
ee
Stro
ngly
agr
ee
53.
The
Mob
ile S
oup
Kitc
hen
is im
porta
nt to
me
pers
onal
ly:
-2
-1
0
+1
+2
Stro
ngly
di
sagr
ee
Dis
agre
e N
eith
er a
gree
or
disa
gree
A
gree
St
rong
ly a
gree
54.
My
supp
ort o
f the
Mob
ile S
oup
Kitc
hen
will
ens
ure
spec
ific
cons
eque
nces
:
-2
-1
0 +1
+2
St
rong
ly
disa
gree
D
isag
ree
Nei
ther
agr
ee o
r di
sagr
ee
Agr
ee
Stro
ngly
agr
ee
55.
The
cons
eque
nces
of m
y su
ppor
t of t
he M
obile
Sou
p K
itche
n w
ill b
e im
med
iate
:
-2
-1
0 +1
+2
St
rong
ly
disa
gree
D
isag
ree
Nei
ther
agr
ee o
r di
sagr
ee
Agr
ee
Stro
ngly
agr
ee
56.
My
supp
ort o
f the
Mob
ile S
oup
Kitc
hen
coul
d m
ake
a di
ffer
ence
:
-2
-1
0 +1
+2
St
rong
ly
disa
gree
D
isag
ree
Nei
ther
agr
ee
or d
isag
ree
Agr
ee
Stro
ngly
agr
ee
• Gro
win
g Fr
iend
s™
57.
I am
fam
iliar
with
Gro
win
g Fr
iend
s:
-2
-1
0
+1
+2
Stro
ngly
di
sagr
ee
Dis
agre
e N
eith
er a
gree
or
disa
gree
A
gree
St
rong
ly a
gree
58.
Gro
win
g Fr
iend
s is k
now
n to
man
y pe
ople
:
-2
-1
0 +1
+2
St
rong
ly
disa
gree
D
isag
ree
Nei
ther
agr
ee o
r di
sagr
ee
Agr
ee
Stro
ngly
agr
ee
59.
I hav
e a
stak
e in
Gro
win
g Fr
iend
s:
-2
-1
0
+1
+2
Stro
ngly
di
sagr
ee
Dis
agre
e N
eith
er a
gree
or
disa
gree
A
gree
St
rong
ly a
gree
60.
Gro
win
g Fr
iend
s is i
mpo
rtant
to m
e pe
rson
ally
:
-2
-1
0 +1
+2
St
rong
ly
disa
gree
D
isag
ree
Nei
ther
agr
ee o
r di
sagr
ee
Agr
ee
Stro
ngly
agr
ee
61.
My
supp
ort o
f Gro
win
g Fr
iend
s will
ens
ure
spec
ific
cons
eque
nces
:
-2
-1
0 +1
+2
St
rong
ly
disa
gree
D
isag
ree
Nei
ther
agr
ee o
r di
sagr
ee
Agr
ee
Stro
ngly
agr
ee
62.
The
cons
eque
nces
of m
y su
ppor
t of G
row
ing
Frie
nds w
ill b
e im
med
iate
:
-2
-1
0 +1
+2
St
rong
ly
disa
gree
D
isag
ree
Nei
ther
agr
ee o
r di
sagr
ee
Agr
ee
Stro
ngly
agr
ee
63.
My
supp
ort o
f Gro
win
g Fr
iend
s cou
ld m
ake
a di
ffer
ence
:
-2
-1
0 +1
+2
St
rong
ly
disa
gree
D
isag
ree
Nei
ther
agr
ee
or d
isag
ree
Agr
ee
Stro
ngly
agr
ee
Appendix I Continued
92
• YM
CA
™
64.
I am
fam
iliar
with
the
YM
CA
:
-2
-1
0 +1
+2
St
rong
ly
disa
gree
D
isag
ree
Nei
ther
agr
ee o
r di
sagr
ee
Agr
ee
Stro
ngly
agr
ee
65.
The
YM
CA
is k
now
n to
man
y pe
ople
:
-2
-1
0 +1
+2
St
rong
ly
disa
gree
D
isag
ree
Nei
ther
agr
ee o
r di
sagr
ee
Agr
ee
Stro
ngly
agr
ee
66.
I hav
e a
stak
e in
the
YM
CA
:
-2
-1
0 +1
+2
St
rong
ly
disa
gree
D
isag
ree
Nei
ther
agr
ee o
r di
sagr
ee
Agr
ee
Stro
ngly
agr
ee
67.
The
YM
CA
is im
porta
nt to
me
pers
onal
ly:
-2
-1
0
+1
+2
Stro
ngly
di
sagr
ee
Dis
agre
e N
eith
er a
gree
or
disa
gree
A
gree
St
rong
ly a
gree
68.
My
supp
ort o
f the
YM
CA
will
ens
ure
spec
ific
cons
eque
nces
:
-2
-1
0 +1
+2
St
rong
ly
disa
gree
D
isag
ree
Nei
ther
agr
ee o
r di
sagr
ee
Agr
ee
Stro
ngly
agr
ee
69.
The
cons
eque
nces
of m
y su
ppor
t of t
he Y
MC
A w
ill b
e im
med
iate
:
-2
-1
0 +1
+2
St
rong
ly
disa
gree
D
isag
ree
Nei
ther
agr
ee o
r di
sagr
ee
Agr
ee
Stro
ngly
agr
ee
70.
My
supp
ort o
f the
YM
CA
cou
ld m
ake
a di
ffer
ence
:
-2
-1
0 +1
+2
St
rong
ly
disa
gree
D
isag
ree
Nei
ther
agr
ee
or d
isag
ree
Agr
ee
Stro
ngly
agr
ee
• Eat
ing
for
Life
™
71.
I am
fam
iliar
with
Eat
ing
for L
ife:
-2
-1
0
+1
+2
Stro
ngly
di
sagr
ee
Dis
agre
e N
eith
er a
gree
or
disa
gree
A
gree
St
rong
ly a
gree
72.
Eatin
g fo
r Life
is k
now
n to
man
y pe
ople
:
-2
-1
0 +1
+2
St
rong
ly
disa
gree
D
isag
ree
Nei
ther
agr
ee o
r di
sagr
ee
Agr
ee
Stro
ngly
agr
ee
73.
I hav
e a
stak
e in
Eat
ing
for L
ife:
-2
-1
0
+1
+2
Stro
ngly
di
sagr
ee
Dis
agre
e N
eith
er a
gree
or
disa
gree
A
gree
St
rong
ly a
gree
74.
Eatin
g fo
r Life
is im
porta
nt to
me
pers
onal
ly:
-2
-1
0
+1
+2
Stro
ngly
di
sagr
ee
Dis
agre
e N
eith
er a
gree
or
disa
gree
A
gree
St
rong
ly a
gree
75.
My
supp
ort o
f Eat
ing
for L
ife w
ill e
nsur
e sp
ecifi
c co
nseq
uenc
es:
-2
-1
0
+1
+2
Stro
ngly
di
sagr
ee
Dis
agre
e N
eith
er a
gree
or
disa
gree
A
gree
St
rong
ly a
gree
76.
The
cons
eque
nces
of m
y su
ppor
t of E
atin
g fo
r Life
will
be
imm
edia
te:
-2
-1
0
+1
+2
Stro
ngly
di
sagr
ee
Dis
agre
e N
eith
er a
gree
or
disa
gree
A
gree
St
rong
ly a
gree
77.
My
supp
ort o
f Eat
ing
for L
ife c
ould
mak
e a
diff
eren
ce:
-2
-1
0
+1
+2
Stro
ngly
di
sagr
ee
Dis
agre
e N
eith
er a
gree
or
dis
agre
e A
gree
St
rong
ly a
gree
Appendix I Continued
93
• Bik
e to
Wor
k™
78.
I am
fam
iliar
with
Bik
e to
Wor
k:
-2
-1
0
+1
+2
Stro
ngly
di
sagr
ee
Dis
agre
e N
eith
er a
gree
or
disa
gree
A
gree
St
rong
ly a
gree
79.
Bik
e to
Wor
k is
kno
wn
to m
any
peop
le:
-2
-1
0
+1
+2
Stro
ngly
di
sagr
ee
Dis
agre
e N
eith
er a
gree
or
disa
gree
A
gree
St
rong
ly a
gree
80.
I hav
e a
stak
e in
Bik
e to
Wor
k:
-2
-1
0
+1
+2
Stro
ngly
di
sagr
ee
Dis
agre
e N
eith
er a
gree
or
disa
gree
A
gree
St
rong
ly a
gree
81.
Bik
e to
Wor
k is
impo
rtant
to m
e pe
rson
ally
:
-2
-1
0 +1
+2
St
rong
ly
disa
gree
D
isag
ree
Nei
ther
agr
ee o
r di
sagr
ee
Agr
ee
Stro
ngly
agr
ee
82.
My
supp
ort o
f Bik
e to
Wor
k w
ill e
nsur
e sp
ecifi
c co
nseq
uenc
es:
-2
-1
0
+1
+2
Stro
ngly
di
sagr
ee
Dis
agre
e N
eith
er a
gree
or
disa
gree
A
gree
St
rong
ly a
gree
83.
The
cons
eque
nces
of m
y su
ppor
t of B
ike
to W
ork
will
be
imm
edia
te:
-2
-1
0
+1
+2
Stro
ngly
di
sagr
ee
Dis
agre
e N
eith
er a
gree
or
disa
gree
A
gree
St
rong
ly a
gree
84.
My
supp
ort o
f Bik
e to
Wor
k co
uld
mak
e a
diff
eren
ce:
-2
-1
0
+1
+2
Stro
ngly
di
sagr
ee
Dis
agre
e N
eith
er a
gree
or
dis
agre
e A
gree
St
rong
ly a
gree
• Am
eric
an C
ance
r S
ocie
ty™
85
. I a
m fa
mili
ar w
ith th
e A
mer
ican
Can
cer S
ocie
ty:
-2
-1
0
+1
+2
Stro
ngly
di
sagr
ee
Dis
agre
e N
eith
er a
gree
or
disa
gree
A
gree
St
rong
ly a
gree
86.
The
Am
eric
an C
ance
r Soc
iety
is k
now
n to
man
y pe
ople
:
-2
-1
0 +1
+2
St
rong
ly
disa
gree
D
isag
ree
Nei
ther
agr
ee o
r di
sagr
ee
Agr
ee
Stro
ngly
agr
ee
87.
I hav
e a
stak
e in
the
Am
eric
an C
ance
r Soc
iety
:
-2
-1
0 +1
+2
St
rong
ly
disa
gree
D
isag
ree
Nei
ther
agr
ee o
r di
sagr
ee
Agr
ee
Stro
ngly
agr
ee
88.
The
Am
eric
an C
ance
r Soc
iety
is im
porta
nt to
me
pers
onal
ly:
-2
-1
0
+1
+2
Stro
ngly
di
sagr
ee
Dis
agre
e N
eith
er a
gree
or
disa
gree
A
gree
St
rong
ly a
gree
89.
My
supp
ort o
f the
Am
eric
an C
ance
r Soc
iety
will
ens
ure
spec
ific
cons
eque
nces
:
-2
-1
0 +1
+2
St
rong
ly
disa
gree
D
isag
ree
Nei
ther
agr
ee o
r di
sagr
ee
Agr
ee
Stro
ngly
agr
ee
90.
The
cons
eque
nces
of m
y su
ppor
t of t
he A
mer
ican
Can
cer S
ocie
ty w
ill b
e im
med
iate
:
-2
-1
0 +1
+2
St
rong
ly
disa
gree
D
isag
ree
Nei
ther
agr
ee o
r di
sagr
ee
Agr
ee
Stro
ngly
agr
ee
91.
My
supp
ort o
f the
Am
eric
an C
ance
r Soc
iety
cou
ld m
ake
a di
ffer
ence
:
-2
-1
0 +1
+2
St
rong
ly
disa
gree
D
isag
ree
Nei
ther
agr
ee
or d
isag
ree
Agr
ee
Stro
ngly
agr
ee
Appendix I Continued
94
• The
Sal
vati
on A
rmy™
92
. I a
m fa
mili
ar w
ith th
e Sa
lvat
ion
Arm
y:
-2
-1
0
+1
+2
Stro
ngly
di
sagr
ee
Dis
agre
e N
eith
er a
gree
or
disa
gree
A
gree
St
rong
ly a
gree
93.
The
Salv
atio
n A
rmy
is k
now
n to
man
y pe
ople
:
-2
-1
0 +1
+2
St
rong
ly
disa
gree
D
isag
ree
Nei
ther
agr
ee o
r di
sagr
ee
Agr
ee
Stro
ngly
agr
ee
94.
I hav
e a
stak
e in
the
Salv
atio
n A
rmy:
-2
-1
0 +1
+2
St
rong
ly
disa
gree
D
isag
ree
Nei
ther
agr
ee o
r di
sagr
ee
Agr
ee
Stro
ngly
agr
ee
95.
The
Salv
atio
n A
rmy
is im
porta
nt to
me
pers
onal
ly:
-2
-1
0
+1
+2
Stro
ngly
di
sagr
ee
Dis
agre
e N
eith
er a
gree
or
disa
gree
A
gree
St
rong
ly a
gree
96.
My
supp
ort o
f the
Sal
vatio
n A
rmy
will
ens
ure
spec
ific
cons
eque
nces
:
-2
-1
0 +1
+2
St
rong
ly
disa
gree
D
isag
ree
Nei
ther
agr
ee o
r di
sagr
ee
Agr
ee
Stro
ngly
agr
ee
97.
The
cons
eque
nces
of m
y su
ppor
t of t
he S
alva
tion
Arm
y w
ill b
e im
med
iate
:
-2
-1
0 +1
+2
St
rong
ly
disa
gree
D
isag
ree
Nei
ther
agr
ee o
r di
sagr
ee
Agr
ee
Stro
ngly
agr
ee
98.
My
supp
ort o
f the
Sal
vatio
n A
rmy
coul
d m
ake
a di
ffer
ence
:
-2
-1
0 +1
+2
St
rong
ly
disa
gree
D
isag
ree
Nei
ther
agr
ee
or d
isag
ree
Agr
ee
Stro
ngly
agr
ee
• Goo
dwill
™
99.
I am
fam
iliar
with
Goo
dwill
:
-2
-1
0 +1
+2
St
rong
ly
disa
gree
D
isag
ree
Nei
ther
agr
ee o
r di
sagr
ee
Agr
ee
Stro
ngly
agr
ee
100.
Goo
dwill
is k
now
n to
man
y pe
ople
:
-2
-1
0 +1
+2
St
rong
ly
disa
gree
D
isag
ree
Nei
ther
agr
ee o
r di
sagr
ee
Agr
ee
Stro
ngly
agr
ee
101.
I h
ave
a st
ake
in G
oodw
ill:
-2
-1
0
+1
+2
Stro
ngly
di
sagr
ee
Dis
agre
e N
eith
er a
gree
or
disa
gree
A
gree
St
rong
ly a
gree
102.
Goo
dwill
is im
porta
nt to
me
pers
onal
ly:
-2
-1
0
+1
+2
Stro
ngly
di
sagr
ee
Dis
agre
e N
eith
er a
gree
or
disa
gree
A
gree
St
rong
ly a
gree
103.
My
supp
ort o
f Goo
dwill
will
ens
ure
spec
ific
cons
eque
nces
:
-2
-1
0 +1
+2
St
rong
ly
disa
gree
D
isag
ree
Nei
ther
agr
ee o
r di
sagr
ee
Agr
ee
Stro
ngly
agr
ee
104.
The
con
sequ
ence
s of m
y su
ppor
t of G
oodw
ill w
ill b
e im
med
iate
:
-2
-1
0 +1
+2
St
rong
ly
disa
gree
D
isag
ree
Nei
ther
agr
ee o
r di
sagr
ee
Agr
ee
Stro
ngly
agr
ee
105.
My
supp
ort o
f Goo
dwill
cou
ld m
ake
a di
ffer
ence
:
-2
-1
0 +1
+2
St
rong
ly
disa
gree
D
isag
ree
Nei
ther
agr
ee
or d
isag
ree
Agr
ee
Stro
ngly
agr
ee
Appendix I Continued
95
• The
Spe
cial
Oly
mpi
cs™
10
6. I
am
fam
iliar
with
the
Spec
ial O
lym
pics
:
-2
-1
0 +1
+2
St
rong
ly
disa
gree
D
isag
ree
Nei
ther
agr
ee o
r di
sagr
ee
Agr
ee
Stro
ngly
agr
ee
107.
The
Spe
cial
Oly
mpi
cs is
kno
wn
to m
any
peop
le:
-2
-1
0
+1
+2
Stro
ngly
di
sagr
ee
Dis
agre
e N
eith
er a
gree
or
disa
gree
A
gree
St
rong
ly a
gree
108.
I h
ave
a st
ake
in th
e Sp
ecia
l Oly
mpi
cs:
-2
-1
0
+1
+2
Stro
ngly
di
sagr
ee
Dis
agre
e N
eith
er a
gree
or
disa
gree
A
gree
St
rong
ly a
gree
109.
The
Spe
cial
Oly
mpi
cs is
impo
rtant
to m
e pe
rson
ally
:
-2
-1
0 +1
+2
St
rong
ly
disa
gree
D
isag
ree
Nei
ther
agr
ee o
r di
sagr
ee
Agr
ee
Stro
ngly
agr
ee
110.
My
supp
ort o
f the
Spe
cial
Oly
mpi
cs w
ill e
nsur
e sp
ecifi
c co
nseq
uenc
es:
-2
-1
0
+1
+2
Stro
ngly
di
sagr
ee
Dis
agre
e N
eith
er a
gree
or
disa
gree
A
gree
St
rong
ly a
gree
111.
The
con
sequ
ence
s of m
y su
ppor
t of t
he S
peci
al O
lym
pics
will
be
imm
edia
te:
-2
-1
0
+1
+2
Stro
ngly
di
sagr
ee
Dis
agre
e N
eith
er a
gree
or
disa
gree
A
gree
St
rong
ly a
gree
112.
My
supp
ort o
f the
Spe
cial
Oly
mpi
cs c
ould
mak
e a
diff
eren
ce:
-2
-1
0
+1
+2
Stro
ngly
di
sagr
ee
Dis
agre
e N
eith
er a
gree
or
dis
agre
e A
gree
St
rong
ly a
gree
• Lib
rary
Fre
e A
mer
ica™
11
3. I
am
fam
iliar
with
Lib
rary
Fre
e A
mer
ica:
-2
-1
0 +1
+2
St
rong
ly
disa
gree
D
isag
ree
Nei
ther
agr
ee o
r di
sagr
ee
Agr
ee
Stro
ngly
agr
ee
114.
Lib
rary
Fre
e A
mer
ica
is k
now
n to
man
y pe
ople
:
-2
-1
0 +1
+2
St
rong
ly
disa
gree
D
isag
ree
Nei
ther
agr
ee o
r di
sagr
ee
Agr
ee
Stro
ngly
agr
ee
115.
I h
ave
a st
ake
in L
ibra
ry F
ree
Am
eric
a:
-2
-1
0
+1
+2
Stro
ngly
di
sagr
ee
Dis
agre
e N
eith
er a
gree
or
disa
gree
A
gree
St
rong
ly a
gree
116.
Lib
rary
Fre
e A
mer
ica
is im
porta
nt to
me
pers
onal
ly:
-2
-1
0
+1
+2
Stro
ngly
di
sagr
ee
Dis
agre
e N
eith
er a
gree
or
disa
gree
A
gree
St
rong
ly a
gree
117.
My
supp
ort o
f Lib
rary
Fre
e A
mer
ica
will
ens
ure
spec
ific
cons
eque
nces
:
-2
-1
0 +1
+2
St
rong
ly
disa
gree
D
isag
ree
Nei
ther
agr
ee o
r di
sagr
ee
Agr
ee
Stro
ngly
agr
ee
118.
The
con
sequ
ence
s of m
y su
ppor
t of L
ibra
ry F
ree
Am
eric
a w
ill b
e im
med
iate
:
-2
-1
0 +1
+2
St
rong
ly
disa
gree
D
isag
ree
Nei
ther
agr
ee o
r di
sagr
ee
Agr
ee
Stro
ngly
agr
ee
119.
My
supp
ort o
f Lib
rary
Fre
e A
mer
ica
coul
d m
ake
a di
ffer
ence
:
-2
-1
0 +1
+2
St
rong
ly
disa
gree
D
isag
ree
Nei
ther
agr
ee
or d
isag
ree
Agr
ee
Stro
ngly
agr
ee
Appendix I Continued
96
• 211
™
120.
I a
m fa
mili
ar w
ith 2
11:
-2
-1
0
+1
+2
Stro
ngly
di
sagr
ee
Dis
agre
e N
eith
er a
gree
or
disa
gree
A
gree
St
rong
ly a
gree
121.
211
is k
now
n to
man
y pe
ople
:
-2
-1
0 +1
+2
St
rong
ly
disa
gree
D
isag
ree
Nei
ther
agr
ee o
r di
sagr
ee
Agr
ee
Stro
ngly
agr
ee
122.
I h
ave
a st
ake
in 2
11:
-2
-1
0
+1
+2
Stro
ngly
di
sagr
ee
Dis
agre
e N
eith
er a
gree
or
disa
gree
A
gree
St
rong
ly a
gree
123.
211
is im
porta
nt to
me
pers
onal
ly:
-2
-1
0
+1
+2
Stro
ngly
di
sagr
ee
Dis
agre
e N
eith
er a
gree
or
disa
gree
A
gree
St
rong
ly a
gree
124.
My
supp
ort o
f 211
will
ens
ure
spec
ific
cons
eque
nces
:
-2
-1
0 +1
+2
St
rong
ly
disa
gree
D
isag
ree
Nei
ther
agr
ee o
r di
sagr
ee
Agr
ee
Stro
ngly
agr
ee
125.
The
con
sequ
ence
s of m
y su
ppor
t of 2
11 w
ill b
e im
med
iate
:
-2
-1
0 +1
+2
St
rong
ly
disa
gree
D
isag
ree
Nei
ther
agr
ee o
r di
sagr
ee
Agr
ee
Stro
ngly
agr
ee
126.
My
supp
ort o
f 211
cou
ld m
ake
a di
ffer
ence
:
-2
-1
0 +1
+2
St
rong
ly
disa
gree
D
isag
ree
Nei
ther
agr
ee
or d
isag
ree
Agr
ee
Stro
ngly
agr
ee
• The
Uni
ted
Way
™
127.
I a
m fa
mili
ar w
ith th
e U
nite
d W
ay:
-2
-1
0
+1
+2
Stro
ngly
di
sagr
ee
Dis
agre
e N
eith
er a
gree
or
disa
gree
A
gree
St
rong
ly a
gree
128.
The
Uni
ted
Way
is k
now
n to
man
y pe
ople
:
-2
-1
0 +1
+2
St
rong
ly
disa
gree
D
isag
ree
Nei
ther
agr
ee o
r di
sagr
ee
Agr
ee
Stro
ngly
agr
ee
129.
I h
ave
a st
ake
in th
e U
nite
d W
ay:
-2
-1
0
+1
+2
Stro
ngly
di
sagr
ee
Dis
agre
e N
eith
er a
gree
or
disa
gree
A
gree
St
rong
ly a
gree
130.
The
Uni
ted
Way
is im
porta
nt to
me
pers
onal
ly:
-2
-1
0
+1
+2
Stro
ngly
di
sagr
ee
Dis
agre
e N
eith
er a
gree
or
disa
gree
A
gree
St
rong
ly a
gree
131.
My
supp
ort o
f the
Uni
ted
Way
will
ens
ure
spec
ific
cons
eque
nces
:
-2
-1
0 +1
+2
St
rong
ly
disa
gree
D
isag
ree
Nei
ther
agr
ee o
r di
sagr
ee
Agr
ee
Stro
ngly
agr
ee
132.
The
con
sequ
ence
s of m
y su
ppor
t of t
he U
nite
d W
ay w
ill b
e im
med
iate
:
-2
-1
0 +1
+2
St
rong
ly
disa
gree
D
isag
ree
Nei
ther
agr
ee o
r di
sagr
ee
Agr
ee
Stro
ngly
agr
ee
133.
My
supp
ort o
f the
Uni
ted
Way
cou
ld m
ake
a di
ffer
ence
:
-2
-1
0 +1
+2
St
rong
ly
disa
gree
D
isag
ree
Nei
ther
agr
ee
or d
isag
ree
Agr
ee
Stro
ngly
agr
ee
Appendix I Continued
97
• Org
anic
Con
sum
ers
Ass
ocia
tion
™
134.
I a
m fa
mili
ar w
ith th
e O
rgan
ic C
onsu
mer
s Ass
ocia
tion:
-2
-1
0 +1
+2
St
rong
ly
disa
gree
D
isag
ree
Nei
ther
agr
ee o
r di
sagr
ee
Agr
ee
Stro
ngly
agr
ee
135.
The
Org
anic
Con
sum
ers A
ssoc
iatio
n is
kno
wn
to m
any
peop
le:
-2
-1
0
+1
+2
Stro
ngly
di
sagr
ee
Dis
agre
e N
eith
er a
gree
or
disa
gree
A
gree
St
rong
ly a
gree
136.
I h
ave
a st
ake
in th
e O
rgan
ic C
onsu
mer
s Ass
ocia
tion:
-2
-1
0 +1
+2
St
rong
ly
disa
gree
D
isag
ree
Nei
ther
agr
ee o
r di
sagr
ee
Agr
ee
Stro
ngly
agr
ee
137.
The
Org
anic
Con
sum
ers A
ssoc
iatio
n is
impo
rtant
to m
e pe
rson
ally
:
-2
-1
0 +1
+2
St
rong
ly
disa
gree
D
isag
ree
Nei
ther
agr
ee o
r di
sagr
ee
Agr
ee
Stro
ngly
agr
ee
138.
My
supp
ort o
f the
Org
anic
Con
sum
ers A
ssoc
iatio
n w
ill e
nsur
e sp
ecifi
c co
nseq
uenc
es:
-2
-1
0
+1
+2
Stro
ngly
di
sagr
ee
Dis
agre
e N
eith
er a
gree
or
disa
gree
A
gree
St
rong
ly a
gree
139.
The
con
sequ
ence
s of m
y su
ppor
t of t
he O
rgan
ic C
onsu
mer
s Ass
ocia
tion
will
be
imm
edia
te:
-2
-1
0
+1
+2
Stro
ngly
di
sagr
ee
Dis
agre
e N
eith
er a
gree
or
disa
gree
A
gree
St
rong
ly a
gree
140.
My
supp
ort o
f the
Org
anic
Con
sum
ers A
ssoc
iatio
n co
uld
mak
e a
diff
eren
ce:
-2
-1
0
+1
+2
Stro
ngly
di
sagr
ee
Dis
agre
e N
eith
er a
gree
or
dis
agre
e A
gree
St
rong
ly a
gree
Than
k Yo
u
Appendix I Continued
98