Sergio W. Carvalho

Prior research suggests that communicating cause-related marketing success risks being perceived by consumers as bragging (i.e., caring more about the brand’s image than the cause). This research examines cause-related marketing messaging about making charitable donations. Across three studies, the findings show that brands can mitigate the perception that they are bragging by attributing their charitable donations to their customers (versus the brand). While this beneficial effect only holds true for brands perceived as having high integrity, such brands can use it to hedge against being perceived as braggarts, thereby fostering trust and increasing future donation intentions.

Cause-related marketing (CRM) is a pervasive, global marketing tactic used to aid consumer persuasion. While considerable academic research has been directed to understanding this practice and its impact on consumers, virtually nothing is known about the effect on consumers’ attitudes and purchase intentions when a sponsoring firm terminates a CRM partnership. To address this knowledge gap, two experiments with samples of adult North American consumers were conducted. Study 1’s findings suggest that the termination of a CRM partnership has a negative, direct effect on both brand perceptions and purchase intentions. Results also suggest that the impact is lessened (but not overcome) if the sponsoring firm switches its support to a new cause, regardless of the levels of fit between the brand and cause. In Study 2, when an altruistic reason was used to motivate the termination, consumers responded more positively when the decision was made solely by the sponsoring firm than when it was made mutually by the sponsoring firm and the cause. However, when the decision to terminate the partnership was motivated by an operational reason, consumers responded better when the decision was made mutually.

Despite a vast amount of research in the areas of academic cheating and academic achievement, students' cheating "biological laws" (e.g., taking cognitive enhancement drugs to increase cognitive ability) to improve academic performance has yet to be fully understood. We begin to address this by investigating potential positive (i.e., pride) and negative (i.e., shame and guilt) emotional outcomes of business school students' anticipated consumption of cognitive enhancements to improve academic performance, with the aim of providing insight into ways to reduce such consumption. The results of two experiments show that business school students in low academic ability scenarios anticipate experiencing higher negative emotions when their consumption of cognitive enhancements is known by others than when it is unknown, while business school students in high academic ability scenarios are less sensitive to such social awareness concerns. The results of the third and final experiment demonstrate that business school students in high academic ability scenarios anticipate experiencing higher negative emotions when the consumption of cognitive enhancements is considered an act of academic dishonesty than when it is not, while business school students in low academic ability scenarios are unaffected by such moral concerns. Implications for public policy makers and educators are presented.