Congruence effects in sponsorship: the mediating role of sponsor credibility and consumer...

Sponsorship is an important part of the marketing mix that only recently has received academic attention. A corporation creates a link with an outside issue or event, hoping to influence the audience by the connection. Corporations sponsor cultural events (Ninetto 1998; Quester and Thompson

2001), PBS programming, social causes, and programs. In recent years, many sponsored events represent fund-raising opportunities for not-for-profit foundations supporting social and medical causes. Notably, the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation, which supports breast cancer research, conducts the "Race for the Cure," a series of local walk/run races sponsored by many national and local companies. In 2000, Legg's panty hose advertised its $50,000 donation to the foundation without any link to an event. Sporting events have been perhaps the most studied in the sponsorship literature. The Olympics (Crimmins and Horn 1996; McDaniel 1999; Miyazaki and Morgan 2001), hockey and bowling (McDaniel 1999), basketball (Lardinoit and Quester 2001), and car racing (Burridge 1989; Cornwell, Pruitt, and Van Ness 2001) are but a few of the sporting events that have been studied. Sponsorships have been shown to influence consumer recall, awareness, and attitude toward the sponsor, as well as purchase intentions. Common sense (Gray 2000) and empirical findings suggest that by facilitating consumer attitude transference from event to sponsor (Crimmins and Horn 1996), a good match between a sponsor and an event creates more positive outcomes than does an incongruent match (Gwinner 1997). Certain creation of a positive attitude toward a corporate sponsor is arguable, however, and an underlying explanation for congruence effects is still not clear.

Implicit in the attitude transference logic is an assumption that consumers may not judge the sponsorship act or sponsor motives behind the support. Some researchers have brought this assumption into question, citing evidence for consumer distrust of company support for not-for-profit causes (Drumwright 1996), but without empirical support for an underlying process. Corporate credibility, a part of corporate image and a noted precursor to advertiser and ad attitude (MacKenzie and Lutz 1989), has been overlooked by sponsorship researchers.

Attribution theory would posit that consumers cognitively infer a motive for the sponsorship behavior; an altruistic, or socially responsible, motive attribution could provide the foundation for sponsor credibility and subsequent positive attitude toward the sponsor. Conversely, consumers might attribute a more exploitive motive to the sponsor, which would create a less desirable sponsor image. The study presented in this paper develops and tests a theoretical explanation for the effects of congruence on consumer attitude toward the sponsor of a cause. Using mediation analysis, the study experimentally examines the mediating roles of consumer attributions of sponsor motive and sponsor credibility. The study tests the theoretical application in an emerging area: consumer-oriented health information on the Internet. The study's findings highlight the importance of the match between the sponsor and its cause through the creation of consumer perceptions of altruistic sponsorship motives that result in sponsor credibility and positive consumer attitudes.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Meenaghan (1983) regarded sponsorship as "the provision of assistance either financial or in-kind to an activity by a commercial organization for the purpose of achieving commercial objectives" (p. 9). Cornwell and Maignan (1998) state that sponsorship involves two activities: (1) an exchange between a sponsor and a sponsee whereby the latter receives a fee and the former obtains the right to associate itself with the activity sponsored, and (2) the marketing of the association by the sponsor. Sponsorship activities are commonplace in areas like sports marketing, the arts, and public television. Typically, the sponsoring company associates its name with an event or program. The Olympics is perhaps the biggest event in sports, and is supported by many companies hoping to obtain and market the link created through the sponsorship (Crimmins and Horn 1996).

Sponsorships are intended to create short- and long-term benefits to the sponsoring company. Sponsorships influence consumer recall (Bennett 1999; Hansen and Scotwin 1995; Nicholls, Roslow, and Dublish 1999), awareness and identification of sponsors (Bennett 1999; Bloxham 1998; Pham and Johar 2001), sponsor image (D'Astous and Blitz 1995; Otker and Hayes 1987), attitude toward the sponsor (McDaniel 1999; Speed and Thompson 2000; Stipp 1998), and purchase intentions (Madrigal 2001; McDaniel 1999).

The effectiveness of corporate sponsorship has been proposed to be a function of the link between the sponsor and an event that the target consumer values, resulting in the transfer of the consumer's positive perception of the event to the sponsoring brand, company, or organization (Crimmins and Horn 1996). This assumption is largely derived from Heider's (1946) balance theory, which posits that a belief is out of balance and unstable when it links a lowly valued object with a highly valued object, and that humans continually seek to put their beliefs in balance. However, the affect-based balance theory approach does not yield explanations of the varied effects stemming from the sponsorship of the same event by different sponsors and it ignores the role of cognitive beliefs about the sponsor and its relationship to the sponsored event, issue, or cause. AD event or cause can be tied to several companies and not produce equivalent effects for all sponsors. The compatibility, fit, or congruence between the sponsor and the event has been noted for its facilitating effects.

Congruence Effects in Sponsorship

In the advertising and marketing literature, congruence has been used to indicate consumer perceptions of similarity, but with variations across its study and applications. In the sponsorship literature, it is "relatedness" and "relevance" (Johar and Pham 1999), or compatibility (Ruth and Simonin 2003); in cause-related marketing research, it is a "fit" (Bainbridge 2001; Gray 2000). Some sponsorship researchers have defined congruence on the basis of the direct or indirect relevance of the sponsor to the event (McDonald 1991; Murphy 1999). Gwinner (1997) further clarified direct relevance as "functional based similarity," which occurs when the sponsor's product is used during the sponsorship event, and indirect relevance as "image-based similarity," which is a marriage between core values of the consumer to the values represented by the sponsor and the sponsorship event (Benezra 1996). Studies of functional similarity dominate the literature.

Empirical studies of functional congruence support its ability to enhance image transfer from event to sponsor (Gwinner and Eaton 1999), sponsor recall (Johar and Pham 1999), positive consumer attitude toward the sponsor (Ellen, Mohr, and Webb 2000; McDaniel 1999), likeability of the sponsorship (Haley 1996), and gains in share price for winning auto-race sponsors (Cornwell, Pruitt, and Van Ness 2001). Congruent sponsorships can create product differentiation (Amis, Slack, and Berrett 1999) and increased market share (Chandon, Wansink, and Laurent 2000), whereas incongruent sponsorships slow image transfer (Meenaghan 2001).

The effects of congruence have been explained through schema theory (Cornwell and Maignan 1998; McDaniel 1999), but some elements of the explanation are still missing. A schema is a cognitive structure that represents an object or domain that includes a person, event, or place (Taylor and Crocker 1981). This organization of knowledge regarding the target is developed through experiences over time and influences information processing, including encoding, comprehension, retention, and retrieval of information. Cognitive explanations for congruence effects assume that incongruence, or a mismatch, yields a greater number of inferences, and as a result, facilitates recall of the sponsor's name based on the development of stronger, more elaborate schema (Hastie 1984). Schema theory can predict that the number of elaborations will increase with incongruence, but it cannot predict the content of those elaborations. In addition, schema theory explanations have not clearly outlined the rationale for the effects of sponsorships based on functional congruence, and it is not clear how congruence influences the direction of response.

A promising perspective that may fill the explanatory gaps is the nature of sponsorship motives. Different sponsor-cause pairings might direct consumer judgments of corporate motivations, which, in turn, influence consumer reactions to sponsorships. Studies of sponsorship have not examined consumer judgments of sponsor motive, perhaps due to the typical context studied, where the event is often of low social value. Consumer judgments and skepticism about company motives have been used as an explanation for cause-related marketing effects (Barone, Miyazaki, and Taylor 2000; Ellen, Mohr, and Webb 2000; Webb and Mohr 1998) and can explain how consumers may respond to sponsorship activities in high-value contexts, such as events for causes with personal relevance.

Attribution Theory and the Discounting Principle

Attribution theory is a family of theories based on the assumption that individuals are social perceivers who make causal inferences about events they observe and experience (Heider 1958; Jones and Davis 1965; Kelley 1973). The average person generates inferences that link events through causal relationships; these inferences are beliefs that allow for understanding and prediction of the observable world. Heider (1958) outlined two types of factors that can shape an attribution of motive: (1) personal factors internal to the actor (intrinsic motives), and (2) situational factors external to the actor (extrinsic motives). According to Kelley's (1972) discounting principle, consumers discount or minimize an explanation if an alternative explanation exists, and research has shown that when extrinsic motivation explains an event, intrinsic motivation is discounted.

There is evidence that consumers attribute motives to celebrities when they endorse products. Typically, there are two plausible causes for a spokesperson's promotion of a product: the endorser's belief in the product qualities and the endorser's financial compensation (Sparkman 1982). When consumers infer monetary incentives as the motivating factor (extrinsic motive) behind a celebrity's favorable product comments, they subsequently discount the intrinsic motives of the endorser, such as his or her liking for the product (Mowen 1980; Sparkman 1982). Consumers' causal inferences are dependent on what information or feature is salient in the environment (Heider 1958). Consumers are more likely to attribute the endorser's motive to the external factor--monetary gains-than to his or her beliefs in the product (internal motive) (Moore, Mowen, and Reardon 1994; Sparkman 1982), unless it is explicitly stated that the endorser did not receive a monetary incentive.

Consumer Attributions of Sponsor Motive

Parallel to the motives of celebrity endorsers, corporations may be viewed as sponsoring a cause because the corporation views the cause as worthy, which would be an intrinsic motive, or because of extrinsic motives, such as profit or reputation enhancement (Bendapudi, Singh, and Bendapudi 1996; Piliavin and Charng 1990; Sherry 1983). Corporations want to avoid consumer perceptions of extrinsic motivation to prevent judgments about corporate exploitation (Dahl and Lavack 1995) and other negative outcomes (Varadarajan and Menon 1988). Similar issues arise with sponsorship activities, as consumers can view the activity as either gift-giving or self-promoting.

Consumer motive attributions may be a function of past experiences and individual characteristics, but also the characteristics of the sponsorship strategy and message. It is unlikely that consumers will have specific knowledge of a corporation's motives for sponsorship activities. However, consumers are likely to understand that for-profit companies exist due to their ability to profit from consumer purchases. Accordingly, salient cues in the consumers' environment would trigger thoughts of the sponsorship motive. Nevertheless, during exposure to a sponsorship message or event, the sponsor is hoping that consumers will react with seamless acceptance of the good deed, with minimal perception of profit motives resulting from skepticism.

Consistent with schema theory, it would be expected that a lack of congruence between a sponsor and its cause would stimulate cognitive evaluation and elaboration (Hastie 1984). Consistent with theories of persuasion (Petty and Cacioppo 1981), greater elaboration would yield greater resistance to the positive sponsorship message. Greater elaboration and resistance would elicit consumer judgments about the central information in a sponsorship message: the sponsorship act. Accordingly, incongruence is likely to activate, or even strengthen, already existing consumer knowledge of self-serving corporate sponsorship motives and weaken beliefs in altruistic sponsor motives. Conversely, a high-congruence sponsorship may not generate as many elaborations as a low-congruence sponsorship would, and hence could minimize the consumer's judgment or skepticism about sponsor motive and facilitate the acceptance of the sponsorship. Without the skepticism, the consumer is more likely to infer the altruistic motives of the sponsor, and thoughts of corporate profits associated with the sponsorship act may be minimized or put aside during the global assessment of the sponsor. Hence, under congruent conditions, there will be a greater presence of altruistic sponsor motives when compared with incongruent conditions. It is not clear if the activation of self-serving motives may be reduced, or perhaps remain the same, but they may constitute a smaller proportion of the total motive judgments when compared with the incongruent condition.

   H1: Sponsor-cause congruence will generate stronger consumer
   attributions of altruistic sponsor motives than will sponsor-cause
  incongruence.

Another cue that may influence consumer judgments about sponsorship motive is the mention or omission of brand-level advertising cues. Sponsorship has been distinguished from advertising based on the content or magnitude of voice in the message (Meenaghan 1983). Meenaghan states that advertising "creates the message using a mixture of visuals, vocals and context," whereas sponsorship can be "described as a mute, non-verbal medium" (p. 54). This suggests that a primary difference between advertising and sponsorship is the explicitness or clarity of the sponsor's profit objectives in the sponsorship message. Recently, corporate sponsorships have crossed this imaginary line by incorporating many traditional aspects of advertising. As a sponsorship message increasingly resembles an advertisement through the incorporation of traditional ad elements, the more explicit the commercial nature of the message becomes, and the more likely it is that consumer thoughts of corporate profit will be activated (as mentioned previously, consumers discount internal motives when other external explanations are present [Moore, Mowen, and Reardon 1994; Sparkman 1982]). Sponsorship statements that include brand-level information, logos, slogans, or tag lines are more likely to activate knowledge of corporate profit motive. A message that merely states a company's sponsorship of a cause, without any brand-level information, may reduce the likelihood of a profit motive attribution.

   H2: Brand-level sponsorships are more likely to generate
   attributions of self-serving motives (and are less likely to produce
   attributions of altruistic motives) than are corporate-level
   sponsorships.

Sponsor Credibility and Attitude

In the examination of consumer judgments about endorser motivations, the attributions to monetary gains were found to decrease the perceived credibility of the celebrity endorser (Moore, Mowen, and Reardon 1994; Sparkman 1982). Likewise, if consumers believe the sponsoring company's motivation is less altruistic or more profit-oriented, they might perceive the sponsor as being less credible. Consistent with the logic of H1, congruence is expected to enhance sponsor credibility perceptions by increasing the likelihood of consumer inferences that the company has philanthropic motives for sponsoring the event.

   H3: Sponsor-cause congruence will generate stronger consumer
   perceptions of sponsor credibility than will sponsor-cause
   incongruence.

Previous studies on sponsorship effects show that a congruent pairing of sponsor and event leads to positive consumer attitude toward the sponsor (Ellen, Mohr, and Webb 2000; McDaniel 1999). Similar effects of congruence on sponsor attitudes are expected here.

   H4: Sponsor-cause congruence will create a more positive
   attitude toward the sponsor than will sponsor-cause
   incongruence.

Of particular note is that the likely outcomes of congruence seem to suggest causal relationships between them. Congruence effects on sponsor credibility may flow through the creation of greater assessment of altruistic sponsor motive.

The enhanced credibility perceptions of the sponsor might, in turn, lead to a favorable attitude toward the sponsor. The sequential influences of congruence with mediating roles of sponsor motive assessment and sponsor credibility are summarized in the following hypotheses:

   H5: Altruistic sponsor motive will mediate the relationship
   between congruence and sponsor credibility.

   H6: Sponsor credibility perceptions will mediate the relationship
   between sponsor motive assessment and sponsor attitudes.

The frequently observed positive congruence effects on sponsor attitudes might not be simple affect transference. The prevalent view that congruence leads to positive sponsor attitudes excludes the mediating influence of corporate credibility stemming from consumer judgment about sponsor motive. Since corporate credibility and attitude were found to play important roles in determining advertising outcome variables, including attitude toward the ad, attitude toward the brand, and purchase intent (Goldsmith, Lafferty, and Newell 2000; MacKenzie and Lutz 1989), examination of their antecedents will add to our understanding of sponsorship effects.

METHOD

Subjects

Subjects were undergraduate students at a major Midwestern university. Subject age ranged from 18 to 34 years, with an average age of 20 years. A total of 191 students (89 males and 102 females) participated in the study; over 90% were single and 88% were Caucasian.

Context

The study used a fictitious health and disease prevention Web site as the context for sponsorship by real companies. Health and disease prevention Web sites provide sponsors with an opportunity to efficiently reach a target audience that values the topic and editorial content, and thus facilitate linkage with a consumer's personal health cause. In fact, WebMD states that the site and its content have commercial motivations as well as intentions of goodwill toward the public, and that the site has retained national sponsors, including DNA Sciences, Enfamil, and Eli Lilly.

Design

The study employed a fixed-factor, 2 x 2 between-subjects, pretest/posttest, randomized, experimental design. The independent variables were the company/brand level of the promotional message and the congruence between the sponsoring company's product offerings and the health topic of the Web site. The stimulus was a Web site created specifically for the study, which had no affiliation with any not-for-profit company. Real companies were used as sponsors, and real information about a health topic was used to create a stimulus Web site and a situation with some external validity. The main dependent variables--attitude toward the sponsor and credibility of the sponsor--were measured before and after exposure to the stimulus Web site (scales used for postexposure measures were identical to preexposure measures). Sponsor familiarity was measured in the pretest, and attributions of sponsor motive were measured after exposure to the stimulus material.

The Creation of Stimulus Materials: Web Site Content and Banners

The stimulus materials and exposure situation were created to mimic the conditions of a natural exposure in the field. It was assumed that Internet health information material should be personally relevant to a consumer visiting a site. On that basis, contraception information was selected as the health topic with the hope that the material would have intrinsic self-relevance (Celsi and Olson 1988) to college students, the study participants. The four treatment conditions were created by developing a Web site with contraception information content that would remain the same for all groups, but with a banner whose content would vary with each condition. To create a realistic Web site, public information (written material and photos) was modified from already existing Web sites (www.plannedparenthood.org/bc/contrachoices.htm).

Since the audience determined the Web site health topic, the creation of the two congruence conditions (high and low) was mandated through the identification of companies whose product offerings would likely be perceived as matching or not matching the contraception content. The functional congruence between a company and Web content was defined as the degree to which the company's products were related to the information on the Web site. Reebok was used to represent a company offering products with low congruence to contraception information, and Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceuticals (Ortho hereafter) was chosen to represent a company offering products with high congruence. The choices of Ortho and Reebok allowed the creation of realistic banner ads; they produce products relevant to the target audience, and are believable as advertisers at the site.

For the brand-level advertisement-like message, brands were selected that were heavily promoted by Reebok (Fusion DMX shoe) and Ortho (their newest birth control pill, Ortho Tri-Cyclen) on their Web sites at the time of the study. The brand-level message presented the brand name, its tag line,

and the company logo in the banner for each company ("Ortho McNeil Orthotricyclen--the only pill that helps your skin look better" and "Reebok Fusion DMX Lite--the laws of gravity do not apply"). The company-level message only stated that the company sponsored the Web site ("This Web site is brought to you by Ortho-McNeil" and "This Web site is brought to you by Reebok").

Data Collection Procedure

The experiment was conducted in a university computer laboratory. Subjects received the pretest questionnaire containing the pretest measures in the following order: (1) attitude toward the sponsoring company, (2) credibility of the sponsoring company, and (3) familiarity with the sponsoring company. Four companies (Avon, Philip Morris, Reebok, and Ortho) were included in the pretest to minimize any priming effect. After the pretest was collected, participants were provided a unique login ID and password along with the Web site address directing subjects to log onto the stimulus material, one of the four Web sites, each containing the banner specific to the treatment. Subjects were instructed to surf the Web as they might do in real life. After eight minutes, subjects turned off their monitors and completed a posttest questionnaire containing the dependent measures: sponsor attitude, followed by credibility, a congruence manipulation check, motive attributions, and demographics.

Measures

Attitude toward the sponsor ([alpha] = .90) was measured on a three-item seven-point semantic differential scale anchored by good/bad, pleasant/unpleasant, and favorable/unfavorable (MacKenzie and Lutz 1989), and familiarity was measured using one 7-point semantic differential item (familiar/ not familiar). Sponsor credibility ([alpha] = .73) was measured on a three-item seven-point scale anchored by convincing/unconvincing, believable/unbelievable, and biased/unbiased (MacKenzie and Lutz 1989). Eight 5-point Likert scale items were created for this study to tap sponsor motives of socially responsible/altruistic and self-serving sponsor outcomes (see Table 1).

RESULTS

Manipulation Check

A three-item seven-point semantic differential scale (not compatible/compatible, not a good fit/a good fit, congruent/not congruent) measured the perceived congruence between the sponsor and the Web site content. A t test confirmed that congruence perceptions were significantly different, t(189) = 9.09, p < .001, between the high-congruence conditions (M = 4.88) and the low-congruence conditions (M = 2.92), and relatively equidistant from the scale's midpoint. Concern about gender differences in response to the manipulation was also examined through a series of univariate analyses of covariance (ANCOVAs). Controlling for pretest sponsor attitude, credibility, and familiarity, there were no significant gender main effects and no significant interaction (gender x congruence) effects on any dependent variable.

Sponsor Motives

Principal components factor analysis with varimax rotation of the eight motive items identified several dimensions of a corporation's expected sponsorship outcomes. A four-factor solution best fit the data and accounted for 77% of the total variance (see Table 1). Factor 1, labeled altruism, contained items related to the sponsor's concern for its customer's welfare; factor 2, profit orientation, reflected the company's concern for its profits and generation of sales; factor 3 reflected a company's concern for its public image; and factor 4, ethics, reflected the sponsoring company's intentions to "do the right thing." Table 2 reports means for the motive attribution items and scales.

Effect of Congruence and Company/Brand Level on Sponsor Motive Attributions

To test the effects of the congruence and company/brand level on consumer motive perceptions, ANCOVA controlled the effects of company familiarity and preexposure sponsor attitude and credibility in all of the following analyses. None of the pretest company perceptions were significantly related to sponsor motive attributions. Of the four factors identified, only factor 1, altruism, was associated with more than two items and could formally be considered a scale ([alpha] = .8). Factor 2, profit, with only two items ([alpha] = .69), and factor 3, public image, with only two items and low alpha (.67), were included to provide a preliminary test of the hypotheses. Factor 4, with only one item, was not included.

Multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) results showed significant multivariate effects of congruence, F(2, 180) = 13.58, p < .001. Univariate tests revealed that only altruism, F(1, 181) = 20.86, p < .001, was significantly influenced by congruence; profit and public image were not. The congruent condition generated stronger altruism motive assessments than did the low-congruent condition, thus providing support for H1. The absence of a main effect for company-/brand-level message disconfirmed H2. There was no significant interaction (p > .1); congruence effects were not dependent on the presence of a brand in the message.

Sponsor Credibility Perceptions and Attitudes

Preexposure attitudes (M = 5.07) and credibility perceptions (M = 4.55) of the low-congruence sponsor (Reebok) were significantly higher than the preexposure attitudes (M = 4.42) and credibility perceptions (M = 4.37) of the high-congruence sponsor (Ortho), t(189) = 6.11, p < .01; t(189) = 2.14,p < .01. Controlling for familiarity, the credibility difference becomes insignificant (p > .1). Both sponsors were viewed with mildly positive attitudes and some credibility, just above the midpoint of each scale. Univariate ANCOVAs were performed to test the effects of congruence and company/brand level on sponsor credibility and attitudes while controlling for pretest sponsor attitude, credibility, and familiarity perceptions. As might be expected, the preexposure scores for sponsor attitude were significantly related only to postexposure scores for attitude, F(1, 187) = 8.22, p < .01, and preexposure scores for credibility were only significantly related to postexposure scores for credibility, F(1, 187) = 11.12, p < .01. Sponsor familiarity was significantly related to both posttest attitude and credibility perceptions, F(1, 87) = 19.64, p < .01, F(1, 187) = 22.24, p < .01, respectively.

There were no significant company-/brand-level effects or interaction (p > .1) on sponsor credibility and attitude, but as expected, significant main effects of congruence were found. The congruent condition created stronger credibility perceptions, F(1, 187) = 22.87, p < .01, and more favorable sponsor attitudes, F(1, 187) = 7.82, p < .01, thus supporting H3 and H4, respectively. In fact, adjusted postexposure credibility perceptions of the incongruent sponsor were slightly lower than the preexposure perceptions, whereas the credibility perceptions of the congruent sponsor increased after exposure to the stimulus materials (see Table 3).

Two-way ANCOVAs were performed to test whether the changes in credibility perceptions and attitudes before and after exposures varied across the conditions (the change scores were obtained by subtracting the posttest ratings from the pretest scores). With company familiarity as a covariate, the results show that pre-post differences in both credibility and attitudes were significantly smaller (and in the opposite direction) for the incongruent sponsor, [M.sub.credibility] = -.25; [M.sub.attitude] = -.04, than those for the congruent company, [M.sub.credibility] = .72, F(1, 182) = 23.78, p < .001; [M.sub.attitude] = .88, F(1, 182) = 19.53,p < .001. No significant company-/brand-level effects or interactions emerged (p > .1).

Mediating Role of Altruistic Motives and Sponsor Credibility

Consistent with expectations, congruence was found to create more positive consumer perceptions of sponsor altruism, credibility, and attitudes. Congruence effects on sponsor attitudes were predicted to flow through the creation of stronger altruism and more credible perceptions of the sponsor. This causal order of the dependent variables was tested with step-down analysis. Unlike separate univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests, by examining dependent variables in a prearranged order, step-down analysis is useful for understanding the sequential process of experimental effects on interrelated dependent variables (Roy 1958; see Yi 1990 for an example). The first step-down F values are the same as the univariate F values from ANCOVA on altruism attributions that was performed previously. The second step was to test the effects of congruence on sponsor credibility, with the effects of altruism attributions covaried out. In the third step, congruence effects on sponsor attitudes were assessed while controlling for the effects of the two preceding variables (altruism attribution and sponsor credibility). Note that altruism motive had significant effects on sponsor credibility in the second step, which, in turn, appeared to be the only variable that significantly influenced sponsor attitudes (effects of congruence and altruism on sponsor attitudes became nonsignificant in the third step, p > .05), indicating significant mediating roles of both altruistic motive assessments and sponsor credibility. Table 4 summarizes the step-down analysis results.

Because congruence effects on sponsor credibility remained significant while controlling for altruism (although the F value decreased from the original value from ANCOVA without altruism), additional analyses following Baron and Kenny's (1986) procedure were performed to further assess the mediational relationships of congruence, altruism motives, and company credibility. The first regression equation indicated that congruence positively influenced altruistic motive assessment, [beta] = .23, t(185) = 3.28, p = .001, [R.sup.2] = .06. The second equation demonstrated a significant positive effect of congruence on company credibility perceptions, [beta] = .23, t(185) = 3.18, p = .002, [R.sup.2] = .05. Finally, the third equation showed that altruism motives still significantly affected company credibility perceptions, [beta] = .41, t(2, 184) = 6.06,p < .001, [R.sup.2] = .21, but the effect of congruence on company credibility decreased, [beta] = .13, t(2, 185) = 1.96,p = .052, when regressed along with altruism motives. Accordingly, the results lend additional support for the mediating role of altruism.

To further examine the proposed mediation relationship among congruence, altruism, sponsor credibility, and sponsor attitudes, and to gain understanding of the full picture of the process, we performed a path analysis using AMOS4 (see Goldsmith, Lafferty, and Newell 2000 for an example). A single variable measuring congruence was computed by summing the three congruence items (manipulation check). Altruistic motives, company credibility, and company attitudes were also computed by summing three subscales respectively. We tested the model suggested by the step-down analysis (Model 1) and compared it to a baseline model in which congruence influences all of the endogenous variables that are correlated in a causal sequence (Model 2; see Figure 1). Path coefficients and fit indices of Model 1, which is more parsimonious, showed a slightly better fit. The path coefficients in Model 2 showed that the direct relationship from congruence to company attitudes was not significant. The congruence effects flowed through altruistic motives and company credibility. The direct path from congruence to company credibility remained significant, implying that congruence had direct effects on sponsor credibility perceptions, as well as indirect effects through assessment of altruistic motives. Altruistic motives do not take all of the congruence effects on company credibility, but play a significant role in determining sponsor credibility perceptions. Taken together, the results support the mediation model of sponsor motive assessments and credibility, confirming both H5 and H6.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

DISCUSSION

Studies by Webb and Mohr (1998) and Barone, Miyazaki, and Taylor (2000) establish that consumers care about and respond to the motives of sponsors in cause-related marketing campaigns. Webb and Mohr (1998) focused on the consumer's tendency to doubt or accept sponsor motives, and Barone, Miyazaki, and Taylor (2000) measured consumer response to clearly defined sponsor motives. The results of the present study suggest that in realistic exposure settings, where no sponsor motive is likely to be communicated, consumer assessments of sponsor motive play a role in consumer response to the sponsorship of a cause. The findings indicate the value of further explication and application of attribution theory principles to the explanation of congruence in sponsorship effects.

Research findings spanning different areas of consumer response to advertising consistently point to the more persuasive effects of congruent or compatible pairings of sources, such as celebrities and corporate sponsors, and products, events, and causes. The reasons for the effects of compatibility have not been empirically established, however, particularly in the areas of sponsorship and cause-related marketing. The findings of this study support the mediating role of consumer attributions of sponsor motive for the effects of congruence on the creation of consumer perceptions of sponsor credibility and attitude toward the sponsor of a cause

Source credibility has been shown to enhance the persuasive effects of product endorsers and celebrity spokespeople. Highly credible sources are valuable because they generate more positive attitudes and behaviors (Craig and McCann 1978), and gain more attention (Sternthal, Phillips, and Dholakia 1978) than do sources that lack credibility. Corporations and advertisers are also a type of source credibility (Goldberg and Hartwick 1990) that should be better incorporated into our models of advertising effects. Consumer perceptions of sponsor motives and sponsor credibility can translate into other consumer responses.

MacKenzie and Lutz (1989) found attitude toward an advertiser played an unexpectedly significant role in determining attitude toward the ad. Yet little research has focused on this relationship. Few advertising scholars would argue the importance of a consumer's attitude toward an ad in determining an advertisement's effectiveness. Mitchell and Olson (1981) first provided evidence that ad attitude can mediate the development of brand attitude. Subsequently, research results have confirmed the mediating influence of ad attitude in a variety of contexts and support the view that better-liked ads lead to more positive evaluations of the advertised brand (Chattopadhyay and Nedungadi 1992). The findings of this study suggest that early antecedents of ad attitude, namely, sponsor/advertiser cognitions, may form or change during exposure, and that advertiser cognitions include judgments about sponsor motives and credibility.

Source credibility is often assumed to be a fixed consumer belief prior to ad exposure. In this study, pretest consumer attitudes and credibility perceptions of the sponsor were not significantly related to posttest attributions of sponsor motive. It is notable that sponsor credibility increased in the congruent condition and decreased somewhat in the incongruent condition. The role of consumer attributions of sponsor motives and development of sponsor credibility may prove to be an important part of ad attitude development, and should not be considered a fixed consumer perception.

From a practical standpoint, recapturing consumer trust is at the top of many corporate communication lists of objectives as they struggle with their images. Recent accounting scandals and other well-publicized corporate misdeeds that led to the financial and image downfall of major corporations such as WorldCom and Enron have created a climate of consumer mistrust. Companies that have not engaged in misdeeds are left with the fallout of corporate accounting scandals. Companies seeking to enhance consumer trust might consider identifying causes that are consistent with their own product offerings. It also could be argued that becoming more sincerely and socially responsible can be enacted and displayed through the sponsorship of programs that help past, and perhaps future, employees and customers. Companies with untarnished images can use the findings of this study. The findings suggest that companies trying to improve their image may benefit from sponsoring a congruent cause. They also suggest that for well-known and well-liked companies, the sponsorship of an incongruent cause may not hurt one's image. The absence of message format effects in this study suggests that companies may use brand-level sponsorship messages that pitch brands without losing credibility. Unfortunately, a lack of effects cannot provide solid evidence that the phenomenon will hold true in other instances.

The findings also suggest that the use of the Internet may provide benefits to companies that are not readily available through sports sponsorship. Unlike sporting events, which cannot provide access to additional product and company information, Web sites offer sponsors the potential for consumer direct response to sponsorship efforts. Consumers can click on banners and links that immediately take them to additional information, company Web sites, and brand purchase possibilities. Also, health, or fighting specific diseases, is becoming the "cause," or cluster of causes, of the present and the very near future. For example, the fight against breast cancer has long been viewed as a cause, or in some cases a crusade, and has been adopted by many organizations in an attempt to create a positive image. Moreover, the sponsorship of health information on the Web can ally a for-profit company with a consumer's personal health cause. Health information Web sites should be added to the growing list of sponsorship conduits.

The study presented in this paper evaluated the effects of the congruence between a sponsor and a cause and the use of company versus brand names on consumer attributions of corporate motive for the support of a health cause and resulting consumer perceptions of the sponsor. The findings highlight the importance of adding cognitive responses to theoretical explanations of sponsorship effects, especially the important roles of consumer attributions of sponsor motive, sponsor credibility perceptions, and subsequent sponsor attitudes. The findings also demonstrate the importance of studying sponsor credibility as a precursor to sponsor attitudes. Clearly, more research is needed in this area. Credibility and congruence perceptions should be more thoroughly explicated and studied within a theoretical approach to understanding sponsorship. Given the increasing popularity of the sponsorship strategy and its use with causes that may elicit high involvement processing, it is important to understand how consumers actively make judgments about the sponsor and the act.

LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH

As with any other experimental design, the one used in this study was the product of several trade-offs for internal and external validity concerns. Using real companies and health information provided a level of external validity to the findings. McDaniel (1999) argues that studying sponsorship with fictitious companies has little applied value, but it could be argued that using real companies in this study may have threatened internal validity. The pretest levels of attitude toward the sponsor were significantly different for the congruence conditions, [M.sub.Reebok] = 5.07, [M.sub.Ortho] = 4.42, leaving more room for attitude enhancement for Ortho. After controlling for familiarity, there were no significant differences in the pretest credibility perceptions, [M.sub.Reebok] = 4.42, [M.sub.Ortho] = 4.37. The test of change scores supports the finding that given the midscale levels of the initial attitudinal and credibility perceptions, the sponsorship of a highly congruent cause appears to have potential benefit for a company trying to improve its image.

A concomitant issue was that while the messages that represented the congruent and incongruent conditions were painstakingly constructed for similarity, the fact that two real and different companies were used poses risk to the internal validity of the findings. Company familiarity and pretest attitude and company credibility perceptions were measured and controlled in the statistical analyses. However, there is always the possibility that an unaccounted difference in the two conditions, either through the company or the actual message, may have created the results. That the brand versus the company level of the messages did not create any differences suggests that the threat may be minimal (the only difference in the message for the company-level condition was the different company name, but the brand-level messages contained different slogans and products).

The measurement of sponsor motive assessments requires further work. The multidimensionality of consumer perceptions of sponsor motives warrants further investigation and measurement refinement. Also, the measures used in this study were context-specific for some items. Related to this issue is that the generalizability of the findings may also be limited. The use of health/disease prevention Web sites as a context for study is new to the sponsorship area. Unlike sporting events, the consumer at a health information Web site is purposefully seeking information about the personal issue of interest, and is likely to be a more active cognitive processor than the typical sports spectator. Attributions of sponsor motive or credibility may not play as important a role in sports sponsorship, but this remains an empirical question.

In this study, congruence was defined based on the sponsoring corporation's marketing of a product that could be featured in the health information presented on the Web site. However, academic operational definitions of congruence, fit, or compatibility have varied, and clearly, many are possible. Although the concept of congruence has been conceptualized as a single, broad construct primarily based on symbolic properties of the sponsor and the sponsee, its multidimensionality has been ignored. Continued exploration of congruence perceptions would be worthwhile.

Credibility was measured as a global construct representing the unbiased, convincing, and believable nature of a company and a specific message. If credibility is a construct that can be applied consistently across objects, then the items should be examined and constructed more carefully for more reliable scale development. Credibility perceptions should be explored in greater depth. Since the time that the data were collected for this study, some progress has been made in developing a company credibility measure (Newell and Goldsmith 2001), and this research suggests that a corporation's credibility can influence attitude toward the ad, attitude toward the brand, and purchase intentions (Lafferty and Goldsmith 1999; Newell and Goldsmith 2001).

Finally, an important strategic concern that warrants future study is the position the corporation holds in the mind of the consumer prior to the sponsorship activity. The two companies used in this study were initially perceived as reasonably credible and were moderately well liked. There was no reason to expect resistance or negative reactions to the sponsorship on the basis of the companies or health issue chosen for this study; hence, it is not clear that the effects of congruence found in this study would generalize to companies that are perceived negatively by consumers. It is possible that with preexisting negative attitudes, consumers would be more likely to attribute more self-serving motives to a sponsor. The results of a recent study examining multiple sponsorships indicated that stigmatized product sponsors (cigarettes and alcohol) do not produce the same positive attitudinal change that can be seen with nonstigmatized product sponsors (Ruth and Simonin 2003). Another study found that users of stigmatized products (smokers and beer drinkers) were more accepting of stigmatized product sponsorships than were consumers who did not use stigmatized products (Kinney and McDaniel 2001). Future studies should investigate the possibility of changing negative attitudes toward companies. For stigmatized products and sponsors, consumer judgment about sponsor motive may prove an essential component for understanding response to sponsorship activities.

TABLE 1
Attribution Factor Analysis Results

                                         Factor loading

                                     Factor 1:   Factor 2:
Item                                 altruism     profit

M1. Cares about customers              .812
M2. No concern for welfare            -.818
M3. Cares about health information     .755
M4. Persuade to buy products                       .866
M5. Cares about their profits                      .783
M6. Positive corporate image
M7. Company benefits
M8. Right thing to do
Eigenvalues                            2.742       1.610

                                         Factor loading

                                      Factor 3:     Factor 4:
Item                                 public image    ethics

M1. Cares about customers
M2. No concern for welfare
M3. Cares about health information
M4. Persuade to buy products
M5. Cares about their profits
M6. Positive corporate image             .905
M7. Company benefits                     .800
M8. Right thing to do                                 .882
Eigenvalues                             1.012         .769

Note: The above items were measured on a five-point Likert scale
for agreement with the following statements (1 = strongly disagree,
5 = strongly agree).

Motive 1. Ortho/Reebok sponsored this Web site because ultimately
they care about their customers

Motive 2. Ortho/Reebok does not have a genuine concern for the
welfare of their consumers.

Motive 3. Ortho/Reebok really cares about getting health information
to their consumers.

Motive 4. Ortho/Reebok sponsored this Web site to persuade me to
buy their products.

Motive 5. Ortho/Reebok sponsored this Web site because ultimately
they care about their profits.

Motive 6. Ortho/Reebok sponsored this Web site because sponsorship
creates a positive corporate image.

Motive 7. Ultimately, Ortho/Reebok benefits by sponsoring consumer
health information.

Motive 8. Ortho/Reebok sponsored this Web site because it was
morally the "right" thing to do.

TABLE 2 Means for Motive Attribution Items and Scales

                                        Raw means     Adjusted means *

                                     Ortho   Reebok   Ortho   Reebok

M1. Cares about customers             3.39     3.18    3.46     3.13
M2. No concern for welfare            2.37     2.52    2.31     2.55
M3. Cares about health information    3.70     3.02    3.79     2.95
M4. Persuade to buy products          3.70     3.43    3.65     3.47
M5. Cares about their profits         3.75     3.74    3.71     3.77
M6. Positive corporate image          4.10     4.28    4.08     4.31
M7. Company benefits                  4.26     4.08    4.29     4.04
M8. Right thing to do                 2.78     2.99    2.88     2.88
Altruism                              3.57     3.23    3.67     3.14
Profit                                3.72     3.59    3.68     3.62
Public image                          4.18     4.19    4.20     4.16

* Means with pretest scores and familiarity as covariates.

Motive 1. Ortho/Reebok sponsored this Web site because ultimately
they care about their customers.

Motive 2. Ortho/Reebok does not have a genuine concern for the
welfare of their consumers.

Motive 3. Ortho/Reebok really cares about getting health information
to their consumers.

Motive 4. Ortho/Reebok sponsored this Web site to persuade me to
buy their products.

Motive 5. Ortho/Reebok sponsored this Web site because ultimately
they care about their profits.

Motive 6. Ortho/Reebok sponsored this Web site because sponsorship
creates a positive corporate image.

Motive 7. Ultimately, Ortho/Reebok benefits by sponsoring consumer
health information.

Motive 8. Ortho/Reebok sponsored this Web site because it was
morally the "right" thing to do.

TABLE 3
Means for Sponsor Familiarity, Credibility, and Attitude

                              Raw means     Adjusted means *

                           Ortho   Reebok   Ortho   Reebok

Sponsor familiarity         4.52     5.81
Preexposure credibility     4.37     4.58
Postexposure credibility    4.96     4.45    5.10     4.31
Preexposure attitude        4.36     5.15
Postexposure attitude       5.13     5.19    5.30     5.03

* Means with pretest scores and familiarity as covariates.

TABLE 4
Univariate and Step-Down F Tests: Congruence Effects on Altruistic
Motives, Sponsor Credibility, and Sponsor Attitude

   Variable       Sources of     Univariate        Step-down
   ordering        variation         F        p        F        p

1. Altruism            C             20.51   .00
                       M              .04    .85
                     C x M            1.18   .29

2. Credibility     Altruism*                           22.12   .00
                       C             22.71   .00       10.69   .00
                       M              1.02   .32        1.00   .32
                     C x M            .33    .57        .05    .83

3. Attitude       Altruism *                            1.82   .18
                 Credibility *                        128.78   .00
                       C              7.17   .01        1.02   .32
                       M               .5    .82        .37    .55
                     C x M             .1    .92        .24    .63

Notes: Altruism = altruistic motive; Credibility = sponsor credibility;
Attitude = sponsor attitudes; C = congruence; M = message level
(company versus brand).

* The step-down F test is based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA)
with the variable(s) as an additional covariate(s). All the tests
were based on ANCOVAs controlling for pretest sponsor attitude,
credibility, and familiarity.

REFERENCES

Amis, John, Trevor Slack, and Tim Berrett (1999), "Sport Sponsorship as Distinctive Competence," European Journal of Marketing, 33 (3/4), 250-272.

Bainbridge, Jane (2001), "Brand Fit is Crucial to the Success of Cause Related Ties," Marketing (May 3), 21.

Baron, Reuben M., and David A. Kenny (1986), "The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51 (6), 1173-1182.

Barone, Michael J., Anthony D. Miyazaki, and Kimberly A. Taylor (2000), "The Influence of Cause-Related Marketing on Consumer Choice: Does One Turn Deserve Another?" Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28 (2), 248-262.

Bendapudi, Neeli, Surendra N. Singh, and Venkat Bendapudi (1996), "Enhancing Helping Behavior: An Integrated Framework for Promotion Planning," Journal of Marketing, 60 (July), 33-49.

Benezra, K. (1996), "Cause and Effects Marketing," Brandweek (April 22), 38-42.

Bennett, Roger (1999), "Sports Sponsorship, Spectator Recall and False Consensus," European Journal of Marketing, 33 (3/ 4), 291-312.

Bloxham, Mike (1998), "Brand Affinity and Television Programme Sponsorship," International Journal of Advertising, 17 (1), 89-98.

Burridge, Martin (1989), "The Fine Art of Sponsorship," International Journal of Physical Distribution and Materials Management, 19 (30), 19-23.

Celsi, Richard L., and Jerry C. Olson (1988), "The Role of Involvement in Attention and Comprehension Processes," Journal of Consumer Research, 15 (2), 210-224.

Chandon, Pierre, Biran Wansink, and Gilles Laurent (2000), "A Benefit Congruency Framework of Sales Promotion Effectiveness," Journal of Marketing, 64 (4), 65-81.

Chattopadhyay, Amitava, and Prakash Nedungadi (1992), "Does Attitude Toward the Ad Endure? The Moderating Effects," Journal of Consumer Research, 19 (1), 26-33.

Cornwell, T. Bettina, and Isabelle Maignan (1998), "An International Review of Sponsorship Research," Journal of Advertising, 27 (1), 1-21.

--, Stephen W. Pruitt, and Robert Van Ness (2001), "The Value of Winning in Motorsports: Sponsorship-Linked Marketing," Journal of Advertising Research, 41 (1), 17-31.

Craig, C. Samuel, and John M. McCann (1978), "Assessing Communication Effects of Energy Conservation," Journal of Consumer Research, 5 (September), 82-88.

Crimmins, James, and Martin Horn (1996), "Sponsorship: From Management Ego Trip to Marketing Success," Journal of Advertising Research, 36 (4), 11-21.

Dahl, Darren W., and Anne M. Lavack (1995), "Cause-Related Marketing: Impact of Size of Corporate Donation and Size of Cause-Related Promotion on Consumer Perceptions and Participation," in 1995 American Marketing Association Winter Educators' Conference: Marketing Theory and Applications, David W. Stewart and Naufel J. Vilcassim, eds., Chicago: American Marketing Association, 476-481.

D'Astous, Alain, and Pierre Blitz (1995), "Consumer Evaluations of Sponsorship Programmes," European Journal of Marketing, 29 (12), 6-22.

Drumwright, Minette E. (1996), "Company Advertising with a Social Dimension: The Role of Noneconomic Criteria, "Journal of Marketing, 60 (October), 71-87.

Ellen, Pare Scholder, Lois A. Mohr, and Deborah J. Webb (2000), "Charitable Programs and the Retailer: Do They Mix?" Journal of Retailing, 76 (3), 393-496.

Goldberg, Marvin E., and Jon Hartwick (1990), "The Effects of Advertiser Reputation and Extremity of Advertising Claim on Advertising Effectiveness," Journal of Consumer Research, 17 (September), 172-179.

Goldsmith, Ronald E., Barbara A. Lafferty, and Stephen J. Newell (2000), "The Impact of Corporate Credibility and Celebrity Credibility on Consumer Reaction to Advertisements and Brands," Journal of Advertising, 29 (3), 43-54.

Gray, Robert (2000), "Developing a Tight Fit Is Crucial to CRM," Marketing (May 4), 37-38.

Gwinner, Kevin (1997), "A Model of Image Creation and Image Transfer in Event Sponsorship," International Marketing Review, 14 (3), 145-158.

--, and John Eaton (1999), "Building Brand Image Through Event Sponsorship: The Role of Image Transfer," Journal of Advertising, 28 (4), 47-57.

Haley, Eric (1996), "Exploring the Construct of Organization as Source: Consumers' Understandings of Organizational Sponsorship of Advocacy Advertising," Journal of Advertising, 25 (2), 19-35.

Hansen, Flemming, and Lene Scotwin (1995), "An Experimental Enquiry into Sponsoring: What Effects Can Be Measured?" Marketing and Research Today (August), 173181.

Hastie, Reid (1984), "Causes and Effects of Causal Attribution," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46 (January), 44-56.

Heider, Fritz (1946), "Attitudes and Cognitive Organizations," Journal of Personality, 1,107-112.

--(1958), The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations, New York: Wiley.

Johar, Gita V., and Michel T. Pham (1999), "Relatedness, Prominence and Constructive Sponsor Identification," Journal of Marketing Research, 36, 299-312.

Jones, Edward E., and Keith Davis (1965), "From Acts to Dispositions: The Attribution Process in Person Perception," in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 2, Leonard Berkowitz, ed., New York: Academic Press, 219-266.

Kelley, Harold H. (1972), "Causal Schemata and the Attribution Process," in Attribution: Perceiving the Causes of Behavior, Edward E. Jones et al., eds., Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press, 151-174.

--(1973), "The Process of Causal Attribution," American Psychologist, 28 (February), 107-128.

Kinney, Lance, and Stephen R. McDaniel (2001), "An Exploratory Investigation of Demographic Variables as Predictors of Attitudes Towards Sports Sponsorship," in Proceedings of the American Academy of Advertising, Charles R. Taylor, ed., Salt Lake City: American Academy of Advertising, 136143.

Lafferty, Barbara A., and Ronald E. Goldsmith (1999), "Corporate Credibility's Role in Consumers' Attitudes and Purchase Intentions When a High Versus a Low Credibility Endorser Is Used in the Ad," Journal of Business Research, 44, 109-116.

Lardinoit, Thierry, and Pascale G. Quester (2001), "Attitudinal Effects of Combined Sponsorship and Sponsor's Prominence on Basketball in Europe," Journal of Advertising Research, 41 (1), 48-57.

McDaniel, Stephen R. (1999), "An Investigation of Match-Up Effects in Sport Sponsorship Advertising: The Implications of Consumer Advertising Schemas," Psychology and Marketing, 16 (2), 163-184.

McDonald, Colin (1991), "Sponsorship and the Image of the Sponsor," European Journal of Marketing, 25 (11), 31-38.

MacKenzie, Scott B., and Richard J. Lutz (1989), "An Empirical Examination of the Structural Antecedents of Attitude Toward the Ad in an Advertising Pretesting Context, "Journal of Marketing, 53 (April), 48-65.

Madrigal, Robert (2001), "Social Identity Effects in a Belief Attitude-Intentions Hierarchy: Implications for Corporate Sponsorship," Psychology and Marketing, 18 (2), 145-165.

Meenaghan, Tony (1983), "Commercial Sponsorship," European Journal of Marketing, 7 (7), 5-73.

--(2001), "Understanding Sponsorship Effects," Psychology and Marketing, 18 (2), 95-122.

Mitchell, Andrew A., and Jerry C. Olson (1981), "Are Product Attribute Beliefs the Only Mediator of Advertising Effects on Brand Attitude?" Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (3), 318-332.

Miyazaki, Anthony D., and Angela G. Morgan (2001), "Assessing Market Value of Event Sponsoring: Corporate Olympic Sponsorships," Journal of Advertising Research, 41 (1), 9-15.

Moore, David J., John C. Mowen, and Richard Reardon (1994), "Multiple Sources in Advertising Appeals: When Product

Endorsers Are Paid by the Advertising Sponsor," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 22 (3), 234-243.

Mowen, John C. (1980), "On Product Endorser Effectiveness: A Balance Model Approach," Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 3 (1), 41-57.

Murphy, Claire (1999), "Brand Values Can Build on Charity Ties," Marketing (March 25), 41.

Newell, Stephen, and Ronald E. Goldsmith (2001), "The Development of a Scale to Measure Perceived Corporate Credibility," Journal of Business Research, 52, 235-247.

Nicholls, J. A. E, Sydney Roslow, and Sandipa Dublish (1999), "Brand Recall and Brand Preference at Sponsored Golf and Tennis Tournaments," European Journal of Marketing, 33 (3/ 4), 365-387.

Ninetto, Amy (1998), "Culture Sells: Cezanne and Corporate Identity," Cultural Anthropology, 13 (2), 256-282.

Otker, Ton, and Peter Hayes (1987), "Judging the Efficiency of Sponsorship: Experience from the 1986 Soccer World Cup," Esomar Congress, 15 (4), 3-8.

Petty, Richard E., and John T. Cacioppo (1981), Attitudes and Persuasion: Classic and Contemporary Approaches, Dubuque, IA: William C. Brown.

Pham, Michel Tuan, and Gita Venkataramani Johar (2001), "Market Prominence Biases in Sponsor Identification: Processes and Consequentiality," Psychology and Marketing, 18 (2), 123-143.

Piliavin, Jane Allyn, and Hong-Wen Charng (1990), "Altruism: A Review of Recent Theory and Research," Annual Review of Sociology, 16, 27-65.

Quester, Pascale G., and Beverley Thompson (2001), "Advertising and Promotion Leverage on Arts Sponsorship Effectiveness," Journal of Advertising Research, 41 (1), 33-47.

Roy, J. (1958), "Step Down Procedure in Multivariate Analysis," Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 29 (December), 1177-1187.

Ruth, Julie A., and Bernard L. Simonin (2003), "'Brought to You by Brand A and Brand B': Investigating Multiple Sponsors' Influence on Consumer Attitudes Toward Sponsorship Events," Journal of Advertising, 32 (3), 19-30.

Sherry, John E (1983), "Gift Giving in Anthropological Perspective," Journal of Consumer Research, 10 (September), 157168.

Sparkman, Richard M., Jr. (1982), "The Discounting Principle in the Perception of Advertising," in Advances in Consumer Research, vol. 9, Andrew Mitchell, ed., Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research, 277-280.

Speed, Richard, and Peter Thompson (2000), "Determinants of Sports Sponsorship Response," Academy of Marketing Science, 28 (2), 226-238.

Sternthal, Brian, Lynn W. Phillips, and Ruby Dholakia (1978), "The Persuasive Effect of Source Credibility: A Situational Analysis," Public Opinion Quarterly, 42 (Fall), 285-314.

Stipp, Horst (1998), "The Impact of Olympic Sponsorship on Corporate Image," International Journal of Advertising, 17 (1), 75-87.

Taylor, Shelley E., and Jennifer Crocker (1981), "Schematic Bases of Social Information Processing," in Social Cognition: The Ontario Symposium on Personality antisocial Psychology, vol. 1,

E. Tory Higgins, C. Peter Herman, and Mark P. Zanna, eds., Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 89-134.

Varadarajan, P. Rajon, and Anil Menon (1988), "Cause-Related Marketing: A Coalignment of Marketing Strategy and Corporate Philanthropy," Journal of Marketing, 52 (3), 58-74.

Webb, Deborah J., and Lois A. Mohr (1998), "A Typology of Consumer Responses to Cause-Related Marketing: From Skeptics to Socially Concerned," Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 17 (Fall), 226-238.

Yi, Youjae (1990), "Cognitive and Affective Priming Effects of the Context for Print Advertisements," Journal of Advertising, 19 (2), 40-48.

Nora J. Rifon (Ph.D., City University of New York) is an associate professor in the Department of Advertising at Michigan State University.

Sejung Marina Choi (Ph.D., Michigan State University) is an assistant professor in the Department of Advertising at the University of Texas at Austin.

Carrie S. Trimble (M.A., University of Illinois) is an instructor in the Department of Business Administration at Illinois Wesleyan University.

Hairong Li (Ph.D., Michigan State University) is an associate professor in the Department of Advertising at Michigan State University.