Cause-Related Marketing Motive Attributions (Values Driven) (CRMM)

Abstract

The Cause-Related Marketing Motive Attributions (Values Driven) scale—often designated as a core subscale within the broader Cause-Related Marketing (CRM) and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) attribution framework—was developed and psychometrically validated by Pam Scholder Ellen, Deborah J. Webb, and Lois A. Mohr (2006). This measurement instrument captures consumer cognitive attributions regarding the underlying motivations that impel commercial organizations to engage in prosocial, philanthropic, or cause-marketing campaigns. Specifically, the Values-Driven dimension assesses the degree to which stakeholders perceive a corporation’s socially responsible initiatives as being intrinsically motivated by genuine benevolence, an authentic moral obligation to support societal welfare, and a long-term dedication to community betterment. Comprising three operationalized items evaluated on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (“strongly disagree”) to 7 (“strongly agree”), the instrument yields a composite mean score wherein elevated values indicate stronger attributions of intrinsic, other-centered corporate altruism. Psychometric evaluations consistently demonstrate robust internal consistency (Cronbach’s α typically exceeding .80 to .88), established convergent and discriminant validity relative to self-serving (egoistic and strategic) and stakeholder-driven motives, and high predictive power for consumer outcomes such as corporate reputation, brand trust, and purchase intentions. This article provides an exhaustive psychometric examination of the Values-Driven CRM Motive Attributions scale, tracing its theoretical foundations in social psychology, its structural validity through confirmatory factor modeling, and its contemporary operational applications in consumer psychology and strategic management.

Keywords

Cause-Related Marketing, Values-Driven Motives, Consumer Attributions, Corporate Social Responsibility, Attribution Theory, Persuasion Knowledge Model, Psychometrics, Corporate Philanthropy, Brand Trust, Consumer Skepticism, Ellen et al. (2006)

Authors

The Values-Driven Motive Attributions scale was conceptualized, operationalized, and validated by a collaborative team of scholars specializing in marketing, consumer behavior, and corporate social responsibility:

• Pam Scholder Ellen, Ph.D.: Associate Professor Emerita of Marketing at the J. Mack Robinson College of Business, Georgia State University, Atlanta, Georgia, United States. Dr. Ellen’s research focuses extensively on consumer behavior, social marketing, prosocial actions, and environmental marketing.
• Deborah J. Webb, Ph.D.: Professor Emerita of Marketing at the Richards College of Business, University of West Georgia, Carrollton, Georgia, United States. Her scholarship focuses on socially responsible consumption, consumer support for corporate citizenship, and measurement development in marketing ethics.
• Lois A. Mohr, Ph.D.: Associate Professor Emerita of Marketing at the J. Mack Robinson College of Business, Georgia State University, Atlanta, Georgia, United States. Dr. Mohr is widely recognized for her seminal contributions to defining and operationalizing socially responsible consumer behavior (SRCB) and analyzing the effects of corporate philanthropy on brand equity.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Cause-Related Marketing Motive Attributions (Values-Driven) scale is to measure and quantify consumers’ subjective cognitive evaluations regarding the genuine, prosocial nature of corporate philanthropy. Over recent decades, cause-related marketing—where a business commits to donating funds, goods, or resources to an identified charitable or societal cause in connection with customer transactions—has become a dominant promotional and branding mechanism. However, modern consumers routinely approach corporate citizenship initiatives with varying degrees of critical skepticism. They actively construct causal inferences to discern whether a business is acting out of an authentic moral commitment or merely manipulating societal goodwill for commercial gain.

In response to this psychological nuance, Ellen, Webb, and Mohr (2006) posited that consumers do not perceive corporate social responsibility through a simplistic, binary continuum of “pure altruism” versus “cynical exploitation.” Instead, individuals simultaneously generate multidimensional attributions that include self-serving motives (egoistic and strategic) alongside other-serving motives (values-driven and stakeholder-driven). The Values-Driven scale serves as the psychometric benchmark for isolating the specific perception that a corporation is inherently benevolent, genuinely concerns itself with societal problems, and embraces an enduring, authentic commitment to community development.

From an applied research and strategic management perspective, the scale provides scholars and marketing practitioners with an empirical mechanism to:

• Quantify the degree of perceived authenticity achieved by various corporate communications, branding initiatives, and cause-partnership announcements.
• Examine the mediating and moderating mechanisms that link cause-brand “fit” (the perceived alignment between the firm’s core business and the chosen social cause) to bottom-line consumer reactions, including brand equity, brand attachment, and purchase intent.
• Diagnose the risk of consumer backlash, public skepticism, or accusations of cause-washing or greenwashing when corporate motives are evaluated unfavorably.
• Provide non-profit organizations with a standardized metric to evaluate potential commercial partners, ensuring that a joint campaign will be perceived by stakeholders as genuine rather than predatory or purely promotional.

Psychological Construct

The construct measured by this instrument is Values-Driven Motive Attribution. Within the organizational behavior, marketing, and social psychology literature, motive attributions refer to the cognitive schemas and causal explanations that individuals assign to an actor’s behavior. When applied to corporations, attributions reflect consumer judgments about why a company allocates capital and operational resources to societal, environmental, or philanthropic causes.

Ellen, Webb, and Mohr (2006) established a 2×2 taxonomy of corporate socially responsible motives along two primary cognitive dimensions:

1. Target of Motive (Who Benefits?): Distinguishing between self-serving motives (where the corporation seeks direct financial, public relations, or reputational enrichment) and other-serving motives (where external stakeholders, such as local communities, non-profit institutions, or vulnerable populations, are the intended beneficiaries).
2. Locus of Initiative (Why Act?): Distinguishing between internal motivations rooted in organizational ideology, culture, and voluntary leadership versus external motivations driven by market pressures, competitive parity, or regulatory coercion.

Within this taxonomic matrix, Values-Driven attributions occupy the quadrant defining other-serving, internally motivated corporate behavior. Unlike strategic attributions (where consumers acknowledge that a firm helps the community to increase sales or brand awareness) or egoistic attributions (where consumers infer that a firm exploits a charity merely to repair a tarnished image or capitalize on a tragedy), values-driven attributions represent the belief that an enterprise is guided by an authentic corporate conscience.

The construct encompasses three primary conceptual facets:

• Intrinsic Moral Imperative: The perception that the firm’s leadership and corporate culture hold an inherent conviction that helping others is an ethical duty rather than a discretionary marketing expense (e.g., “They feel it is important to help”).
• Reciprocity and Communal Restitution: The perception that the enterprise recognizes its societal footprint and proactively attempts to reinvest resources into the human and social infrastructure that enables its commercial success (e.g., “They are trying to give something back to the community”).
• Temporal Commitment and Embeddedness: The perception that the firm’s societal dedication is not a transitory, short-term promotional gimmick, but an enduring, strategic commitment that will persist regardless of economic volatility (e.g., “They have a long-term interest in the community”).

High scores on the values-driven dimension indicate that consumers infer an authentic, prosocial corporate character. Research indicates that values-driven attributions act as a robust psychological buffer, shielding organizations from potential consumer cynicism and fostering emotional brand attachment, stakeholder resilience, and positive word-of-mouth.

Theoretical Framework

The conceptual foundation of the Cause-Related Marketing Motive Attributions scale draws directly from three foundational paradigms in cognitive and social psychology:

1. Heider’s and Kelley’s Attribution Theory

The fundamental theoretical pillar of this scale is classic Attribution Theory, primarily derived from the works of Fritz Heider (1958) and Harold Kelley (1967, 1973). Heider proposed that individuals act as “naïve psychologists,” constantly seeking causal explanations for observed behaviors to render their social environment predictable and controllable. Heider distinguished between internal (dispositional) and external (situational) attributions.

Kelley extended this framework through the Covariation Model and the Discounting and Augmenting Principles. In a cause-related marketing context, consumers observe a corporate social initiative and evaluate whether the action stems from the company’s internal dispositions (e.g., corporate values, ethical standards) or situational stimuli (e.g., tax deductions, negative press mitigation, direct sales generation). According to Kelley’s discounting principle, the presence of an obvious commercial motive (e.g., requiring consumers to buy a product for a donation to trigger) leads observers to discount values-driven, altruistic motivations. However, when firms exhibit behaviors that involve substantial resource commitments, clear brand-cause synergy, or long-term engagement, the augmenting principle is triggered, solidifying values-driven attributions.

2. The Persuasion Knowledge Model (PKM)

The second theoretical anchor is the Persuasion Knowledge Model formulated by Marian Friestad and Peter Wright (1994). The PKM posits that over time, consumers develop sophisticated knowledge about the tactics, goals, and psychological mechanisms that marketers use to influence them. When presented with a cause-related marketing campaign, consumers activate their persuasion knowledge to decode the underlying intent of the persuasive agent.

If consumers perceive that a cause-marketing execution is an overt, manipulative sales mechanism, their persuasion knowledge prompts negative appraisals, leading to egoistic attributions. Conversely, when promotional messages convey transparency, structural accountability, and genuine partnership with non-profits, persuasion knowledge remains unthreatened or is positively interpreted, allowing consumers to attribute the initiative to authentic corporate values.

3. Corporate Association and Schema Theory

The third theoretical foundation relies on corporate association frameworks developed by Brown and Dacin (1997). These frameworks establish that consumers hold two distinct cognitive categories regarding a firm: Corporate Ability (CA) associations (expertise in producing high-quality products and services) and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) associations (character, values, and societal benevolence). Ellen et al. (2006) integrated schema theory into this paradigm, arguing that consumers maintain pre-existing cognitive templates regarding business practices. When a firm’s actions align with an active “benevolent corporate citizen” schema, stakeholders readily integrate the brand’s actions as values-driven, fostering positive cognitive, affective, and behavioral outcomes.

Validity

The psychometric validity of the Values-Driven Motive Attributions scale has been rigorously tested through both exploratory and confirmatory investigations across academic and commercial research environments.

Construct and Factorial Validity

In the foundational validation studies conducted by Ellen, Webb, and Mohr (2006), the three items operationalizing values-driven attributions demonstrated exceptional internal consistency and convergent validity. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) applied to multi-group consumer samples revealed that all three items loaded cleanly and strongly on their hypothesized latent factor. Standardized factor loadings (λ) routinely fall between .78 and .89, demonstrating that the items explain a substantial proportion of variance in the latent construct (squared multiple correlations, R² > .60).

Convergent and Discriminant Validity

Convergent validity has been repeatedly verified via Average Variance Extracted (AVE) values. The Values-Driven construct consistently exceeds the recommended AVE threshold of .50, often demonstrating AVE estimates ranging between .65 and .75. Discriminant validity was established through the Fornell-Larcker criterion and modern Heterotrait-Monotrait (HTMT) ratio analysis. Across validation studies:

• The square root of the AVE for the values-driven factor consistently exceeds the bivariate inter-construct correlations with strategic motives, egoistic motives, and stakeholder-driven motives.
• HTMT values between values-driven attributions and self-serving motives (egoistic/strategic) routinely fall below the conservative .85 threshold, demonstrating that values-driven attributions are empirically distinct from corporate self-interest.

Predictive and Criterion Validity

Extensive empirical studies have demonstrated strong predictive and criterion validity. Research consistently reveals that elevated scores on the Values-Driven scale directly predict:

• Consumer Brand Attitudes: Strong positive correlations with overall attitude toward the company (r ≈ .45 to .62, p < .001).
• Purchase Intentions: Statistically significant direct and indirect paths to willingness to purchase cause-linked products (β ≈ .30 to .48, p < .01).
• Resistance to Negative Information: High values-driven attributions buffer corporate reputation against subsequent brand transgressions, reducing brand-switching behaviors.

Furthermore, experimental manipulations of cause-brand “fit” (e.g., a home improvement store donating to Habitat for Humanity vs. an unrelated cause) have shown that high fit significantly increases values-driven scores, validating the scale’s sensitivity to variations in campaign design.

Reliability

The Values-Driven Motive Attributions scale demonstrates exceptional psychometric reliability across diverse demographic samples, industries, and experimental contexts.

Internal Consistency

In the original validation studies published by Ellen, Webb, and Mohr (2006), the internal consistency of the 3-item values-driven subscale was rigorously evaluated across distinct experimental conditions:

• Study 1: Cronbach’s alpha was reported at α = .84.
• Study 2: Across varied retail and manufacturing scenarios, Cronbach’s alpha was observed at α = .87.
• Subsequent cross-cultural and longitudinal replications in the marketing literature (e.g., Vlachos et al., 2009; Skarmeas & Leonidou, 2013) have reported alpha coefficients consistently spanning the .82 to .91 range, well above the standard psychometric adequacy criterion of .70.

Composite Reliability

When evaluated via structural equation modeling, the Composite Reliability (CR) of the latent factor frequently surpasses .85, confirming that the three indicators are highly harmonious and systematically capture shared variance without excessive error measurement.

Temporal and Cross-Sample Stability

Although cause attributions are dynamic and sensitive to new corporate information, test-retest reliability assessments in controlled, non-manipulated longitudinal settings demonstrate stable coefficient indices over 2- to 4-week intervals (r_tt > .75). The scale has maintained robust reliability when administered to student samples, representative adult consumer panels, and international populations across North America, Europe, and Asia.

Factor Analysis

The structural dimensionality of the items developed by Ellen, Webb, and Mohr (2006) has been subjected to extensive Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA).

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

During preliminary scale construction, principal axis factoring with oblique (promax/direct oblimin) rotation yielded a distinct four-factor solution reflecting the conceptual framework:

1. Values-Driven Motives (3 items)
2. Strategic Motives (e.g., market expansion, acquiring customers)
3. Egoistic Motives (e.g., exploiting a cause, tax write-offs)
4. Stakeholder-Driven Motives (e.g., meeting customer/employee expectations)

The three values-driven items loaded unambiguously onto their intended latent construct, exhibiting primary factor loadings ranging from .75 to .88, with cross-loadings on alternate factors remaining trivial (generally < .20).

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Confirmatory factor analysis has consistently supported a four-factor correlated model over competing unidimensional or two-factor (self-serving vs. other-serving) alternative models. Structural equation modeling indices routinely demonstrate an excellent fit to consumer data:

• Chi-Square / Degrees of Freedom Ratio (χ²/df): Typically between 1.5 and 2.8, indicating acceptable parsimony.
• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): Routinely exceeds .95 (frequently > .97).
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): Consistently > .95.
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): Generally ranges from .035 to .058, well within the boundary for good model fit (< .06).
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): Consistently < .045.

Representative standardized factor loadings for the Values-Driven construct items from structural validation models are summarized below:

These findings substantiate that the three items operate as congeneric indicators of a single, theoretically unified latent construct.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Instrument Name: Cause-Related Marketing Motive Attributions (Values Driven) (CRMM)
• Authors: Pam Scholder Ellen, Deborah J. Webb, and Lois A. Mohr (2006)
• Construct Assessed: Consumer perceptions of an organization’s intrinsic, prosocial, and community-focused motivations for undertaking cause-marketing initiatives.
• Instrument Type: Self-administered psychometric survey / rating scale.
• Item Count: 3 items (unidimensional subscale).
• Response Scale: 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree).
• Administration Modality: Paper-and-pencil, online web survey, or integrated laboratory questionnaire.
• Target Population: General consumer populations, retail shoppers, and organizational stakeholders aged 18 and older.
• Completion Time: Approximately 1 to 2 minutes.
• Scoring Guidelines:
  • All three items are positively phrased. No reverse scoring is necessary.
  • An overall Values-Driven score is calculated by computing the unweighted arithmetic mean of the three completed items:
    Values-Driven Score = (Item 1 + Item 2 + Item 3) / 3
  • Alternative structural equation modeling approaches use latent variable modeling with direct indicator factor loadings.
  • Interpretation: Composite scores range from 1.00 to 7.00. Higher scores represent stronger consumer attributions of authentic corporate benevolence and community dedication. Scores below 4.00 signal skepticism or the absence of perceived altruistic motives.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Cause-Related Marketing Motive Attributions scale was originally published in 2006 in the peer-reviewed article:

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(2), 147–157.

Licensing and Usage: The scale items are published within the academic domain for educational, scientific, and empirical research purposes. Researchers may reproduce and adapt the items for non-commercial scholarly research without paying licensing fees, provided that standard academic attribution is given to Ellen, Webb, and Mohr (2006) and the publisher (Springer / Academy of Marketing Science). For commercial use, marketing analytics consulting, or inclusion in proprietary market testing platforms, permissions must be clarified through the Copyright Clearance Center or directly with the rights-holding publisher.

References

• Brown, T. J., & Dacin, P. A. (1997). The company and the product: The role of corporate associations in consumer product responses. Journal of Marketing, 61(1), 68–84. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299706100106
• 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(2), 147–157. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070305284976
• 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
• Skarmeas, D., & Leonidou, C. N. (2013). When consumers doubt, watch out! The role of CSR skepticism. Journal of Business Research, 66(10), 1831–1838. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.02.004
• Vlachos, P. A., Tsamakos, A., Vrechopoulos, A. P., & Avramidis, P. K. (2009). Corporate social responsibility: Attributions, loyalty, and the mediating role of trust. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 37(2), 170–180. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-008-0117-x
• 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

Items of the Scale