Along with increasing consumer awareness and the emergence of nonprofit organizations like public interest and environmental protection groups, enterprises are expected not only to sell goods or render services, but also to fulfill social and environmental responsibilities (Du, Bhattacharya, & Sen, 2010). This expectation has shifted enterprises’ advertising endeavors from conventional commercial advertising to putting effort into fulfilling social and environmental responsibilities, which is known as corporate social responsibility (CSR) advertising (Rossiter & Bellman, 2005). CSR advertising aids enterprises in promoting their sustainable development endeavors, and in defining brand value by creating product and service identification (McEnally & de Chernatony, 1999). Further, CSR advertising is an important factor in triggering the purchase behaviors of consumers (Erdem & Swait, 1998). Thus, this is the first area we focused on in the present study.

According to the PricewaterhouseCoopers global survey of chief executive officers (2016) 64% of them believe that CSR is core to their business, and are increasing investment in CSR activities. Because enterprises in Asian countries actively arrange events focused on CSR activities, related advertisements are extremely common in Asia (Cheung, Tan, Ahn, & Zhang, 2010). Marin and Ruiz (2007) asserted that because today’s consumption market is intensely competitive, gaining a competitive advantage using conventional marketing methods is extremely difficult; therefore, enterprises should endeavor to create a brand with powerful symbolic value. As such, numerous mathematicians believe that promoting and implementing CSR activities is an effective propaganda strategy for establishing brand distinction and creating product value (Du, Bhattacharya, & Sen, 2007). Therefore, this is the second area we focused on in the present study.

Pieters and Wedel (2004) asserted that because consumers often question the authenticity of advertisements, they are typically defensive when accepting advertising claims. Speed and Thompson (2000) indicated that a number of enterprises engage in social or environmental protection activities primarily out of egoistic motivation; thus, consumers generally exhibit a disbelieving attitude when receiving advertising messages (Foreh & Grier, 2003). Alcañiz, Cáceres, and Pérez (2010) maintained that the majority of readers and listeners dislike enterprises manipulating their personal consumption activities and oppose enterprises associating their marketing activities with social issues of interest to consumers. The preceding arguments suggest that consumers tend to evaluate the authenticity of messages portrayed in CSR advertisements carefully and to hold a skeptical attitude toward the advertising content they receive (Skarmeas & Leonidou, 2013). Thus, this is the third area we focused on in the present study. The goal of advertisements is to persuade consumers to make purchases. For example, Pomering, Johnson, and Noble (2013) identified two variables associated with message claims that can effectively improve the persuasiveness of advertisements: a) the extent to which social-topic information might put into context a firm’s CSR advertising claims; and b) the extent to which CSR commitment information might substantiate the firm’s CSR advertising claims. Furthermore, the communication effectiveness of advertisement messages is affected by consumer awareness and attitude (Lutz, McKenzie, & Belch, 1983). Mehta (2000) asserted that consumers’ preference for an advertisement is the optimal indicator for measuring its communication effectiveness. Obermiller and Spangenberg (2000) claimed that most of the content disclosed in advertisements has questionable elements and raises a certain level of doubt in consumers’ minds. To avoid being persuaded by advertisements, consumers generally adopt a skeptical attitude when interpreting information disseminated by the advertisements. As such, advertising skepticism is a critical tool consumers use to avoid being persuaded by advertisement messages (Obermiller, Spangenberg, & MacLachlan, 2005). Therefore, this is the fourth area we focused on in the present study. On the basis of the preceding discussion, we developed the following three research objectives:

1. To elucidate whether or not the differences in message claims characterized in corporate social responsibility advertisements affect consumer attitudes.
2. To elucidate whether or not different levels of corporate social responsibility advertisement skepticism affect consumer attitudes.
3. To elucidate differences in the patterns of message claims and levels of advertising skepticism toward corporate social responsibility advertisements and their integrative influence on consumer attitudes.

Theoretical Background and Hypotheses Development

Corporate Social Responsibility Advertising and Image

The World Business Council for Sustainable Development defines CSR as “the commitment of business to contribute to sustainable economic development, working with employees, their families, the local community and society at large to improve their quality of life” (Pomering et al., 2013, p. 250). Rossiter and Bellman (2005) asserted that modern CSR advertising is a derivative of corporate image advertising, which was a popular form of advertising among enterprises in the past. Modern CSR advertising content is broader and more practical than corporate image advertising, and advertisers are more inclined toward expounding on the efforts of enterprises in the public domain that do not involve sales or profit. Pomering and Dolnicar (2009) indicated that in the past enterprises frequently used to propagate CSR by publishing their annual statements online; however, this approach is regarded as a softer promotional vehicle with limited conveyance efficiency (Bortree, Ahern, Smith, & Dou, 2013). Therefore, there has been an exponential increase in the forms of CSR advertisements in recent years, a trend that is associated with enhancing the message effectiveness of advertisements.

In addition, Becker-Olsen, Cudmore, and Hill (2006) found that public distrust increased concurrently with the number of CSR advertising activities organized by multinational enterprises. Lange and Washburn (2012) contended that the root cause of this inverted message effect is associated with enterprises’ motivations in investing in CSR activities. The majority of readers and listeners exhibit a preconceived skepticism that leads them to believe that organizations engage in CSR activities for personal interest. Morsing (2006) further elaborated that the value consumers attach to CSR issues is related to the concern that society shows toward public issues. Awad (2011) examined consumers’ concern over environmental protection issues and indicated that an increasing global awareness of environmental protection has resulted in a change in the public’s consumption habits and behavioral models, which are topics that are also covered in CSR studies.

CSR studies can be categorized into two groups: CSR communication and CSR advertising. The first of these is focused on the different approaches enterprises employ to propagate the outcomes in fulfilling their economic, social, and environmental responsibilities (Ihlen, Bartlett, & May, 2011). The second is focused on the text, symbols, and image designs used in the media and advertisements that enterprises employ to implicitly or explicitly propagate the fruition of their efforts to fulfill their social, environmental, and community responsibilities to gain consumer acknowledgement (Perks, Farache, Shukla, & Berry, 2013). Elving (2013) stated that CSR delivery patterns are associated with source credibility and that patterns of CSR advertisements are related to skepticism toward advertising. Moreover, Wang and Nelson (2006) characterized message claims into single-message and multiple-message types. Each of these two forms of advertising stimulates different attitudes and tendencies in consumers (Karunamoorthy & Mutharasu, 2012). On the basis of the preceding discussion, we proposed the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1a: The type of corporate social responsibility message claim will affect consumers’ corporate social responsibility advertising preferences, in that a multiple-message claim will have a more positive effect on advertising preferences than will a single-message claim.
Hypothesis 1b: The type of corporate social responsibility message claim will affect consumers’ corporate social responsibility advertising credibility, in that a single-message claim will have a more positive effect than will a multiple- message claim on perception of advertising credibility.

Effect of Advertising Skepticism

Advertising skepticism is defined as “the tendency to disbelieve the informational claims of advertising” (Obermiller & Spangenberg, 1998, p. 160). Numerous scholars have stated that understanding the effects of advertising skepticism facilitates the formulation of advertising operational strategies in consumer markets (see, e.g., Obermiller & Spangenberg, 2000). Cases of false advertising and deception have been common. Cleland, Gross, Koss, Daynard, and Muoio (2002) examined online, radio, television, newspaper, magazine, and mail advertisements, and found that at least one advertisement in 40% of the samples contained a false claim and 55% contained an unverified claim. These results explain why consumers often maintain a defensive attitude when receiving advertisement messages (Pieters & Wedel, 2004).

Researchers have shown that consumers with a high, vs. low, degree of skepticism have less preference for, are less reliant on, and are less attentive to, advertisements (see, e.g., Obermiller et al., 2005). Rhodes and Wood (1992) found that advertising skepticism is correlated with self-esteem, whereby consumers who exhibit higher self-esteem than others do are less submissive toward, and more doubtful about, advertisements (Prendergast, Liu, & Poon, 2009). This group of consumers has also been found to be less likely than others are to be persuaded by advertisements (Rhodes & Wood, 1992). Prendergast et al. (2009) further elaborated that self-esteem is positively correlated with advertising skepticism, whereby consumers with high self-esteem have strongly held personal beliefs and values. This group of consumers is less submissive toward advertisements than other consumers are, so that they tend to seek flaws in, and refute, claims made in advertisements (Boush, Friestad, & Rose, 1994).

Friestad and Wright (1994) indicated that advertising skepticism is a psychological tool employed by consumers to prevent or resist persuasion. Obermiller and Spangenberg (2000) elaborated on how advertising skepticism is a characteristic that is extremely common among consumers, and that skepticism controls the consumer’s response to advertisement messages. To some extent, consumers begin to doubt CSR claims when enterprises are dishonest in their advertisements, and become skeptical about advertisement claims when they feel that enterprises arrange CSR activities for self-interest (Elving, 2013). MacKenzie and Lutz (1989) also maintained that the significance of advertising skepticism is consistent with advertisement credibility, which implicitly affects message credibility. On the basis of the preceding discussion, we proposed the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 2a: Consumers’ level of advertising skepticism will affect their corporate social responsibility advertising preferences in that when consumers have a low level of skepticism this will have a more positive effect on their preference.
Hypothesis 2b: Consumers’ level of advertising skepticism will affect their perception of corporate social responsibility advertising credibility, in that when consumers have a high level of skepticism this will have a more negative effect on their perception of credibility of the advertising.

Advertising Skepticism in Corporate Social Responsibility Communication

Consumers evaluate the trustworthiness of all advertisements, regardless of the type of advertising adopted by the enterprise to persuade their consumers (Obermiller et al., 2005). Scholars have reported that consumers are more likely to generate positive responses toward advertisements concerning CSR issues than they are toward advertisements on non-CSR issues, and these positive responses consequently influence their purchase intention (see e.g., Sen & Bhattacharya, 2001). MacKenzie and Lutz (1989) further maintained that the significance of advertising skepticism is consistent with perception of advertisement credibility. Alcañiz et al. (2010) asserted that CSR propaganda facilitates establishing a positive corporate reputation and deactivates tension between enterprises and consumers. In other words, consumers judge and evaluate the credibility of claims based on the credibility of the enterprise, and subsequently deliberate on whether or not to deactivate their doubts toward the claims (Lafferty & Goldsmith, 2004). Goldsmith, Lafferty, and Newell (2000) elaborated on this by stating that enterprise credibility is a key factor that increases customer awareness of advertisement messages. This factor involves managing an enterprise’s reputation (Brown & Dacin, 1997), which affects not only firm credibility but also the consumers’ attitude toward the advertisement and their brand awareness (Lafferty & Goldsmith, 2004).

Ellen, Webb, and Mohr (2006) indicated that when consumers evaluate CSR advertising, they are primarily concerned with whether or not the enterprise’s CSR efforts are truly for the good of society or the environment, rather than with the quantity of social-welfare or environmental activities the enterprise has arranged. That is, consumers are more concerned with the motivations of the enterprise, which causes skepticism and affects consumers’ subsequent message attitude. This is a consumer behavioral effect that it is essential for modern enterprises to take into account (Becker-Olsen et al., 2006) because the degree of skepticism held by consumers varies, and each individual maintains a different degree of message skepticism (Obermiller et al., 2005). Consumers with a high degree of skepticism are more doubtful about advertisement claims and more likely to reject these messages, whereas the opposite is true of those with a low degree of skepticism (Hardesty, Carlson, & Bearden, 2002). On the basis of the preceding discussion, we formed the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 3a: Consumers with a high level of skepticism will prefer corporate social responsibility advertisements with a single-message claim over those with a multiple-message claim.
Hypothesis 3b: Consumers with a high level of skepticism will trust corporate social responsibility advertisements with a single-message claim over those with a multiple-message claim.
Hypothesis 4a: Consumers with a high level of skepticism will prefer corporate social responsibility advertisements with a multiple-message claim over those with a single-message claim.
Hypothesis 4b: Consumers with a high level of skepticism will trust corporate social responsibility advertisements with a multiple-message claim over those with a single-message claim.

Method

Study Design and Stimuli

We adopted a 2 × 2 mixed experimental design to control the form of message claim (single-message vs. multiple-message) and level of advertising skepticism (high vs. low) in relation to CSR advertising. To develop the experiment stimuli, we first collected CSR-related advertisement videorecordings. The message claims of the recordings were then defined based on the operational definitions. Three experts were invited to select four CSR advertisements (see Appendix for details) as the experiment stimuli (Condition A/single-message claim: Coca-Cola; Condition B/single-message claim: Samsung; Condition C/multiple- message claim: Starbucks; Condition D/multiple-message claim: Nike).

Pretest Survey

We used a 7-point Likert response scale to assess advertising skepticism (AS), with 1 representing strongly disagree and 7 representing strongly agree. A 6-point semantic differential scale was used to assess advertising preferences (AP), comprising five pairs of opposing adjectives: good/bad, like/dislike, pleasant/unpleasant, favorable/unfavorable, and interesting/boring (Yang & Hsu, 2015). Finally, we used a 6-point semantic differential scale to assess advertising credibility (AC), comprising nine pairs of antonymous adjectives: reliable/unreliable, informative/uninformative, intelligent/unintelligent, valuable/ worthless, expert/inexpert, honest/dishonest, friendly/unfriendly, pleasant/ unpleasant, and nice/awful (Yang, 2015).

We pretested the scale with a sample of 40 university students. A Cronbach’s α test revealed that the pretest internal consistency reliability values for AS, AP, and AC were as follows: .872, .893, and .863, respectively.

Participants

A purposive sampling method was adopted to recruit undergraduate and graduate students studying at Ming Chi University of Technology, Chung Yuan Christian University, Wenzao Ursuline University of Languages, and National Penghu University of Science and Technology, all of which are located in Taiwan, to participate in this study. The four CSR advertisements were presented as four experimental conditions (A to D). Each scenario was tested twice, with 40 recipients allocated to each round, and 320 valid survey forms were returned from 152 male and 168 female participants. The recipients were between the ages of 20 and 27 years (M = 24.8, SD = 5.18), 77 were students in applied language departments (24.1%), 83 were in business administration departments (25.9%), 82 were in industrial design departments (25.6%), and 78 were in visual design departments (24.4%).

Advertising Skepticism Samples

After summing AS scores, the postclustering method proposed by Meyers-Levy and Malaviya (1999) was adopted to categorize the samples into high- and low-AS groups, using a median of 34.2 as the reference value (Obermiller & Spangenberg, 2000). Data analysis results showed that the high- and low-AS groups comprised 166 (51.8%) and 154 (48.2%) participants, respectively.

Data Analysis

First, an independent samples t test was performed to compare the effects of the two independent variables on the dependent variables, and we tested whether or not Hypotheses 1a, 1b, 2a, and 2b were supported. Next, a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to evaluate the effect of the independent variables on the dependent variables to determine whether or not interaction effects existed; if there were interaction effects, a simple main effects significance test would be conducted to analyze the effect of the internal factors associated with the two independent variables on the dependent variables, as well as to test whether or not Hypotheses 3a, 3b, 4a, and 4b were supported.

Results

The results of independent samples t tests showed that AP was significantly influenced by both the form of the message claim in the CSR advertising (M_multiple message = 3.82, SD = 1.08, M_{single message} = 3.63, SD = 1.23; t = -2.01, p < .05, d = 0.16) and by AS (M_{low skepticism} = 3.84, SD = 1.26, M_{high skepticism} = 3.60, SD = 1.18; t = -2.55, p < .05, d = 0.20). Further, AC was significantly influenced by both the form of message claim in the CSR advertising (M_{single message} = 3.64, SD = 1.05, M_{multiple message} = 3.46, SD = 1.29; t = 1.99, p < .05, d = 0.15) and by AS (M_{low skepticism} = 3.70, SD = 1.16; M_{high skepticism} = 3.41, SD = 1.01; t = -3.20, p < .01, d = 0.27). The results of a two-way ANOVA showed that there were significant interactive effects (A × B) between the two independent variables and the two dependent variables (AP: F = 20.29, p < .001; AC: F = 20.29, p < .001). These results confirmed that the interactive influence between recipients’ AP and AC was affected by the two independent variables of message claim type and level of skepticism.

The results of a simple main effects significance test confirmed that the form of the message claim in the CSR advertising significantly influenced the AP of recipients in both the high-AS group, F(1, 152) = 4.80, p < .05, η² = .11, and the low-AS group, F(1, 164) = 23.46, p < .001, η² = .19. Further, the AP of recipients in the high-AS group who were stimulated by a single-message claim was stronger than that of participants in this group who were stimulated by a multiple-message claim (M_{single message} = 3.72 > M_{multiple message} = 3.48), and the AP of the recipients in the low-AS group who were stimulated by a multiple-message claim was stronger than that of participants in this group who were stimulated by a single-message claim (M_{multiple message} = 4.15 > M_{single message} = 3.56). In addition, the form of message claim in the CSR advertising significantly influenced the AC perception of recipients in the high-AS group, F(1, 152) = 21.93, p < .001, η² = .17. The results also indicated that the AC perception of the recipients in the high-AS group who were stimulated by a single-message claim was superior to that of participants in this group who were stimulated by a multiple-message claim (M_{single message} = 3.69 > M_{multiple message} = 3.14). Finally, the form of CSR advertising message claim was not a significant influence on the AC perception of the recipients in the low-AS group, F(1, 164) = 1.93, p > .05, η² = .02.

Discussion

Effects of Message Claim in Corporate Social Responsibility Advertising

In this study, we investigated whether or not the form of message claim in CSR advertising affects consumers’ CSR-related AP and AC. Results indicated that in the CSR advertising context, the form of message claim used influenced recipients’ AP and perception of AC; thus, Hypotheses 1a and 1b were supported. An analysis of the experiment results showed that the recipients’ showed a stronger preference when stimulated by a multiple-message claim, compared to a single-message claim. However, recipients’ perception of message credibility was superior when stimulated by a single-message claim, compared to a mul- tiple-message claim. Therefore, the two variables had inverted outcomes in our experiment.

Our results also confirmed that the form of message claim in the CSR advertising affected perception of AC, whereby consumers exhibited a perception of greater AC toward single-message, compared to multiple-message, claims. We contend that consumers’ perception of the credibility of CSR advertising is correlated with the underlying motivation of the advertising. The single-message CSR advertisements we used in this study were descriptions of CSR activities previously undertaken by the enterprises and were presented in the form of a story, in which the people, events, time, place, and objects associated with the activities were clearly portrayed. The use of this approach enabled consumers to focus on a single event, thereby lowering their guard against the advertising message and enhancing the belief that the enterprises had truly helped underprivileged groups. We labeled the advertising effect of such single-message advertisements the CSR soft-communication effect. By contrast, the CSR advertisements with multiple- message claims were advertisements in which several CSR activities undertaken by an enterprise were presented collectively, typically through a descriptive, rather than a story-telling, approach. This latter approach lacks warmth and is less effective in actuating consumers to focus on a single event; we labeled it the CSR hard-communication effect. Participants’ perception of the credibility of this latter type of advertisement was less favorable than was the perception of the participants of CSR advertisements with a single-message claim.

Effects of Advertising Skepticism in Corporate Social Responsibility Advertising

We also investigated whether or not the level of AS influenced consumers’ CSR-related AP and AC. Results indicated that in a CSR advertising context, the level of AS influenced recipients’ AP and AC; thus, Hypotheses 2a and 2b were supported. An analysis of the experiment results revealed that the recipients in the low-AS group exhibited more favorable AP and AC than those in the high-AS group did.

Posting annual CSR efforts on websites of the enterprises was found to be a passive and ineffective mode of communication (Bortree et al., 2013), so that enterprises have gradually adopted active forms of advertising to disclose their CSR efforts to the public (Pomering & Dolnicar, 2009); however, such advertising was sometimes counterproductive. The characteristics of AS are similar to cynicism (Mohr, Eroğlu, & Ellen, 1998). Cynical individuals typically believe that others act out of egoistic motives, and this belief generates dislike of the other person in the cynic (Obermiller et al., 2005). Calfee and Ringold (1994) found that 70% of consumers in the US are skeptical about advertisement claims, even when the advertisements seem to carry valuable messages. In summary, we suggest that enterprises should refrain from overmanipulating advertisement content when they engage in CSR advertising because consumers will become skeptical if they suspect that enterprises have created CSR advertisements for the personal interest of the firm rather than for social or environmental improvement, or if the firm appears to engage in CSR activities only with the aim of changing consumers’ perception of the corporate image of the enterprise.

Interaction Effects Between Message Claim and Advertising Skepticism

In this study, we set the form of message claim and the level of AS as the independent variables. Our results showed that the independent variables exerted an interactive influence on AP and AC. Participants in the high-AS group preferred advertisements with a single-message claim to those with a multiple-message claim, whereas participants in the low-AS group preferred advertisements with a multiple-message claim to those with a single-message claim. The results of the survey responses on AP indicate that the internal factors of each of the two independent variables coincidentally exerted an inverted influence on the dependent variables; thus, Hypotheses 3a and 4a were supported. In addition, recipients in the high-AS group trusted advertisements with a single-message claim more than they trusted those with a multiple- message claim; however, the form of message claim did not influence the AC of recipients in the low-AS group. Thus, the results indicate that Hypothesis 3b was supported but Hypothesis 4b was not supported.

We found that the high-AS group had a stronger preference for, and had a greater belief in the credibility of, CSR advertisements with a single-message claim than they did for those with a multiple-message claim, which may be because the participants in the high-AS group exhibited stronger cynicism characteristics. This rationalization-through-disbelief mentality is more evident in the context of CSR advertisements with a multiple-message claim that collectively present several CSR activities undertaken by an enterprise and that are used to create a favorable corporate image. In other words, enterprises attempt to use the CSR halo effect (Klein & Dawar, 2004) to change consumer attitudes. However, when these advertisements are viewed by consumers who have a high degree of skepticism, the cynical characteristics of these consumers leads to the inverting of the positive halo effect into a negative halo effect, causing the consumers to respond to the advertising with dislike or distrust. CSR advertisements primarily adopt a story-telling approach to present a single CSR event, allowing for the conveyance of a simple, unexaggerated message. When consumers with a high degree of skepticism view these advertisements, the elaborate storyline reduces their resistance toward, and rejection of, advertising persuasion, thereby changing their mentality. Thus, our results can serve as a reference for future advertisers.

Study Limitations and Directions for Future Research

This study has several limitations. First, all participants were students and although the sample size was relatively large, the sample does not represent all consumer segments. Therefore, the findings obtained in this study cannot be generalized to the wider population. In future studies, research participants should be drawn from various age levels for increased representativeness of the general population and to provide strong support for the generalizability of the results. Second, the stimuli used in this study were four video recordings of advertisements containing CSR messages. These advertisements did not cover all types of CSR message claims; therefore, the findings of this study cannot be generalized to all CSR advertisements. We recommend that future researchers first allow participants to select their preferred company that performs CSR activities and then the researchers should classify the participants to determine the experimental stimuli; subsequently, the experimental procedure we have set out should be implemented to obtain valid results. In future studies, the framing of CSR advertisement messages and participants’ level of self-esteem should be included as variables, and the effects of informational and emotional appeals on advertising preferences and perception of advertising credibility should be compared to establish a model of factors for consumer attitude.

References

Alcañiz, E. B., Cáceres, R. C., & Pérez, R. C. (2010). Alliances between brands and social causes: The influence of company credibility on social responsibility image. Journal of Business Ethics, 96, 169–186. http://doi.org/b9c99j

Awad, T. A. (2011). Environmental segmentation alternatives: Buyers’ profiles and implications. Journal of Islamic Marketing, 2, 55–73. http://doi.org/b8bshx

Becker-Olsen, K., Cudmore, B., & Hill, R. (2006). The impact of perceived corporate social responsibility on consumer behavior. Journal of Business Research, 59, 46–53. http://doi.org/dvgq93

Bortree, D. S., Ahern, L., Smith, A. N., & Dou, X. (2013). Framing environmental responsibility: 30 years of CSR messages in National Geographic Magazine. Public Relations Review, 39, 491–496. http://doi.org/bj5q

Boush, D. M., Friestad, M., & Rose, G. M. (1994). Adolescent skepticism toward TV advertising and knowledge of advertiser tactics. Journal of Consumer Research, 21, 165–175. http://doi.org/dsg9wp

Brown, T. J., & Dacin, P. A. (1997). The company and the product: Corporate associations and consumer product responses. Journal of Marketing, 61, 68–84. http://doi.org/chrcbg

Calfee, J. E., & Ringold, D. J. (1994). The 70% majority: Enduring consumer beliefs about advertising. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 13, 228–238.

Cheung, Y. L., Tan, W., Ahn, H.-J., & Zhang, Z. (2010). Does corporate social responsibility matter in Asian emerging markets? Journal of Business Ethics, 92, 401–413. http://doi.org/bt67qt

Cleland, R. L., Gross, W. C., Koss, L. D., Daynard, M., & Muoio, K. M. (2002). Weight-loss advertising: An analysis of current trends. Washington, DC: Federal Trade Commission.

Du, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2007). Reaping relational rewards from corporate social responsibility: The role of competitive positioning. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 24, 224–241. http://doi.org/bfzc4c

Du, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2010). Maximizing business returns to corporate social responsibility (CSR): The role of CSR communication. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12, 8–19. http://doi.org/cq82x6

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. http://doi.org/cwn2qd

Elving, W. J. L. (2013). Scepticism and corporate social responsibility communications: The influence of fit and reputation. Journal of Marketing Communications, 19, 277–292. http://doi.org/bjkv

Erdem, T., & Swait, J. (1998). Brand equity as a signaling phenomenon. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 7, 131–157. http://doi.org/dfw5qs

Foreh, M. R., & Grier, S. (2003). When is honesty the best policy? The effect of stated company intent on consumer skepticism. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13, 349–356. http://doi.org/dx6rcg

Friestad, M., & Wright, P. (1994). The persuasion knowledge model: How people cope with persuasion attempts. Journal of Consumer Research, 21, 1–31. http://doi.org/bpf7rg

Goldsmith, R. E., Lafferty, B. A., & Newell, S. J. (2000). The impact of corporate credibility and celebrity credibility on consumer reaction to advertisements and brands. Journal of Advertising, 29, 43–54. http://doi.org/bbc9

Ihlen, O., Bartlett, J., & May, S. (2011). Corporate social responsibility and communication. In O. Ihlen, J., Bartlett, & S. May (Eds.), The handbook of communication and corporate social responsibility (pp. 3–22). Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.

Karunamoorthy, S., & Mutharasu, S. A. (2012). Reactions on corporate social responsibility print advertising of Indian oil. International Journal of Exclusive Management Research, 2, 1–12.

Klein, J., & Dawar, N. (2004). Corporate social responsibility and consumers’ attributions and brand evaluations in a product–harm crisis. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 21, 203–217. http://doi.org/dz78k8

Lafferty, B. A., & Goldsmith, R. E. (2004). How influential are corporate credibility and endorser attractiveness when innovators react to advertisements for a new high-technology product? Corporate Reputation Review, 7, 24–36. http://doi.org/bkcww2

Lange, D., & Washburn, N. T. (2012). Understanding attributions of corporate social irresponsibility. Academy of Management Review, 37, 300–326. http://doi.org/bjkw

Lutz, R. J., McKenzie, S. B., & Belch, G. E. (1983). Attitude toward the ad as a mediator of advertising effectiveness: Determinants and consequences. Advances in Consumer Research, 10, 532–539.

MacKenzie, S. B., & Lutz, R. J. (1989). An empirical examination of the structural antecedents of attitude toward the ad in an advertising pretesting context. Journal of Marketing, 53, 48–65. http://doi.org/fft4qh

Marin, L., & Ruiz, S. (2007). “I need you too!” Corporate identity attractiveness for consumers and the role of social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 71, 245–260. http://doi.org/c5z3cx

McEnally, M., & de Chernatony, L. (1999). The evolving nature of branding: Consumer and managerial considerations. Academy of Marketing Science Review, 3. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/1X8jstr

Mehta, A. (2000). Advertising attitudes and advertising effectiveness. Journal of Advertising Research, 40, 67–72. http://doi.org/bjkx

Meyers-Levy, J., & Malaviya, P. (1999). Consumers’ processing of persuasive advertisements: An integrative framework of persuasion theories. Journal of Marketing, 63, 45–60. http://doi.org/c6jcdb

Mohr, L. A., Eroğlu, D., & Ellen, P. S. (1998). The development and testing of a measure of skepticism toward environmental claims in marketers’ communications. The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 32, 30–55. http://doi.org/czpbp8

Morsing, M. (2006). Corporate social responsibility as strategic auto-communication: On the role of external stakeholders for member identification. Business Ethics: A European Review, 15, 171–182. http://doi.org/cp7pbv

Obermiller, C., & Spangenberg, E. R. (1998). Development of a scale to measure consumer skepticism toward advertising. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 7, 159–186. http://doi.org/dx6zmv

Obermiller, C., & Spangenberg, E. R. (2000). On the origin and distinctness of skepticism toward advertising. Marketing Letters, 11, 311–322. http://doi.org/bcs225

Obermiller, C., Spangenberg, E. R., & MacLachlan, D. L. (2005). Ad skepticism: The consequences of disbelief. Journal of Advertising, 34, 7–17. http://doi.org/bjkz

Perks, K. J., Farache, F., Shukla, P., & Berry, A. (2013). Communicating responsibility-practicing irresponsibility in CSR advertisements. Journal of Business Research, 66, 1881–1888. http://doi.org/bjk2

Pieters, R., & Wedel, M. (2004). Attention capture and transfer in advertising: Brand, pictorial, and text-size effects. Journal of Marketing, 68, 36–50. http://doi.org/dfpg36

Pomering, A., & Dolnicar, S. (2009). Assessing the prerequisite of successful CSR implementation: Are consumers aware of CSR initiatives? Journal of Business Ethics, 85, 285–301. http://doi.org/dsjdfj

Pomering, A., Johnson, L. W., & Noble, G. (2013). Advertising corporate social responsibility: Results from an experimental manipulation of key message variables. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 18, 249–263. http://doi.org/bjk3

Prendergast, G., Liu, P.-Y., & Poon, D. T.-Y. (2009). A Hong Kong study of advertising credibility. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 26, 320–329. http://doi.org/czxh9w

PricewaterhouseCoopers. (2016). 19th annual global CEO survey: Redefining business success in a changing world. Retrieved from http://www.pwc.com/gx/en/ceo-agenda/ceosurvey/2016.html

Rhodes, N., & Wood, W. (1992). Self-esteem and intelligence affect influence ability: The mediating role of message reception. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 156–171. http://doi.org/b3dmws

Rossiter, J. R., & Bellman, S. (2005). Marketing communications: Theory and applications. French’s Forest, NSW, Australia: Prentice-Hall.

Sen, S., & 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. http://doi.org/fc2wbz

Skarmeas, D., & Leonidou, C. N. (2013). When consumers doubt, watch out! The role of CSR skepticism. Journal of Business Research, 66, 1831–1838. http://doi.org/bjk4

Speed, R., & Thompson, P. (2000). Determinants of sports sponsorship response. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28, 226–238. http://doi.org/dgkvv3

Wang, S.-L. A., & Nelson, R. A. (2006). The effects of identical versus varied advertising and publicity messages on consumer response. Journal of Marketing Communications, 12, 109–123. http://doi.org/cds9jt

Yang, C.-M. (2015). The influence of visual puns on advertising credibility. American International Journal of Social Science, 4, 116–131.

Yang, C.-M., & Hsu, T.-F. (2015). Influence of message framing and product type of metaphorical ads on advertising preference. Psychology and Behavioral Sciences, 4, 79–89. http://doi.org/bjk5

Alcañiz, E. B., Cáceres, R. C., & Pérez, R. C. (2010). Alliances between brands and social causes: The influence of company credibility on social responsibility image. Journal of Business Ethics, 96, 169–186. http://doi.org/b9c99j

Awad, T. A. (2011). Environmental segmentation alternatives: Buyers’ profiles and implications. Journal of Islamic Marketing, 2, 55–73. http://doi.org/b8bshx

Becker-Olsen, K., Cudmore, B., & Hill, R. (2006). The impact of perceived corporate social responsibility on consumer behavior. Journal of Business Research, 59, 46–53. http://doi.org/dvgq93

Bortree, D. S., Ahern, L., Smith, A. N., & Dou, X. (2013). Framing environmental responsibility: 30 years of CSR messages in National Geographic Magazine. Public Relations Review, 39, 491–496. http://doi.org/bj5q

Boush, D. M., Friestad, M., & Rose, G. M. (1994). Adolescent skepticism toward TV advertising and knowledge of advertiser tactics. Journal of Consumer Research, 21, 165–175. http://doi.org/dsg9wp

Brown, T. J., & Dacin, P. A. (1997). The company and the product: Corporate associations and consumer product responses. Journal of Marketing, 61, 68–84. http://doi.org/chrcbg

Calfee, J. E., & Ringold, D. J. (1994). The 70% majority: Enduring consumer beliefs about advertising. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 13, 228–238.

Cheung, Y. L., Tan, W., Ahn, H.-J., & Zhang, Z. (2010). Does corporate social responsibility matter in Asian emerging markets? Journal of Business Ethics, 92, 401–413. http://doi.org/bt67qt

Cleland, R. L., Gross, W. C., Koss, L. D., Daynard, M., & Muoio, K. M. (2002). Weight-loss advertising: An analysis of current trends. Washington, DC: Federal Trade Commission.

Du, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2007). Reaping relational rewards from corporate social responsibility: The role of competitive positioning. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 24, 224–241. http://doi.org/bfzc4c

Du, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2010). Maximizing business returns to corporate social responsibility (CSR): The role of CSR communication. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12, 8–19. http://doi.org/cq82x6

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. http://doi.org/cwn2qd

Elving, W. J. L. (2013). Scepticism and corporate social responsibility communications: The influence of fit and reputation. Journal of Marketing Communications, 19, 277–292. http://doi.org/bjkv

Erdem, T., & Swait, J. (1998). Brand equity as a signaling phenomenon. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 7, 131–157. http://doi.org/dfw5qs

Foreh, M. R., & Grier, S. (2003). When is honesty the best policy? The effect of stated company intent on consumer skepticism. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13, 349–356. http://doi.org/dx6rcg

Friestad, M., & Wright, P. (1994). The persuasion knowledge model: How people cope with persuasion attempts. Journal of Consumer Research, 21, 1–31. http://doi.org/bpf7rg

Goldsmith, R. E., Lafferty, B. A., & Newell, S. J. (2000). The impact of corporate credibility and celebrity credibility on consumer reaction to advertisements and brands. Journal of Advertising, 29, 43–54. http://doi.org/bbc9

Ihlen, O., Bartlett, J., & May, S. (2011). Corporate social responsibility and communication. In O. Ihlen, J., Bartlett, & S. May (Eds.), The handbook of communication and corporate social responsibility (pp. 3–22). Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.

Karunamoorthy, S., & Mutharasu, S. A. (2012). Reactions on corporate social responsibility print advertising of Indian oil. International Journal of Exclusive Management Research, 2, 1–12.

Klein, J., & Dawar, N. (2004). Corporate social responsibility and consumers’ attributions and brand evaluations in a product–harm crisis. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 21, 203–217. http://doi.org/dz78k8

Lafferty, B. A., & Goldsmith, R. E. (2004). How influential are corporate credibility and endorser attractiveness when innovators react to advertisements for a new high-technology product? Corporate Reputation Review, 7, 24–36. http://doi.org/bkcww2

Lange, D., & Washburn, N. T. (2012). Understanding attributions of corporate social irresponsibility. Academy of Management Review, 37, 300–326. http://doi.org/bjkw

Lutz, R. J., McKenzie, S. B., & Belch, G. E. (1983). Attitude toward the ad as a mediator of advertising effectiveness: Determinants and consequences. Advances in Consumer Research, 10, 532–539.

MacKenzie, S. B., & Lutz, R. J. (1989). An empirical examination of the structural antecedents of attitude toward the ad in an advertising pretesting context. Journal of Marketing, 53, 48–65. http://doi.org/fft4qh

Marin, L., & Ruiz, S. (2007). “I need you too!” Corporate identity attractiveness for consumers and the role of social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 71, 245–260. http://doi.org/c5z3cx

McEnally, M., & de Chernatony, L. (1999). The evolving nature of branding: Consumer and managerial considerations. Academy of Marketing Science Review, 3. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/1X8jstr

Mehta, A. (2000). Advertising attitudes and advertising effectiveness. Journal of Advertising Research, 40, 67–72. http://doi.org/bjkx

Meyers-Levy, J., & Malaviya, P. (1999). Consumers’ processing of persuasive advertisements: An integrative framework of persuasion theories. Journal of Marketing, 63, 45–60. http://doi.org/c6jcdb

Mohr, L. A., Eroğlu, D., & Ellen, P. S. (1998). The development and testing of a measure of skepticism toward environmental claims in marketers’ communications. The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 32, 30–55. http://doi.org/czpbp8

Morsing, M. (2006). Corporate social responsibility as strategic auto-communication: On the role of external stakeholders for member identification. Business Ethics: A European Review, 15, 171–182. http://doi.org/cp7pbv

Obermiller, C., & Spangenberg, E. R. (1998). Development of a scale to measure consumer skepticism toward advertising. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 7, 159–186. http://doi.org/dx6zmv

Obermiller, C., & Spangenberg, E. R. (2000). On the origin and distinctness of skepticism toward advertising. Marketing Letters, 11, 311–322. http://doi.org/bcs225

Obermiller, C., Spangenberg, E. R., & MacLachlan, D. L. (2005). Ad skepticism: The consequences of disbelief. Journal of Advertising, 34, 7–17. http://doi.org/bjkz

Perks, K. J., Farache, F., Shukla, P., & Berry, A. (2013). Communicating responsibility-practicing irresponsibility in CSR advertisements. Journal of Business Research, 66, 1881–1888. http://doi.org/bjk2

Pieters, R., & Wedel, M. (2004). Attention capture and transfer in advertising: Brand, pictorial, and text-size effects. Journal of Marketing, 68, 36–50. http://doi.org/dfpg36

Pomering, A., & Dolnicar, S. (2009). Assessing the prerequisite of successful CSR implementation: Are consumers aware of CSR initiatives? Journal of Business Ethics, 85, 285–301. http://doi.org/dsjdfj

Pomering, A., Johnson, L. W., & Noble, G. (2013). Advertising corporate social responsibility: Results from an experimental manipulation of key message variables. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 18, 249–263. http://doi.org/bjk3

Prendergast, G., Liu, P.-Y., & Poon, D. T.-Y. (2009). A Hong Kong study of advertising credibility. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 26, 320–329. http://doi.org/czxh9w

PricewaterhouseCoopers. (2016). 19th annual global CEO survey: Redefining business success in a changing world. Retrieved from http://www.pwc.com/gx/en/ceo-agenda/ceosurvey/2016.html

Rhodes, N., & Wood, W. (1992). Self-esteem and intelligence affect influence ability: The mediating role of message reception. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 156–171. http://doi.org/b3dmws

Rossiter, J. R., & Bellman, S. (2005). Marketing communications: Theory and applications. French’s Forest, NSW, Australia: Prentice-Hall.

Sen, S., & 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. http://doi.org/fc2wbz

Skarmeas, D., & Leonidou, C. N. (2013). When consumers doubt, watch out! The role of CSR skepticism. Journal of Business Research, 66, 1831–1838. http://doi.org/bjk4

Speed, R., & Thompson, P. (2000). Determinants of sports sponsorship response. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28, 226–238. http://doi.org/dgkvv3

Wang, S.-L. A., & Nelson, R. A. (2006). The effects of identical versus varied advertising and publicity messages on consumer response. Journal of Marketing Communications, 12, 109–123. http://doi.org/cds9jt

Yang, C.-M. (2015). The influence of visual puns on advertising credibility. American International Journal of Social Science, 4, 116–131.

Yang, C.-M., & Hsu, T.-F. (2015). Influence of message framing and product type of metaphorical ads on advertising preference. Psychology and Behavioral Sciences, 4, 79–89. http://doi.org/bjk5

This study was supported by a research grant (104-2410-H-131-003) from the Ministry of Science and Technology

Taiwan

ROC.

Tzu-Fan Hsu, Department of Commercial Design, Chung Yuan Christian University, 200 Chung Pei Road, Chung Li District, Taoyuan City 32023, Taiwan, ROC. Email: [email protected]