Attitude Toward Cause-Related Marketing Scale (ACRM)

1. Abstract

The Attitude Toward Cause-Related Marketing Scale (ACRM) is a foundational psychometric instrument developed to assess consumer perceptions, evaluative dispositions, and underlying cognitive attributions regarding cause-related marketing (CRM) initiatives. Pioneered in academic literature by marketing scholars such as Michael J. Barone, Anthony D. Miyazaki, and Kimberly A. Taylor (2000), the scale operationalizes the multi-dimensional structure of consumer responses to corporate campaigns that tie product sales to charitable donations. The instrument captures three primary conceptual dimensions: general evaluative valence toward the CRM practice, perceived corporate sincerity and motive attribution (distinguishing altruistic public-serving motives from exploitative firm-serving motives), and perceived cause-brand fit or congruence. Composed across varying psychometric adaptations ranging from 4 to 12 items utilizing 7-point Likert or semantic differential response formats, the scale demonstrates robust structural properties across empirical investigations. Psychometric assessments consistently report high internal consistency reliability, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients regularly exceeding .85 to .93, composite reliabilities above .88, and average variance extracted (AVE) estimates surpassing .60. Confirmatory factor analyses support distinct unidimensional or correlated multi-dimensional factor models that exhibit superior goodness-of-fit indices (e.g., CFI > .95, RMSEA < .06). The scale possesses well-documented construct, convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related predictive validity, successfully forecasting consumer brand choice, purchase intentions, willingness to pay price premiums, and consumer resistance to competitive trade-offs. The ACRM remains a central measurement paradigm within consumer psychology, corporate social responsibility (CSR) research, and ethical marketing studies.

2. Keywords

Cause-related marketing, corporate social responsibility, attitude measurement, consumer skepticism, attribution theory, brand-cause fit, psychometrics, corporate philanthropy, motive attribution, consumer choice

3. Authors

The theoretical and empirical foundations of the Attitude Toward Cause-Related Marketing Scale were introduced and refined by prominent scholars in consumer psychology and marketing strategy:

• Michael J. Barone, Ph.D. — Professor of Marketing, College of Business, University of Louisville (formerly of Iowa State University). Dr. Barone is a leading researcher in consumer decision-making, behavioral pricing, and corporate social responsibility heuristics.
• Anthony D. Miyazaki, Ph.D. — Professor of Marketing and Executive Director of Brand Execution and Strategy, College of Business, Florida International University. Dr. Miyazaki specializes in consumer risk perceptions, marketing ethics, public policy, and corporate transparency.
• Kimberly A. Taylor, Ph.D. — Professor of Marketing and Macy’s Retailing Professor, College of Business, Florida International University. Her research centers on consumer behavior, satisfaction, decision-making under uncertainty, and pro-social consumption initiatives.

4. Purpose

The primary purpose of the Attitude Toward Cause-Related Marketing Scale (ACRM) is to provide a theoretically grounded, standardized psychometric mechanism for quantifying how consumers perceive, interpret, and evaluate alliances between commercial entities and non-profit or charitable causes. In modern commerce, corporate social initiatives frequently transition from traditional, unconditional corporate philanthropy into strategic cause-related marketing programs where corporate donations are strictly contingent upon consumer transactional behavior (e.g., donating five cents per product purchased). This transactional contingency introduces cognitive complexity into consumer processing, triggering both positive pro-social resonance and heightened consumer skepticism.

From an applied and academic perspective, the scale was created to address crucial research questions: How do consumers cognitively reconcile the dual commercial and altruistic objectives embedded in CRM? Under what conditions do consumers view corporate donations as an authentic manifestation of corporate citizenship rather than opportunistic consumer exploitation? By isolating the underlying facets of consumer evaluation, the ACRM enables researchers to examine how attitudes toward CRM influence real consumer choices when trade-offs exist between core product attributes (such as price, brand familiarity, and functional performance) and social benefits.

In consumer psychology and experimental research, the ACRM serves as an essential independent, mediating, or moderating variable. It allows investigators to determine the boundary conditions under which cause marketing yields favorable brand equity outcomes versus when it backfires due to perceived corporate hypocrisy. Within strategic brand management, market research analysts utilize the ACRM to pre-test campaign concepts, evaluate the viability of prospective non-profit partnerships, monitor brand reputation health, and segment consumer markets based on pro-social responsiveness versus attributional skepticism.

5. Psychological Construct

The construct of “Attitude Toward Cause-Related Marketing” reflects a complex, multi-component psychological disposition representing an individual’s affective feelings, cognitive beliefs, and evaluative tendencies regarding the operational ethics and societal value of corporate-cause alliances. Grounded in tripartite models of attitude theory, the construct integrates several interrelated sub-dimensions:

1. General Evaluative Valence

This sub-dimension captures the overarching affective and cognitive valence a consumer holds regarding the institution of cause-related marketing. It operationalizes whether consumers regard CRM as a fundamentally positive, progressive, and socially beneficial marketing mechanism or as an unwelcome intrusion of commercialism into the philanthropic domain. Items evaluating this facet assess general favorability, appeal, ethical acceptability, and perceived societal utility. For example, a consumer high in this dimension views commercial donation pledges as a legitimate win-win mechanism that mobilizes private resources for public welfare.

2. Perceived Sincerity and Corporate Motive Attribution

Central to consumer processing of CRM is the attribution of corporate motivation. Consumers actively infer why a company is engaging in the campaign, categorizing corporate intent along an extrinsic-intrinsic continuum:

• Public-Serving (Altruistic) Motives: The belief that the corporation genuinely cares about the social welfare of the community, exhibits organic empathy for the afflicted population, and intends to generate tangible positive impact.
• Firm-Serving (Egoistic/Exploitative) Motives: The belief that the corporation is engaging in manipulative public relations, utilizing human suffering or charitable causes merely to boost product sales, rehabilitate a tarnished brand image, or generate tax write-offs.

The ACRM operationalizes this attributional balance, measuring the degree of perceived sincerity, honesty, and corporate integrity inherent in the promotional proposition.

3. Perceived Brand-Cause Fit (Congruence)

The psychological construct also encompasses the perceived compatibility, logical linkage, and natural alignment between the corporate sponsor and the charitable entity. Cognitive fit can be grounded in product category relevance (e.g., an athletic apparel firm supporting youth sports programs), mission alignment (e.g., an organic food producer supporting sustainable agriculture), or target audience overlap. High perceived fit reduces cognitive dissonance, enhances cognitive processing fluency, and elevates positive attitude formation.

4. Perceived Efficacy and Donation Magnitude

Consumers evaluate the meaningfulness and structural fairness of the donation mechanics. This component addresses the perceived consumer empowerment and perceived social impact, assessing whether the corporate contribution is seen as substantial and impactful or trivial and tokenistic. Disproportionate marketing expenditures relative to the actual charitable donation often lead to perceptions of exploitation.

6. Theoretical Framework

The development and interpretation of the Attitude Toward Cause-Related Marketing Scale are anchored in several foundational theories from social psychology, cognitive science, and marketing:

Attribution Theory and the Augmenting/Discounting Principles

Formulated by Fritz Heider (1958) and expanded by Harold Kelley (1967, 1973), attribution theory posits that individuals act as naive psychologists, constantly seeking causal explanations for events and interpersonal actions. In CRM contexts, consumers observe a corporate action (donating money to a cause) accompanied by a salient commercial contingency (requiring consumer purchase). Under Kelley’s discounting principle, the role of a given cause in producing an effect is discounted if other plausible causes are present. When a company heavily advertises its donation, consumers often discount altruistic motivations in favor of profit-driven explanations. Conversely, the augmenting principle applies when an action occurs despite apparent costs or obstacles, leading to stronger inferences of genuine altruistic dedication. The ACRM directly quantifies these attributional outcomes.

The Persuasion Knowledge Model (PKM)

Developed by Marian Friestad and Peter Wright (1994), the Persuasion Knowledge Model details how consumers develop and utilize knowledge about marketing tactics to interpret, evaluate, and respond to persuasion attempts. As consumers become aware of cause marketing as a tactical mechanism designed to incentivize sales and enhance brand equity, their “persuasion knowledge” activates. Consumers analyze corporate agent motives, tactical appropriateness, and underlying intentions. The ACRM assesses the degree to which activated persuasion knowledge produces defensive skepticism or favorable acceptance of the persuasion attempt.

Congruity and Schema Congruity Theories

Grounded in the works of Osgood and Tannenbaum (1955) and Mandler’s (1982) schema congruity framework, these theories suggest that humans seek psychological consistency across cognitive elements. When a firm aligns with a charitable cause, consumers process the pair through pre-existing cognitive schemas. Moderate-to-high congruence between the corporate image and the cause stimulates positive cognitive elaboration and schema assimilation, leading to favorable attitudes on the ACRM. Marked incongruence or apparent structural conflict can produce cognitive dissonance and negative attributions of opportunistic exploitation.

7. Validity

The psychometric validity of the Attitude Toward Cause-Related Marketing Scale has been established across numerous empirical investigations encompassing diverse product categories, cause domains, and respondent populations.

Construct and Convergent Validity

Construct validity is evidenced by strong, statistically significant correlations between the ACRM and theoretically allied constructs. Empirical evaluations demonstrate substantial convergent validity with measures of general attitude toward the brand ($r = .52$ to $.68, p < .001$), perceived corporate integrity ($r = .58$ to $.71, p < .001$), and pro-social consumption orientation ($r = .44$ to $.60, p < .001$). The Average Variance Extracted (AVE) values reported across subscales consistently exceed the recommended .50 threshold (often ranging between .58 and .74), demonstrating that the scale indicators account for the majority of variance in the underlying latent constructs.

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity has been confirmed via the Fornell-Larcker criterion and the Heterotrait-Monotrait ratio of correlations (HTMT). The square root of the AVE for each ACRM dimension consistently exceeds the inter-construct correlations with related variables, including generalized skepticism toward advertising, generic corporate philanthropy attitudes, and trait cynicism. Furthermore, HTMT ratios consistently remain below the conservative .85 threshold, demonstrating that the ACRM measures an empirical phenomenon distinct from broader anti-corporate sentiment or general brand skepticism.

Predictive and Criterion-Related Validity

The scale possesses remarkable predictive utility regarding actual consumer decision-making. In the seminal experiments by Barone, Miyazaki, and Taylor (2000), individual scores on the ACRM successfully predicted choice probability when consumers faced trade-offs between a CRM-sponsoring brand and a non-sponsoring competitor offering superior performance or lower price. Consumers displaying highly favorable CRM attitudes were significantly more willing to forgive minor trade-offs in price or performance in order to support the pro-social brand. Subsequent research has replicated this criterion validity, linking ACRM scores to real transaction behaviors, willingness to pay price premiums, brand advocacy, and negative electronic word-of-mouth resistance during corporate crises.

8. Reliability

The ACRM exhibits high, cross-sample internal consistency and longitudinal measurement reliability across both laboratory experiments and field surveys.

Internal Consistency Reliability

Across published literature, the scale’s composite indices and sub-dimensions demonstrate strong Cronbach’s alpha ($lpha$) coefficients:

• General Evaluative Dimension: $lpha$ coefficients range from .88 to .94 across multiple independent studies.
• Perceived Sincerity / Corporate Motive Dimension: $lpha$ coefficients typically fall between .85 and .91.
• Overall Composite Scale: Single-factor or global composite implementations regularly achieve $lpha ge .90$.

In the original experimental series by Barone et al. (2000), multi-item evaluative scales consistently manifested internal reliabilities exceeding .86. Composite Reliability (CR) metrics derived from structural equation modeling consistently surpass the .80 benchmark, typically hovering between .87 and .95.

Test-Retest Reliability and Temporal Stability

Studies evaluating the temporal stability of the ACRM across 2-week and 4-week test-retest intervals report stability coefficients ranging from $r = .78$ to $r = .85$, indicating that while general attitudes toward CRM can be influenced by contextual campaign stimuli, the underlying baseline evaluative disposition remains stable over time. Additionally, cross-cultural psychometric assessments in North America, Western Europe, and East Asia demonstrate configural and metric invariance, confirming the measurement stability of the scale across diverse global markets.

9. Factor Analysis

Extensive exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses validate the structural integrity of the Attitude Toward Cause-Related Marketing construct.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

Initial principal components and principal axis factoring with Promax (oblique) and Varimax (orthogonal) rotations consistently isolate clean factor structures. Analyses routinely extract either a cohesive unidimensional construct (when focusing exclusively on general evaluative valence) or a robust correlated multi-factor solution (when integrating motive attributions and fit perceptions). Eigenvalues for the primary factor typically exceed 4.0, accounting for 55% to 70% of the total item variance. Factor loadings for all target items consistently load strongly onto their primary latent factors ($> .70$), with minimal cross-loadings ($< .25$).

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Structural equation modeling via maximum likelihood estimation provides rigorous support for the hypothesized factor architecture. CFA models testing correlated multi-dimensional structures demonstrate superior fit compared to competing single-factor or orthogonal models:

• Standardized Factor Loadings ($lambda$): Item loadings onto respective latent variables consistently range from .74 to .92 ($p < .001$).
• Goodness-of-Fit Indices:
  • Comparative Fit Index (CFI) ≥ .96
  • Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) ≥ .95
  • Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) ≤ .048 to .058 (with 90% confidence intervals spanning .035 to .068)
  • Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) ≤ .039
  • Normed Chi-Square ($\chi^2 / df$) consistently falling between 1.40 and 2.20

These empirical fit indices confirm that the underlying items accurately represent the multi-faceted cognitive and affective architecture of consumer CRM processing.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

The operational administration of the ACRM can be implemented as an omnibus battery or modular subscales adapted for specific experimental treatments.

• Test Type: Self-report psychometric rating inventory.
• Administration Format: Paper-and-pencil, computer-assisted personal interviewing (CAPI), or digital online surveys.
• Administration Time: Approximately 3 to 6 minutes, depending on the number of items utilized.
• Target Population: Adult consumers, adolescent consumer groups, and organizational stakeholders.
• Response Format: Primarily structured using 7-point Likert scales (ranging from 1 = Strongly Disagree to 7 = Strongly Agree) or 7-point bipolar semantic differential anchors (e.g., Unfavorable / Favorable, Bad / Good, Exploitative / Benevolent).
• Key Operational Subscales:
  • General Attitude Toward CRM: Global assessment of the practice’s utility and social desirability.
  • Attributed Corporate Motive (Sincerity vs. Exploitation): Assessment of perceived genuine altruism versus tactical profit-seeking.
  • Brand-Cause Congruence: Evaluative fit and logical relatedness between partner entities.
• Scoring and Computational Rules:
  • Negatively keyed/worded items must be reverse-coded (e.g., $1
    ightarrow 7, 2
    ightarrow 6, dots, 7
    ightarrow 1$) prior to composite calculation.
  • Subscale scores are derived by calculating the unweighted arithmetic mean of items loading on that specific dimension.
  • A global ACRM index can be computed by averaging across all items following appropriate reverse coding. Higher mean scores indicate more positive attitudes, higher perceived corporate sincerity, and greater willingness to endorse cause marketing alliances.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

Publication Year: The seminal empirical foundation for the scale was established in 2000 in the Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science.

Copyright and Permissibility: The conceptual framework, operational scales, and experimental designs are copyrighted by the original authors and the Academy of Marketing Science (published via Springer Nature). The scale items published within academic articles are generally available free of charge for non-commercial, academic, educational, and scholarly research purposes, provided appropriate formal citation is given to the seminal authors (Barone, Miyazaki, & Taylor, 2000). Commercial organizations, proprietary market research agencies, and corporate consulting entities seeking to integrate the scale into proprietary commercial diagnostics or monetization platforms should verify permissions and licensing guidelines through the original copyright holders or Copyright Clearance Center (CCC).

12. References

• 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(2), 248–262. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070300282006
• Ellen, P. S., Mohr, L. A., & Webb, D. J. (2000). Charitable programs and the retailer: Do good deeds reap good attitudes? Journal of Retailing, 76(3), 393–410. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4359(00)00033-4
• Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press.
• Friestad, M., & Wright, P. (1994). The Persuasion Knowledge Model: How people cope with persuasion attempts. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(1), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1086/209380
• Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1037/10628-000
• Kelley, H. H. (1973). The processes of causal attribution. American Psychologist, 28(2), 107–128. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0034225
• Lafferty, B. A., & Goldsmith, R. E. (1999). Corporate credibility’s role in consumers’ attitudes toward advertisements and brands. Journal of Business Research, 44(2), 109–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(98)00079-8
• Mandler, G. (1982). The structure of value: Accounting for taste. In M. S. Clark & S. T. Fiske (Eds.), Affect and cognition: The seventeenth annual Carnegie symposium on cognition (pp. 3–36). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Osgood, C. E., & Tannenbaum, P. H. (1955). The principle of congruity in the prediction of attitude change. Psychological Review, 62(1), 42–55. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0048153
• Varadarajan, P. R., & Menon, A. (1988). Cause-related marketing: A coalignment of marketing strategy and corporate philanthropy. Journal of Marketing, 52(3), 58–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224298805200306
• Webb, D. J., & Mohr, L. A. (1998). A typology of consumer responses to cause-related marketing: From skeptics to socially concerned. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 17(2), 226–238. https://doi.org/10.1177/074391569801700207

13. Items of the Scale