Branding

The Impact of Moral Emotions on Cause-Related Marketing Campaigns: A Cross-Cultural Examination

Jae-Eun Kim • Kim K. P. Johnson

Received: 11 May 2011 / Accepted: 20 January 2012 / Published online: 10 February 2012

� Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Abstract This research was focused on investigating why

some consumers might support cause-related marketing

campaigns for reasons other than personal benefit by

examining the influence of moral emotions and cultural

orientation. The authors investigated the extent to which

moral emotions operate differently across a cultural vari-

able (US versus Korea) and an individual difference vari-

able (self-construal). A survey method was utilised. Data

were collected from a convenience sample of US

(n = 180) and Korean (n = 191) undergraduates. Moral

emotions significantly influenced purchase intention for a

social-cause product. The influence of an ego-focused

moral emotion (i.e., pride) on purchase intention was

greater for US than Korean participants. The influence of

another-focused moral emotion (i.e., guilt) on purchase

intention was greater for high-interdependent participants

than for low-interdependent participants. The findings of

this research provide important and relevant implications to

marketers and policy makers in developing persuasive

messages and customer relationship programmes.

Keywords Cause-related marketing � Culture � Moral emotion � Self-construal

Introduction

Consumers in their everyday decision-making concerning

the purchase of goods have opportunities to demonstrate

their moral views. They can make consumption decisions

that benefit themselves as well as other members and other

aspects of society and the environment. Cause-related

marketing (CRM) is a term used to describe marketing

activities that offer consumers opportunities to make pur-

chase decisions for reasons other than personal benefit

(e.g., social, moral beliefs). CRM is defined as ‘‘the process

of formulating and implementing marketing activities that

are characterised by an offer from the firm to contribute a

specified amount to a designated cause when consumers

engage in revenue-providing exchanges that satisfy orga-

nizational and individual objectives’’ (Varadarajan and

Menon 1988, p. 60).

The benefits of using CRM for many companies include

increasing consumers’ purchase motivation, building a

strong relationship with customers, and enhancing corpo-

rate image (Benezra 1996; Murphy 1997; Strahilevitz and

Myers 1998). Many companies utilise CRM as an impor-

tant promotional tool (Strahilevitz and Myers 1998). For

example, Target (a US-based retailer) serves its surround-

ing communities by donating a percentage of sales to eli-

gible K-12 schools with their ‘Take Charge of Education’

programme (Target Corporation 2008). A group of retail-

ers, including Gap, Apple, Converse, Motorola and Em-

porio Armani created a product line labelled Product Red

and sent a percentage of the profits from sales to help HIV/

AIDS-infected African women and children (Garrett 2006).

Previous research in CRM focuses on identifying char-

acteristics of CRM programmes that impact consumers’

positive evaluations (Barone et al. 2000; Pracejus and

Olsen 2004; Strahilevitz and Myers 1998). This research

J.-E. Kim (&) Business School, Auckland University of Technology,

Private Bag 92006, Auckland 1142, New Zealand

e-mail: [email protected]

K. K. P. Johnson

Retail Merchandising Program, College of Design, University of

Minnesota, 240 McNeal Hall, 1985 Buford Avenue, St. Paul,

MN 55108, USA

e-mail: [email protected]

123

J Bus Ethics (2013) 112:79–90

DOI 10.1007/s10551-012-1233-6

complements these efforts as it contributes to understand-

ing why some consumers might support CRM campaigns

and others might not. We examined the influence of moral

emotions on purchase intention for a product linked to a

social cause. In addition, we tested whether cultural ori-

entation moderates the relationship between moral emotion

and purchase intention for a cause-related product.

Understanding the influence of cultural background on

moral emotions is important for the success of multi-

national companies (Erffmeyer et al. 1999) as it helps them

to consider which views on moral behaviour relative to

consumption are culturally specific and which are not.

Important to understanding the role of moral emotions in

decision-making within a cross-cultural context is the

concept of self-construal. Markus and Kitayama (1991)

introduced self-construal as an individual difference vari-

able and found it was useful in understanding cultural

differences between individualistic and collectivistic cul-

tures. Self-construal refers to the ‘‘constellation of

thoughts, feelings, and actions concerning the relationship

of the self to others and the self as distinct from others’’

(Singelis and Sharkey 1995, p. 624). People can view

themselves either as individuated entities (independent

self-construal) or they can view themselves in relationship

to others (interdependent self-construal). The self-construal

one takes is heavily influenced by one’s culture (Markus

and Kitayama 1991).

One’s relationship to the self may influence the moral

emotions associated with consumption because self-con-

strual encourages the expression of specific emotions

(Aaker and Williams 1998; Kitayama et al. 2006; Markus

and Kitayama 1991; Matsumoto 1989). In this article, we

report our investigation of whether self-construal moder-

ates the relationship between moral emotion and purchase

intention for a cause-related product. Our purposes were

(1) to investigate whether moral emotions influence pur-

chase intention for a social-cause product, (2) to investigate

whether cultural orientation moderates the relationship

between moral emotion and purchase intention for a social-

cause product, and (3) to investigate whether an individ-

ual’s self-construal moderates the relationship between

moral emotion and purchase intention for a social-cause

product.

Conceptual background

Literature on cause-related marketing

CRM emphasises that a part of customers’ payments for a

product or transaction will be donated to or will support

some social or ethical cause (Brown and Dacin 1997; Ellen

et al. 2000). Similar areas of research concerning CRM

include bundling of products with donations to charity

(Strahilevitz and Myers 1998), donations to charitable

causes (Liu and Aaker 2008; Winterich et al. 2009) and

socially conscious consumption (Anderson and Cunning-

ham 1972; Diamantopoulos et al. 2003).

Previous research in CRM focused on investigating the

effectiveness of CRM campaigns for sponsoring compa-

nies. CRM positively influences consumers’ attitudes

towards the sponsoring company and products offered

(Brown and Dacin 1997; Ross et al. 1992), purchase

intentions (Ross et al. 1992) and the probability that a

consumer will choose a brand (Barone et al. 2000a, b).

Negative effects of CRM may occur if consumers believe

that the motivation underlying a company’s use of CRM is

exploitative (Varadarajan and Menon 1988; Webb and

Mohr 1998).

Additionally, researchers have examined the character-

istics of CRM programs that lead consumers to make

positive evaluations of such programs or that increase

participation in them (Barone et al. 2000a, b; Ellen et al.,

2000; Pracejus and Olsen, 2004; Strahilevitz and Myers,

1998). For example, Strahilevitz and Myers (1998) found

that CRM was more effective when the charity involved

was associated with a hedonic product versus a practical

product. Ellen et al. (2000) found that evaluation of CRM

was more positive for a donation situation described as

disaster relief than for aiding an ongoing charitable group

and for a donation describing the exertion of great effort by

individuals (e.g., collecting cash) than for little effort (e.g.,

collecting products).

Moral emotions and cause-related marketing

Previous researchers have examined how global positive or

negative emotions influence consumers’ judgment and

decision-making (Gorn et al. 1993; Barone et al. 2000a, b;

Yeung and Wyer 2005). Utilising ‘‘Affect-as-Information’’

theory (Schwarz and Clore 1983), these researchers found

that people use their current positive or negative emotions

as a basis for judgments of target items such as products,

advertisements, and brand extensions. For example, par-

ticipants’ positive emotions lead to positive evaluation of a

target product (Gorn et al. 1993).

In addition to having a focus on the valence of emotion,

researchers have focused on the content of various emo-

tions (e.g., joy, shame, fear) that consumers experience

when they engage in consumption acts (Westbrook and

Oliver 1991). These different discrete emotions influenced

judgments and decision-making (Griskevicius et al. 2010).

For example, Griskevicius et al. (2010) found that pride

enhanced judgments of the attractiveness of public prod-

ucts (e.g., watches) and contentment enhanced judgments

of the attractiveness of home products (e.g., dishwashers).

80 J.-E. Kim, K. K. P. Johnson

123

In research concerning people’s moral decision-making,

few researchers have considered the role of emotion

(Gaudine and Thorne 2001). Some researchers have high-

lighted the contribution of moral emotions (Haidt 2001,

2007; Monin et al. 2007; Shweder and Haidt 1993). Moral

emotions are defined as ‘‘those emotions that are linked to

the interests or welfare either of society as a whole or at

least of persons other than the judge or agent’’ (Haidt 2003,

p. 276). Moral emotions are different from basic emotions

(e.g., joy, happiness, surprise) in that they are linked to

something external to the individual such as the welfare of

society or others (Haidt 2003).

Haidt (2003) developed four categories of moral emo-

tions: other-condemning emotions (i.e., anger, contempt,

disgust); self-conscious emotions (i.e., guilt, shame,

embarrassment, pride); other-suffering emotions (i.e.,

empathy); and other-praising emotions (i.e., elevation,

gratitude). Other-condemning emotions refer to ‘‘the neg-

ative feelings about the actions or character of others’’

(Haidt 2003, p. 856). Anger, contempt, and disgust are

included in other-condemning emotions. Self-conscious

emotions are evoked by self-evaluation or self-reflection.

These emotions include guilt, shame, embarrassment and

pride (Tangney et al. 2007). Other-suffering emotions are

evoked when others experience distress. Empathy is

included in this category. Other-praising emotions are the

bright side of moral emotions and motivate individuals to

be engaged in admirable and respectful deeds in their

relationships with others (Haidt 2003; Tangney et al.

2007). Elevation and gratitude are included in this

category.

Moral emotions are important because they can be used

to explain how individuals make decisions concerning

what behaviours are good and what are bad (Haidt 2001,

2007; Monin et al. 2007; Shweder and Haidt 1993).

Researchers have suggested that people engage in moral

behaviours based on feelings of approval or disapproval

which are linked to moral emotions (Haidt 2001).

Researchers have tried to understand how individuals’

moral emotions such as guilt and pride influence their

judgment and their behaviours in the context of making

donations or volunteering. For example, Hoffman (1981)

found that some people donate their time to alleviate

feelings of guilt for not contributing their money. Arnett

et al. (2003) showed that some people donate time to feel

proud or happy as a result of supporting a worthy cause.

Because there appears to be a link between moral emotions

and charitable behaviours, we predicted that moral emo-

tions influence individuals’ intention to purchase social-

cause products that utilise a CRM campaign because the

support of the associated social or ethical cause evokes

these emotions. Based on this rationale, the following

hypothesis was developed.

H1 Moral emotions influence purchase intention for a

social-cause product.

Moral emotions: cultural differences and self-construal

Two main concepts that researchers have used to under-

stand cultural variability are individualism versus collec-

tivism (Hofstede 1980). Individualism is relevant to

‘‘societies in which the ties between individuals are loose:

everyone is expected to look after himself or herself and his

or her immediate family’’. Collectivism, as its opposite, is

relevant to ‘‘societies in which people from birth onwards

are integrated into strong, cohesive in-groups, which

throughout people’s lifetime continue to protect them in

exchange for unquestioning loyalty’’ (Hofstede 2003,

p. 51). Individualism and collectivism are terms used to

characterise a society as a whole (Oyserman et al. 2002).

To explain why individuals from different cultures tend to

align themselves with one or the other of these orientations,

Markus and Kitayama (1991) identified the psychological

construct of self-construal.

In individualistic cultures (e.g., United States, Canada),

independent self-construal is dominant. Individuals with an

independent self-construal tend to define themselves in

terms of attributes that make them unique and distinct from

others. This self-definition includes mental representations

of one’s own traits, abilities, motives, values, and the

motivation to be independent (Markus and Kitayama 1991;

Lee et al. 2000). In collectivistic cultures (e.g., Korea,

Japan, China), interdependent self-construal is dominant.

Individuals with an interdependent self-construal tend to

define themselves in the context of relationships and group

memberships. This self-definition includes mental repre-

sentations of social norms, group membership, and others’

opinions (Markus and Kitayama 1991; Lee et al. 2000).

The dominant self-construal activates variations in emo-

tions including differences in the intensity and frequency

that an emotion is experienced as well as whether or not a

specific emotion is experienced at all (Aaker and Williams

1998; Kitayama et al. 2006; Markus and Kitayama 1991;

Matsumoto 1989).

Researchers have identified two types of emotions: ego-

focused (or interpersonally disengaging) emotions and

other-focused (or interpersonally engaging) emotions

(Aaker and Williams 1998; Kitayama et al. 2006). These

two types of emotions are differentiated based on ‘‘the

extent to which they follow from, and also foster or rein-

force an independent versus interdependent self’’ (Kitay-

ama et al. 2006, p. 235). Markus and Kitayama (1991)

argued that members of individualistic cultures tend to

experience or express ego-focused emotions such as pride

and anger because these emotions affirm an individual’s

internal state, experience and expression. Ego-focused

The Impact of Moral Emotions on Cause-Related Marketing Campaigns 81

123

emotions are associated with an ‘‘individual’s internal state

or attributes, to the exclusion of others and are consistent

with the need for individual awareness, experience, and

expression’’ (Aaker and Williams 1998, p. 241). Examples

of ego-focused emotions include feeling pride or anger.

These emotions are also regarded as types of moral emo-

tions (Aaker and Williams 1998; Haidt 2003; Kitayama

et al. 2006; Markus and Kitayama 1991).

In contrast, members of collectivistic cultures tend to

experience or express other-focused emotions (Aaker and

Williams 1998; Kitayama et al. 2000, 2006; Markus and

Kitayama 1991; Matsumoto 1989). These emotions are

‘‘associated with others in a social context or close others

and are consistent with the need for unity, harmony, and

the alignment of one’s actions with those of another’’

(Aaker and Williams 1998, p. 241). Examples include

guilt, empathy, embarrassment and shame which are also

regarded as types of moral emotions (Aaker and Williams

1998; Haidt 2003; Kitayama et al. 2006; Markus and Ki-

tayama 1991; Singelis and Sharkey 1995).

Previous researchers have examined cultural differences in

the experience of emotions (Kitayama et al. 2000, 2006;

Markus and Kitayama 1991; Matsumoto 1989). For example,

Kitayama et al. (2006) examined how good feelings are

experienced differently or similarly across cultures. They

asked college students in the US and Japan to remember the

most emotional episode of the day and to report how strongly

they experienced each of the different emotions in that epi-

sode. Japanese participants reported stronger experiences of

other-focused (or socially engaging) emotions such as friendly

feelings, close feelings, respect, empathy, guilt, indebtedness,

shame, and fear of causing trouble to another. US participants

reported stronger experiences of ego-focused (or socially

disengaging) emotions such as feelings of pride, superiority,

self-esteem, sulking, frustration and anger.

Anticipating that ego-focused emotions are dominant in

moral consumption situations for members of individual-

istic cultures, we reasoned that the influence of ego-focused

moral emotions on purchase intention for a social-cause

product is higher for members in an individualistic culture

versus those in a collectivistic culture. Similarly, because

other-focused emotions are dominant in moral situations

for members of collectivistic cultures, it was reasoned that

other-focused emotions would influence purchase intention

for a social-cause product. For example, people from

individualistic cultures may decide to purchase social-

cause products because they would feel proud of them-

selves and their behaviour. On the other hand, people from

collectivistic cultures may purchase social-cause products

in order to avoid feelings of guilt that could result from not

purchasing items wherein their behaviour could help others

and ultimately society overall. Based on this rationale, the

following hypothesis was developed.

H2 Cultural orientation moderates the influence of moral

emotions on purchase intention for a social-cause product.

Specifically, (a) the influence of the association of ego-

focused moral emotions on purchase intention for a social-

cause product is greater for members of an individualistic

culture than for members of a collectivistic culture; and

(b) the influence of the association of other-focused moral

emotions on purchase intention for a social-cause product

is greater for members of a collectivistic culture than for

members of an individualistic culture.

Markus and Kitayama (1991) argued that differences

between people from individualistic versus collectivistic

cultures are based in self-construal. One’s culture affects

self-construal and individuals from different cultures have

reliable differences in self-construal (Matsumoto 1989).

Cultural orientation is operationalized and measured using

ethnicity. It is often used as a proxy for self-construal

(Markus and Kitayama 1991). In effect, this practice

confounds the influence of self-construal with cultural

orientation.

Previous researchers have noted that there is consider-

able variation within US culture with respect to self-con-

strual. Members of many ethnic and religious groups tend

to perceive themselves as interdependent rather than as

independent (Allen et al. 1989). Therefore, measuring self-

construal within a single culture and comparing between

interdependent versus independent individuals within that

culture allows testing for the effect of self-construal, con-

trolling for the influence of cultural background (Ahluwalia

2008; Lee et al. 2000). Based on this reasoning, the fol-

lowing hypothesis was developed.

H3 Self-construal moderates the influence of moral emo-

tion on purchase intention. Specifically, (a) the influence of

the association of ego-focused moral emotions on purchase

intention for a social-cause product is greater for high

independents versus low independents; and (b) the influence

of the association of other-focused moral emotions on pur-

chase intention for social-cause product is greater for high

interdependents versus low interdependents.

Method

Pilot test

To test the hypotheses, a scenario was developed describ-

ing a situation in which an individual had to make a

decision about his/her intention to purchase a social-cause

82 J.-E. Kim, K. K. P. Johnson

123

product. The scenario developed was a pilot tested with

individuals representing the two cultures (US and Korea)

from which participants were going to be drawn. The pilot

was carried out to verify that the situations described in the

scenarios were realistic and the product chosen (i.e., t-shirt)

was relevant in the situation. Ten volunteers who grew up

in the US and ten volunteers who grew up in Korea were

asked to rate the realism of the scenario and the relevancy

of a t-shirt as a cause-related product, using a 7-point scale.

The two scenarios were evaluated as realistic (M = 5.9),

and the t-shirt was relevant in the situation described

(M = 6.0).

Sample

Data were collected from a convenience sample of under-

graduate students 1

enroled at a university in the US and

undergraduate students enroled at universities in Korea.

Previous researchers have suggested that the US represents

an individualistic culture and Korea represents a collec-

tivistic culture (Markus and Kitayama 1991). In addition,

Koreans spent US$1.5 billion dollars for corporate social

responsible activities in 2005, and it is the second largest

participant of corporate social responsible activities in Asia

(Lee et al. 2009). Thus, drawing a sample from each

country facilitated inclusion of individuals reflecting two

different cultural orientations with an understanding of

CRM activities.

Procedure

Instructors of undergraduate courses were asked permis-

sion to recruit participants from their courses. The proce-

dure followed was to introduce the research, ask for

participation, and if people indicated an interest, distribute

the consent form. After reading the consent form, the

questionnaire was distributed to those individuals who

volunteered to participate.

First, participants completed Singelis’ (1994) Indepen-

dent–Interdependent Scale. Next participants were

instructed to read the scenario and then to imagine that they

were in the purchase situation described. The scenario

method was used in order to generate participants’ expe-

rience of a moral dilemma in a consumption situation. This

method is useful in triggering participants’ moral decision-

making processes (Moores and Chang 2006). The scenario,

which was developed by the researchers, outlined a con-

sumption situation in which consumers were given an

opportunity to purchase a t-shirt knowing that a percentage

of the profit would go to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS,

Tuberculosis and Malaria in Africa. The scenario was as

follows:

The Mall of America [Myeongdong in Seoul] is a

famous shopping mall where a variety of fashion

products are offered for sale. Products offered include

clothing, handbags and accessories. Imagine that you

are shopping here. While you are shopping, you find

two t-shirts that you like equally. One t-shirt is your

favourite style and is in a colour you like. The other

t-shirt is also your favourite style and colour but it has

a label that indicates if you purchase it, a percent of

the profits will go to the Global Fund to Fight Aids,

Tuberculosis and Malaria in Africa. The price of the

second t-shirt is 10% higher than the first one. You

can only purchase one t-shirt.

After reading the scenario, participants were asked to

close their eyes and think about purchasing the cause-

related product. Then they were asked to rate how strongly

they would feel each of several moral emotions if they

purchased the product described in the scenario (Babin and

Babin 1996; Kitayama et al. 2006). In the following part,

participants responded to the measures including purchase

intention and provided background information. The

questionnaire was drafted in English and the English ver-

sion was translated to Korean. The Korean version was

then back-translated into English to verify the equivalence

of translation (Hui and Triandis 1985).

Measures

To assess self-construal, Singelis’ (1994) 24-item Inde-

pendent-Interdependent Scale was used. Participants

responded to each item, using 7-point Likert scales ranging

from 1 = ‘‘strongly disagree’’ to 7 = ‘‘strongly agree’’.

Sample independent items included, ‘‘I’d rather say ‘No’

directly than risk being misunderstood.’’ Sample interde-

pendent items included, ‘‘I have respect for the authority

figures with whom I interact.’’

In order to measure ego-focused versus other-focused

moral emotions, anger and pride for ego-focused moral

emotions and empathy, guilt and elevation for other-

focused moral emotions were selected for two reasons. The

literature on emotion and culture in psychology and

consumer behaviour suggests that anger and pride are

strong examples of ego-focused emotions, while guilt and

1 We used student sample in this study because the focus of this study

was theory application. Researchers have argued that homogeneous

student samples are desired in research when the goal of the research

is theoretical in nature (Calder et al. 1981; Peterson 2001). The

homogeneity of samples between two cultures was important to

exclude any alternative explanations caused by the heterogeneity of

samples within a culture. A student sample is also considered to be

appropriate when researchers aim to simultaneously compare differ-

ences in views and values within as well as between countries and

cultures (Bello et al. 2009).

The Impact of Moral Emotions on Cause-Related Marketing Campaigns 83

123

empathy are strong examples of other-focused emotions

(Aaker and Williams 1998; Kitayama et al. 2006; Markus

and Kitayama 1991). In addition, the findings of several

researchers studying altruistic behaviours suggest that

individuals’ engagement in those behaviours is highly

related to feelings of pride, guilt and empathy (Arnett et al.

2003; Fisher et al. 2008; Hoffman 1981). Elevation as an

other-focused emotion was also included because it is

commonly experienced by individuals from Asian cultures

(Haidt 2003). Elevation tends to involve others’ feelings as

a primary referent motivating people to be better persons,

build social bonds, and engage in acts of charity for con-

nectedness (Haidt 2003).

Multiple-item indicators of moral emotions were adap-

ted from various emotional scales developed by Aaker and

Williams (1998), Izard (1977), and Richins (1997). Three

items were used to assess each of anger (i.e., frustrated,

angry, irritated), pride (i.e., proud, confident, excited), guilt

(i.e., repentant, guilty, blameworthy), empathy (i.e., warm-

hearted, moving, empathetic) and elevation (i.e., exalted,

dignified, respected). Each participant was asked to indi-

cate how strongly he/she would experience each emotion,

using a 6-point scale ranging from 0 = ‘‘would not expe-

rience at all’’ to 5 = ‘‘would experience very much’’.

Next, the participants were asked to indicate their purchase

intention. These purchase intention were measured by modi-

fying Gill et al.’s (1988) scale so as to be relevant to a shopping

situation involving CRM. Participants were asked to indicate

how likely it was that they would buy the social-cause t-shirt.

Purchase intentions were assessed using two 7-point scales

anchored on one end with ‘‘very unlikely (very impossible)’’

to ‘‘very likely (very possible)’’ at the other. Finally, the par-

ticipants were asked to share some background information.

Demographic variables, such as gender, age and income,

influence socially conscious consumption (Diamantopoulos

et al., 2003). Individuals who are likely to purchase socially

conscious products tend to be young women. Thus, demo-

graphic variables (e.g., age, gender and income) were mea-

sured to control for their influence on purchase intention.

Results

Participants’ characteristics

The primary qualifier for participation was that an indi-

vidual needed to have primarily been culturalised in either

the US or Korea. In order to be included in the final dataset,

participants’ responses to the cultural orientation questions

were reviewed. For these questions, participants were first

asked to identify their ethnicity and then the country where

they had lived for the majority of their life. Participants,

who indicated that they had spent most of their lives in

countries other than the US or Korea, were excluded from

further data analysis. This qualifying process resulted in a

convenience sample of 180 US participants (130 women;

50 men) and a total of 191 Korean participants (161

women; 30 men).

The majority of US participants were European Amer-

ican (88.9%), and all Korean participants were Korean of

Asian descent (100%). Seventy-two percent of the US

participants were women, as were 84% of the Korean

participants. The US participants’ ages ranged from 18 to

32 years (M = 20.7). Korean participants’ ages ranged

from 18 to 30 years (M = 21.3). Participants’ personal

income levels were generally under US$10,000 (US:

75.0%; Korea: 60.7%). Participants’ academic back-

grounds included design (US: 29.5%, Korea: 25.7%),

family social science (US: 6.7%, Korea: 28.3%), business

(US: 40.0%, Korea: 14.1%), liberal arts (US: 12.8%,

Korea: 27.2%), and technology (Korea: 3%).

Preliminary data analyses

In order to use multiple linear regression to test the

hypotheses, assumptions were verified. The assumption

testing process included verifying the normality of residu-

als, the independence of residuals (Durbin–Watson statis-

tic), linearity, and the constant variance of the residuals

(homoscedasticity). All assumptions were satisfied. The

normality of the residuals was checked by constructing a

probability plot. The results confirmed the assumption that

the residuals were normally distributed. The Durbin-Wat-

son statistics (1.78–2.00) showed that residual errors were

independent, thus, the independence of residuals assump-

tion was not violated. The assumption of linearity was also

met as several scatterplots of the relationships between

variables looked linear. The homoscedasticity assumption

was satisfied because when standardising the residuals and

plotting the standardised residuals against the standardised

predicted values, the residual errors were randomly scat-

tered and the variability was not similar across all values

along the x-axis. Some of the correlations of the measures

indicated possible problems of multicollinearity. In order to

minimise correlations between the independent variables

and interaction terms, the independent variables were mean-

centred prior to the computation of the interaction terms

(Aiken and West 1991). The variance inflation factor was

checked for each regression coefficient and results showed

that all variance inflation factors were less than the

threshold of 10 (0.76–1.00). The reliabilities of all mea-

sures were calculated using Cronbach’s alpha. The test of

reliability showed that the overall Cronbach’s alpha

coefficients of anger, pride, guilt, empathy, elevation,

84 J.-E. Kim, K. K. P. Johnson

123

independence, interdependence and purchase intention 2

were in an acceptable range. The means, standard devia-

tions and the coefficient alphas are shown in Table 1.

Main analyses

In order to present the stepwise results for control vari-

ables, main effects, interaction effects, and changes to R2,

the hypotheses were tested using the four models presented

in Table 2. This approach has been used by researchers to

provide the dynamics of inclusion or exclusion of variables

in multiple regression models (Chandy and Tellis 2000;

Kellermanns and Eddleston 2007). The data from both

cultures were pooled and used for multiple regression

analyses in all models. In Model 1, the control variables

including gender, age and income were entered. None of

the control variables were significant. In Model 2, the main

effects of moral emotions and the control variables were

entered. R2 for Model 2 was .32. Anger (b = -.36, p \ .01), pride (b = .30, p \ .01), guilt (b = .13, p \ .05), empathy (b = .30, p \ .01), and elevation (b = -.19, p \ .01) all had significant influences on pur- chase intention, thus H1 was supported.

In the next step, control variables, moral emotions,

cultural orientation and the interaction effects between

cultural orientation and moral emotions were entered in

Model 3 to test H2a and H2b. A significant change in R2

was observed in Model 3 (DR2 = .07, p \ .01). The regression analysis revealed that the interaction between

cultural orientation and pride was significant (b = -.15, p \ .05). The influence of pride on purchase intention for a social-cause product was higher for US than Korean par-

ticipants (coded -1 for US and 1 for Korea). However, the

interactions between cultural orientation and other types of

moral emotions were not significant; thus H2a was sup-

ported for pride and H2b was not supported (see Table 2).

In order to pictorially depict the effect of pride on purchase

intention between US and Korean participants, pride was

dichotomised by using a median split and an analysis of

variance (ANOVA) was conducted. The results showed a

significant interaction between pride and cultural orienta-

tion (F = 7.81, p \ .01). The influence of pride on pur- chase intention was higher for US than Korean participants

(see Fig. 1).

To test H3a and H3b in Model 4, we entered the control

variables, moral emotions, independent/interdependent

self-construal, the interaction effects between self-con-

strual and moral emotions and the interaction effect

between independent self-construal and interdependent

self-construal. In addition, we added cultural orientation as

a control variable, thus we can test for the influence of self-

construal. A significant change in R2 compared to that for

Model 1 was observed in Model 4 (DR2 = .12, p \ .01). The regression analysis revealed the interaction between

independent self-construal and interdependent self-con-

strual was significant (b = -.10, p \ .05). More impor- tantly, interdependent self-construal interacted with guilt.

Table 1 Correlation matrix, Cronbach’s alpha reliabilities and descriptive statistics

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. Anger 0.86

2. Pride -0.09 0.81

3. Guilt 0.59 **

0.03 0.82

4. Empathy -0.05 0.72 **

0.08 0.79

5. Elevation 0.06 0.70 **

0.18 **

0.74 ** 0.82

6. Independent -0.07 0.09 -0.06 0.01 -0.08 0.70

7. Interdependent -0.08 0.20 **

-0.08 0.23 **

0.11 *

0.15 **

0.69

8. Purchase Intention -0.33 **

0.42 **

-0.07 0.41 **

0.25 **

0.15 **

0.18 **

0.90

Mean

US 0.48 2.52 0.39 2.38 1.46 4.89 4.70 4.78

Korea 0.60 2.83 0.57 2.79 2.42 4.50 4.76 4.26

SD

US 0.81 1.37 0.74 1.22 1.09 0.68 0.65 1.70

Korea 0.88 1.22 0.88 1.18 1.22 0.73 0.68 1.32

* p \ .05; ** p \ .01 Note. The coefficient alpha for each measure is on the diagonal (and in italics) and the intercorrelations among the constructs are located off the diagonal

2 Controversy exists over the use of Cronbach’s alpha for two-item

scales and whether or not a correlation coefficient is the appropriate

indicator (Hulin et al. 2001). As a result, the correlation coefficient for

the two items was equal to .79 and is also reported here.

The Impact of Moral Emotions on Cause-Related Marketing Campaigns 85

123

The interaction between interdependent self-construal and

guilt was significant (b = -16, p \ .01). However, the interactions between self-construal and other types of

moral emotions were not significant; thus H3a was not

supported and H3b was supported for guilt (see Table 2).

In order to pictorially depict the significant interaction,

guilt and interdependent self-construal were dichotomised

using median splits and an ANOVA was conducted. The

results indicated a significant interaction between guilt and

interdependent self-construal (F = 3.23, p = .07). The

influence of guilt on purchase intention for a social-cause

product was greater for high versus low interdependents

(see Fig. 2).

In addition, a Chi-square test was conducted to test the

assumption that people in individualistic (collectivistic)

cultures are more independent (interdependent) than people

in collectivistic (individualistic) cultures (Markus and Ki-

tayama 1991). A median-split technique was used to divide

the sample into two groups for independent self-construal

(high, low) and two groups for interdependent self-con-

strual (low, high) (coded -1 for the low group and 1 for the

high group) (Lee et al. 2000). More US participants were

categorised as having a high independent (61.7%) versus a

Table 2 Results of multiple regression analyses on purchase

intention 3

Note. N = 355 * p \ .05; ** p \ .01

Variables Standardised regression coefficients

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4

Main effects

Gender 0.08 -0.01 0.02 0.06

Age -0.01 0.04 0.06 0.06

Income -0.03 -0.04 0.00 -0.02

Anger -0.36** -0.38** -0.34**

Pride 0.30** 0.25** 0.22**

Guilt 0.13* 0.15** 0.08

Empathy 0.30** 0.24** 0.25**

Elevation -0.19** -0.05 -0.04

Culture -0.22** -0.22**

Independent 0.07

Interdependent 0.05

Interaction effects:

Anger 9 culture 0.09

Pride 9 culture -0.15*

Guilt 9 culture -0.02

Empathy 9 culture -0.05

Elevation 9 culture 0.09

Anger 9 independent -0.08

Pride 9 independent 0.02

Guilt 9 independent -0.11

Empathy 9 independent 0.11

Elevation 9 independent -0.11

Anger 9 interdependent 0.04

Pride 9 interdependent -0.06

Guilt 9 interdependent -0.16**

Empathy 9 interdependent 0.10

Elevation 9 interdependent -0.07

Independent 9 Interdependent -0.10*

DR2 0.01 0.32** 0.07** 0.12**

R2 0.01 0.32 0.39 0.44

Adjusted R2 0.00 0.30 0.36 0.40

F 0.95 20.36** 15.25** 11.66**

3 We tested three-way interaction effects among the two types of

self-construal (independent, interdependent) and moral emotions. Our

results were non-significant.

86 J.-E. Kim, K. K. P. Johnson

123

high interdependent self-construal (50.6%) (v2 (1) = 4.51, p \ .05). In contrast, more Korean participants were cate- gorised as having a high interdependent (56.5%) versus a

high independent self-construal (39.8%) (v2 (1) = 10.74,

p \ .01). This result supported the assumption concerning self-construal and excludes the possibility of a confounding

effect between self-construal and cultural orientation.

Discussion

As H1 predicted, moral emotions significantly influenced

participants’ purchase intention towards social-cause

products. This is consistent with findings that indicate

moral emotions are key factors underlying people’s chari-

table behaviours (Arnett et al. 2003; Hoffman 1981).

Results from the testing of H2 and H3 showed that only

pride and guilt had significant interaction effects.

Researchers in consumer behaviour have highlighted the

importance of accurate understanding of specific emotions

and their consequence (Griskevicius et al. 2010). As H2a

predicted, the role of pride (ego-focused moral emotion)

was significantly stronger for the US participants than for

the Korean ones. The US participants were more likely

than the Korean participants to intend to purchase social-

cause products when they associated feelings of pride with

the CRM campaign. However, significant moderating

effects for cultural orientation did not occur for other-

focused moral emotions (i.e., guilt, empathy, elevation).

As H3b predicted, the role of guilt (other-focused moral

emotion) was significantly stronger for high versus low

interdependents. High interdependents were more likely to

intend to purchase social-cause products when they asso-

ciated feelings of guilt with the CRM campaign than were

low interdependents. The participants scoring as high in-

terdependents may purchase social-cause products because

their strong interdependence motivates them to alleviate

any feelings of guilt by purchasing the merchandise. This

result is generally consistent with Singelis and Sharkey’s

(1995) finding that high interdependents are more suscep-

tible to embarrassment (another other-focused emotion)

than are low interdependents.

Self-construal was considered as one possible avenue

through which cultural difference may be understood

(Markus and Kitayama 1991). The assumption that people

in individualistic (collectivistic) cultures are more inde-

pendent (interdependent) than people in collectivistic

(individualistic) cultures (Markus and Kitayama, 1991)

was supported in our research. However, the way cultural

orientation and self-construal influenced moral emotions

when considering the purchase of social-cause products

was not uniform. The influence of pride on purchase

intention was higher for the US versus Korean participants

and the influence of guilt on purchase intention was greater

for high interdependents than low interdependents. In the

consumption of cause-related products, guilt may be the

key moral emotion influenced by self-construal. On the

Fig. 1 Purchase intention as a function of culture and pride

Fig. 2 Purchase intention as a function of interdependent self- construal and guilt

The Impact of Moral Emotions on Cause-Related Marketing Campaigns 87

123

other hand, feelings of pride by participating in a CRM

campaign may be shaped by different cultural components

(Hofstede 1980).

Culture is considered to represent ‘‘packages of differ-

ences’’ (Singelis 2000). In fact, Hofstede’s (1980) cultural

dimension comprises multiple dimensions including indi-

vidualism, power distance, masculinity, and uncertainty

avoidance. Because of its complex nature, Singelis (2000)

suggests that future studies on cultural influence incorpo-

rate multiple conceptualisations of culture, and that they

unpack the components of culture so as to assess the effects

of its components on individual behaviour. The unpacking

process should be shifted from merely comparing differ-

ences across cultures to understanding individual psycho-

logical variations that are responsible for these differences.

We have moved a small step in this direction by examining

self-construal.

Implications

Existing cross-cultural research on emotions has focused

on identifying differences in emotions experienced in

daily life (Kitayama et al. 2000; Kitayama et al. 2006;

Markus and Kitayama 1991; Matsumoto 1989). Prior

researchers did not link moral emotions to consumption

situations. Thus, this research theoretically contributes to

the body of literature on moral emotions and cultural

studies in consumer behaviour. This study also contrib-

utes to existing cross-cultural studies by uncovering a

relationship between cultural background and self-con-

strual. Several researchers have treated national or

regional differences as cultural ones, however they have

not provided a theoretical explanation for why these

differences occurred (Kini et al. 2004; Rawwas 2001).

This practice raises concerns over the possibility of

underlying variables being confounded with a broadly

operationalized cultural variable (Oyserman and Lee

2008). In the consumption of cause-related products, we

found that guilt was the key moral emotion influenced by

self- construal and pride was the key moral emotion

influenced by cultural orientation.

Our findings provide relevant implications for practi-

tioners. They yield useful information for designing

advertising messages and consumer education campaigns

to facilitate consumer engagement in CRM programs. In

order to facilitate engagement for CRM in Western cul-

tures, retailers could consider encouraging feelings of

pride. A simple example of an effective persuasive

message could be the following: ‘‘Be proud, buy

responsibly.’’ In addition, understanding the differences

in moral influence on decision-making can provide useful

information in managing relationships with independent

versus interdependent consumers (Aaker and Williams

1998; Bagozzi et al. 2003). For example, retailers could

emphasise how buying responsibly may alleviate guilt

for interdependent consumers to encourage their CRM

participation.

Limitations and future research

Like all research, this study has limitations. First, the

sample drawn was a nonprobablity sample comprised of

college students limiting generalisation. It is also very

possible that individuals at different stages of the life-cycle

have different cultural values. For example, as very young

adults our Korean participants might have been more

individualistic than middle-aged or older members of the

Korean culture. This possibility also indicates that any

generalisation be made cautiously. Future researchers

could consider recruiting a probability sample of partici-

pants at different life stages allowing for within culture

comparisons and increasing generalizability.

Second, the moral emotions experienced during the

research were imagined by participants. Moral emotions

reported were not physically felt emotions related to a

consumption act. Individual differences in the ability to

imagine the situation might strengthen or weaken the

applicability of moral emotions. Therefore, future

researchers could design a field study or experiment

wherein actual purchasing behaviour could occur and they

could directly measure emotions generated in the con-

sumption act. This type of follow-up would serve not only

as an opportunity to further validate these findings but also

to assess whether the findings from imagined and experi-

enced emotions are similar, thereby validating the use of

imagined scenarios.

Finally, this investigation was limited to a fashion

product. Further research could be directed to using various

other product types by using highly priced goods (e.g.,

electronics, handbags) or by using less visible products

(e.g., shampoo, software).

References

Aaker, J., & Williams, P. (1998). Empathy versus pride: The

influence of emotional appeals across cultures. Journal of Consumer Research, 25, 241–261.

Ahluwalia, R. (2008). How far can a brand stretch? Understanding the

role of self-construal. Journal of Marketing Research, 45(3), 337–350.

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Allen, R. L., Dawson, M. C., & Brown, R. E. (1989). A schema-based

approach to modeling an African-American racial belief system.

The American Political Science Review, 83(2), 421–441.

88 J.-E. Kim, K. K. P. Johnson

123

Anderson, W. T, Jr, & Cunningham, W. H. (1972). The socially

conscious consumer. Journal of Marketing, 36, 23–31. Arnett, D. B., German, S. D., & Hunt, S. D. (2003). The identity

salience model of relationship marketing: The case of nonprofit

marketing. Journal of Marketing, 67, 89–105. Babin, B. J., & Babin, L. A. (1996). Effects of moral cognitions and

consumer emotions on shoplifting intentions. Psychology and Marketing, 13(8), 785–802.

Bagozzi, R. P., Verbeke, W., & Gavino, J. C, Jr. (2003). Culture

moderates the self-regulation of shame and its effects on

performance: The case of salespersons in The Netherlands and

The Philippines. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 219–233. Barone, M. J., Miniard, P. W., & Romeo, J. B. (2000a). The influence

of positive mood and brand extension evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 26(4), 386–400.

Barone, M. J., Miyazaki, A. D., & Taylor, K. A. (2000b). The

influence of cause-related marketing on consumer choice: Does

one good turn deserve another? Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(2), 248–262.

Bello, D., Leung, K., Radebaugh, L., Tung, R. L., & Witteloostuijn,

A. V. (2009). From the editors: Student sample in international

business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 40, 361–364.

Benezra, K. (1996). Cause and effect marketing. Brandweek, 37(17), 38–40.

Brown, T. J., & Dacin, P. L. (1997). The company and the product:

Corporate associations and consumer product responses. Journal of Marketing, 61(1), 68–84.

Calder, B. J., Phillips, L. W., & Tybout, A. M. (1981). Designing

research for application. Journal of Consumer Research, 8(2), 197–207.

Chandy, R. K., & Tellis, G. J. (2000). The incumbent’s curse?

Incumbency, size, and radical product innovation. Journal of Marketing, 64, 1–17.

Diamantopoulos, A., Schlegelmilch, B. B., Sinkovics, R. R., & Bohlen,

G. M. (2003). Can socio-demographics still play a role in profiling

green consumers? A review of the evidence and an empirical

investigation. Journal of Business Research, 56(6), 465–480. Ellen, P. S., Mohr, L. A., & Webb, D. J. (2000). Charitable programs

and the retailer: Do they mix? Journal of Retailing, 76(3), 393–406.

Erffmeyer, R. C., Keillor, B. D., & LeClair, D. T. (1999). An

empirical investigation of Japanese consumer ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 18(1), 35–50.

Fisher, R. J., Vandenbosch, M., & Antia, K. D. (2008). An empathy-

helping perspective on consumers’ responses to fund-raising

appeals. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(3), 519–531. Garrett, K. (2006, November 10). (PRODUCT) RED Benefits AIDS

Research. Dayton Daily News. Gaudine, A., & Thorne, L. (2001). Emotion and ethical decision-

making in organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 31, 175–187.

Gill, J. D., Grossbart, S., & Laczniak, R. N. (1988). Influence of

involvement, commitment and familiarity on brand beliefs and

attitudes of viewers exposed to alternative ad claim strategies.

Journal of Advertising, 17(2), 33–43. Gorn, G. J., Goldberg, M. E., & Basu, K. (1993). Mood awareness,

and product evaluation. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 2(3), 237–256.

Griskevicius, V., Shiota, M. N., & Nowlis, S. M. (2010). The many

shades of rose-colored glasses: An evolutionary approach to the

influence of different positive emotions. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2), 238–250.

Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail. Psycholog- ical Review, 108, 814–834.

Haidt, J. (2003). The moral emotions. In R. J. Davidson, K. R. Scherer, & H. H. Goldsmith (Eds.), Handbook of affective sciences (pp. 852–870). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Haidt, J. (2007). The new synthesis in moral psychology. Science, 316(5827), 998–1002.

Hoffman, M. L. (1981). The development of empathy. In J. P. Rushton

& R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.), Altruism and helping behavior: Social, personality, and developmental perspectives (pp. 41–63). Erlbaum, NJ: Hillsdale.

Hofstede, G. H. (1980). Culture consequences: International differ- ences in work-related values. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hofstede, G. H. (2003). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. London: Profile Books.

Hui, C. H., & Triandis, H. C. (1985). Measurement in cross-cultural

psychology: A review and comparison of strategies. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 16(2), 131–152.

Hulin, C., Cudeck, R., Netemeyer, R., Dillon, W. R., McDonald, R.,

& Bearden, W. (2001). Measurement. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 10(1/2), 55–69.

Izard, C. E. (1977). Human emotions. New York: Plenum. Kellermanns, F. W., & Eddleston, K. A. (2007). A family perspective

on when conflict benefits family firm performance. Journal of Business Research, 60, 1048–1057.

Kini, R. B., Ramakrishna, H. V., & Vijayaraman, B. S. (2004).

Shaping of moral intensity regarding software piracy: A

comparison between Thailand and U.S. students. Journal of Business Ethics, 49(1), 91–104.

Kitayama, S., Markus, H. R., & Kurokawa, M. (2000). Culture,

emotion, and well-being: Good feelings in Japan and the United

States. Cognition and Emotion, 14(1), 93–124. Kitayama, S., Mesquita, B., & Karasawa, M. (2006). Cultural

affordances and emotional experience: Socially engaging and

disengaging emotions in Japan and the United States. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(5), 890–903.

Lee, A. Y., Aaker, J. L., & Gardner, W. L. (2000). The pleasures and

pains of distinct self-construals: The role of interdependence in

regulatory focus. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(6), 1122–1134.

Lee, H., Park, T., Moon, H. K., Yang, Y., & Kim, C. (2009).

Corporate philanthropy attitude towards corporations, and pur-

chase intentions: A South Korea study. Journal of Business Research, 62, 939–946.

Liu, W., & Aaker, J. L. (2008). The happiness of giving: The time-ask

effect. Journal of Consumer Research, 35, 543–557. Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self:

Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psycholog- ical Review, 98(2), 224–253.

Matsumoto, D. (1989). Cultural influences on the perception of

emotion. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 20(1), 92–105.

Monin, B., Pizarro, D. A., & Beer, J. S. (2007). Deciding versus

reacting: Conceptions of moral judgment and the reason-affect

debate. Review of General Psychology, 11(2), 99–111. Moores, T. T., & Chang, J. C. (2006). Ethical decision making in

software piracy: Initial development and test of a four-compo-

nent model. MIS Quarterly, 30(1), 167–180. Murphy, I. P. (1997, February 17). Pillsbury proves charity,

marketing begins at home. Marketing News, 16. Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking

individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical

assumptions and meta-Analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 128(1), 3–72.

Oyserman, D., & Lee, S. W. S. (2008). Does culture influence what

and how we think? Effects of priming individualism and

collectivism. Psychological Bulletin, 134(2), 311–342.

The Impact of Moral Emotions on Cause-Related Marketing Campaigns 89

123

Peterson, R. A. (2001). On the use of college students in social

science research: Insights from a second-order meta-analysis.

Journal of Consumer Research, 28, 450–461. Pracejus, J. W., & Olsen, G. D. (2004). The role of brand/cause fit in

the effectiveness of cause-related marketing campaigns. Journal of Business Research, 57(6), 636–640.

Rawwas, M. Y. A. (2001). Culture, personality and morality: A

typology of international consumers’ ethical beliefs. Interna- tional Marketing Review, 18(2), 188–211.

Richins, M. L. (1997). Measuring emotions in the consumption

experience. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(2), 127–146. Ross, J., Patterson, L., & Stutts, M. (1992). Consumer perceptions of

organizations that use cause-related marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 20(1), 93–97.

Schwarz, N., & Clore, G. L. (1983). Mood, misattribution, and

judgments of well-being: Informative and directive functions of

affective states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(3), 513–523.

Shweder, R., & Haidt, J. (1993). The future of moral psychology:

Truth intuition, and the pluralist way. Psychological Science, 4, 360–365.

Singelis, T. M. (1994). The measurement of independent and

interdependent self-construals. Personality and Social Psychol- ogy Bulletin, 20(5), 580–591.

Singelis, T. M. (2000). Some thoughts on the future of cross-cultural

social psychology. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31(1), 76–91.

Singelis, T. M., & Sharkey, W. F. (1995). Culture, self-construal, and

embarrassability. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 26(6), 622–644.

Strahilevitz, M., & Myers, J. G. (1998). Donations to charity as

purchase incentives: How well they work may depend on what

you are trying to sell. Journal of Consumer Research, 24, 434–446.

Tangney, J. P., Stuewig, J., & Mashek, D. J. (2007). Moral emotions

and moral behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 345–372. Target Corporation. (2008). Target corporate responsibility report.

Retrieved April 15, 2009 from http://sites.target.com/images/

corporate/about/responsibility_report/2008/full_report.pdf?ref=sr_

shorturl_responsibilityreport2008.

Varadarajan, P. R., & Menon, A. (1988). Cause-related marketing: A

coalignment of marketing strategy and corporate philanthropy.

Journal of Marketing, 52(3), 58–74. 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.

Westbrook, R. A., & Oliver, R. L. (1991). The dimensionality of

consumption emotion patterns and consumer satisfaction. Jour- nal of Consumer Research, 18, 84–91.

Winterich, K. P., Mittal, V., & Ross, W. T., Jr. (2009). Donation

behavior toward in-groups and out-groups: The role of gender

and moral identity. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(2), 199–214.

Yeung, C. W. M., & Wyer, R. S, Jr. (2005). Does loving a brand mean

loving its products? The role of brand-elicited affect in brand

extension evaluations. Journal of Marketing Research, 42(4), 495–506.

90 J.-E. Kim, K. K. P. Johnson

123

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.