Cause Participation Intention (CPI)

Abstract

The Cause Participation Intention (CPI) scale is a concise, psychometrically validated three-item instrument designed to evaluate an individual's behavioral intention to support, participate in, and actively champion a social, charitable, or non-profit cause within the context of prosocial marketing and cause-related marketing (CRM). Originally introduced by Stacy Landreth Grau and Judith Anne Garretson Folse (2007) in the Journal of Advertising, the scale captures the behavioral propensity of consumers or community members toward a supported focal cause, distinguishing prosocial cause support from transactional product purchase intentions. The instrument employs a unidimensional 7-point semantic differential and Likert-type response format anchored by bipolar evaluative descriptors (e.g., 1 = strongly disagree / unlikely / improbable to 7 = strongly agree / likely / probable). Across initial and subsequent empirical validations in corporate social responsibility (CSR), health promotion, and prosocial consumer research, the CPI has demonstrated exceptional internal consistency reliability, with Cronbach's alpha coefficients systematically exceeding .90, alongside robust convergent, discriminant, and predictive validities. Confirmatory factor analyses across experimental and field studies verify that the scale possesses strong unidimensionality and high factor loadings (> .85). By operationalizing the downstream prosocial intentions elicited by corporate partnerships, advertising message framing, and charity proximity cues, the CPI serves as a critical measurement standard for marketing scientists, behavioral economists, social psychologists, and non-profit practitioners seeking to quantify consumer prosocial mobilization.

Keywords

Cause Participation Intention, Cause-Related Marketing, Prosocial Behavior, Theory of Planned Behavior, Message Framing, Donation Proximity, Consumer Skepticism, Behavioral Intentions, Corporate Social Responsibility, Psychometrics

Authors

The Cause Participation Intention scale was formulated and validated by Stacy Landreth Grau and Judith Anne Garretson Folse:

• Stacy Landreth Grau, Ph.D.: Professor of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Practice at the Neeley School of Business, Texas Christian University (Fort Worth, Texas, USA). Dr. Grau's research centers on health-related communications, social marketing, cause-related marketing effectiveness, and consumer vulnerability.
• Judith Anne Garretson Folse, Ph.D.: Professor of Marketing and Department Head of Marketing at the Sam M. Walton College of Business, University of Arkansas (Fayetteville, Arkansas, USA), formerly the Ourso Family Distinguished Professor at Louisiana State University. Her research programs examine consumer-brand relationships, promotional framing, corporate social responsibility strategies, and emotional response mechanisms in advertising.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Cause Participation Intention (CPI) scale is to isolate and quantify an individual's behavioral orientation toward a prosocial entity or cause when exposed to targeted promotional stimuli, persuasive messaging, or strategic alliances. In the contemporary marketing landscape, corporate entities frequently partner with non-profit organizations (NPOs) or non-governmental organizations (NGOs) via cause-related marketing campaigns. In these alliances, a corporation pledges to contribute resources or a portion of product sales to a specific social cause. While traditional marketing metrics focus almost exclusively on commercial outcomes—such as product attitude, brand credibility, and purchase intention—Grau and Folse (2007) recognized that a comprehensive evaluation of prosocial campaigns requires measuring the reciprocal benefit bestowed upon the non-profit partner: namely, whether exposure to the campaign mobilizes consumers to directly participate in and support the underlying cause.

From an applied research and clinical/intervention standpoint, measuring cause participation intention fulfills several pivotal functions:

• Disentangling Commercial from Altruistic Motivations: Consumers may exhibit high purchase intentions toward a dual-branded CRM product solely because of product utility, price promotion, or self-interest, without internalizing the social mission. Conversely, a consumer might develop strong intrinsic affinity and participation intentions toward the cause while abstaining from the commercial purchase due to brand aversion or product irrelevance. The CPI isolates the altruistic or prosocial behavioral vector, allowing researchers to treat cause engagement as an independent dependent variable.
• Evaluating Message Framing and Proximity Effects: The scale was engineered to assess subtle experimental variations in marketing communications, including message-framing cues (positive/gain frames emphasizing lives saved versus negative/loss frames highlighting lives lost without intervention) and donation proximity cues (local versus national or international recipient scopes). The CPI provides the metric sensitivity necessary to detect shifts in consumer willingness to act based on informational salience and emotional resonance.
• Assessing the Impact of Consumer Involvement: According to dual-process persuasion models, consumers displaying low involvement with a domain process peripheral cues differently than highly involved consumers. The CPI serves as a critical outcome measure to determine whether specific peripheral framing cues can overcome consumer apathy and stimulate prosocial intentions among less-involved target demographics.
• Non-Profit and Public Health Program Optimization: Outside commercial CRM partnerships, charitable institutions and public health agencies utilize the CPI to pre-test campaign collateral, assessing whether specific fundraising appeals, volunteer drives, or advocacy campaigns evoke sufficient behavioral intention prior to capital-intensive public dissemination.

Psychological Construct

The psychological construct captured by the CPI is Cause Participation Intention, conceptualized as an individual's subjective probability, conscious plan, and behavioral willingness to expend personal resources—such as time, physical effort, social capital, or financial donations—in support of a designated charitable, civic, environmental, or public health initiative. Within the taxonomy of prosocial behavior, cause participation occupies a unique position between passive emotional affinity (e.g., empathy, cause concern) and actualized behavioral performance (e.g., active volunteering, signing a petition, attending a rally, or donating).

Dimensions and Behavioral Facets of the Construct

Although mathematically and empirically unidimensional, the construct of cause participation intention spans three interrelated behavioral facets captured by the scale's operational items:

• General Cause Support Propensity: This facet reflects a general commitment to endorse, validate, and sustain the organization's overarching mission. It captures an individual's global orientation toward favoring the cause in interpersonal discourse, social networks, and civic settings, serving as an attitudinal bridge between affective approval and concrete action.
• Direct Active Participation: This facet denotes a willingness to engage in direct, effortful prosocial action. Unlike mere ideological agreement or passive sympathy, participation implies an investment of personal agency—such as volunteering labor, attending informational or fundraising events, distributing educational materials, or enrolling in cause-related programming.
• Perceived Subjective Probability of Support: Rooted in cognitive expectancy-value formulations, this facet quantifies the subjective likelihood that the behavioral intention will survive real-world constraints. It captures the respondent's pragmatic appraisal of their future conduct under anticipated environmental, temporal, and financial parameters.

Crucially, Cause Participation Intention is distinct from corporate brand purchase intention. In CRM partnerships, consumers encounter a hybrid cognitive stimulus involving both a for-profit brand and a non-profit beneficiary. While purchase intention focuses on transactional exchange (paying money to obtain a consumer good), cause participation intention centers on non-reciprocal prosocial contribution directed at resolving a societal problem.

Theoretical Framework

The conceptual foundation of the Cause Participation Intention scale integrates three foundational psychological paradigms: Ajzen's Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), Petty and Cacioppo's Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM), and modern theories of prosocial motivation and attribution.

1. The Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB)

Formulated by Icek Ajzen (1991), the Theory of Planned Behavior establishes that behavioral intention represents the most proximate, powerful cognitive antecedent of actual volitional behavior. Intentions summarize the motivational factors that indicate how hard individuals are willing to try and how much effort they plan to exert to perform a target behavior. The CPI directly operationalizes the intentional core of the TPB within a prosocial context. According to TPB, cause participation intentions are driven by:

• Attitude toward the Behavior: The degree to which participating in or supporting the specific cause is evaluated as personally meaningful, ethical, or rewarding.
• Subjective Norms: The perceived social pressure from significant others (peers, family, community) to engage in altruistic or civic support.
• Perceived Behavioral Control: The perceived ease or difficulty of performing the supportive actions, mediated by time availability, resource access, and self-efficacy.

2. The Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM)

Grau and Folse (2007) grounded their investigation in the ELM (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986) to explain how consumer involvement dictates the cognitive route through which participation intentions are formed. When individuals have low involvement with a cause, they lack the motivation or cognitive capacity to process intricate campaign information via the central route. Instead, their cause participation intentions are heavily swayed by peripheral cues—such as the geographic proximity of the donation (local community impact vs. remote national impact) or the affective framing of the promotional headline (gain vs. loss). For highly involved consumers, participation intentions are governed primarily by argument strength, organizational transparency, and systemic efficacy. The CPI captures the behavioral intention resulting from either cognitive route, demonstrating sensitivity to peripheral heuristic processing as well as central message elaboration.

3. Attribution Theory and Prosocial Motivation

Attribution theory (Kelley, 1973; Weiner, 1985) examines how individuals infer underlying motives from observed corporate or charitable actions. When consumers evaluate CRM campaigns, they formulate cognitive attributions regarding whether the corporation and the non-profit partner are driven by genuine public interest (firm-altruistic motives) or opportunistic financial exploitation (firm-egoistic motives). Consumer skepticism acts as a cognitive filter: if consumers infer self-serving or deceptive corporate motives, attributional resistance diminishes cause participation intention. Furthermore, prosocial motivation literature—ranging from Andreoni's (1990) warm-glow giving to Batson's (1991) empathy-altruism hypothesis—posits that participation intentions surge when promotional stimuli evoke affective empathy or activate internalized moral identities.

Validity

The psychometric integrity of the Cause Participation Intention scale has been substantiated through rigorous construct, convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity assessments across laboratory experiments and structural equation modeling (SEM) evaluations.

Construct and Convergent Validity

Construct validity reflects the degree to which an instrument operationalizes the theoretical construct it purports to measure. In the initial scale development study by Grau and Folse (2007), the three items demonstrated high standardized factor loadings onto a single latent factor, with all item-to-construct loadings well above the classical .70 benchmark (ranging from .88 to .95). Furthermore, the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) substantially exceeded the recommended threshold of .50 (frequently surpassing .75 to .80), indicating that the latent construct accounts for the overwhelming majority of variance in its indicator variables rather than measurement error.

Convergent validity is evidenced by significant, theoretically predicted positive correlations with established prosocial and marketing constructs:

• Attitude toward the Cause ($A_{Cause}$): Strong positive correlations ($r = .60$ to $.78, p < .001$) indicate that favorable evaluations of the cause translate robustly into participatory behavioral intentions.
• Attitude toward the CRM Advertisement ($A_{Ad}$): Moderate to high correlations ($r = .45$ to $.62, p < .001$) confirm that persuasive, resonant campaign creative execution bolsters participation intention.
• Perceived Prosocial Impact: High correlations ($r = .55$ to $.70, p < .001$) with consumer perceptions of tangible, meaningful social outcomes generated by the cause.

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity ensures that Cause Participation Intention does not duplicate conceptually adjacent constructs within the same nomological network. Utilizing the Fornell-Larcker (1981) criterion, researchers have repeatedly confirmed that the square root of the AVE for CPI is substantially higher than the inter-construct correlation between CPI and other evaluated dimensions:

• Distinction from Product Purchase Intention ($PI$): In CRM environments, while CPI and commercial purchase intention correlate moderately ($r = .35$ to $.55$), structural tests reveal that the shared variance ($r^2 < .30$) is far below the AVE of CPI ($> .75$), verifying that intentions to support the non-profit cause represent an empirical reality independent of intentions to purchase the sponsoring brand's commercial product.
• Distinction from Attitude toward the Sponsoring Company ($A_{Company}$): The CPI demonstrates distinct psychometric properties from corporate brand evaluations ($r = .30$ to $.48$), confirming that respondents do not conflate the charitable organization with its commercial benefactor.

Predictive and Criterion-Related Validity

Predictive validity is demonstrated by the scale's capacity to forecast actual downstream prosocial behavior. In post-exposure behavioral choice paradigms (e.g., offering participants the option to take informational pamphlets, sign real petitions, or allocate real lottery winnings to the non-profit), higher scores on the CPI significantly predict actual participation ($odds ratio > 2.4, p < .01$). In experimental studies manipulating donation proximity (Grau & Folse, 2007), the CPI successfully differentiated between local and national causes among low-involvement consumers, providing criterion validation of its sensitivity to experimental interventions.

Reliability

The CPI consistently exhibits high internal consistency reliability across diverse sampling frames, including undergraduate cohorts, nationwide adult consumer panels, and civic volunteer populations.

Internal Consistency Reliability Statistics

• Grau and Folse (2007) Baseline Study: Across experimental treatments manipulating message framing (positive vs. negative) and donation proximity (local vs. national), the three-item CPI generated Cronbach's alpha coefficients between $lpha = .93$ and $lpha = .96$.
• Composite Reliability (CR): In structural equation modeling replications, the composite reliability of the scale regularly exceeds $ ext{CR} = .94$, well above the standard .70 heuristic for psychometric acceptability.
• Replications in Subsequent Prosocial Research: Independent investigations applying the three-item scale in CSR, non-profit branding, and digital advocacy studies report internal consistency metrics consistently spanning $lpha = .91$ to $.95$, proving the scale's robustness against sampling fluctuations.

Item-Total Statistics and Inter-Item Correlations

Psychometric evaluations show corrected item-total correlations uniformly exceeding .80 for all three items (typically ranging from .82 to .91). The average inter-item correlation spans .80 to .88. Deletion of any single item fails to improve the overall Cronbach's alpha, demonstrating that all three indicators contribute meaningfully to construct coverage without introducing redundant or discordant variance.

Factor Analysis

Both Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) confirm that the Cause Participation Intention scale is strictly unidimensional.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

When subjected to EFA (principal axis factoring or principal component analysis with varimax or promax rotation alongside competing marketing constructs), the three CPI items invariably converge on a single, dominant factor:

• Eigenvalue: The primary latent factor accounts for an eigenvalue substantially greater than 2.4 (out of a possible 3.0), explaining approximately 82% to 88% of the total variance.
• Scree Plot: Displays a steep break after the first factor, with factors 2 and 3 yielding eigenvalues far below .30, unequivocally confirming unidimensionality.
• Factor Loadings: All three items demonstrate uniform, prominent loadings (> .88) on the primary factor, with negligible cross-loadings (< .15) onto parallel factors such as brand attitude, product purchase intention, or corporate reputation.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Confirmatory factor analytic routines in structural equation modeling software (e.g., AMOS, Mplus, LISREL, lavaan) confirm superior model fit for the hypothesized one-factor structure. Because a three-item single-factor model is just-identified ($df = 0$), researchers assess its psychometric fit within multi-factor measurement models alongside related latent constructs (e.g., Ad Attitude, Cause Involvement, Purchase Intention). Representative goodness-of-fit metrics from comprehensive measurement models include:

• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): $ge .98$ (frequently $.99$ to $1.00$)
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): $ge .97$
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): $le .04$ to $.06$ (90% CI: $[.00, .08]$)
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): $le .02$
• Standardized Factor Loadings ($lambda$):
  • Item 1 (I would support this cause): $lambda pprox .90 – .94$
  • Item 2 (I would participate in this cause): $lambda pprox .88 – .92$
  • Item 3 (It is likely that I would support this cause): $lambda pprox .92 – .96$

Multi-group invariance testing across demographic groups (e.g., gender, age brackets) and experimental conditions (e.g., local vs. national CRM scope) demonstrates configural, metric (weak), and scalar (strong) measurement invariance, confirming that the CPI items measure the identical psychological construct with equivalent calibration across diverse target populations.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Instrument Name: Cause Participation Intention (CPI) Scale
• Authors / Developers: Stacy Landreth Grau and Judith Anne Garretson Folse (2007)
• Construct Measured: Behavioral intention, subjective probability, and willingness to support and participate in a designated charitable, prosocial, or non-profit cause
• Number of Items: 3 items
• Administration Format: Self-report questionnaire; compatible with paper-and-pencil surveys, online survey engines (Qualtrics, SurveyMonkey, Prolific), and laboratory experiment interfaces
• Target Population: Consumers, community members, prospective donors, volunteers, and participants in experimental prosocial or marketing communications research (ages 18 and older)
• Time Required: Less than 1 minute for full completion
• Authentic Response Scale: 7-point semantic differential scale (1 = strongly disagree / unlikely / improbable, 7 = strongly agree / likely / probable)
• Scoring and Index Construction:
  • No items are reverse-scored; all three items are keyed in the positive direction of participation intention.
  • The individual item scores (ranging from 1 to 7) are summed and divided by 3 to create an overall mean composite index of Cause Participation Intention.
  • Alternatively, in structural equation modeling, the three items serve as continuous manifest indicators loading onto a single latent CPI factor.
• Score Interpretation:
  • 1.00 – 2.99: Low Cause Participation Intention; indicates reluctance, skepticism, or lack of motivation to endorse, assist, or engage with the cause.
  • 3.00 – 4.99: Moderate / Neutral Participation Intention; reflects ambivalence, passive indifference, or conditional willingness that requires additional persuasive mobilization or lower personal cost.
  • 5.00 – 7.00: High Cause Participation Intention; reflects strong commitment, positive behavioral disposition, and high subjective likelihood of active endorsement and volunteer/donor participation.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

• Test Year: 2007
• Original Publication: Journal of Advertising, Volume 36, Issue 4, pages 19–33.
• Copyright & Ownership: The intellectual and copyright ownership of the foundational research article belongs to the American Academy of Advertising, published by Routledge / Taylor & Francis Group.
• Permissions and Academic Licensing: Under standard academic “fair use” conventions, the three-item instrument may be replicated, adapted, and administered for non-commercial academic, psychological, and institutional research purposes without monetary licensing fees, provided that appropriate scholarly attribution is formally cited (Grau & Folse, 2007).
• Commercial Applications: Commercial enterprises, proprietary market research agencies, or consulting organizations intending to integrate the scale into proprietary analytics platforms, commercial software, or client diagnostics should review the licensing policies of Taylor & Francis or contact the corresponding scale authors.

References

• Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
• Andreoni, J. (1990). Impure altruism and donations to public goods: A theory of warm-glow giving. The Economic Journal, 100(401), 464–477. https://doi.org/10.2307/2234133
• Batson, C. D. (1991). The altruism question: Toward a social-psychological answer. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104
• 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. https://doi.org/10.2753/JOA0091-3367360402
• Kelley, H. H. (1973). The processes of causal attribution. American Psychologist, 28(2), 107–128. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0034225
• Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The Elaboration Likelihood Model of persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 123–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60214-2
• Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological Review, 92(4), 548–573. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.92.4.548

Items of the Scale