Consumer Brand Engagement Fostered by Cause-Related Marketing in Emotional and Functional Brands

Figures & data

Table 1. Sociodemographic profile and assessment of CRM activities.

Characteristics/activities	Percentage (%)
Gender
Female	82.5
Male	17.5
Level of education
Secondary school	19.1
Bachelor’s or Postgraduate degree	80.9
Occupation
Student	34.7
Employee	63.0
Retired/Pensioner	0.4
Unemployed	1.9
Appropriateness of CRM activities to the brand positioning
Brand A - yes/no	90.7/9.3
Brand B - yes/no	95.9/4.1
Contribution to the brands’ CRM activities
Brand A - yes/no	42.2/57.8
Brand B - yes/no	37.1/62.9

N = 268 participants; brand A (Emotional), brand B (Functional).

Table 2. Measurement scales.

	Mean		Standard Deviation		Standardized outer loadings
Model Constructs/Dimensions	Brand A	Brand B	Brand A	Brand B	Brand A	Brand B
CRM - Familiarity with brand’s Cause Related Marketing activities: Simonin and Ruth (1998)	4.15	4.19	2.44	1.93
CRM1: Unfamiliar/Familiar	4.06	4.07	1.99	2.47	0.968	0.952
CRM2: Do not recognize/Recognize	4.30	4.28	2.01	2.50	0.969	0.951
CRM3: Never heard of/Already heard of	4.21	4.09	2.12	2.59	0.970	0.942
CBE - Consumer Brand Engagement: Fernandes and Moreira (2019)
Cognitive CBE	2.64	2.99	1.53	1.39
COG1: I think a lot about [brand A/B].	3.13	2.76	1.60	1.80	0.907	0.738
COG2: [Brand A/B] stimulates my interest^.a	-	-	-	-	-	-
COG3: When I use [brand A/B] I forget everything.	2.73	2.56	1.58	1.56	0.956	0.907
COG4: Time flies when I interact with [brand A/B].	3.10	2.59	1.73	1.55	0.952	0.895
Affective CBE	3.73	3.52	1.70	2.05
AFF1: [Brand A/B] inspires me.	3.72	3.76	1.94	2.27	0.956	0.942
AFF2: I am proud of using [brand A/B].	3.90	3.63	1.82	2.20	0.965	0.935
AFF3: I use [brand A/B] with total dedication.	3.64	3.24	1.71	2.03	0.959	0.924
AFF4: Using [brand A/B] makes me happy.	3.64	3.41	1.76	2.04	0.965	0.931
AFF5: I feel enthusiastic about [brand A/B].	3.75	3.58	1.83	2.12	0.965	0.956
Behavioral CBE	3.90	2.89	1.89	1.70
BEH1: I spend a lot of time using [brand A/B].	3.62	2.83	1.92	1.92	0.939	0.933
BEH2: [Brand A/B] is one that I often use in [category].	4.28	2.62	2.12	1.77	0.958	0.951
BEH3: Within [category] I always use [brand A/B].	3.71	2.30	2.16	1.62	0.877	0.939
BEH4: I feel like using [brand A/B].	4.00	3.81	1.91	2.23	0.839	0.905
CPV - Consumer Perceived Value: Walsh et al. (2014)
Quality CPV	5.32	4.42	1.38	2.10
QUA1: [Brand A/B] has consistent quality.	5.21	4.39	1.50	2.13	0.991	0.966
QUA2: [Brand A/B] is well made.	5.31	4.40	1.42	2.11	0.993	0.974
QUA3: [Brand A/B] has an acceptable standard of quality.	5.44	4.46	1.37	2.11	0.995	0.965
Emotional CPV	4.71	4.14	1.45	2.09
EMO1: [Brand A/B] is one that I would enjoy.	4.52	3.24	1.55	1.59	0.912	0.940
EMO2: [Brand A/B] would make me want to use it.	4.65	3.86	1.55	1.79	0.976	0.963
EMO3: [Brand A/B] would make me feel good	4.74	3.88	1.53	1.78	0.968	0.970
Price CPV	4.64	3.66	1.48	1.64
PRI1: [Brand A/B] is reasonably priced.	5.04	4.22	1.52	2.19	0.979	0.929
PRI2: [Brand A/B] offers value for money.	4.73	4.26	1.65	2.23	0.984	0.959
PRI3: [Brand A/B] is a good product for the price.	4.35	3.93	1.51	2.00	0.964	0.898
Social CPV	2.89	2.95	1.42	1.64
SOC1: [Brand A/B] would help me to feel acceptable.	2.76	2.63	1.42	1.52	0.935	0.938
SOC2: [Brand A/B] would improve the way I am perceived.	2.85	2.95	1.52	1.75	0.978	0.955
SOC3: [Brand A/B] Would make a good impression on other people	3.06	3.28	1.58	1.90	0.946	0.938

^aItem deleted; All standardized factor loadings are significant (p ≤ .001); Brand A (Emotional), Brand B (Functional).

Table 3. Convergent and discriminant validity criteria – first-order model.

			Correlation matrix
Constructs	CR	AVE	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
Emotional brand (Brand A)
1. CRM	0.968	0.939	0.969
2. Cognitive CBE	0.932	0.882	0.490	0.939
3. Affective CBE	0.980	0.925	0.616	0.836	0.962
4. Behavioral CBE	0.926	0.819	0.536	0.819	0.888	0.905
5. Quality CPV	0.993	0.987	0.640	0.620	0.827	0.704	0.993
6. Emotional CPV	0.975	0.952	0.588	0.689	0.857	0.756	0.870	0.976
7. Price CPV	0.949	0.907	0.566	0.674	0.800	0.758	0.862	0.777	0.949
8. Social CPV	0.950	0.908	0.526	0.788	0.801	0.768	0.676	0.768	0.692	0.953
Functional brand (Brand B)
1. CRM	0.944	0.899	0.948
2. Cognitive CBE	0.803	0.723	0.948	0.850
3. Affective CBE	0.966	0.879	0.338	0.819	0.938
4. Behavioral CBE	0.950	0.869	0.406	0.758	0.900	0.932
5. Quality CPV	0.967	0.938	0.413	0.523	0.664	0.707	0.968
6. Emotional CPV	0.920	0.863	0.311	0.578	0.726	0.709	0.782	0.929
7. Price CPV	0.955	0.918	0.241	0.580	0.725	0.744	0.821	0.743	0.958
8. Social CPV	0.939	0.891	0.311	0.637	0.659	0.595	0.439	0.582	0.524	0.944

CR - Composite Reliability; AVE - Average Variance Extracted; Square root of the AVE in bold on the diagonal compared with the inter-construct correlations to test Discriminant Validity (Fornell & Larcker, 1981); All inter-construct correlations are significant (p ≤ .001).

Table 4. Convergent and discriminant validity criteria – second-order model.

			Correlation matrix
Constructs	CR	AVE	1	2	3
Emotional brand (Brand A)
1. CRM	0.968	0.939	0.969
2. CBE	0.953	0.900	0.584	0.949
3. CPV	0.933	0.832	0.637	0.877	0.912
Functional brand (Brand B)
1. CRM	0.947	0.899	0.948
2. CBE	0.945	0.884	0.412	0.940
3. CPV	0.844	0.741	0.320	0.813	0.861

CR - Composite Reliability; AVE - Average Variance Extracted; Square root of the AVE in bold on the diagonal compared with the inter-construct correlations to test Discriminant Validity (Fornell & Larcker, 1981); All inter-construct correlations are significant (p ≤ .001).

Table 5. Summary of the measurement invariance of composites (MICOM).

	Compositional invariance (step 2)			Equal mean (step 3a)			Equal variance (step 3b)
Constructs	Correlation^a	Permutation p-value		Difference (Brand A – B)	CI		Difference (Brand E- F)	95% CI
CRM	1.000	0.398	yes	−0.019	[−0.171, 0.184]	yes	0.471	[−0.131, 0.128]	no
CBE	1.000	0.046	no	−0.303	[−0.171, 0.167]	no	0.152	[−0.145, 0.150]	no
CPV	1.000	0.317	yes	−0.386	[−0.164, 0.173]	no	0.649	[−0.221, 0.200]	no

Configural invariance (step 1) established; ^aPermutation Correlation=1.000; CI= Confidence interval; brand A (Emotional), brand B (Functional).

Table 6. Summary of the mediating effects and hypothesis testing.

			Brand A			Brand B
Model	Hypotheses	Relationships	β	t	bcCI	β	t	bcCI	Supported
		Total effects
Model 1	H1	CRM→CBE	0.608***	13.308	[0.514, 0.691]	0.436***	7.695	[0.319, 0.544]	yes/yes
	H2	CRM→CPV	0.671***	16.771	[0.585, 0.744]	0.350***	5.663	[0.226, 0.469]	yes/yes
	H3	CPV→CBE	0.951***	25.416	[0.879, 1.026]	0.840***	28.981	[0.779, 0.893]	yes/yes
Model 2	H1	CRM→CBE	0.612***	12.775	[0.512, 0.697]	0.436***	7.695	[0.319, 0.544]	yes/yes
	H2	CRM→CPV	0.672***	16.755	[0.585, 0.744]	0.350***	5.663	[0.226, 0.469]	yes/yes
	H3	CPV→CBE	0.960***	23.724	[0.877, 1.035]	0.840***	28.981	[0.779, 0.893]	yes/yes
		Gender→CBE	0.022ns	0.251	[−0.166, 0.208]	0.129ns	1.357	[−0.064, 0.320]
		Age→CBE	0.111ns	1.499	[−0.038, 0.257]	−0.115ns	1.318	[−0.271, 0.061]
		Education→CBE	−0.012ns	0.131	[−0.168, 0.151]	−0.083ns	0.833	[−0.268, 0.120]
		Indirect effect
Model 1	H4	CRM→CPV→CBE	0.638***	12.906	[0.543, 0,740]	0.294***	5.628	[0.191, 0.395]	yes^c/yes^d
Model 2		CRM→CPV→CBE	0.645***	12.664	[0.546, 0,748]	0.292***	5.658	[0.189, 0.389]
		Direct effect
Model 1		CRM→CBE	−0.030ns	0.616	[−0.126, 0.066]	0.142***	3.171	[0.054, 0.230]
Model 2		CRM→CBE	−0.034ns	0.630	[−0.132, 0.067]	0.139**	3.040	[0.049, 0.229]

Note: ***p ≤ .001; **p < .01ns=non-significant; bcCI=Bias-corrected confidence intervals. ^aFull mediation; ^bComplementary partial mediation, VAF for brand B - (indirect effect/indirect effect + direct effect) *100 = 67.4% (Hair et al., 2017); Brand A (Emotional), Brand B (Functional); Brand A: R²_{Model 1}= 0.865; R²_{Model 2}= 0.868, Brand B: R²_{Model 1}= 0.808; R²_{Model 2}= 0.814.

Figure 1. Structural model for brands a and B.

***p ≤ .001; ns=non-significant; (A) – Emotional brand; (B) – Functional brand

Table 7. Summary of MGA and hypothesis testing.

Hypotheses	Relationships	β difference (Brand A-B)	p-value difference Henseler’s MGA^a	Supported
	Total effects
	CRM→CBE	0.172	0.009*	yes
H5a	CRM→CPV	0.321	0.000***	yes
	CPV→CBE	0.112	0.008*	yes
	Indirect effect
H5b	CRM→CPV→CBE	0.344	0.000***	yes
	Direct effect
	CRM→CBE	0.172	0.009*

*< 0.05, **p < .01, ***p ≤ .001; ^ap-values of differences lower than 0.05 or higher that 0.95 indicate significant differences at the 5% of group-specific path coefficients (Sarstedt et al., 2011); Brand A (Emotional), Brand B (Functional).

Simonin, B. L., & Ruth, J. A. (1998). Is a company known by the company it keeps? Assessing the spillover effects of brand alliances on consumer brand attitudes. Journal of Marketing Research, 35(1), 30–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224379803500105

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Fernandes, T., & Moreira, M. (2019). Consumer brand engagement, satisfaction and brand loyalty: A comparative study between functional and emotional brand relationships. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 28(2), 274–286. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-08-2017-1545

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Walsh, G., Shiu, E., & Hassan, L. M. (2014). Replicating, validating, and reducing the length of the consumer perceived value scale. Journal of Business Research, 67(3), 260–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.05.012

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3), 382. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800313

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (3rd ed.). Sage.

 Google Scholar

Sarstedt, M., Henseler, J., & Ringle, C. M. (2011). Multigroup analysis in partial least squares (PLS) path modeling: Alternative methods and empirical results. In M. Sarstedt, M. Schwaiger, & C. R. Taylor, (Eds.), Advances in international marketing, (pp. 195–218). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

 Google Scholar