Caulitativoad

Journal of Retailing 91 (1, 2015) 140153
How Does Corporate Social Responsibility Affect Consumer Response to

Service Failure in BuyerSeller Relationships?
Lisa E. Bolton a,,1 , Anna S. Mattila b,1
a
Associate Professor of Marketing, Smeal College of Business, The Pennsylvania State University, 441 Business Building, University Park, PA 16802, United States
b Marriott Professor of Lodging Management, School of Hospitality Management, The Pennsylvania State University, 224 Mateer Building, University Park, PA
16802, United States
Abstract
The researchers investigate how corporate social responsibility (CSR) affects customer response following service failure within the context
of buyerseller relationships. A series of three experiments demonstrate that CSR is more effective under communal (vs. exchange) relationship
norms, consistent with the alignment of CSR with the communal norm of concern for the needs of others. The effectiveness of CSR is also shown
to vary as a function of company motives and CSR framing, serving as theoretically and managerially relevant boundary conditions. Together,
these findings increase our understanding of how and when CSR will have a positive impact on consumers and, in turn, companies via customer
satisfaction and loyalty.
2014 New York University. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Corporate social responsibility; Sustainability; Buyerseller relationship; Service recovery; Customer satisfaction; Customer loyalty
How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good
deed in a naughty world. (William Shakespeare, Merchant
of Venice, Act V, Scene I)
In todays competitive marketplace, where consumers have
nearly unlimited choices of merchants and service providers,
building a sustainable relationship with customers becomes
paramount. As marketers search for new ways to build relationships with customers, recent research has suggested that
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) programs might be a
key way for companies to attract and retain customers (Sen, Du,
and Bhattacharya 2009) and for retailers to enhance brand image
(Ganesan et al. 2009). Examples of retailers with CSR activities include Publix Supermarkets Inc. (charitable donations to
the United Way), Lowes Home Improvement (partnership with
the American Red Cross to provide disaster relief), McDonalds (support of Ronald McDonald House Charities), and
Marriott UK (carbon footprint reduction and sustainability).
Indeed, CSR has become mainstream in todays corporate world
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 814 865 4175.

E-mail addresses: boltonle@psu.edu (L.E. Bolton),
asm6@psu.edu (A.S. Mattila).
1 Both authors contributed equally to this research.
(Torreli, Monga, and Kaikati 2012; Vlachos et al. 2009). Against

this backdrop, our research focuses on CSR situated within
buyerseller relationships (such as communal vs. exchange relationships between companies and customers; Aggarwal 2004).
Specifically, we investigate consumer response to CSR (a good
deed) situated within service failure (a naughty world) to
address the following questions: Does CSR improve satisfaction
and loyalty intentions following service failure in buyerseller
encounters? If so, how does the buyerseller relationship moderate the impact of CSR? And what are the underlying mechanisms
and boundary conditions for effective CSR?
Our investigation of these questions contributes to the retailing literature in several ways. First, previous research on CSR
has identified various factors that alter the effectiveness of CSR
but has not, to our knowledge, examined the type of buyerseller
relationship. We extend prior work by investigating how consumer response to CSR varies as a function of communal versus
exchange norms governing the buyerseller relationship. Second, previous research on CSR has mainly focused on its impact
on choice and preference, but has largely ignored the context of
service provision. Specifically, we assess whether CSR initiatives will exacerbate or mitigate the harmful effects of service
failurethereby addressing a surprising (and consequential)
gap in the literature. Addressing this gap also contributes to the
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2014.10.001
0022-4359/ 2014 New York University. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
L.E. Bolton, A.S. Mattila / Journal of Retailing 91 (1, 2015) 140153
literature on customer satisfaction by exploring the potential role

of CSR in building customer satisfaction and loyalty. Third, our
research identifies the underlying mechanismperceptions of a
companys warmth and/or competenceby which CSR affects
satisfaction and loyalty intentions. Doing so builds on recent
research aimed at understanding the roles of warmth and competence (fundamental dimensions of social perception) within
buyerseller relationships. Fourth, our research examines how
companys motives and CSR framing affect consumer response
to CSR within a buyerseller relationship. These findings identify several theoretically and managerially relevant boundary
conditions on CSR that enhance or limit its effectiveness. Finally,
our work has novel managerial implications for the practice of
CSR, including its role in buyerseller relationships, customer
satisfaction, and service recovery (to be elaborated upon in the
general discussion).
CSR in BuyerSeller Relationships
CSR can be defined as a companys commitment to minimizing or eliminating any harmful effects and maximizing
its long-run beneficial impact on society (Mohr, Webb, and
Harris 2001, p. 46). CSR programs can take many forms,
such as diversity initiatives, recycling programs, the use of
green materials, support of community events, and charitable
donations (Sen and Bhattacharya 2001). The present research
focuses on CSR initiatives that include charitable donations
(study 1) and sustainability (studies 2 and 3) for generalizability
purposes and given their prevalence in business. Corporate philanthropy, including donation-based promotions, have become
mainstream in the US corporate world (Henderson and Arora
2010; Krishna and Rajan 2009; Vlachos et al. 2009). Likewise,
researchers and practitioners are paying increasing attention to
environmental, social and economic dimensions of corporate
sustainability (Chabowski, Mena, and Gonzalez-Padron 2011;
McKinsey 2010).
Companies have become increasingly interested in CSR as
it seems to have a positive impact on consumers affective
and behavioral responses (Barone, Miyakazi, and Taylor 2000;
Brown and Dacin 1997; Du, Bhattachrya, and Sen 2007, 2011;
Ellen, Webb, and Mohr 2006; Sen and Bhattacharya 2001).
Moreover, CSR has been linked to increased market value of the
company (Luo and Bhattacharya 2006, 2009) and better financial performance (Luo and Bhattacharya 2006, 2009; McGuire,
Sundgren, and Schneeweis 1988; Stanwick and Stanwick 1998).
Consumer research on CSR has mainly focused on its impact on
choice and preference and surprisingly little is known about the
impact of CSR (i) within the context of service provision, an
important component of the economy (Vargo and Lusch 2004),
and (ii) on customer satisfaction and loyalty (Anderson and
Mittal 2000; Mittal and Frennea 2010; Oliver 2010).
Given that service failures are inevitable and recovery is
essential in retaining a stable customer base (Gelbrich and Rosck
2011; Karande, Magnini, and Tam 2007; Smith and Karwan
2010; Tax and Brown 1998), how might CSR initiatives affect the
negative impact of service failure on customer satisfaction and
loyalty? On the one hand, CSR could help: for example, some
141
research has suggested that CSR may enhance consumer resistance to negative publicity (Eisingerich et al. 2011; Klein and
Dewar 2004; Yoon, Grhan-Canli, and Schwarz 2006). On the
other hand, CSR could backfire: for example, company behavior
that is inconsistent with CSR could lead to consumer perceptions
of corporate hypocrisy (Wagner, Lutz, and Weitz 2009). Our
research will build on these provocative findings and examine the
impact of CSR on consumer response to service failure, including satisfaction and loyalty intentions. Doing so provides an
arguably strong test of the power of CSR, as well as its potential
role in service recovery, customer satisfaction, and loyalty.
CSR and Relationship Norms
Our research proposes that consumer response to CSR will
depend upon the norms governing the buyerseller relationship.
In communal relationships, members benefit from each other
on the basis of needs or to demonstrate general concern for
each others welfare (Clark 1984). Conversely, in exchange relationships, members benefit each other in response to specific
benefits received in the past or expected in the future (Clark and
Mills 1979; Mills and Clark 1982). Communal and exchange
relationships and their accompanying norms were first identified in the interpersonal relationships literature but have proved
useful in consumer contexts (Aggarwal 2004; Goodwin 1996;
Johnson and Grimm 2010; Wan, Hui, and Wyer 2011). Communal and exchange norms are posited to vary across buyerseller
relationships, due to differences across industry (e.g., medical
vs. financial services) and across firm due to brand positioning
(Aggarwal 2004). For example, marketing communications may
vary in their emphasis on communal versus exchange norms
(e.g., Sheraton Hotels Whos taking care of you? vs. Days
Inn Best value under the sun). Individuals may also vary
in the chronic tendency to adhere to communal and exchange
norms in relationships (referred to as communal and exchange
orientation) (for a recent review, see Clark and Mills 2011).
Given their conceptual equivalence, our research will refer interchangeably to communal consumers as consumers in communal
relationships, guided by communal norms, or high in communal
orientation (and likewise for exchange).
In interpersonal relationships, people use relationship norms
as standards to evaluate others and to decide what is appropriate in certain situations. For example, helping occurs more
in communal than exchange relationships (Bar-Tal et al. 1977;
Clark et al. 1987) and refusing to help makes individuals feel
worse (Williamson and Clark 1989a, 1989b; Williamson et al.
1996). Moreover, individuals in communal (vs. exchange) relationships expect partners to be more responsive to their needs
and to provide more help. Feelings of injustice. . .should be
common when one person willingly neglects the others needs
but . . .should not lead to feelings of injustice in exchange
relationships (Williamson and Clark 1989a, p. 93). Indeed,
the communal orientation scale includes a measure of others
responsiveness (e.g., I believe people should go out of their
way to be helpful, It bothers me when other people neglect my
needs; Clark et al. 1987). Consistent with higher expectations
of partners responsiveness to their needs, individuals felt less
142
grateful toward others who helped and more resentment toward

communal (vs. exchange) partners who refused to help (BarTal et al. 1977). A partners responsiveness to ones needs also
affects satisfaction in communal relationships such as marriage
(Grote and Clark 1998; Lemay, Clark, and Feeney 2007) whereas
inconsiderate behavior undermines relationship quality because
they indicate that the other is not doing a good job of living up
to communal norms (Clark and Grote 1998, p. 9).
Given that communal norms place greater emphasis on
responsiveness to needs and concern for others welfare in interpersonal relationships, then we expect a similar emphasis in
commercial relationships. Moreover, the societal benefits of
CSR seem better aligned with communal (vs. exchange) norms
governing a buyerseller commercial relationship. Indeed, prior
research indicates that communal versus exchange relationship norms influence the extent to which consumers engage
in welfare-oriented behaviors such as donating money to charity, volunteering time, and spreading word of mouth (Aggarwal
2004; Goodwin 1996; Gremler, Gwinner, and Brown 2001;
Johnson and Grimm 2010; Small and Simonsohn 2008). We
build upon this research and argue that consumers guided by
communal (vs. exchange) norms in buyerseller relationships
will respond more favorably to companies that engage in societal
welfare-oriented behaviors such as CSR. Accordingly,
H1. Consumer response to company CSR activities will be
enhanced under communal (vs. exchange) buyerseller relationship norms.
To our knowledge, research has not examined the joint impact
of relationship norms and CSR. We do so by examining consumer response in the form of customer satisfaction and loyalty
intentions following service failure, arguably a strong test of
the power of CSR. We propose that buyerseller relationship
will moderate the impact of CSR due to CSRs alignment
with communal (but not exchange) norms. At a broad level,
our argument is consistent with and builds on the notion that
CSRs impact is enhanced when congruent with the company and its offerings (Koschate-Fischer, Stefan, and Hoyer
2012; Menon and Kahn 2003; Sen and Bhattacharya 2001;
Zdravkovic, Magnusson, and Stanley 2010) and consumer
lifestyle and values (Barone, Norman, and Miyazaki 2007; Lee
et al. 2012; Sen and Bhattacharya 2001). Put simply, CSRs
impact should be enhanced when congruent with norms governing the buyerseller relationship.
Warmth and Competence
Prior research on social perception characterizes warmth and
competence as the two universal dimensions of social perception (Fiske, Cuddy, and Glick 2007; Fiske et al. 2007). Warmth
captures traits such as being caring or helpful (i.e., positive
or negative intent) whereas competence captures traits such as
skill and efficacy (i.e., the capability to pursue ones intent).
These dimensions, originally established in social psychology,
have been extended to consumption contexts (e.g., Aaker, Vohs,
and Mogilner 2010; Scott, Mende, and Bolton 2013). Although
warmth is considered primary in personal relationships (Fiske
et al. 2007), competence may dominate commercial relationships (Aaker, Vohs, and Mogilner 2010)although recent
research argues that their impact may depend upon relationship
norms (Scott, Mende, and Bolton 2013).
Warmth. H1 is based on the premise that CSR enhances
consumer response by improving customers perceptions that
the company is concerned about the needs and welfare of its
customers and society at large. That is, CSR signals a firms
warmtha signal that may be especially important in light of
service failure as consumers seek evidence that the firm does
indeed care for its customers. Indeed, prior research Aaker, Vohs,
and Mogilner (2010) find that consumers associate non-profit
(vs. for-profit) organizations with greater warmth. If so, then we
argue that a company engaging in non-profit activities via CSR
might acquire a stronger association with warmth. However,
consumer response to CSR as a signal of warmth may depend
upon the type of buyerseller relationship. Scott, Mende, and
Bolton (2013) find that consumers in communal relationships
place more emphasis on warmth and therefore interpret seller
signals (in their case, conspicuous consumption) as evidence of
(lack of) warmth. If so, then consumers in communal relationships should be especially inclined to view CSR as a signal of
a firms warmth and their favorable response to CSR should be
mediated by warmth.
Competence. A similar argument seems less likely to hold for
competence. Just as communal consumers are expected to place
more emphasis on warmth, exchange consumers are expected
to place more emphasis on competence and interpret seller signals in terms of competence (Scott, Mende, and Bolton 2013).
However, the signal value of CSR for competence is unclear.
From a definitional standpoint, CSR does not imply competence in the same way that it does warmth. On the one hand,
prior research suggests a halo effect could emerge and CSR
could spill over and affect perceptions of a companys competence (Du, Bhattachrya, and Sen 2007; Judd et al. 2005). On
the other hand, exchange consumers seem unlikely to view CSR
as evidence that a firm is fulfilling its normative obligations
(which implies competence; Maignan and Ferrell 2004; Vaaland,
Heide, and Grnhaug 2008), especially in light of service failure that itself may imply a lack of competence. Indeed, prior
research does not strongly support an association between CSR
and enhanced competence perceptions (Sen and Bhattacharya
2001). [Interestingly, pro-social and ethical behavior is sometimes associated with lack of competence (Aaker, Vohs, and
Mogilner 2010; Lin and Chang 2012; Luchs et al. 2010)but
the conditions for this association would not seem to hold in the
present context.3 ] In sum, these mixed findings suggest that consumer perceptions of a companys competence may be relatively
unaffected by CSR activities. Accordingly,
3 Aaker et al. (2010) find that non-profits are seen as less competent than forprofitsbut the effect dissipates when money is primed (which seems the case
for a for-profit firm that supports CSR). Luchs et al. (2010; Lin and Chang 2012)
find that higher product ethicality undermines performance IF it is strengthrelatedbut strength seems less relevant in the present retail services context.
studies also shed light on the underlying psychological process

and establish theoretically relevant boundary conditions for the
effectiveness of CSR in buyerseller relationships.
BUYER-SELLER
RELATIONSHIP
Communal/exchange
norms (E1)
Communal orientation
(E2-E3)
Study 1: CSR and Relationship Norms
H1
CSR
Corporate philanthropy
(E1)
Sustainability (E2, E3)
CONSUMER
PERCEPTIONS:
Warmth
Competence
(H2)
H3
COMPANY
MOTIVES (E2)
143
CONSUMER
RESPONSE
Satisfaction
Loyalty Intentions
(E1E3)
H4
CSR FRAMING
(E3)
Fig. 1. Organizing framework.
H2. The positive effects of CSR under communal (vs.

exchange) relationship norms will be mediated by perceptions
of a firms warmth (more so than competence).
H2 proposes that warmth rather than competence inferences are
the underlying psychological process by which CSR affects consumer response to service failure. (Later, we will explore how
competence might also play a role depending upon how CSR is
framed.) Prior research has proposed various other mediators of
CSRs impact, including CSR associations and corporate ability
associations (which indirectly appear to map at least partially
on to warmth and competence; Brown and Dacin 1997) and
customer-company identification (Sen and Bhattacharya 2001,
2003). The latter proposes that consumers ascribe greater overlap in their own traits and a companys traits (e.g., assertive,
compassionate, risk-taking) when companies engage in CSR,
and this sense of attachment drives favorable CSR responses.
We build on this research by examining the nature of the underlying traits (i.e., warmth and competence) and the moderating
role of buyerseller relationship norms.
Empirical Overview
In a series of three experiments, we investigate the impact
of CSR initiatives on consumer response to service encounters,
instantiated in the form of service failure and assessed primarily
via customer satisfaction and loyalty intentions.4 Fig. 1 provides
an organizing framework. Study 1 investigates the moderating
role of buyerseller relationship norms (H1) and the mediating
roles of warmth and competence (H2). Studies 2 and 3 continue
to test the impact of CSR as a function of buyerseller relationship norms, while assessing its robustness across the companys
CSR motive and CSR framing. Specific theory and hypotheses
H3 and H4 regarding these factors will be introduced with each
study. Aside from their pragmatic relevance to retailers, these
4 Given that deliberate delivery of service failure is problematic, we carefully
follow precedent by using established scenarios (study 1) and also use a video
simulation (study 2) to represent experience.
The primary objective of study 1 is to test H1 and assess how

buyerseller relationship norms affect consumer response to
CSR within the context of service failure. Doing so will provide
evidence for H2 and the underlying psychological process by
examining mediation via warmth and competence inferences.
Consistent with H1 and H2, CSR is expected to increase satisfaction and loyalty intentions, more so under communal (vs.
exchange) relationship norms, due to enhanced perceptions of a
firms warmth (more so than competence).
Study 1 examines a hotel service failure (adapted from Smith,
Bolton, and Wagner 1999). Relationship norms are primed indirectly using an established technique; specifically, relationship
norms are primed in an unrelated scenario and, once salient,
are expected to guide consumer response in the service setting
(Aggarwal and Law 2005; Aggarwal and Zhang 2006). CSR is
manipulated via charitable donations, and consumer response is
measured via customer satisfaction and loyalty intentions toward
the retailer.
Method
Participants and Design. The experiment was a 2 (CSR,
none) 2 (Relationship norms: communal, exchange) betweensubjects design. A total of 130 adult consumers, drawn from
a paid commercial panel and screened for prior hotel experience, completed the study. Participants were 46.2% male, with
a median age of 4554, median income of $50,00059,999,
and median education of some college. All participants reported
staying at hotels at least 35 nights in the past year.
Materials and Procedure. All participants responded to initial background questions (including age, income, gender, and
self-reported hotel frequency). Participants then read a scenario
from Aggarwal and Law (2005, studies 12), designed to prime
communal versus exchange relationship norms. In the communal condition, participants read about an individual who likes
to do things for people just to please them and to show them
that she cares for them. In turn, she expects her friends to be
there for her when she needs them. In the exchange condition,
participants read about an individual who likes to keep things
as even as possible and generally keeps track of her exchanges
with others. . . and expects [others] to reciprocate in kind. Participants then responded to an open-ended question regarding
sharing of a check when dining out for lunch with a friend,
which is an established manipulation check for communal versus
exchange norms (Aggarwal and Law 2005).
In an ostensibly unrelated task, participants then read the
following retail scenario.
Imagine the following experience with a hotel. You are traveling and looking forward to getting to your hotel and checking
144
Table 1
Consumer response to CSR as a function of primed relationship norm (Study
1).
Relationship norm
CSR
Satisfaction
Loyalty intentions
Communal
Communal
Exchange
Exchange
None
CSR
None
CSR
30
37
35
28
2.00 (0.96)
2.86 (1.25)
2.19 (1.16)
2.07 (0.96)
2.22 (0.95)
3.16 (0.96)
2.81 (1.05)
2.63 (0.70)
in. You will be staying at hotel XYZ for several nights, and
the hotel has a Four-Diamond rating from AAA.
Participants in the CSR condition only were then told Hotel
XYZ makes regular donations to environmental causes. All
participants then read about a service encounter at the retailer (a
hotel service outcome failure adapted from Smith, Bolton, and
Wagner 1999):
You arrive at the hotel at approximately 7:00 pm and go to
the front desk to check in. The representative at the front desk
looks up your prepaid reservation and informs you that your
room is ready. However, it is not the type of room (in terms
of number and size of beds and smoking or nonsmoking) that
you had preferred and reserved.
Participants then reported their satisfaction and loyalty intentions, as well as perceptions of the retailers warmth and
competence (see Appendix A for exact wording).
Results
Manipulation Check. Following Aggarwal and Law (2005),
participants open-ended responses in the priming task were
coded by independent judges (inter-coder agreement 84%) as
reflecting exchange or communal norms (e.g., paying own share
or treating by paying the entire bill). More participants indicated
treating in the communal versus exchange condition (58.2%
vs. 30.2%, 2 = 10.03, p < .05), and more participants indicated
paying own share in exchange versus communal conditions
(57.1% vs. 32.8%, 2 = 7.60, p < .05). As intended, indirect
priming of communal (vs. exchange) norms led to stronger
endorsement of communal (relative to exchange) responses
among respondents.
Satisfaction and Intentions. Analyses were conducted for satisfaction and intentions as a function of relationship norms, CSR,
and their interaction (with age, income, and gender as covariates;
details omitted for brevitys sake). Descriptive means are shown
in Table 1 and Fig. 2. MANCOVA reveals a marginal effect
of CSR (F(1, 111) = 3.59, p < .10), qualified by the expected
interaction with relationship norm (F(1, 111) = 8.66, p < .05).
[The main effect of norm is non-significant (F(1, 111) = 1.96,
p > .10).] Follow-up simple effects tests indicate that CSR
improved satisfaction and intentions under communal norms
(F(1, 111) = 11.79, p < .05) but had no effect under exchange
norms (F < 1). This pattern of results supports H1.
Mediation Analysis. We ran a moderated mediation analysis
(Hayes 2012), in which the independent variable was CSR, the
moderator was relationship norm, the mediators were warmth
Fig. 2. Loyalty intentions as a function of CSR and Primed Relationship Norms

(Study 1).
and competence, and the dependent variable was intentions. The

bootstrapping analysis supports mediation by warmth but not
competence. Specifically, the mean indirect effects for warmth
excluded zero under communal norms (a b = .5646; 95%
CI = .1999 to 1.1694); otherwise, the mean indirect effects for
warmth and competence did not exclude zero. (See Appendix B
for details.) These results support H2 and mediation by warmth.
Discussion
Study 1 provides evidence that positive effects of CSR on
satisfaction and loyalty intentions following a service failure
are stronger under communal (vs. exchange) relationship norms.
CSR aligns with communal norms of care and concern for others:
inferences of a firms warmth are therefore enhanced under communal (but not exchange) relationship norms, thereby increasing
satisfaction and loyalty intentions toward the firm. Put simply,
consumers guided by communal norms tune in to CSR as a signal of a firms warmth; consumers guided by exchange norms
do not.
Study 2: Company Motives for CSR
The objectives of the present study are two-fold. As its first
objective, study 2 is designed to assess robustness of our findings in three ways. First, study 1 operationalized buyerseller
relationship via indirect norm priming. Instead, the present study
investigates communal relationship orientationreflecting individual differences in chronically salient relationship norms held
by consumersand its impact on consumer response to CSR.
Second, study 1 operationalized CSR via corporate philanthropy
whereas the present study operationalizes CSR via sustainability
initiatives for generalizability purposes. Third, study 1 closely
followed precedent in the literature and utilized scenario descriptions of an outcome service failure; instead, the present study
employs videotaping to create an encounter with a retailer that
is characterized primarily by process service failure. Consistent
with H1 and H2, we predict that communally-oriented consumers will respond more favorably to sustainability forms of
CSR due to its alignment with communal norms that emphasize
care and concern for others. That is, our objective is to replicate
the findings of study 1 using an individual difference measure of
relationship norms and with an eye toward experimental realism

and generalizability.
As its second objective, study 2 explores how company
motives for engaging in CSR alter the impact of CSR as a function of relationship norms. Company CSR motives may become
salient to consumers via news and social media, publicity
and promotions, and other sources. Extrinsic or self-interested
motives reflect the companys desire to increase sales/profits
while intrinsic or society-serving motives involve the ultimate
goal of doing good (Du, Bhattachrya, and Sen 2007). Prior
research indicates that consumer response depends on perceived
company motives for engaging in CSR (Barone, Miyakazi, and
Taylor 2000; Ellen, Webb, and Mohr 2006; Folse, Niedrich,
and Grau 2010; Koschate-Fischer, Stefan, and Hoyer 2012;
Sen, Bhattacharya, and Korschun 2006). For example, CSRs
impact is enhanced when CSR motives are perceived as sincere (Yoon, Grhan-Canli, and Schwarz 2006), and CSR tactics
(such as company donation amount and purchase requirements)
can raise suspicion of company motives and undermine CSRs
impact (Folse, Niedrich, and Grau 2010). Indeed, prior research
suggests that CSR is closely linked to self-transcendence
values of caring for society (Torreli, Monga, and Kaikati
2012, p. 950)that is, society-serving (rather than self-serving)
motives. As study 1 demonstrates, consumers respond favorably to CSR when it aligns with communal relationship norms
that emphasize care and concern for othersconsistent with
a purely society-serving motive for CSR. Hence, we predict
that communally-oriented consumers will respond favorably to
society-serving, but not-self-serving, company CSR motives.
Accordingly,
H3. When company motives are society-serving, consumer
response to CSR activities will be enhanced under communal
relationship norms (i.e., consistent with H1). When company
motives are self-serving, these positive effects of CSR will not
emerge.
If supported, H3 provides further support for the underlying
psychological process by establishing company motive as a
theoretically relevant boundary condition. That is, communal
consumers respond favorably to CSR because society-serving
(but not self-serving) CSR aligns with communal relationship
norms of care and concern for others. Looked at another way,
H3 also establishes relationship norms as a boundary condition on the impact of company CSR motive. That is, company
CSR motive will influence consumer response under communal
buyerseller relationship norms; in its absence, CSR motive will
have little impact.
Method
Participants and Design. The experiment was a two-group
(CSR: none, CSR) between-subjects design, with communal
relationship orientation as a measured covariate (i.e., reflecting communal norms). A total of 135 participants, drawn from a
paid commercial panel, completed the study. Participants were
48.9% male, with a median age of 2534, median income of
$40,00049,999, and median education of some college.
145
Materials and Procedure. Participants first responded to

background measures, including communal relationship orientation (an individual difference measure of communal norms)
and demographics. The communal orientation scale (Clark et al.
1987) comprises 14 items, such as: I expect people I know to
be responsive to my needs and feelings, and When making a
decision, I take other peoples needs and feelings into account,
measured on five-point scales (with endpoints disagree/agree).
After a filler task, all participants then read a short introduction to a retail service encounter as follows:
You and a friend have decided to go out for a relaxing dinner. You enter a casual-dining restaurant and are seated at
the table. Please watch the following short simulation of
your restaurant experience. As you watch the video, imagine
yourself in this situation and having this experience.
Participants then watched a 2 minute video that showed a
restaurant experience characterized primarily by process service
failure. (The failure, adapted from Smith, Bolton, and Wagner
1999, included slow and inattentive service, as well as poor quality food.) The video was filmed by a production company in a
restaurant and featured actors representing diners and restaurant
staff. At the end of the video, participants in the CSR condition
only were told:
You later discover that the restaurant is committed to sustainability (i.e., acting in ways that protect human health
and the environment now and for future generations). The
restaurant has a strong green strategy toward the natural environment (e.g., energy efficiency, sourcing supplies locally,
pollution and waste control) and was recently ranked 1st
among 14 major restaurant companies for corporate sustainability.
All participants then reported their satisfaction and loyalty intentions toward the retailer (see Appendix A). Participants in the
CSR conditions also assessed the retailers CSR motives on four
5-point scales (with endpoints disagree/agree): The restaurant participates in CSR because it genuinely cares about the
well-being of others, The restaurants commitment to CSR
is genuine, The restaurant is really just engaging in CSR to
benefit itself (reverse-coded) and The restaurant participates
in CSR because it wants to sell more products (reverse-coded).
Results
Satisfaction and Intentions. To test H1, analyses of satisfaction and intentions was conducted as a function of CSR,
measured communal orientation (coefficient = .80, standardized M = 0 (1)), and their two-way interaction (with age, gender,
and income as measured covariates; details omitted for brevitys
sake). MANCOVA reveals a two-way interaction of CSR and
communal orientation (F(1, 128) = 5.98, p < .05); main effects
were non-significant (p > .10). Spotlight analyses were then conducted at higher and lower levels of communal orientation
(+1SD and 1SD, respectively). When communal orientation
was high (reflecting communal norms), CSR improved satisfaction and loyalty intentions (F(1, 128) = 4.30, p < .05); CSR had
146
Table 2
Consumer response to CSR as a function of relationship orientation (spotlight analysis with predicted (SE)) (Study 2).
CSR
Satisfaction
Loyalty intentions
1SD
1SD
None
Sustainability
2.09 (.24)
1.71 (.28)
2.44 (.26)
2.25 (2.25)
+1SD
+1SD
None
Sustainability
1.50 (.27)
1.95 (.28)
1.85 (1.85)
2.24 (.31)
no effect when communal orientation was low (F(1, 128) = 1.98,

p = .16). This pattern of results (shown in Table 2) supports H1.
Mediation Analysis. We ran a moderated mediation analysis (Hayes 2012), in which the independent variable was CSR,
the moderator was relationship orientation, the mediators were
warmth and competence, and the dependent variable was intentions. Bootstrapping analysis revealed that warmth mediated
the effects of the two-way interaction on intentions. Specifically, the mean indirect effects excluded zero for warmth when
communal orientation was high (a b = .1945; 95% CI = .0205
to .4122); otherwise, neither warmth nor competence indirect
effects excluded zero. (See Appendix B.) This analysis supports
H2 and mediation by warmth.
Company Motive. To test H3, we categorized participants
ratings of the companys motives (coefficient = .62) as either
society-serving or self-serving (relative to scale midpoint of 3).5
Analyses of satisfaction and intentions were then conducted as a
function of CSR (society-serving motive, self-serving motive, no
CSR), communal orientation (standardized M = 0 (1)), and their
two-way interaction (with age, gender, and income as covariates). MANCOVA revealed a two-way interaction of CSR and
communal orientation (F(2, 126) = 5.28, p < .01); main effects
were non-significant (p > .10). More germane to our hypotheses, we examined planned interaction contrasts of each perceived
CSR motive against no CSR. For society-serving CSR, MANCOVA reveals a two-way interaction contrast (F(1, 126) = 10.36,
p < .01) such that CSR increases satisfaction and intentions when
communal orientation is high (reflecting communal norms; F(1,
126) = 11.26, p < .01) but not low (F(1, 126) = 1.92, p > .10).
For self-serving CSR, the interaction contrast is non-significant
(F(1, 126) = 1.45, p = .23); self-serving CSR has no effect at
either level of communal orientation (p > .10). These results,
shown in Table 2 and Fig. 3, support H3.
CSR motive rating
Satisfaction
Loyalty intentions
Self-serving
Society-serving
1.80 (.30)
1.48 (.34)
2.25 (.33)
2.17 (.37)
Self-serving
Society-serving
1.70 (.30)
2.51 (.35)
1.94 (.33)
2.78 (.38)
effects of CSR on satisfaction and loyalty intentions; and (iii)

these positive effects of CSR emerge when company motives are
perceived as society-serving, but not self-serving. These findings within the context of service failure support H1H3: CSR
improves satisfaction and loyalty intentions when the companys
motive is society-serving and aligns with communal norms of
care and concern for others (i.e., warmth) held by consumers.
Company motive therefore serves as a theoretically and managerially relevant boundary condition that alters the impact of
CSR.
Study 2 also provides evidence of generalizability to
buyerseller relationship norms operationalized via individual
differences in chronically salient relationship norms held by
consumers (i.e., communal orientation). In additional studies
(available from the authors), we replicate the findings of studies
12 using alternative operationalizations of relationship norms,
including a direct norm manipulation (adopted from Scott,
Mende, and Bolton 2013) and descriptions of firms positioned
on buyerseller relationship norms (adopted from Aggarwal
and Law 2005). Hence, communal and exchange relationship
norms may be made salient in a variety of ways and, as our
results attest, alter consumer response to company CSR activities. Finally, study 2 provides evidence of generalizability to
a process service failure, operationalized via video simulation,
and to CSR in the form of sustainability initiatives by retailers.
We thus contribute to the growing literature on sustainability
in marketing (Connelly, Ketchen, and Slater 2011; Leonidou,
Katsikeas, and Morgan 2013).
Discussion
To summarize: (i) CSR in the form of sustainability initiatives is more effective when communal orientation is high
(reflecting communal norms); (ii) warmth mediates the positive
5 An alternative analysis using a continuous measure of CSR motive produces

a consistent pattern of results. That is, satisfaction and loyalty intentions are
a function of a significant two-way interaction of communal orientation and
CSR motive, with positive effects emerging when communal orientation is high
and company motive is society-serving. Details omitted for brevitys sake. A
categorization approach is utilized in the text for ease of exposition.
Fig. 3. Loyalty intentions as a function of relationship orientation and CSR

motive (Study 2).
Study 3: How Can CSR Signal Competence?

Thus far, our evidence points to CSR as a signal of a
firms warmthwhich aligns with communal norms of care
and concern for others. As a result, CSR appears more effective following service failure in communal versus exchange
relationships. A natural question then arises: Can CSR signal
competence? And if so, how will such CSR affect consumer
response to service failure as a function of buyerseller relationship norms?
Study 3 investigates these questions by framing CSR as a signal of warmth (its spontaneous signal, as evidenced by studies
12) or competence. Recall that past research does not strongly
support an association between CSR and enhanced competence
perceptions (Sen and Bhattacharya 2001; see also Aaker, Vohs,
and Mogilner 2010; Lin and Chang 2012; Luchs et al. 2010).
However, it may be possible to frame CSR as evidence that a
firm is fulfilling its normative obligation, which should therefore
imply competence (Maignan and Ferrell 2004; Vaaland, Heide,
and Grnhaug 2008). (We note that framing can and does occur
in a variety of firm marketing communications [e.g., Forbes
2008; Smith 2010].) Framing CSR should also overcome any
potential negative implications of CSR, via its association with
non-profit or pro-ethical behavior, for competence (Aaker, Vohs,
and Mogilner 2010; Lin and Chang 2012; Luchs et al. 2010).
Recall that consumers guided by communal norms are expected
to place more emphasis on warmth than competence (Scott,
Mende, and Bolton 2013). If so, then consumers in communal relationships who experience service failure should interpret
CSR as a signal of a firms warmthand, moreover, framing
CSR in other ways may detract from this warmth signal and
undermine consumer response. In contrast, consumers guided
by exchange norms should place more emphasis on competence than warmth (Scott, Mende, and Bolton 2013). If so, then
consumers in exchange relationships who are relatively unresponsive to CSR as a signal of a firms warmthshould react
more favorably to service failure when CSR is framed in ways
that imply competence. Accordingly,
H4. CSR that signals warmth will be more effective under

communal relationship norms (i.e., consistent with H1). CSR
framed to signal competence will decline in effectiveness under
communal relationship norms but increase in effectiveness under
exchange relationship norms.
If supported, H4 provides further support for our theorizing

regarding the psychological processes that underlie consumer
response to CSR within the context of service failure. Communal
consumers respond more favorably when CSR signals warmth
whereas exchange consumers respond more favorably when
CSR signals competence. Looked at another way, H4 establishes how CSR can be framed to match buyerseller relationship
norms and therefore increase its effectiveness in a service failure
settingwith corresponding pragmatic implications for marketers.
147
Method
Participants and Design. The experiment was a three-group
(CSR: none, CSR, CSR framing) between-subjects design, with
communal relationship orientation (an individual difference
measure of communal norms) as a measured covariate. A total
of 277 participants, drawn from a paid commercial panel, completed the study. Participants were 54.5% male, with a median
age of 2534, median income of $40,00049,999, and median
education of 4-year college degree. Participants reported spending a median 35 nights in a hotel in the past year.
Materials and Procedure. Participants first responded to
background measures, including communal relationship orientation (same as in study 2) and demographics. After a filler
task, all participants then read a short introduction describing
a retailer:
Hotel XYZ is a mid-scale hotel chain with multiple locations
in North America. The hotels are typically located in major
cities or suburban areas, often near expressways or business
areas, and convenient to shopping and attractions. The hotels
feature medium-sized restaurants, fitness centers, and pools.
Like most hotels, XYZ chain has an online reservation
system. Customers can book their reservations online,
requesting the length of stay, type of room, and so on. The
system also takes special requests (e.g., non-smoking, type
of bed, etc.). The hotel also offers a 1-800 number for making
reservations, or consumers can call the hotel location directly
to book a room.
Some participants also read about the retailers CSR initiatives
in the form of sustainability (omitted in the no-CSR control
group). The CSR manipulation was similar to study 2 but a
second version framed CSR as sound business practice (adapted
from real-world examples of such framing; Smith 2010).
Hotel XYZ is committed to sustainability. The hotel has a
strong green strategy toward the natural environment (e.g.,
energy efficiency, sourcing supplies locally, pollution and
waste control) and was recently ranked 1st among 14 major
hotel companies for corporate sustainability. According to the
CEO: [Sustainability is about doing good for the environment and our customers. Our entire organization takes pride
in our commitment to sustainability. (CSR) / Sustainability
is a lot more than just doing good for the environment and
our customers. Its also a business strategy efficient and
sustainable resource use simply makes good business sense,
for any firms bottom line. Our entire organization takes pride
in our commitment to sustainability. (framed CSR)]
Participants then read a news article describing a service failure
by the retailer.
Recently, a newspaper reported on Hotel XYZ as follows:
There have been several hundred reports of over-booking
at Hotel XYZ. Consumers across a number of cities have
complained that reservations at the hotel were not being
honored: consumers with bookings were turned away at the
door and forced to find alternative accommodation because
148
Table 3
Consumer response to CSR with/out framing as a function of relationship orientation (spotlight analysis with predicted (SE)) (Study 3).
CSR
Attitude
Loyalty intentions
1SD
1SD
1SD
None
CSR
Framed CSR
3.27 (.23)
3.63 (.23)
3.92 (.24)
2.71 (.24)
3.03 (.24)
3.39 (.25)
+1SD
+1SD
+1SD
None
CSR
Framed CSR
3.13 (.23)
4.09 (.23)
3.64 (.24)
2.47 (.24)
3.71 (.25)
3.11 (.25)
the hotel was fully occupied. In all cases, the reservations

were made via the online booking system, and consumers are
now left wondering whether the hotel is systematically overbooking in order to increase its occupancy rates. An XYZ
Hotel spokesperson said yesterday: Hotel XYZ has unfortunately experienced a glitch in the online reservation system. A
portion of online bookings were lost during a recent software
update by our external IT provider. Because the details were
lost, we regret that we are unable to contact these customers
to apologize directly.
Participants then reported attitude, loyalty intentions, warmth,
and competence. Attitude was measured on three 7-point scales
(with endpoints unfavorable/favorable, negative/positive,
and really dislike/really like; coefficient = .96). Participants also rated CSR on two 5-point scales (with endpoints
small/large and lower than average/higher than average,
r = .92) for use as a control variable when comparing CSR conditions. (For other measures, see Appendix A.)
Results
CSR. Our first analysis examines attitude and intentions as a
function of CSR (vs. no CSR), measured communal orientation
(coefficient = .86, standardized M = 0 (1)), and their two-way
interaction (with age, gender, and income as measured covariates; details omitted for brevitys sake). MANCOVA reveals a
main effect of CSR (F(1, 169) = 12.29, p < .01), qualified by
its interaction with communal orientation (F(1, 169) = 4.12,
p < .05); the main effect of communal orientation was nonsignificant (F < 1). Spotlight analyses were then conducted at
higher and lower levels of communal orientation (+1SD and
1SD, respectively). When communal orientation was high
(reflecting communal norms), CSR improved attitude and intentions (F(1, 169) = 14.96, p < .01); CSR had no effect when
communal orientation was low (F(1, 169) = 1.10, p > .10). This
pattern of results (shown in Table 3 and Fig. 4) supports H1 and
mirrors the pattern observed in studies 1 and 2.
CSR Framing. We now follow the same analysis approach
to examine framed CSR. First, contrasting framed CSR versus
no CSR, MANCOVA of attitude and intentions reveals a main
effect of framed CSR (F(1, 162) = 13.38, p < .01); communal orientation and the two-way interaction are non-significant
(respectively, F(1, 162) = 1.98, p = .16, F < 1). That is, framed
CSR improved attitude and intentions regardless of communal orientation. Second, contrasting framed CSR versus CSR,
Fig. 4. Loyalty intentions as a function of relationship orientation and CSR

framing (Study 3).
MANCOVA of attitude and intentions reveals a two-way

interaction of CSR framing and communal orientation (F(1,
165) = 4.16, p < .05); the main effects of framing and orientation were non-significant (respectively, F < 1, F(1, 165) = 1.21,
p > .15). When communal orientation was high (reflecting communal norms), framing CSR lowered attitude and intentions
(F(1, 165) = 4.42, p < .05); when communal orientation was low,
framing CSR had no effect (F < 1). This pattern of results supports H4.
Mediation Analysis. We ran a moderated mediation analysis (Hayes 2012): the independent variable was each framed
CSR contrast, the moderator was relationship orientation, the
mediators were warmth and competence, and the dependent
variable was intentions. Contrasting framed CSR versus no
CSR, bootstrapping analysis revealed mediation by warmth and
competence when communal orientation was high (warmth:
a b = .184, 95% CI = .028 to .434; competence: a b = .207,
95% CI = .070 to .432) and mediation by competence only when
communal orientation was low (warmth: a b = .053, 95%
CI = .007 to .183; competence: a b = .368, 95% CI = .130 to
.662). Contrasting framed CSR versus CSR, bootstrapping analysis revealed mediation by warmth when communal orientation
was high (a b = .293, 95% CI = .669 to .009); otherwise, neither warmth nor competence indirect effects excluded
zero. (See Appendix B.) This analysis supports H4: competence mediates framed CSR among less communally-oriented
consumersbut doing so harms warmth inferences that also
mediate for communally-oriented consumers.
Discussion
To summarize: (i) CSR in the form of sustainability initiatives
is more effective when communal orientation is high (reflecting communal norms); (ii) CSR framed to signal competence is
effective regardless of communal orientation; (iii) these positive
effects of CSR emerge via warmth and/or competence, depending upon framing and communal orientation; and (iv) framing
CSR to signal competence undermines its effectiveness with
communally-oriented consumers due to reduced warmth perceptions. Together, these findings within the context of service
failure support H1, H2, and H4: CSR improves attitudes and
loyalty intentions for consumers who hold communal relationship norms by acting primarily as a signal of warmth. CSR
framed to signal competence can improve attitudes and loyalty
intentions for less communally-oriented consumersbut at the
cost of less positive effects among more communally oriented
consumers.
General Discussion
The present research investigates how CSR affects customer
satisfaction within the context of retail service failures. First, we
investigate the effectiveness of CSR as a function of buyerseller
relationship norms (studies 13): CSR increases satisfaction
and loyalty intentions under communal (but not exchange) relationship norms, consistent with the alignment of CSR with the
communal norm of care and concern for others. Second, we
examine the mediating roles of warmth versus competence in
driving the positive effects of CSR as a function of buyerseller
relationship norms. Third, we investigate theoretically and managerially relevant boundary conditions on the effectiveness of
CSR, including company motives (study 2) and CSR framing
(study 3), which are each shown to alter CSRs impact. Together,
these findings expand our understanding of consumer response
to CSR within buyerseller relationships.
Theoretical Implications and Future Research
Taken together, our findings contribute to the literatures on
CSR, buyerseller relationships, and customer satisfaction and
loyalty (including service failure and recovery).
CSR. Previous research postulates that effective CSR tends
to have a positive impact on consumers attitude toward the
companybut the role of CSR in light of service failure has
received little attention. Our findings indicate that CSR can play
a buffering role against service failure by signaling warmth and,
in turn, improving satisfaction and loyalty intentions following a
service failure. Doing so expands the customer satisfaction and
loyalty literature by incorporating non-product related factors
like warmth and CSR (Kumar, Pozza, and Jaishankar Ganesh
2013). This role for warmth is consistent with prior research
suggesting that caring perceptions are a key driver of satisfaction in a service encounter (e.g., Mattila, Grandey and Fisk
2003; Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry 1985). Interestingly,
prior research has proposed a dominant role for competence in
commercial relationships (Aaker, Vohs, and Mogilner 2010).
However, our findings suggest a more balanced perspective
inasmuch as emphasis on warmth and competence varies as a
function of the buyerseller relationship (cf. Scott, Mende, and
Bolton 2013). Moreover, framing CSR can shift its impact from
warmth to competence as a function of buyerseller relationship
norms.
Our research finds evidence for the effectiveness of CSR
across several types of service failure (e.g., outcome failure in
study 1, process failure in study 2). Although we find robust
effects, future research is merited to investigate whether characteristics of the experience alter the impact of CSR. For example,
is CSR more effective for outcome (vs. process) failures or for
149
product (vs. service) failures, perhaps due to hypocrisy when the

nature of the failure (e.g., rude employee behavior) is especially
inconsistent with CSR? Importantly, our research focuses solely
on service failure and begs the question: What is the impact of
CSR when service experience is positive? On the one hand, a
positive experience that already provides evidence of a firms
warmth and competence could minimize any additional impact
of CSR; on the other hand, a positive (rather than negative)
experience could amplify CSRs signal of a firms competence
(vis-a-vis warmth). That is, experience valence may alter the
impact of CSR via warmth and competence. Future research
might also investigate the impact of CSR beyond warmth and
competence inferences and their downstream impact on customer satisfaction and loyalty. For example, does CSR cue costs
and reduce profit perceptions, with corresponding improvements
in perceived price fairness?
BuyerSeller Relationships. Research on the role of relationship norms in customer satisfaction is scantand, as the present
findings attest, can account for mixed findings regarding the
impact of CSR. Indeed, our research suggests that consumers,
guided by relationship norms, appear to interpret the same marketing action in different ways (cf. Scott, Mende, and Bolton
2013). Communal customers view CSR as evidence that the
company cares about others, which aligns with communal (but
not exchange) norms. Moreover, framing CSR can imply competence and increase its alignment with, and effectiveness under,
exchange norms.
Future research might investigate whether characteristics
of CSR interact with the buyerseller relationship. To illustrate: CSR activities that emphasize warmth may be especially
effective at enhancing consumer response under communal relationship norms. If so, then CSR activities that directly affect
people (e.g., helping others vs. helping things, such as the environment or historic buildings) or that directly involve people
(e.g., companies donating employees time vs. money vs. products; cf. Ellen, Mohr, and Webb 2006) may be stronger signals
of warmth and thereby heighten the impact of CSR in communal relationships. (Our own research, omitted for brevitys
sake, suggests that communal consumers are more receptive to
company donations of time vs. money.) On the flip side, what
aspects of CSR (in addition to framing) might lead to effectiveness within exchange relationships? For example, CSR activities
that emphasize core competencies of the company (e.g., a law
firm donating legal services) may be more effective if competence receives greater emphasis (relative to warmth) under
exchange (vs. communal) relationship norms.
One cautionary note is that CSR appears relatively ineffective
when consumers suspect self-serving (rather than societyserving) CSR motives. Specifically, communal consumers who
perceive company CSR motives as self-serving resist making inferences about company warmthwith no corresponding
increase in customer satisfaction. If so, then engaging in CSR
may backfire on companies if consumers become aware of its
purpose in service recovery. More generally, future research is
needed to understand how companies can credibly convey CSR
activities in ways that do not raise suspicion about company
motives.
150
Limitations
We acknowledge several limitations of the present research.
First, our research relies upon the use of hypothetical scenarios describing retail service failure. There is ample precedent
for doing so in the literature and, indeed, we draw upon such
research in designing our stimuli. We augment this approach
by using a video simulation in study 2, and encourage further research to examine service failure and CSR in the field.
Second, our research relies upon self-reported measures of
loyalty intentions toward the company rather than actual behavior. Doing so allows us to gain insight into the psychological
processes (warmth and competence perceptions) that underlie
consumer response to CSR, and we rely upon past research
that has established the link between satisfaction/intentions
and actual behavior. Finally, our research makes no overarching claims regarding generalizability of our findings pertaining
to CSR. We do, however, provide some evidence of generalizability within the context of service failure across industry
(e.g., restaurant, hotel), across consumer samples (e.g., experienced adult consumers from paid commercial panels in studies
1 and 2), across communal/exchange relationship (by varying
operationalizations across studies), and across CSR (e.g., philanthropy, sustainability).
Managerial Implications
The present research contributes to a better understanding of
managerial practice related to CSR and service recovery. Prior
literature has examined organizational response to customer
complaints and categorized six domains: facilitation, timeliness,
redress, apology, credibility (explanations), and attentiveness
(Davidow 2000, 2003). Most studies suggest that some form
of compensation and apology are prerequisites for an effective service recovery strategy (e.g., Smith, Bolton, and Wagner
1999; Wirtz and Mattila 2004). Although beyond the scope of
the present work, future research on the relative impact of CSR
versus other recovery methods, both socio-emotional (e.g., apology) and financial (e.g., financial compensation), is merited.
(Our own research, omitted for brevitys sake, suggests that CSR
may be as effective as standard recovery in the form of an apology and discount, even though consumers perceive it as less
costly.) Past research finds customers prefer recovery resources
that match the type of failure they experience (Smith, Bolton,
and Wagner 1999). In an analogous fashion, our research finds
that CSR as a recovery method is more effective when it
matches the norms of the buyerseller relationship. Likewise,
past CSR research suggests that CSR activities that match consumer CSR attitudes, values, and lifestyle are also more effective
(e.g., Barone, Norman, and Miyazaki 2007). In sum, our findings
suggest that CSR activities are more effective when they match
consumers communal orientation (i.e., in a broader sense,
reflecting their sensitivity toward the needs of others in social
relationships).
In terms of CSR messaging, service providers and retailers
should take into account the type of relationship their company
promotes to customers. Within the context of service failure,
our work suggests that CSR will be advantageous to companies

that foster communal relationships with customersbut have
minimal impact for companies that foster exchange relationships with customers. Companies should, therefore, assess and
pursue CSR opportunities in light of their brand positioning on
communal versus exchange norms. Moreover, firms that foster
communal relationships with customers would benefit from targeted CSR messages embedded in their communications with
customers. For example, Sheraton Hotels was a global sponsor of
the 2007 Special Olympics, consistent with its communal positioning on warmth, connectedness, and community. Sheraton
broadcast Special Olympics public service announcements on
its internal television channel and ran a promotional campaign
to raise money for the Special Olympics. Using CSR messaging
appealing to communal values might also be beneficial to build
deeper customer relationships and to reinforce brand positioning in a fiercely competitive retail environment where service
failure is inevitable.
However, framing CSR to signal competence and increase
its appeal in exchange relationships can undermine its effectiveness in communal relationships. Thus, framing CSR messaging
should be limited to exchange customer segments to avoid
negative spillover. For example, business travelers are an important hospitality segment that may tend to endorse exchange
norms and be more receptive to CSR framed in ways that
signal competence; however, women who tend to be more
communally oriented may respond less favorably to such messaging. Negative effects of framing CSR will be less likely
in industries where exchange norms tend to be more prevalent, such as utility companies and network and communication
providers. For example, Duke Energy describes sustainability
as no longer optional and the way we work; it is a competency that leads to improved risk management, efficiency and
innovation (Smith 2010, italics added). We note that framing CSR as sound business strategy is frequent among its
promoters (e.g., World Business Council for Sustainable Development) and, to the extent that such efforts trickle down to
influence consumers, may shift consumers perceptions away
from warmth and towards competence for firms engaging in
CSR.
Finally, CSR programs need to be perceived as motivated
by society-serving, rather than self-serving, interests, to be
effective. Hence, there could be a risk in re-framing CSR too
emphatically to link it to sound business strategyif doing
so could also undermine perceptions of company motives for
engaging in CSR. Likewise, tying CSR activities too closely to
service recovery could increases suspicion and lead consumers
to infer that the service provider is acting mainly out of selfinterest. For example, concerns about sustainability motives
may be especially prevalent in industries that have received
media attention for green-washing practices (such as hospitality
services or energy)especially among communally-oriented
consumers who are sensitive to self-serving firm motives.
Perhaps ironically, a final pragmatic implication of our work is
to demonstrate that CSR does indeed serve the interests of the
companyby showing how CSR can mitigate dissatisfaction
following (inevitable) service failure, thereby adding to a
companys array of recovery techniques. When things go

wrong, good deeds (via CSR) can shed light.
Construct
Wording of measurement items
Acknowledgements
Competence
The authors gratefully acknowledge financial support from

the Smeal College of Business, the Marriott Foundation, and the
Harrah Hospitality Research Center.
How would you rate the hotel

as. . . (five-point scales with
endpoints not at all/very)
Capable
Competent
Correlation (r)
151
Study
1
.72
.81
.85
Appendix A. Measurement items by study

Appendix B. Mediation analyses
Construct
Satisfaction
Loyalty intentions
Warmth
Wording of measurement items
How satisfied are you [with

Hotel XYZ/your dining
experience]? (seven-point
scales)
very dissatisfied/very satisfied
disappointed/pleased
Correlation (r)
How likely are you to. . .
(seven-point scales with
endpoints very unlikely/very
likely)
stay at this hotel again/dine at
this restaurant again
recommend this
hotel/restaurant to others
consider this hotel your first
choice
continue to [stay at this
hotel/dine at this restaurant] if
prices increase somewhat
pay a higher price than
competitors charge to stay at
this hotel
discourage others from
patronizing this hotel/outlet
(reverse-coded)
Coefficient alpha
Please indicate whether you
agree or disagree with the
following statements.
(five-point scales with
endpoints disagree/agree)
This hotel/restaurant is
concerned for others
This hotel/restaurant cares
about its customers
How would you rate the
hotel/restaurant as. . .
(five-point scales with
endpoints not at all/very)
Caring
Helpful
Correlation (r)/Coefficient
alpha
Study
1
.80
.83
Tables in this appendix report the indirect effects via warmth

and competence on loyalty intentions for CSR as a function
of experimental manipulations (e.g., communal/exchange relationship norms). Indirect effects in bold exclude zero and are
consistent with predictions. The study header summarizes the
conclusion of each studys mediational analyses.
Study 1: Mediation of CSR by warmth under communal norms.
Relationship
norm
Indirect effect of CSR

on intentions via
warmth

on intentions via
competence
Exchange
Communal
.1703 (.5386, +.0695)

+.5646 (.1999, 1.1694)
.0034 (.1149, +.0645)

.0353 (.2973, +.3869)
Study 2: Mediation of CSR by warmth for communal consumers.
Communal
orientation

on intentions via
warmth

on intentions via
competence
1SD
+1SD
.015 (.240, +.083)

+.336 (+.017, 1.04)
.090 (.588, +.178)

.099 (.197, +.360)
.75
.92
.94
.89
.71
.79
Study 3: Mediation of framed CSR by warmth and competence as a function of

communal orientation.
Communal
orientation
Indirect effect of
framed CSR (vs.
none) on intentions
via warmth
Indirect effect of
framed CSR (vs.
none) on intentions
via competence
1SD
+1SD
.053 (.007, +.183)

.184 (.028, .434)
.368 (.130, .662)

.207 (.070, .432)
Communal
orientation
Indirect effect of
framed CSR (vs.
CSR) on intentions
via warmth
Indirect effect of
framed CSR (vs.
CSR) on intentions
via competence
1SD
+1SD
+.011 (.183, +.197)

.243 (.669, .009)
.036 (.315, +.217)

.060 (.307, +.135)
152
References
Aaker, Jennifer, Kathleen D. Vohs and Cassie Mogilner (2010), Nonprofits
Are Seen as Warm and For-Profits as Competent: First Stereotypes Matter,
Journal of Consumer Research, 37 (2), 22437.
Aggarwal, Pankaj (2004), The Effects of Brand Relationship Norms on Consumer Attitudes and Behavior, Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (1),
87101.
Aggarwal, Pankaj and Sharmistha Law (2005), Role of Relationship Norms
in Processing Brand Information, Journal of Consumer Research, 32 (3),
45364.
Aggarwal, Pankaj and Meng Zhang (2006), The Moderating Effect of Relationship Norm Salience on Consumers Loss Aversion, Journal of Consumer
Research, 33 (3), 4139.
Anderson, Eugene W. and Vikas Mittal (2000), Strengthening the
SatisfactionProfit Chain, Journal of Service Research, 3 (November),
10720.
Barone, Michael J., Anthony D. Miyazaki and Kimberly A. Taylor (2000), The
Influence of Cause-Related Marketing on Consumer Choice: Does One Good
Turn Deserve Another?, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28
(2), 24862.
Barone, Michael J., Andrew T. Norman and Anthony D. Miyazaki (2007), Consumer Response to Retailer Use of Cause-Related marketing: Is More Fit
Better?, Journal of Retailing, 83 (4), 43745.
Bar-Tal, Daniel, Yaakov Bar-Zohar, Martin S. Greenberg and Margarete Hermon (1977), Reciprocity Behavior in the Relationship Between Donor
and Recipient and Between Harm-Doer and Victim, Sociometry, 40
(September), 2938.
Brown, Tom J. and Peter A. Dacin (1997), The Company and the Product:
Corporate Associations and Consumer Product Responses, Journal of Marketing, 61 (1), 6884.
Chabowski, Brian, Jeannette Mena and Tracy Gonzalez-Padron (2011), The
Structure of Sustainability Research in Marketing, 19582008: A Basis
for Future Research Opportunities, Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 39 (1), 5570.
Clark, Margaret S. (1984), Record Keeping in Two Types of Relationships, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47 (3),
54957.
Clark, Margaret S. and Nancy K. Grote (1998), Why Arent Indices of Relationship Costs Always Negatively Related to Indices of Relationship Quality,
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2 (1), 217.
Clark, Margaret S. and Judson Mills (1979), Interpersonal Attraction in
Exchange and Communal Relationships, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 37 (1), 1224.
and
(2011), A Theory of Communal (and Exchange) Relationships, in Handbook of Theories of Social
Psychology, Van Lange Paul A. M., Kruglanski Arie W. and Higgins E. Tory,
eds. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publishing.
Clark, Margaret S., Robert Oullette, Martha C. Powell and Sandra Milberg
(1987), Recipients Mood, Relationship Type, and Helping, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 53 (1), 94103.
Connelly, Brian L., David J. Ketchen Jr. and Stanley F. Slater (2011), Toward
a Theoretical Toolbox for Sustainability Research in Marketing, Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39, 86100.
Davidow, M. (2000), The Bottom Line Impact of Organizational Responses
to Customer Complaints, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, 24
(4), 47390.
(2003), Organizational Responses to Outcome Complaints; What Works and What Doesnt, Journal of Service Research, 5 (3),
22550.
Du, Shuili, C.B. Bhattacharya and Sankar Sen (2007), Reaping Relational
Rewards from Corporate Social Responsibility: The Role of Competitive Positioning, International Journal of Research in Marketing, 24 (3),
22441.
,
and
(2011), Corporate Social Responsibility and Competitive Advantage: Overcoming the Trust Barrier, Management Science, 57 (9), 152845.
Eisingerich, Andreas B., Gaia Rubera, Matthias Seifert and Gunjan Bhardwaj
(2011), Doing Good and Doing Better despite Negative Information? The
Role of Corporate Social Responsibility in Consumer Resistance to Negative
Information, Journal of Service Research, 14 (1), 6075.
Ellen, Pam S., Lois A. Mohr and Deborah J. Webb (2000), Charitable Programs
and the Retailer: Do they Mix?, Journal of Retailing, 76 (3), 393406.
, Deborah J. Webb and Lois A. Mohr (2006), Building Corporate Associations: Consumer Attributions for Corporate Socially
Responsible Programs, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34
(2), 14758.
Fiske, Susan T., Amy J.C. Cuddy and Peter Glick (2007a), Universal Dimensions of Social Cognition; Warmth and Competence, Trends in Cognitive
Sciences, 11 (2), 7783.
Fiske, Susan T., Amy J.C. Cuddy, Peter Glick and Jun Xu (2007b), A Model of
(Often Mixed) Stereotype Content: Competence and Warmth Respectively
Follow From Perceived Status and Competition, Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 82 (6), 878902.
Folse, Judith Anne Garretson, Ronald W. Niedrich and Stacy Landreth Grau
(2010), Cause-Related Marketing: The Effects of Purchase Quantity and
Firm Donation Amount on Consumer Inferences and Participation Intentions, Journal of Retailing, 86 (4), 295309.
Forbes (2008), In their Own Words: CEOs on CSR. (accessed
March 7, 2014) [available at http://www.forbes.com/2008/10/16/ceoscsr-critics-lead-corprespons08-cx tw mk kk 1016ceos slide.html].
Ganesan, Shankar, et al. (2009), Supply Chain Management and Retailer Performance: Emerging Trends, Issues, and Implications for Research and
Practice, Journal of Retailing, 85 (1), 8494.
Gelbrich, Katja and Holger Rosck (2011), A Meta-Analysis of Organizational
Complaint Handling and Customer Responses, Journal of Service Research,
14 (1), 2443.
Goodwin, Cathy (1996), Communality as a Dimension of Service Relationships, Journal of Consumer Psychology, 5 (4), 387415.
Gremler, Dwayne D., Kevin P. Gwinner and Stephen W. Brown
(2001), Generating Positive Word-Of-Mouth Communication through
CustomerEmployee Relationships, International Journal of Service Industry Management, 12 (1), 4459.
Grote, Nancy K. and Margaret S. Clark (1998), Distributive Justice Norms
and Family Work: What Is Perceived as Ideal, What Is Applied, and What
Predicts Perceived Fairness, Social Justice Research, 11 (3), 24369.
Hayes, Andrew F. (2012), PROCESS: A Versatile Computational Tool
for Observed Variable Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Modeling, white paper (accessed July 14, 2012) [available at
http://www.afhayes.com/public/process2012.pdf].
Henderson, Ty and Neeraj Arora (2010), Promoting Brands Across Categories With a Social Cause: Implementing Effective Embedded Premium
Programs, Journal of Marketing, 74 (6), 4160.
Johnson, Jennifer W. and Pamela E. Grimm (2010), Communal and Exchange
Relationship Perceptions as Separate Constructs and Their Role in Motivations to Donate, Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20 (3), 28294.
Judd, C.M., L. James-Hawkins, V. Yzerbyt and Y. Kashima (2005), Fundamental Dimensions of Social Judgment: Understanding the Relations Between
Judgments of Competence and Warmth, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 89 (6), 899913.
Karande, Kiran, Vincent P. Magnini and Leona Tam (2007), Recovery Voice
and Satisfaction After Service Failure: An Experimental Investigation of
Mediating and Moderating Factors, Journal of Service Research, 10 (2),
187203.
Klein, Jill and Niraj Dewar (2004), Corporate Social Responsibility and Consumers Attributions and Brand Evaluations in a Product-Harm Crisis,
International Journal of Research in Marketing, 21 (3), 20317.
Koschate-Fischer, Nicole, Isabel V. Stefan and Wayne D. Hoyer (2012), Willingness to Pay for Cause-Related Marketing: The Impact of Donation
Amount and Moderating Effects, Journal of Marketing Research, 49 (6),
91027.
Krishna, Aradhna and Uday Rajan (2009), Cause Marketing: Spillover Effects
of Cause-Related Products in a Product Portfolio, Management Science, 55
(9), 146985.

Kumar, V., Ilaria Dalla Pozza and J. Jaishankar Ganesh (2013), Revisiting
the SatisfactionLoyalty Relationship: Empirical Generalizations and Directions for Future Research, Journal of Retailing, 89 (3), 24662.
Lee, Eun Mi, Seong-Yeon Park, Molly I. Rapert and Christopher L. Newman
(2012), Does Perceived Consumer Fit Matter in Corporate Social Responsibility Issues?, Journal of Business Research, 65, 155864.
Lemay, Edward P. Jr., Margaret S. Clark and Brooke C. Feeney (2007), Projection of Responsiveness to Needs and the Construction of Satisfying
Communal Relationships, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
92 (5), 83453.
Leonidou, Constantinos N., Constantine S. Katsikeas and Neil A. Morgan
(2013), Greening the Marketing Mix: Do Firms Do It and Does It Pay
Off?, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 41 (2), 15170.
Lin, Ying-Ching and Chiu-chi Angela Chang (2012), Double Standard: The
Role of Environmental Consciousness in Green Product Usage, Journal of
Marketing, 76 (5), 12534.
Luchs, Michael G., Rebecca Walker Naylor, Julie R. Irwin and Rajagopal Raghunathan (2010), The Sustainability Liability: Potential Negative Effects of
Ethicality on Product Preference, Journal of Marketing, 74 (5), 1831.
Luo, Xueming and C.B. Bhattacharya (2006), Corporate Social Responsibility,
Customer Satisfaction, and Market Value, Journal of Marketing, 70 (4),
118.
and
(2009), The Debate over
Doing Good: Corporate Social Performance, Strategic Marketing Levers,
and Firm-Idiosyncratic Risk, Journal of Marketing, 73 (6), 198213.
Maignan, Isabelle and O.C. Ferrell (2004), Corporate Social Responsibility
and Marketing: An Integrative Framework, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 32 (1), 319.
Mattila, Anna S., Alicia A. Grandey and Glenda M. Fisk (2003), The Interplay
of Gender and Affective Tone in Service Encounter Satisfaction, Journal
of Service Research, 6 (2), 13643.
McGuire, Jean B., Alison Sundgren and Thomas Schneeweis (1988), Corporate
Social Responsibility and Financial Performance, Academy of Management
Journal, 31 (4), 85472.
McKinsey Global Survey (2010), How Companies Manage Sustainability:
McKinsey Global Survey Results, (accessed May 3, 2013) [available at
http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/sustainability/how companies manage
sustainability mckinsey global survey results].
Menon, Satya and Barbara E. Kahn (2003), Corporate Sponsorships of Philanthropic Activities: When Do They Impact Perception of Sponsor Brand?,
Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13 (3), 31627.
Mills, Judson and Margaret S. Clark (1982), Communal and Exchange Relationships, in Review of Personality and Social Psychology, Wheeler L. ed.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 12144.
Mittal, Vikas and Carly Frennea (2010), Customer Satisfaction: A Strategic
Review and Guidelines for Managers, Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science
Institute.
Mohr, Lois A., Deborah J. Webb and Katherine E. Harris (2001), Do Consumers
Expect Companies to Be Socially Responsible? The Impact of Corporate
Social Responsibility on Buying Behavior, Journal of Consumer Affairs,
35 (1), 4572.
Oliver, Richard (2010), Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the Customer,
Armonk: M.E. Sharpe.
Parasuraman, A., Valarie A. Zeithaml and Leonard L. Berry (1985), A Conceptual Model of Service Quality and Its Implications for Future Research,
Journal of Marketing, 49 (4), 4150.
Scott, Maura L., Martin Mende and Lisa E. Bolton (2013), Judging the Book
by Its Cover? How Consumers Decode Conspicuous Consumption Cues
in BuyerSeller Relationships, Journal of Marketing Research, 50 (6),
33447.
Sen, Sankar and C.B. Bhattacharya (2001), Does Doing Good Always Lead
to Doing Better? Consumer Reactions to Corporate Social Responsibility,
Journal of Marketing Research, 38 (2), 22543.
and
(2003), ConsumerCompany Identification: A Framework for Understanding Consumers
Relationships with Companies, Journal of Marketing, 67 (2), 7688.
Sen, Sankar, C.B. Bhattacharya and Daniel Korschun (2006), The Role of
Corporate Social Responsibility in Strengthening Multiple Stakeholder
153
Relationships: A Field Experiment, Journal of the Academy of Marketing

Science, 34 (2), 15866.
Sen, Sankar, Shuili Du and C.B. Bhattacharya (2009), Building Relationships
Through Corporate Social Responsibility, in Handbook of Brand Relationships, MacInnis D. J., Park C. W. and Priester J. R., eds. Armonk, NY: M.E.
Sharpe, 195211.
Small, Deborah and Uri Simonsohn (2008), Friends of Victims: The Impact of
Personal Relationships with Victims on Generosity toward Others, Journal
of Consumer Research, 35 (3), 53242.
Smith, Tim (2010), Verbatim: How Businesses View Sustainability &
CSR Reporting, Business Ethics: The Magazine of Corporate Social
Responsibility (accessed March 7, 2014) [available at http://businessethics.com/2010/07/27/4298-in-their-own-words-how-businesses-viewsustainability-and-csr-reporting/].
Smith, Jeffrey S. and Kirk R. Karwan (2010), Empirical Profiles of Service
Recovery Systems: The Maturity Perspective, Journal of Service Research,
13 (1), 11125.
Smith, Amy K., Ruth N. Bolton and Janet Wagner (1999), A Model of Customer Satisfaction with Service Encounters Involving Failure and Recovery,
Journal of Marketing Research, 36 (3), 35672.
Stanwick, Peter A. and Sarah D. Stanwick (1998), The Relationship between
Corporate Social Performance, and Organizational Size, Financial Performance, and Environmental Performance: An Empirical Examination,
Journal of Business Ethics, 17 (2), 195204.
Tax, Stephen S. and Stephen Brown (1998), Recovering and Learning from
Service Failure, Sloan Management Review, 40 (1), 7588.
Torelli, Carlos J., Alokparna Basu Monga and Andre M. Kaikati (2012), Doing
Poorly by Doing Good: Corporate Social Responsibility and Brand Concepts, Journal of Consumer Research, 38 (5), 94863.
Vaaland, Terje I., Morten Heide and Kjell Grnhaug (2008), Corporate Social
Responsibility: Investigating Theory and Research in the Marketing Context, European Journal of Marketing, 42 (9/10), 92753.
Vargo, Stephen L. and Robert R. Lusch (2004), The Four Service Marketing Myths Remnants of a Goods-based, Manufacturing Model, Journal of
Service Research, 6 (4), 32435.
Vlachos, Pavlos A., Argiris Tsamakos, Adam P. Vrechopoulos and Panagiotis K.
Avramidis (2009), Corporate Social Responsibility: Attributions, Loyalty,
and the Mediating Role of Trust, Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 37 (2), 17080.
Wagner, Tillmann, Richard J. Lutz and Barton A. Weitz (2009), Corporate Hypocrisy: Overcoming the Threat of Inconsistent Corporate
Social Responsibility Perceptions, Journal of Marketing, 73 (November),
7791.
Wan, Lisa C., Michael K. Hui and Robert S. Wyer Jr. (2011), The Role of
Relationship Norms in Responses to Service Failures, Journal of Consumer
Research, 38 (2), 26077.
Williamson, Gail M. and Margaret S. Clark (1989a), The Communal/Exchange
Distinction and Some Implications for Understanding Justice in Families,
Social Justice Research, 3 (2), 77103.
and
(1989b), Providing Help
and Desired Relationship Type as Determinants of Changes in Moods and
Self-Evaluations, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56 (5),
72234.
Williamson, Gail M., Margaret S. Clark, Linda J. Pegalis and Aileen Behar
(1996), Affective Consequences of Refusing to Help in Communal and
Exchange Relationships, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22
(January), 3447.
Wirtz, Jochen and Anna S. Mattila (2004), Consumer Responses to Compensation, Speed of Recovery and Apology After a Service Failure and
Recovery, International Journal of Service Industry Management, 15 (2),
15066.
Yoon, Yeosun, Zeynep Grhan-Canli and Norbert Schwarz (2006), The Effect
of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Activities on Companies with Bad
Reputations, Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16 (4), 37790.
Zdravkovic, Srdan, Peter Magnusson and Sarah M. Stanley (2010), Dimensions
of Fit Between a Brand and a Social Cause and their Influence on Attitudes,
International Journal of Research in Marketing, 27 (2), 15160.

Caulitativoad

Cargado por

Información del documento

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Caulitativoad

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Journal of Retailing 91 (1, 2015) 140153

How Does Corporate Social Responsibility Affect Consumer Response to

Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 814 865 4175.

(Torreli, Monga, and Kaikati 2012; Vlachos et al. 2009). Against

L.E. Bolton, A.S. Mattila / Journal of Retailing 91 (1, 2015) 140153

literature on customer satisfaction by exploring the potential role

L.E. Bolton, A.S. Mattila / Journal of Retailing 91 (1, 2015) 140153

grateful toward others who helped and more resentment toward

L.E. Bolton, A.S. Mattila / Journal of Retailing 91 (1, 2015) 140153

studies also shed light on the underlying psychological process

Study 1: CSR and Relationship Norms

Fig. 1. Organizing framework.

H2. The positive effects of CSR under communal (vs.

The primary objective of study 1 is to test H1 and assess how

L.E. Bolton, A.S. Mattila / Journal of Retailing 91 (1, 2015) 140153

Fig. 2. Loyalty intentions as a function of CSR and Primed Relationship Norms

and competence, and the dependent variable was intentions. The

L.E. Bolton, A.S. Mattila / Journal of Retailing 91 (1, 2015) 140153

relationship norms and with an eye toward experimental realism

Materials and Procedure. Participants first responded to

L.E. Bolton, A.S. Mattila / Journal of Retailing 91 (1, 2015) 140153

no effect when communal orientation was low (F(1, 128) = 1.98,

CSR motive rating

effects of CSR on satisfaction and loyalty intentions; and (iii)

5 An alternative analysis using a continuous measure of CSR motive produces

Fig. 3. Loyalty intentions as a function of relationship orientation and CSR

L.E. Bolton, A.S. Mattila / Journal of Retailing 91 (1, 2015) 140153

Study 3: How Can CSR Signal Competence?

H4. CSR that signals warmth will be more effective under

If supported, H4 provides further support for our theorizing

L.E. Bolton, A.S. Mattila / Journal of Retailing 91 (1, 2015) 140153

the hotel was fully occupied. In all cases, the reservations

Fig. 4. Loyalty intentions as a function of relationship orientation and CSR

MANCOVA of attitude and intentions reveals a two-way

L.E. Bolton, A.S. Mattila / Journal of Retailing 91 (1, 2015) 140153

product (vs. service) failures, perhaps due to hypocrisy when the

L.E. Bolton, A.S. Mattila / Journal of Retailing 91 (1, 2015) 140153

our work suggests that CSR will be advantageous to companies

L.E. Bolton, A.S. Mattila / Journal of Retailing 91 (1, 2015) 140153

companys array of recovery techniques. When things go

Wording of measurement items

The authors gratefully acknowledge financial support from

How would you rate the hotel

Appendix A. Measurement items by study

Wording of measurement items

How satisfied are you [with

Tables in this appendix report the indirect effects via warmth

Indirect effect of CSR

Indirect effect of CSR

.1703 (.5386, +.0695)

.0034 (.1149, +.0645)

Study 2: Mediation of CSR by warmth for communal consumers.

Indirect effect of CSR

Indirect effect of CSR

.015 (.240, +.083)

.090 (.588, +.178)

Study 3: Mediation of framed CSR by warmth and competence as a function of

.053 (.007, +.183)

.368 (.130, .662)

+.011 (.183, +.197)

.036 (.315, +.217)

L.E. Bolton, A.S. Mattila / Journal of Retailing 91 (1, 2015) 140153

L.E. Bolton, A.S. Mattila / Journal of Retailing 91 (1, 2015) 140153

Relationships: A Field Experiment, Journal of the Academy of Marketing