Warmth,Competence,and Willingness to Donate: How Perceptions of Partner Organizations Affect Support of Corporate Social Responsibility Initiatives in Professional Sport

Abstract

To enact corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives, sport organizations often partner with organizations in different sectors, including public, private, and nonprofit. These partnerships provide teams and leagues with needed resources to effectively execute social initiatives. Little is known, however, about sport organizations’ partnership portfolios and the effectiveness of combining partnerships to improve cause outcomes. Using two experimental studies, we examine perceptions of partnership organizations in terms of warmth and competence, how these combined perceptions in a portfolio affect individuals’ willingness to donate to CSR initiatives, and whether portfolio perceptions can be improved by articulation. We find that perceptions of portfolio warmth and competence increased willingness to donate to sport organizations’ CSR initiatives through the serial mediation effects of cause fit and response efficacy in the structural equation model. Furthermore, we find that corporate competence articulation reduced the mediation effect of response efficacy in the structural relationship.

Keywords

corporate social responsibility partnerships professional sport

Introduction

Sport organizations are increasingly engaging in corporate social responsibility (CSR; Babiak & Wolfe, 2009; Carey, Mason, & Misener, 2011). CSR can be defined as “actions taken by a firm that are intended to further social welfare beyond the direct economic, technical, and legal interests of the firm” (Campbell, 2007, p. 951). To enact CSR activities, professional teams and leagues often partner with organizations in different sectors, including public (e.g., government), private (e.g., corporations), and nonprofit organizations (NPOs). For example, the National Football League (NFL) partners with the American Heart Association, the White House, and consumer products firm, Procter and Gamble, in the Play 60 campaign to reduce childhood obesity. These partnerships can provide teams and leagues with needed resources, such as specialized knowledge, or human and financial capital (Sheth & Babiak, 2010). As a result, strategic partnerships with other organizational sectors may lead to favorable outcomes for the community or target beneficiary (Sheth & Babiak, 2010).

Team and league benefits from partnering with organizations around social issues depend, in part, on the public’s perceptions of the partner organizations. If a partner organization comes from a sector that is not viewed favorably, or does not appear to be an appropriate fit for the social cause, public support for the initiative may be limited. On the contrary, if perceptions of partners are positive, the partner organization could improve the image of the social initiative, and, in turn, increase donations. Increasingly, sport organizations are forming complex portfolios of partners—collections of organizational partnerships “comprising sequential and/or simultaneous involvement with events, activities and individuals (usually in sport, art and charity)” (Chien, Cornwell, & Pappu, 2011, p. 142).

Little is known about sport organizations’ portfolios of partnerships, and even less is known about the effectiveness of combining partnerships in support of social initiatives. To address this gap, we explore the effect of sport organizations’ partnerships across public, private, and nonprofit sectors on the public’s contributions to social initiatives. Specifically, the objectives of the study are to examine (a) perceptions of sport organizations and partnership organizations from different sectors (government, corporate, nonprofit), in terms of two characteristics, namely, warmth and competence; (b) how perceptions of the sport organization’s overall partnership portfolio, in terms of warmth and competence, affect individuals’ willingness to donate (WTD) to professional sport organizations’ CSR initiatives; and (c) whether perceptions of partner organizations and the portfolio of partners can be enhanced by articulation that emphasizes key characteristics of the partners.

This research contributes to our understanding of sport CSR in several ways. In particular, we extend work that has looked sport CSR partnerships from a mostly qualitative lens (Frisby, Thibault, & Kikulis, 2004; Sheth & Babiak, 2010), by measuring individuals’ perceptions of different partnership sectors in terms of two fundamental dimensions: warmth and competence. Furthermore, we adopt the notion of a “portfolio of partners” from the sponsorship marketing literature (Chien et al., 2011) and shed light on the effect of different combinations of partners on individuals’ WTD to a cause. Finally, by examining two key mediators—cause fit and response efficacy—we construct a model that integrates and builds on insights from prior work. In the following sections, we present the theoretical foundation for our studies and motivate our hypotheses, and then present the methods and the results of two studies. We close with a general discussion of the theoretical and practical implications of our findings.

Theoretical Foundation

CSR Partnerships in Sport

A growing body of literature examines the influence of cross-sector partnership in sport CSR (e.g., Frisby et al., 2004; Sheth & Babiak, 2010). This work indicates the value of partnerships: Professional sport organizations collaborate with other organizational sectors in an effort to more effectively address social issues (Sheth & Babiak, 2010). Partnering provides sport organizations with access to resources and expertise (Babiak & Trendafilova, 2011; Frisby et al., 2004; Pfeffer, 1987). Although there are challenges associated with partnerships, including differences in priorities (Dowling, Robinson, & Washington, 2013; Robson, 2007), by combining unique capabilities and resources, cross-sector partners can benefit in delivering outcomes (Googins & Rochlin, 2000). Examples of these alliances include the National Basketball Association (NBA) and the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) around environmental issues (Babiak & Trendafilova, 2011), and the NFL and United Way around child health (Walker & Kent, 2009).

Different partners offer different types of resources for sport organizations’ social initiatives. Corporate sponsors often provide financial resources in exchange for the goodwill associated with cause-linked sponsorship (Grau & Folse, 2007). For example, FedEx served as a corporate sponsor for the Presidential Golf Association tour in the United States to benefit St. Jude’s Children’s Research Hospital. This partnership provided financial resources to St. Jude and FedEx benefited from the affiliation with the well-known hospital. Nonprofit partners also offer valuable resources for teams and leagues in enacting CSR, including expertise in education, health care, and the environment (Babiak & Trendafilova, 2011; Lachowetz & Irwin, 2002). For example, Heinze and colleagues found that the Detroit Lions partnered with several NPOs, including Playworks Detroit and Goodwill Industries of Detroit, to promote community development and health and wellness in Detroit (Heinze, Soderstrom, & Zdroik, 2014). These strategic partners offered extensive experience and knowledge on youth development, wellness, and serving the unemployed that informed the Lions’ community relations program. As this example illustrates, forming local partnerships helps sport organizations strengthen and integrate with their communities (Babiak & Trendafilova, 2011; Walker & Kent, 2009).

Partnerships can also be used to enhance perceptions of CSR efforts (Babiak, 2007; Oliver, 1990). Teams and leagues may attempt to improve how the public views their CSR initiatives by partnering with organizations that have favorable reputations. For example, Major League Baseball (MLB) collaborates with city Parks and Recreation Departments to deliver the Reviving Baseball in Inner Cities (RBI) program. Kihl and Tainsky (2013) suggested that this partnership enhances the image of the partner organizations and attractiveness of the program. Perceptions of social initiatives have implications for the success of these activities because they are often dependent on the public’s participation and contributions (e.g., Becker-Olsen, Cudmore, & Hill, 2006; Sen & Bhattacharya, 2001). However, we know little about how the public’s judgments affect CSR outcomes in professional sport. In particular, although researchers find that sport organizations can develop multiparty, collaborative networks of social involvement (Heinze et al., 2014; Walker & Parent, 2010), we lack an understanding of how different partners are perceived and the resulting influence on cause outcomes. Therefore, we examine the effect of individuals’ perceptions of partner organizations, in terms of warmth and competence, on WTD to professional sport organizations’ CSR initiatives.

Partner Characteristics: Warmth and Competence

Psychological research across different cultures indicates that people’s perceptions about social entities often fall along two fundamental dimensions: warmth and competence (e.g., J. L. Aaker, 1997; Fiske, Cuddy, & Glick, 2007; Judd, James-Hawkins, Yzerbyt, & Kashima, 2005). Warmth is defined by generosity, kindness, sincerity, and trustworthiness; competence is defined by confidence, effectiveness, intelligence, and competitiveness (e.g., J. L. Aaker, 1997; Judd et al., 2005). With respect to organizational sectors, nonprofits are perceived as being warmer than for-profits, but less competent (J. L. Aaker, Vohs, & Mogilner, 2010). Organizations can, however, use partnerships and associations with other organizations to alter public perceptions. For example, for-profit organizations can increase the public’s perceptions of warmth and admiration through associations with NPOs (Dawkins, 2005; Perks, Farache, Shukla, & Berry, 2013).

People use perceptions of warmth and competence to form judgments of organizations and individuals (J. L. Aaker et al., 2010). Perceptions of warmth, for instance, are related to the extent to which we trust another’s motives, whereas competence judgments are linked to assessments of another’s ability to effectively carry out intentions (Cuddy, Glick, & Beninger, 2011). Judgments, in turn, affect emotions. In particular, high competence and warmth judgments elicit admiration, whereas low judgments elicit contempt (Cuddy et al., 2011). J. L. Aaker and colleagues (2010) found that when consumers perceived a company to be high in both warmth and competence, consumers were more likely to experience admiration. Furthermore, warmth and competence judgments affect behavior. In particular, when an individual judges an organization to be high on warmth, the individual is more likely to actively facilitate or help the organization, as opposed to harm or attack it (Cuddy, Fiske, & Glick, 2007). Perceived competence, in comparison, elicits passive facilitation, such as convenient cooperation. Judgments are also linked specifically to consumer behavior. For example, when consumers perceive that a company is high in terms of both warmth and competence, consumers are more likely to buy its products (J. L. Aaker et al., 2010).

Based on this prior research on the effect of perceptions on buying behavior, we suggest that perceptions of professional sport organizations’ partnership portfolios, in terms of both warmth and competence, influence the public’s behavior in the form of donations to the cause. We consider perceptions of the partner organizations’ sectors (government, nonprofit, corporate), and then aggregate to the portfolio. We hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 1 (H1): The higher the individual’s perception of portfolio warmth, the greater the individual’s WTD to the sport organization’s social initiative.

Hypothesis 2 (H2): The higher the individual’s perception of portfolio competence, the greater the individual’s WTD to the sport organization’s social initiative.

Fit With a Social Cause

General perceptions of partnership portfolio warmth and competence may operate through more specific perceptions of fit with the social cause to influence WTD. Fit is defined as the degree of compatibility that consumers perceive between a brand and a cause in a CSR initiative (e.g., Lafferty, 2007; Pracejus & Olsen, 2004). Studies in the marketing and sponsorship demonstrate the effect of fit on cause outcomes (e.g., Becker-Olsen et al., 2006; Pappu & Cornwell, 2014; Simmons & Becker-Olsen, 2006) and indicate a connection between fit and perceptions of warmth and competence (Barone, Miyazaki, & Taylor, 2000).

Perceptions of the fit between organizations and their causes have important implications. High fit reinforces an organization’s positioning with favorable attitudes, while low fit dilutes the position and leads to lower equity (Simmons & Becker-Olsen, 2006). Furthermore, consumers are more likely to choose a product with high versus low brand–cause fit (Pracejus & Olsen, 2004). In particular, partners that are perceived to fit well together enhance brand meaning clarity for charitable organizations (Pappu & Cornwell, 2014). An example of a sport organization that has demonstrated high fit around a social cause is the Women’s NBA (WNBA) in its campaign to promote breast health awareness (Roy & Graeff, 2003). For this campaign, the WNBA partnered with the National Alliance of Breast Cancer Organizations and department store retailer, Sears.

Prior work indicates that an organization’s effectiveness in using partners to create alignment with a cause depends on social perceptions about the partner organizations (Pappu & Cornwell, 2014). Furthermore, research on CSR motives suggests that perceptions of warmth and competence matter when it comes to fit. In particular, studies find that respondents are more likely to attribute an organization’s CSR activities to a combination of intrinsic and extrinsic motives, rather than one or the other, and that these attributions lead to positive reactions from respondents (Ellen, Webb, & Mohr, 2006; Sen, Bhattacharya, & Korschun, 2006). There is conceptual overlap between intrinsic motives and warmth—both are measured by sincerity and a desire to help. Similarly, extrinsic motives, like competence, are associated with competitiveness (Ellen et al., 2006). Thus, we argue that individuals expect that organizations engaging in CSR will exhibit both warmth and competence: Warmth and competence lead to perceptions of cause fit and, consequently, WTD. Based on these insights, we hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 3 (H3): The perceived sport organization fit with a social cause mediates the relationship from individuals’ perceptions of portfolio warmth to their WTD to the sport organization’s social initiative.

Hypothesis 4 (H4): The perceived sport organization fit with a social cause mediates the relationships from individuals’ perceptions of portfolio competence to their WTD to the sport organization’s social initiative.

Response Efficacy

In addition to fit, the literature suggests that response efficacy is a likely mediator between perceptions of warmth and competence and WTD. Self-efficacy refers to one’s ability to comply with the advocated behavior (Bandura, 1986). Response efficacy reflects an individual’s beliefs as to whether a response will be effective (Witte, 1992). Efficacy is linked to action: Individuals must perceive that they have the ability to perform a behavior before they are willing to try (Witte, 1992). Similarly, individuals must believe that their responses will be effective for them to take action (Keller, 2006). For example, Johnston and Warkentin (2010) investigated the influence of fear appeals (threats of spyware) on the compliance of end users (university faculty, staff, and students) to adopt antispyware technology. The authors found that perceptions of response efficacy—whether users thought that adopting the technology would be effective at averting the threat—had a positive effect on end user intentions to adopt the technology.

Greater efficacy leads to stronger donation intentions (Anker, Feeley, & Kim, 2010; Basil, Ridgway, & Basil, 2008). Indeed, charity appeals use efficacy to elicit more donations with phrases such as “for less than a cup of coffee per day you can help save a needy child” (Basil et al., 2008, p. 8). Furthermore, studies indicate that positive attitudes lead to greater self-efficacy and, in turn, WTD (Anker et al., 2010; Shanahan, Hopkins, & Carlson, 2008). In particular, Anker and colleagues (2010) found that self-efficacy mediated the relationship between positive attitudes and the likelihood of registering as a bone marrow donor. Similarly, Shanahan and colleagues (2008) found that advertisements that elicited strong emotional responses, and positive attitudes, increased individuals’ WTD to causes by increasing response efficacy. Attitudes have emotional and cognitive components and are associated with perceptions of warmth and competence (Fiske et al., 2007).

Given the path from attitudes to efficacy to donation intentions, identified in prior work, we expect that efficacy will mediate the relationship between individuals’ perceptions of partners and behavioral intentions for a social initiative. In particular, we look at response efficacy—adapting this concept to reflect the perceived ability of an individual’s contribution to make a difference for a social cause. Thus, the following is hypothesized:

Hypothesis 5 (H5): An individual’s response efficacy mediates the relationship between perceptions of sport organization portfolio warmth and competence and WTD to the sport organization’s social initiative.

Articulation

One way to potentially improve perceptions of sport organizations’ partnership portfolios is through better articulation. Articulation is “the act of explaining the relationship between entities” in sponsorship-linked marketing and can support memory between two linked entities (Cornwell, Humphreys, Maguire, Weeks, & Tellegen, 2006, p. 312). For example, saying that “Lego is happy to sponsor a robot race” does not conceptually link between the brand and event, but “Lego provides the building blocks in robot racing” does.

Articulation is part of a communication strategy. Effective communication strategies can help generate more favorable perceptions of fit (Bridges, Keller, & Sood, 2000). In particular, Olson and Thjømøe (2011) found that good articulation enhanced perceptions sponsorship fit more than 30%, compared with bad articulation. The effect of articulation can be found in the sport context. For example, using a field experiment at a World Cup skiing event, Coppetti, Wentzel, Tomczak, and Henkel (2009) found that brands that explicitly articulated sponsorship engagement were evaluated more favorably than brands that refrained from articulation. Furthermore, the authors found that incongruent sponsorships can be significantly improved through articulation.

Based on prior work on the effect of articulation on perceptions of organizational pairings, we expect that articulation will improve perceptions of sport organizations’ portfolios of partners in terms of warmth and competence. In particular, we anticipate that describing the activities and social characteristics of partners with key descriptors and visuals, that highlight either warmth or competence, will be effective in improving perceptions of partners. Furthermore, we argue that the articulation will influence the relationship from portfolio perceptions to WTD to the sport organization’s social initiative.

Hypothesis 6 (H6): Articulating warmth/competence of partners in social initiative moderates the relationship from individuals’ perceptions of portfolio warmth/competence to WTD to the sport organization’s social initiative.

Study 1

Method

Design, procedure, and sample

To investigate the effect of sport organization partnership portfolios on donations to social causes, we employed an experimental design. We designed an online survey (described below) using Qualtrics survey software, and enlisted the Qualtrics panel service to administer the survey. The service sent the link to our survey to individuals in their panel—targeting a nationally representative sample older than 18 years of age. Of the 652 respondents, 339 were female (52%). The sample was 72.5% White/non-Hispanic, 7.4% Black, 2.5% Asian, and 4.2% Other. Twenty-three percent reported an income of less than US$25,000, 24% had household incomes between US$25,000 and US$49,999, 17% between US$50,000 and US$74,999, 11% between US$75,000 and US$99,999, 12% between US$100,000 and US$149,999, and 8%, US$150,000 or greater. Seventy percent of participants had at least some college education. Participants were paid US$5 compensation by Qualtrics, with funding from the researchers.

In the first part of survey, participants were asked to rate their perceptions of each sector, corporate, NPO, government, and the sport organization, in terms of warmth and competence. Subsequently, participants were randomly assigned to one of eight different partnership portfolio conditions: (a) sport organization alone, (b) sport organization and NPO, (c) sport organization and corporation, (d) sport organization and government, (e) sport organization and NPO and corporation, (f) sport organization and NPO and government, (g) sport organization and government and corporation, and (h) sport organization with all three sectors. Participants in all conditions were asked to read a fictitious press release about a sport organization leading a new social initiative. The press release included four paragraphs: an announcement of the fictitious social initiative, a description of the initiative, a description of the fictitious professional sport organization leading the initiative, and a description of partnering organizations (see Appendix A). The last paragraph varied based on the assigned condition. For example, if participants were assigned to the second condition (sport organization and NPO), the press release they read only included mention of the two partner organizations.

Measures

Perceptions of warmth for each sector were measured by five, 7-point semantic differential items: sincere, honest, trustworthy, generous, and warm (Grandey, Fisk, Mattila, Jansen, & Sideman, 2005; Judd et al., 2005). Similarly, perceptions of competence for each sector were measured by five, 7-point semantic differential items: competent, efficient, capable, skillful, and intelligent (Grandey et al., 2005; Judd et al., 2005; see Appendix B). Perceptions of portfolio warmth and competence were calculated by averaging individuals’ ratings of warmth, and competence, respectively, of the sectors present in a given portfolio. WTD to the social initiative was measured using multiple bounded discrete choice (MBDC) of contingent valuation method (CVM), developed by Welsh and Poe (1998). This required respondents to express a level of decision certainty for each amount of their WTD by selecting one of the five levels, from “definitely no” to “definitely yes” (see Appendix B). Responses indicating “definitely yes” were retained as the dependent variable to reduce the hypothetical bias found in the donation format of CVM.

The sport organization’s fit with the social cause was measured using four, 7-point semantic differential items anchored with “incongruent/congruent,” “incompatible/compatible,” “illogical/logical,” and “not complementary/complementary,” following the work of D. A. Aaker and Keller (1990), Till and Busler (2000), Rifon, Choi, Trimble, and Li (2004), and Becker-Olsen et al. (2006). We employed three items to measure response efficacy, adapted from Witte (1992), including “I think I can make a big impact through . . .,” “There is a great need for my contribution to . . .,” and “. . . presents a significant opportunity for me to make a difference.” All measures used a 7-point rating scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree).

Results

General sector perceptions

We find that perceptions of warmth and competence vary according to the three sectors: corporation, NPO, and government; and the professional sport organization (Table 1). Regarding warmth, the average rating for NPOs was the highest (5.07), and the rating for corporations was the lowest (3.68). In terms of the competence dimension, the average rating for the NPO was the highest once again (4.70), and the government sector rating was the lowest (2.85).

Table 1.

Perceptions of Partner Sectors in Terms of Warmth and Competence (n = 652).

	Competence	Warmth
Corporation	4.433324002	3.679918
Nonprofit organization	4.704795705	5.074505
Government	2.851903505	3.009321
Professional sport organization	4.443669266	4.155847

Measurement model

We employed confirmatory factor analysis to assess the validity of items measuring warmth and competence for each sector, sport organization fit with social cause, and response efficacy. Using the maximum likelihood estimation procedure, the measurement model offers a good fit to the data (N = 692, chi-square/df = 2,470.046/503 = 4.911, comparative fit index [CFI] = .923, Tucker–Lewis index [TLI] = .909, incremental fit index [IFI] = .924, relative fit index [RFI] = .889, normed fit index [NFI] = .906, root mean square error of approximation [RMSEA] = .075). All indicators loaded significantly on the constructs as expected, showing the convergent validity. They ranged from .65 to .91 for corporate warmth and .84 to .88 for corporate competence, .77 to .95 for government warmth and .87 to .92 for government competence, .86 to 93 for NPO warmth and .86 to .91 for NPO competence, .75 to .95 for sport organization warmth and .78 to .93 for sport organization competence, and .83 to .91 for sport organization’s fit with social cause and .86 to .96 for response efficacy. Also, all indicators exhibited reliability with Cronbach’s alpha ranging from .92 to .98, including .97 for sport organization’s fit with social cause and .91 for response efficacy. Given that there is no correlation more than .85 between constructs (Kline, 2005), and no squared correlation between one and any others bigger than average variance extracted (AVE) for each construct (Fornell & Larcker, 1981), discriminant validity is established for corporate warmth/competence, sport organization warmth/competence, and sport organization’s fit with social cause and response efficacy. However, due to strong correlations between governmental warmth and competence (r = .92) and between NPO warmth and competence (r = .94), these sectors—government and NPO—do not have discriminant validity for warmth and competence. Given that there is discriminant validity between perceptions of sport organizations’ and corporations’ warmth and competence, it is meaningful to examine overall perceptions of the partnership portfolio. Thus, we focus on the corporate warmth and competence articulation in the following Study 2 to examine the effect on perceptions of the portfolio of partners.

Structural equation model

Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test the hypotheses, including mediation effects in the causal relationship (Iacobucci, Saldanha, & Deng, 2007). Figure 1 highlights the serial mediation roles of sport organization’s fit with causes and response efficacy in the relationships from combined portfolio warmth and competence to WTD (N = 624, chi-square/df = 82.140/30 = 2.738, CFI = .990, TLI = .981, IFI = .990, RFI = .971, NFI = .984, RMSEA = .050). As shown in the model in Figure 1, neither portfolio warmth nor competence has a significant direct influence on WTD, as H1 and H2 predicted. However, both portfolio warmth and competence significantly enhanced perceptions of sport organization–cause fit (β = .29, p < .001; β = .25, p < .001), which subsequently increased response efficacy (β = .55, p < .001). Ultimately, response efficacy led to greater WTD (β = .33, p < .001). Thus, the model shows that both portfolio warmth and competence influence WTD indirectly through the mediation effects of sport organization–cause fit. The findings support H3 and H4. The model also shows that response efficacy is a significant mediator that positively influences WTD, following the sport organization–cause fit. Thus, the findings also support H5. Overall, we find a serial mediation effect of sport organization–cause fit and response efficacy from portfolio perception to attitude and behavioral intention.

Figure 1.

Structural equation model showing the serial mediation effects from combined portfolio warmth and competence to WTD (N = 624, chi-square/df = 82.140/30 = 2.738, CFI = .990, TLI = .981, IFI = .990, RFI = .971, NFI = .984, RMSEA = .050).

Study 1 Discussion

In this study, we tested a model of the structural relationship from sport organizations’ partnership portfolio warmth/competence to WTD to a social initiative, using general perceptions for each sector and fictitious organizations. We found that portfolio warmth and competence influence WTD through the serial mediation effects of fit with causes and response efficacy. From this study, we learn that warmth and competence come together in influencing downstream WTD. Overall, the results of Study 1 suggest that sport organizations may be able to improve sponsorship relationship perceptions through managing portfolio warmth and competence perceptions. We examine this further in Study 2. Using real organizations, we investigate how articulation of warmth and competence for corporations influences WTD to sport organizations’ social initiatives.

Study 2

Method

Design, procedure, and sample

Building on the findings of Study 1, in Study 2, we examine the effect of articulation on perceptions of the partnership portfolio and, consequently, individuals’ WTD to the sport organization’s social initiative. In particular, given the low perceptions of the corporate sector identified in Study 1, and the importance of corporate partnerships for sport organizations, we investigated the effect of corporate partner articulation. The three conditions included corporate warmth articulation, corporate competence articulation, and no articulation. For this study, we used real organizations. The same three organizational partners were present in all three conditions: a professional sport organization (the NFL), a government entity (the Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA]), and a corporation (the home improvement retailer, Lowe’s Inc.).

As in Study 1, the population of interest was U.S. adults. We developed our survey using Qualtrics survey software and recruited a sample of individuals (N = 214) using Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk). MTurk is a crowdsourcing Internet marketplace. We posted the link to our survey on the MTurk website where individuals recruited by MTurk (called “Providers”) could choose to participate and receive compensation of US$2. Of the 214 respondents, 135 were male (63.08%). The sample was 65.42% White/non-Hispanic, 7.94% Black, 22.9% Asian, and 3.73% Other. About 18% respondents reported an income of less than US$20,000, 26.17% had household incomes between US$20,000 and US$39,999, 19.63% between US$40,000 and US$59,999, 16.82% between US$60,000 and US$79,999, 10.75% between US$80,000 and US$99,999, 7.01% between US$100,000 and US$149,999, and 1.4%, US$150,000 or greater. Eighty-nine percent of participants had at least some college education.

Participants were randomly assigned to one of the three conditions (corporate warmth articulation, corporate competence articulation, or neutral condition). All respondents were exposed to vignettes describing an NFL collaborative social initiative that aided communities hit by natural disaster. The partners in this initiative, in all conditions, included the NFL, FEMA, and Lowes. The content of vignettes and associated pictures varied, depending on the subject’s assigned condition. For the corporate warmth condition, we manipulated perceptions of Lowe’s warmth by using descriptors, such as helping, consoling, volunteering, and supporting, and by including corresponding interpersonal pictures. To manipulate corporate competence, we used descriptors such as expert, rapid, state-of-the-art, strategic, and pictures of technical work when referencing Lowe’s (see Appendix C). We then assessed perceptions of the three partner organizations, in terms of warmth and competence, and measured WTD to the cause. We used the same measures as Study 1.

Results

Manipulation check

To verify that respondents put forth the necessary effort on their task during the experiment, we required them to answer a quiz question during the experiment following the manipulated paragraphs. We found that all the respondents successfully passed this test.

Comparison of warmth/competence perceptions

The results of the independent sample t test (Table 2) show the overall perception of portfolio competence (with the NFL, FEMA, and Lowe’s partners) differs between the corporate competence condition (M = 5.70, SD = 0.82) and the corporate neutral condition (M = 5.32, SD = 1.03) at the .05 level of significance (t = 2.48, p = .007). Respondents’ overall perception of portfolio warmth also differs between the corporate competence condition (M = 5.48, SD = 0.96) and the corporate neutral condition (M = 5.17, SD = 1.15) at the .05 significance level (t = 1.78, p = .039).

Table 2.

For Warmth and Competence, t Tests by Corporate Competence Articulation.

Outcome	Group						t	Significance (one-tailed)	df
	Corporate competence			Corporate neutral
	M	SD	n	M	SD	n
NFL competence	5.70	0.93	82	5.35	1.18	63	1.97	.025*	143
NFL warmth	5.19	1.31	82	4.8	1.56	63	1.62	.053	143
FEMA competence	5.40	1.24	82	5.02	1.42	63	1.70	.045*	143
FEMA warmth	5.47	1.15	82	5.22	1.25	63	1.24	.109	143
Lowe’s competence	6.05	0.83	82	5.67	0.98	63	2.48	.007**	143
Lowe’s warmth	5.78	0.95	82	5.48	1.08	63	1.78	.039*	143
Overall portfolio competence	5.70	0.82	82	5.32	1.03	63	2.48	.007**	143
Overall portfolio warmth	5.48	0.96	82	5.17	1.15	63	1.78	.039*	143

Note. NFL = National Football League; FEMA = Federal Emergency Management Agency.

p < .05. **p < .01.

We then conducted a set of independent sample t tests to see if there are any differences in respondents’ perceptions of warmth and competence for these individual brands by corporate competence articulation. In Table 2, six independent sample t tests were conducted to compare people’s perception of competence and warmth for NFL, FEMA, and Lowe’s between the corporate competence articulation and the corporate neutral conditions, respectively. For instance, there was a significant difference in the competence score for NFL between the corporate competence articulation (M = 5.70, SD = 0.93) and the corporate neutral condition (M = 5.35, SD = 1.18) at the .05 significance level (t = 1.97, p = .025). There was also a significant difference in the competence score for FEMA between the corporate competence condition (M = 5.40, SD = 1.24) and the corporate neutral condition (M = 5.02, SD = 1.42) at the .05 significance level (t = 1.70, p = .045). Interestingly, we found a significant difference in both the competence and the warmth score for Lowe’s between the corporate competence condition (M = 6.05, SD = 0.83, and M = 5.78, SD = 0.95) and the corporate neutral condition (M = 5.67, SD = 0.98, and M = 5.48, SD = 1.08) at the .05 significance level (t = 2.48, p = .007, and t = 1.78, p = .039). These results show that a corporate competence articulation can help strengthen people’s perceptions of both warmth and competence for the corporation and partnering organizations as well. We discuss these results further in the following section.

In contrast, in Table 3, another set of t test results show that respondents’ overall perception of partnership warmth of NFL, FEMA, and Lowe’s does not differ between the corporate warmth articulation (M = 5.14, SD = 1.08) and the corporate neutral condition (M = 5.17, SD = 1.15) at the .05 significance level (t = .14, p = .555). Respondents’ perception of portfolio competence also does not differ between the corporate warmth articulation (M = 5.34, SD = 1.01) and the corporate neutral condition (M = 5.32, SD = 1.03) at the .05 significance level (t = .11, p = .458). Furthermore, another six t tests were conducted to compare people’s perception of competence and warmth for NFL, FEMA, and Lowe’s between the corporate warmth and the corporate neutral conditions, respectively. However, we found no significant difference in the warmth and the competence scores for NFL, FEMA, and Lowe’s between the corporate warmth articulation and the corporate neutral conditions.

Table 3.

For Warmth and Competence, t Tests by Corporate Warmth Articulation.

Outcome	Group						t	Significant (one-tailed)	df
	Corporate warmth			Corporate neutral
	M	SD	n	M	SD	n
NFL competence	5.27	1.24	69	5.35	1.18	63	−.38	.647	130
NFL warmth	4.75	1.45	69	4.8	1.56	63	−.19	.574	130
FEMA competence	5.07	1.52	69	5.02	1.42	63	.20	.423	130
FEMA warmth	5.25	1.38	69	5.22	1.25	63	.14	.443	130
Lowe’s competence	5.74	0.94	69	5.67	0.98	63	.38	.353	130
Lowe’s warmth	5.41	1.12	69	5.48	1.08	63	−.34	.631	130
Overall competence	5.34	1.01	69	5.32	1.03	63	.11	.458	130
Overall warmth	5.14	1.08	69	5.17	1.15	63	.14	.555	130

Note. NFL = National Football League; FEMA = Federal Emergency Management Agency.

p < .05. **p < .01.

In summary, given that all the respondents successfully passed the check question to show their effort and focus on the experimental process, this result suggests that the corporate warmth articulation and the competence articulation worked differently in the experimental process. The corporate competence articulation successfully influenced both perceptions of competence and warmth of partners, while the warmth articulation manipulation for corporation was not successful. This finding may be due to the strength of the manipulation or from the strong tendency discussed earlier to view corporations as competent but not warm.

Structural equation model

SEM was used to test the hypotheses including mediation effects in the causal relationship (Iacobucci et al., 2007). Figure 2 depicts three group comparison of structural equation model for the relationships from combined portfolio warmth and competence to WTD (N = 214, chi-square/df = 169.651/96 = 1.767, CFI = .956, TLI = .924, IFI = .957, NFI = .907, RMSEA = .060). As shown in Figure 2, the corporate neutral conditioned model confirms the general structural model of portfolio warmth/competence for attitudes and behavioral intention in social causes in the real organizations context with FEMA and Lowe’s, including the serial mediation effects of cause fit and response efficacy. In this case, however, corporate–cause fit does not have a significant direct influence on WTD. By and large, the corporate neutral conditioned model replicates the findings of Study 1, supporting H3, H4, and H5.

Figure 2.

Structural equation model showing three group comparison showing serial mediation from combined portfolio warmth and competence to WTD (N = 214, chi-square/df = 169.651/96 = 1.767, CFI = .956, TLI = .924, IFI = .957, NFI = .907, RMSEA = .060).

The corporate warmth articulation model shows that corporate warmth articulation reduced the impact of combined portfolio competence on the cause fit in the structural relationship (β = .27, p = .032 → β = .14, p = .242), but minimally increased the impact of combined portfolio warmth on the cause fit in the structural relationship (β = .26, p = .036 → β = .31, p = .009), compared with the neutral condition. Corporate competence articulation increased the impact of combined portfolio competence on the cause fit in the structural relationship (β = .27, p = .032 → β = .58, p < .001), but led to negative relationship from combined portfolio warmth to the cause fit in the structural relationship (β = .26, p = .036 → β = −.34, p < .001). Interestingly, when corporate competence articulation is made, the mediating relationship from the cause fit to self-efficacy become nonsignificant (β = .02, p = .889), compared with the neutral condition (β = .32, p = .016) and corporate warmth articulation condition (β = .35, p = .004). The findings support the moderation effect of the corporate competence articulation on the structural relationship from portfolio perception to WTD. Thus, we find support for H6.

Study 2 Discussion

Although the corporate warmth articulation did not significantly improve the warmth perceptions of partners (Table 3), we argue that the results of Study 2 suggest that professional sport organizations can improve perceptions of their partnership portfolio by more effectively articulating corporate warmth, and thus attract more donations to their social causes. The corporate warmth articulation model supports this argument, showing that it has the highest r-squared for response efficacy and WTD in the three conditions comparison. On the contrary, if sport organizations focus on articulating corporate competence, they can strengthen people’s perceptions of both competence and warmth for the corporation and the sport organization. However, our results suggest that sport organizations need to be careful in using articulation. In particular, a corporate competence articulation, and subsequent strong fit with a social cause, might reduce individual response efficacy in a social initiative, thus reducing WTD. These findings are consistent with the argument that when nonprofits are sponsored by corporate sponsors, individuals might be less willing to contribute to nonprofit because people perceive their contribution might not matter (Bennett, Kim, & Loken, 2013).

Discussion

Partnerships around CSR activities can provide sport organizations with important resources (e.g., Sheth & Babiak, 2010). Professional teams and leagues often partner with organizations from different sectors around social initiatives, resulting in a portfolio of partners. Our studies contribute to the literature on CSR in sport by shedding light on how both the composition and articulation of partnership portfolios affect contributions to social causes. In particular, we find that individuals’ perceptions of organizations in the partnership portfolio, in terms of warmth and competence, affect individuals’ WTD to social initiatives. However, the results also suggest that individuals’ perceptions of partner organizations can be enhanced through emphasizing, with verbal and visual communication, warmth and competence traits. These findings have implications for how the leaders of professional teams construct and communicate about their partnership portfolios.

The first significant aspect of our findings is that individuals’ perceptions of different sectors vary in terms of warmth and competence. For example, NPOs are viewed as the most warm and competent, and government, the least warm and competent. Therefore, professional sport organizations’ choice of partners, across sectors, has implications for the public’s perceptions of the overall portfolio of partners. That is, how the public views the partnership portfolio depends on the sectors represented. We find that perceptions of the portfolio of partners, in turn, affect individuals’ willingness to contribute to the social case. In particular, when portfolios are viewed as warmer or more competent, the public is willing to contribute more in terms of donations.

Our studies also build on the literature on CSR in sport by identifying two serial mediating factors between judgments of warmth and competence and behavioral intentions: cause fit and response efficacy. The limited work on the connection between perceptions of organizational warmth and competence and behavior intentions, in the general marketing literature, is focused on consumers’ willingness to buy (J. L. Aaker et al., 2010). Our studies extend this work in two ways: We consider the context of contributions to social causes and perceptions of sport organization’s partner organizations, not just the focal organization. In the context of CSR, we found that perceptions of the sport organization’s fit with the social cause are important. In particular, in Study 1, when individuals viewed portfolios of partners as warmer and more competent, perceptions of the sport organization’s fit with the social cause were higher. Fit, in turn, increased response efficacy. This suggests that when individuals perceive that the sport organization (or other focal organization) is a good match with the social cause, individuals believe that their contributions to the cause will have a greater impact. Consequently, they will be more willing to make donations. Notably, other studies find that organizations’ fit with a social cause (e.g., Simmons & Becker-Olsen, 2006) and response efficacy are important (e.g., Witte, 1992). However, we identify a connection between perceptions of warmth and competence, fit, response efficacy, and WTD.

Although perceptions of the partnership portfolio can affect contributions to the cause, we also find that perceptions of warmth and competence can be enhanced through better communication. By demonstrating the effect of articulation on cause marketing and contributions, this research contributes to the broader CSR literature. Cornwell and colleagues (2006) found that articulation, or explaining the relationship between entities, develops a meaningful association and increases recall for sport–event relationships. We extend this work by showing the effect of warmth and competence articulation on individuals’ contributions to social causes. In Study 2, we focused on improving perceptions of corporation’s competence and warmth by a conceptual articulation, given that corporations had the greatest disparity between these perceptions in Study 1, coupled with the fact that corporations are the most likely partners for sport organizations. We found that a warmth articulation for the corporation led to the highest path coefficients and r-squared for response efficacy and WTD to the social cause in the three conditions SEM. This finding may be explained, in part, by the stronger positive relationship between corporate cause fit and response efficacy. When corporations are highlighted as being warm, individuals view the fit as higher and their contributions as having a greater effect on the social cause. One interpretation is that as corporations are not generally viewed as warm (the results of Study 1 indicate that they are judged as less warm than professional sport organizations and nonprofits), by highlighting warmth, through visual and verbal cues, corporations can improve cause fit, response efficacy, and contributions.

Our results indicate that when corporate competence is emphasized, individuals’ willingness to contribute decreases. This finding may be understood by considering response efficacy, which becomes nonsignificant with a competence articulation as shown in the three conditions SEM. In particular, our results suggest that when individuals believe that the overall portfolio of partners is highly competent, capable, and efficient, individuals may sense that their contributions to the social initiative are not needed and would not have a significant effect. This interpretation is supported by the finding that competence articulation increases the relationship between perceptions of portfolio competence and organization–cause fit. That is, a competence articulation can improve the public’s views of the social initiative and the partner organizations, but decreases individuals’ sense that they can, personally, make a difference. These results support the work of Chien and colleagues (2011) who suggest that deficit values may actually be favorable. That is, if a professional sport organization seeks greater public contributions to a social initiative, to have a deficit on a presumably positive judgment dimension (e.g., competence) may actually be favorable, especially if other desired dimensions (e.g., warmth) are high.

Implications

This research has implications for professional sport organizations that are enacting CSR. The findings suggest that teams and leagues should be more strategic in selecting, managing, and communicating partnerships around social initiatives. The benefits of resources, including human and financial capital, should be weighed against the public’s perceptions of partner organizations coming from different sectors. Generally, diversifying the portfolio, rather than relying on a single partner organization or sector, is a safer strategy in terms of managing the public’s perceptions of the warmth and competence of the portfolio and increasing contributions. However, sport organizations should exercise more caution in partnering with corporations and government entities. In particular, our findings suggest that government and corporate partners may lower the perceptions of the sport organization’s partnership portfolio. As a result, partnerships with government and corporate sectors could weaken perceptions of cause fit and individuals’ sense that their contributions to the social cause will make a difference and, in turn, lower contributions to the initiative.

To continue partnering with organizations or sectors that are deemed less warm or competent, our findings suggest that sport organizations should use an articulation communication strategy. Although corporations may be perceived as less warm, corporate partners offer financial resources that can be very valuable for professional sport organization’s CSR activities. Study 2 indicates that the public’s perceptions of the corporate sector can be enhanced through highlighting positive characteristics. This articulation can be done through using particular words and phrases in public announcements, as well as through the use of images that display the positive traits. In particular, our research suggests that sport organizations should use communication tools that highlight warmth to increase contributions to the social initiative. These could include pictures of employees offering supplies, consoling others, and interacting one-on-one, as well as words and phrases that indicate helping, sincerity, and kindness.

Limitations and Future Directions

There are several methodological limitations of our study that offer opportunities for future research. The use of hypothetical partner organizations and real organizations both have limitations. In Study 1, we used hypothetical partner organizations and a fictitious social initiative. This approach strengthens internal validity of the experimental design, but jeopardizes external validity. Conversely, as in Study 2, the use of real organizations and social initiatives strengthens external validity, but threatens internal validity. Future research should examine portfolios involving different sets of sport organizations and partners, as well as different types of social initiatives. In particular, research could consider whether the type of social cause alters the effect of perceptions of warmth and competence on WTD.

Another limitation of our methods was the use of Amazon Turk for Study 2. Although Amazon Turk is increasingly used by researchers to collect data efficiently, and we included checks for participants’ effort, the tool is still relatively new. Participants may not put in the full time and thought necessary to answer some of the questions. In particular, if participants were reading the press releases very quickly in Study 2, they might have missed the articulation. Although our results supported the effectiveness of articulation, we might have had stronger results with a more motivated sample. Thus, future research should test our model with other populations. It would be worthwhile to compare the findings, generated from a sample of the general population, to a sample of sports fans in particular.

Our findings revealed a significant correlation between ratings of partners’ warmth and competence. This is in contrast to prior work that has suggested there is discriminant validity between these constructs (e.g., Fiske et al., 2007; Judd et al., 2005). One explanation is that our manipulation was not effective. An alternative explanation is that the majority of the literature on warmth and competence looks at these constructs at the individual level. Perhaps at the organizational level, these perceptions are more closely related. Future studies in this area can continue to expand our knowledge of perceptions of organizations along these dimensions, particularly in the sport context, and how the constructs relate to one another. For example, is warmth an antecedent of competence, vice versa, or is there another connection?

Finally, the model we tested draws on insights and relationships identified in the CSR and social marketing literature and, in doing so, connects and extends this work. We focused on the relationships between perceptions of warmth and competence, fit, response efficacy, and WTD because prior research suggested, but did not test, these connections. However, the antecedents of WTD that we examined are not exhaustive. Other relevant constructs that may affect WTD include reputation, credibility, and legitimacy. Future research can build on our model, as well as test the relative influence of other factors. In addition, our dependent variable—support of the social cause—was measured by WTD, but there are measures of individuals’ support of causes. Researchers could consider the effect of perceptions of the portfolio on other measures of support, including willingness to volunteer and refer others.

Footnotes

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by University of Michigan OVPR research grants and by Hankuk University of Foreign Studies Research Fund.

Author Biographies

Seung Pil Lee’s research focuses on measuring and leveraging the contribution of/through sport to business and society in the collaborative forms of public policy, sponsorship, partnership, and corporate social responsibility. His work has appeared in Journal of Sport Management, American Journal of Health Behavior, and Journal of Advertising, among others.

Kathryn Heinze is an assistant professor of Sport Management at the University of Michigan. Her research seeks to understand processes and tactics of organizational and institutional change in sport and health/wellness. Kathryn earned her MA and PhD in Management and Organizations from the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University, and her BA in Organizational Studies from the University of Michigan.

Landy D. Lu is a fourth year doctoral student of Sport Management at the University of Michigan (UM). She is interested to examine institutional and organizational change through the lens of institutional, social movement, and network theories. Landy received her BA in English Literature from Sun Yat-sen University, and her MA in Sociology of Sport from Peking University.

References

Aaker

D. A.

Keller

K. L.

(1990). Consumer evaluations of brand extensions. The Journal of Marketing, 54, 27-41.

Aaker

J. L.

(1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34, 347-356.

Aaker

J. L.

Vohs

K. D.

Mogilner

(2010). Nonprofits are seen as warm and for-profits as competent: Firm stereotypes matter. Journal of Consumer Research, 37, 224-237.

Anker

A. E.

Feeley

T. H.

Kim

(2010). Examining the attitude–behavior relationship in prosocial donation domains. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40, 1293-1324.

Babiak

(2007). Determinants of interorganizational relationships: The case of a Canadian nonprofit sport organization. Journal of Sport Management, 21, 338-376.

Babiak

Trendafilova

(2011). CSR and environmental responsibility: Motives and pressures to adopt green management practices. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 18, 11-24.

Babiak

Wolfe

(2009). Determinants of corporate social responsibility in professional sport: Internal and external factors. Journal of Sport Management, 23, 717-742.

Bandura

(1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social-cognitive view. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Barone

M. J.

Miyazaki

A. D.

Taylor

K. A.

(2000). The influence of cause-related marketing on consumer choice: Does one good turn deserve another? Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28, 248-262.

10.

Basil

D. Z.

Ridgway

N. M.

Basil

M. D.

(2008). Guilt and giving: A process model of empathy and efficacy. Psychology & Marketing, 25, 1-23.

11.

Becker-Olsen

K. L.

Cudmore

B. A.

Hill

R. P.

(2006). The impact of perceived corporate social responsibility on consumer behavior. Journal of Business Research, 59, 46-53.

12.

Bennett

C. M.

Kim

Loken

(2013). Corporate sponsorships may hurt nonprofits: Understanding their effects on charitable giving. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23, 288-300.

13.

Bridges

Keller

K. L.

Sood

(2000). Communication strategies for brand extensions: Enhancing perceived fit by establishing explanatory links. Journal of Advertising, 29(4), 1-11.

14.

Campbell

J. L.

(2007). Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways? An institutional theory of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 32, 946-967.

15.

Carey

Mason

D. S.

Misener

(2011). Social responsibility and the competitive bid process for major sporting events. Journal of Sport & Social Issues, 35, 246-263.

16.

Chien

P. M.

Cornwell

T. B.

Pappu

(2011). Sponsorship portfolio as a brand-image creation strategy. Journal of Business Research, 64, 142-149.

17.

Coppetti

Wentzel

Tomczak

Henkel

(2009). Improving incongruent sponsorships through articulation of the sponsorship and audience participation. Journal of Marketing Communications, 15, 17-34.

18.

Cornwell

T. B.

Humphreys

M. S.

Maguire

A. M.

Weeks

C. S.

Tellegen

C. L.

(2006). Sponsorship-linked marketing: The role of articulation in memory. Journal of Consumer Research, 33, 312-321.

19.

Cuddy

A. J.

Fiske

S. T.

Glick

(2007). The BIAS map: Behaviors from intergroup affect and stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 631-648.

20.

Cuddy

A. J.

Glick

Beninger

(2011). The dynamics of warmth and competence judgments, and their outcomes in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 31, 73-98.

21.

Dawkins

(2005). Corporate responsibility: The communication challenge. Journal of Communication Management, 9, 108-119.

22.

Dowling

Robinson

Washington

(2013). Taking advantage of the London 2012 Olympic Games: Corporate social responsibility through sport partnerships. European Sport Management Quarterly, 13, 269-292.

23.

Ellen

P. S.

Webb

D. J.

Mohr

L. A.

(2006). Building corporate associations: Consumer attributions for corporate socially responsible programs. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34, 147-157.

24.

Fiske

S. T.

Cuddy

A. J.

Glick

(2007). Universal dimensions of social cognition: Warmth and competence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 77-83.

25.

Fornell

Larcker

D. F.

(1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 382-388.

26.

Frisby

Thibault

Kikulis

(2004). The organizational dynamics of under-managed partnerships in leisure service departments. Leisure Studies, 23, 109-126.

27.

Googins

B. K.

Rochlin

S. A.

(2000). Creating the partnership society: Understanding the rhetoric and reality of cross-sectoral partnerships. Business and Society Review, 105, 127-144.

28.

Grandey

A. A.

Fisk

G. M.

Mattila

A. S.

Jansen

K. J.

Sideman

L. A.

(2005). Is “service with a smile” enough? Authenticity of positive displays during service encounters. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 96, 38-55.

29.

Grau

S. L.

Folse

J. A. G.

(2007). Cause-related marketing (CRM): The influence of donation proximity and message-framing cues on the less-involved consumer. Journal of Advertising, 36(4), 19-33.

30.

Heinze

K. L.

Soderstrom

Zdroik

(2014). Toward strategic and authentic corporate social responsibility in professional sport: A case study of the Detroit lions. Journal of Sport Management, 28, 672-686.

31.

Iacobucci

Saldanha

Deng

(2007). A meditation on mediation: Evidence that structural equations models perform better than regressions. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17, 139-153.

32.

Johnston

A. C.

Warkentin

(2010). Fear appeals and information security behaviors: An empirical study. MIS Quarterly, 34, 549-566.

33.

Judd

C. M.

James-Hawkins

Yzerbyt

Kashima

(2005). Fundamental dimensions of social judgment: Understanding the relations between judgments of competence and warmth. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 899-913.

34.

Keller

P. A.

(2006). Regulatory focus and efficacy of health messages. Journal of Consumer Research, 33, 109-114.

35.

Kihl

L. A.

Tainsky

(2013). Delivery of large-scale CSR efforts through corporate community involvement: Lessons from Major League Baseball’s Reviving Baseball. In Salcines

J. L.

Babiak

Walters

(Eds.), Routledge handbook of sport and corporate social responsibility (pp. 185-197). New York, NY: Routledge.

36.

Kline

R. B.

(2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

37.

Lachowetz

Irwin

(2002). FedEx and the St. Jude classic. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 11, 114-116.

38.

Lafferty

B. A.

(2007). The relevance of fit in a cause–brand alliance when consumers evaluate corporate credibility. Journal of Business Research, 60, 447-453.

39.

Oliver

(1990). Determinants of interorganizational relationships: Integration and future directions. Academy of Management Review, 15, 241-265.

40.

Olson

E. L.

Thjømøe

H. M.

(2011). Explaining and articulating the fit construct in sponsorship. Journal of Advertising, 40(1), 57-70.

41.

Pappu

Cornwell

T. B.

(2014). Corporate sponsorship as an image platform: Understanding the roles of relationship fit and sponsor–sponsee similarity. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 42, 490-510.

42.

Perks

K. J.

Farache

Shukla

Berry

(2013). Communicating responsibility-practicing irresponsibility in CSR advertisements. Journal of Business Research, 66, 1881-1888.

43.

Pfeffer

(1987). A resource dependence perspective on interorganizational relations. In Mizruchi

M. S.

Schwartz

(Eds.), Intercorporate relations: The structural analysis of business (pp. 25-55). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

44.

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, 635-640.

45.

Rifon

N. J.

Choi

S. M.

Trimble

C. S.

(2004). Congruence effects in sponsorship: The mediating role of sponsor credibility and consumer attributions of sponsor motive. Journal of Advertising, 33(1), 29-42.

46.

Robson

(2007). Partnerships in sport. In Hylton

Bramham

Jackson

Nesti

(Eds.), Sport development: Policy, process and practice (pp. 99-125). New York, NY: Routledge.

47.

Roy

D. P.

Graeff

T. R.

(2003). Consumer attitudes toward cause-related marketing activities in professional sports. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 12, 163-172.

48.

Sen

Bhattacharya

C. B.

(2001). Does doing good always lead to doing better? Consumer reactions to corporate social responsibility. Journal of Marketing Research, 38, 225-243.

49.

Sen

Bhattacharya

C. B.

Korschun

(2006). The role of corporate social responsibility in strengthening multiple stakeholder relationships: A field experiment. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34, 158-166.

50.

Shanahan

K. J.

Hopkins

C. D.

Carlson

(2008). The efficacy of the use of implicature and actor portrayal labels by non-profits in anti-smoking print advertisements. Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 30(2), 65-78.

51.

Sheth

Babiak

K. M.

(2010). Beyond the game: Perceptions and practices of corporate social responsibility in the professional sport industry. Journal of Business Ethics, 91, 433-450.

52.

Simmons

C. J.

Becker-Olsen

K. L.

(2006). Achieving marketing objectives through social sponsorships. Journal of Marketing, 70, 154-169.

53.

Till

B. D.

Busler

(2000). The match-up hypothesis: Physical attractiveness, expertise, and the role of fit on brand attitude, purchase intent and brand beliefs. Journal of Advertising, 29(3), 1-13.

54.

Walker

Kent

(2009). Do fans care? Assessing the influence of corporate social responsibility on consumer attitudes in the sport industry. Journal of Sport Management, 23, 743-769.

55.

Walker

Parent

M. M.

(2010). Toward an integrated framework of corporate social responsibility, responsiveness, and citizenship in sport. Sport Management Review, 13, 198-213.

56.

Welsh

M. P.

Poe

G. L.

(1998). Elicitation effects in contingent valuation: Comparisons to a multiple bounded discrete choice approach. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 36, 170-185.

57.

Witte

(1992). Putting the fear back into fear appeals: The extended parallel process model. Communications Monographs, 59, 329-349.