Download Reactions towards random acts of kindness - UvA-DARE

Reactions towards random acts of
kindness
_______________________
Master thesis
Msc. in Business Studies – Marketing Track
University of Amsterdam, Faculty of Economics and Business
Author:
Student number:
Date of submission:
Supervisor:
Bart Goes
10459235
7-7-2014
Meg (H.H.) Lee
Abstract
Random acts of kindness are increasingly successful performed by companies nowadays. The
author of this research has made an initial attempt to show how (different) consumers react to
random acts of kindness and whether they are as positive as has been widely suggested.
Consumer reactions are measured in terms of electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM) and brand
attitude. In addition, this study investigates how personality, act of kindness type (random
versus strategic) and sincerity influence the impact of acts of kindness on consumer reactions.
The developed conceptual model was tested using an online experiment in which participants
who read a news article about a fictitious airline had to evaluate the brand and its act of
kindness. The results showed that acts of kindness are not always as positive as assumed as it
does not generate positive eWOM and sharing behavior, although it is consistent with the
characteristics of viral content. Both types of consumers (entity and incremental theorists) did
hold very positive brand attitudes after reading about a brand’s act of kindness, but it is
unclear to what extent the act of kindness contributed to this positive attitude as participants
who read a general description of the brand (without an act of kindness) evaluated the brand
just as positive. The results further reveal the mediating role of sincerity in the relationship
between acts of kindness and reactions suggesting consumers use sincere attributions to
determine their willingness to share and to form subsequent attitudes towards the brand.
Finally, no support was found for the suggested moderating roles of personality type and act
of kindness type, although this study provides encouraging support for the notion that both
may help explain how different consumers react in different ways. So did entity theorists
report higher scores on brand attitude when the act of kindness was strategic and were
incremental theorists more willing to share truly random acts of kindness. This research
concludes with theoretical and managerial implications followed by avenues for future
research.
1
Table of contents
1.
Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 3
2.
Literature review ................................................................................................................ 7
2.1 Random acts of kindness .................................................................................................. 7
2.2 Implicit theories of personality ...................................................................................... 10
2.3 Random versus strategic acts of kindness ...................................................................... 13
2.4 Attribution theory and sincerity ..................................................................................... 16
3.
Research design ................................................................................................................ 19
3.1 Procedure ........................................................................................................................ 19
3.2 Manipulation check ........................................................................................................ 20
3.3 Pre-test ............................................................................................................................ 21
3.4 Sample ............................................................................................................................ 22
3.5 Measures ......................................................................................................................... 22
3.5.1 Dependent variables ................................................................................................ 22
3.5.2 Control variables ..................................................................................................... 23
3.5.3 Manipulation check ................................................................................................. 26
3.5.4 Moderator ................................................................................................................ 26
3.5.5 Mediator .................................................................................................................. 28
4.
Results .............................................................................................................................. 29
4.1 Manipulation check ........................................................................................................ 29
4.2 Correlations matrix ......................................................................................................... 30
4.3 Tests of hypotheses ........................................................................................................ 31
4.3.1 Dependent variables ................................................................................................ 31
4.3.2 Moderation effects ................................................................................................... 34
4.3.4 Mediation effect ...................................................................................................... 41
5.
Discussion ........................................................................................................................ 42
5.1 Discussion of the results ................................................................................................. 42
5.2 Theoretical implications ................................................................................................. 47
5.3 Managerial implications ................................................................................................. 49
5.4 Limitations and future research ...................................................................................... 50
6.
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 53
7.
References ........................................................................................................................ 55
8.
Appendix .......................................................................................................................... 61
8.1 Experiment ..................................................................................................................... 62
2
1. Introduction
Random acts of kindness were featured as one of the biggest consumer trends for 2011
(Trendwatching, 2011). Companies are picking up the trend and with social media as an
appropriate platform companies are even more performing random acts of kindness
nowadays. One of the major reasons for these companies’ kindness actions is to receive
massive positive eWOM (Trendwatching, 2011). Soon a number of companies successfully
performed random acts of kindness and received a lot of positive ‘buzz’ while just
experimenting with this new phenomenon. A great example is the ‘How Happiness Spreads’
campaign of the Dutch airline company KLM (Airlinetrends, 2010). In order to turn
passengers’ boredom while waiting for takeoff into happiness, they formed a KLM ‘Surprise
Team’. They identified customers who checked in on Foursquare at one of KLM’s venues or
posted messages on Twitter that they were flying with KLM. The team did as much research
about that person as they can to find a gift that is customized to that particular customer in
order to surprise them with a small appropriate gift just before departure. The campaign was a
big success as consumers reacted very positive towards KLM’s campaign as well as to the
brand itself. Besides, it was massively shared among the web: over one million direct
impressions on Twitter, 5.000 new Facebook friends and their online video was discussed on
hundreds of blogs and media (e.g. BBC) as a best practice case on how brands can use social
media in a relevant way (Boondoggle, 2014).
However, there is only one study so far (Baskerville et al., 2000) that focused on
random acts of kindness, which was performed in a personal interaction context without any
involvement of brands. This is interesting as random acts of kindness suggest to be positive as
consumers are surprised with a gift or special service treatment. Besides, brand’s kindness
actions like KLM’s one are likely to go viral as previous studies (Berger & Milkman, 2012;
3
Botha & Reyneke, 2013; Eckler & Bolls, 2011; Henke, 2013) have shown that positive
content and content that evokes high-arousal emotions are more viral. Also, Derbaix and
Vanhamme (2003) demonstrate that there is a significant relationship between surprise and
word-of-mouth. They argue that the likelihood of inducing social sharing is high for surprised
customers. But, brand’s kindness actions have been widely researched in corporate social
responsibility (CSR) literature which shows that good intention behavior is not a guarantee for
positive results. So, it is interesting to study if random acts of kindness are always as positive
as assumed.
Besides this widely held assumption little is known about the reactions of observers of
random acts of kindness. We know that most direct receivers of random acts of kindness
logically become happy, but what about people who read messages about it? Are people
willing to spread this kind of content? Besides being kind eWOM is a major goal of brands’
random acts of kindness, but companies do not really know the consequences; is it really as
positive as they think? We already know from CSR literature that when companies do good
consumers not necessarily become happier or more positive (Forehand & Grier, 2003; Kim,
2011; Yoon, Gurhan-Canli, & Schwarz, 2006). Therefore, it is important to know if random
acts of kindness actually work. This research fills this gap by determining how different
people react to random acts of kindness.
A study by Dweck, Chiu and Hong (1995b) already shows that different types of
people react differently to things. Therefore, to be able to determine reactions to random acts
of kindness of different people two theories are involved in this study. First, implicit theories
of personality are used to divide consumers in two groups to be able to measure reactions of
different types of people. Entity theorists believe that personality traits are fixed and expect a
high degree of consistency in behavior (Dweck et al., 1995b). In contrast, incremental
theorists believe that personality is malleable and view behavior as varying, either over time
4
or across situations (Dweck et al., 1995b). Second, attribution theory is used to determine
consumers’ reactions to random acts of kindness as the theory suggests that consumers assign
causes for managerial actions (Folkes, 1988). In other words, different people may attribute
different reasons or motivations to infer the brand’s kindness action.
Elaborating on these theories, this research makes a number of theoretical
contributions. First, I shed light on how consumers react to brands’ random acts of kindness.
This research enriches the theoretical understanding of implicit theories of personality and
attribution theory. The first by providing insights into how different types of people (entity
versus incremental theorists) react differently to random acts of kindness, the latter by
determining how those different people attribute different motivations to a brand’s kindness
action. Second, this research shows which consequences those reactions might have for
consumers’ attitudes towards a brand. It also complements recent studies by expanding our
knowledge about the type of content being shared online, specifically for random acts of
kindness. Additionally, this research provides the first empirical look into reactions of
observers towards random acts of kindness and its consequences.
Finally, this research also has an important managerial implication. Whereas until now
marketers used random acts of kindness as mere experiments, this study deepens marketers’
understanding of this phenomenon, what type of reactions one might expect when using
campaigns like this and its influence on brand evaluations.
The research question is:
‘Do consumers respond differently to random acts of kindness dependent on their type of
personality?’
5
This paper begins with a literature review in the areas of online sharing behavior,
implicit theories of personality and attribution theory. Based on this research a set of
hypotheses are formulated. Next, the methodology for testing the hypotheses is described,
followed by the results and discussion. The paper concludes with the implications of the
findings and suggestions for future research as well as possible limitations to the study.
6
2. Literature review
To answer the formulated research question this research makes use of some theoretical
concepts. Implicit theories of personality, attribution theory and sincerity form the theoretical
background for hypotheses regarding reactions towards random acts of kindness.
2.1 Random acts of kindness
Random acts of kindness can be generally defined as “a something one does for an unknown
other that they hope will benefit that individual, like giving a stranger a flower” (Baskerville
et al., 2000). As mentioned before, random acts of kindness were ranked as the number one
consumer trend for 2011 by trend firm Trendwatching. Their more specific (marketing)
definition describes random acts of kindness as “any acts of kindness by brands that will be
gratefully received by consumers long used to (and annoyed by) distant, inflexible and selfserving corporations. For brands, increasingly open communications both with and between
consumers (especially online), means that it has never been easier to surprise and delight
audiences with random acts of kindness: whether sending gifts, responding to publicly
expressed moods or just showing that they care” (Trendwatching, 2011). According to
Trendwatching (2011) this trend is becoming of great interest as audiences publicly disclosing
more and more personal information on for example Facebook. They provide information
about their lives, moods and whereabouts, and more consumers are sharing their experiences
with friends and wider audiences on social networks, which means that random acts of
kindness can spread far beyond the original recipients. Brands hope to benefit from multiple
positive consequences that can be made possible by brand’s kindness actions. For example, as
with CSR initiatives, brands may want random acts of kindness to contribute to successfully
change their images or enhance reputations. Certainly in today’s world of massive social
7
media usage, companies are provided with opportunities to evoke more favorable attitudes
towards their brands. Surprised and happy consumers will positively talk about the brand,
spread the word on the web and the brand itself can for example send out a single message or
video in which they show what they are doing. In this way, acting kind to consumers can lead
to positive eWOM and viral messages which enhances the brand’s image. Besides, random
acts of kindness can also help to develop positive relationships with consumers and other
stakeholders. Studies from CSR literature like Creyer and Ross (1997) show that as a result of
kindness actions consumers are more willing to give incentives to these companies.
Eventually, this may lead to switching to a brand or buy products from it simply because of its
kindness actions (Smith & Alcorn, 1991).
The remaining question, however, is whether random acts of kindness are as positive
as assumed. A prediction of its positive effects in terms of eWOM can be made by looking at
previous studies that focused on general types and characteristics of content that goes viral.
There is consensus among researchers that positive and emotional content is likely to go viral.
So did Berger and Milkman (2012) find that positive content and content that evokes higharousal emotions, whether positive (e.g. awe) or negative (e.g. anger), are more viral.
Deactivating emotions (e.g. sadness), on the contrary, are less viral. In a similar vein, Henke
(2013) found that individuals who experience flow, defined as emotional engagement, are
significantly more likely to pass along, download or purchase content, whether the content is
pleasant or unpleasant.
It is interesting to see whether these results are consistent among different types of
content. Therefore, results of some other studies are provided to see whether the same
characteristics of viral textual content apply to content that includes for example videos. So do
Eckler and Bolls (2011) suggest that video’s with a positive emotional tone (i.e. those viewed
as pleasant) result in favorable attitudes towards the ad and the brand, and intent to forward
8
the viral ad. Ads with mixed emotional or negative tones lead to less favorable attitudes. A
study by Botha and Reyneke (2013), conducted in the same context, suggests two
determinants of sharing content: emotions and familiarity with the content. They conclude
that emotions may not always be the first determinant to share content. They argue that in
case of specific content, viewers’ feelings about a video firstly depend on their familiarity
with the content, where familiarity leads to stronger emotional reactions and unfamiliarity to
little, if any, emotional reaction. So, according to Botha and Reyneke emotion is the second
determinant of sharing videos when viewers are confronted with specific content. On the
other hand, when the content of the video is general, emotions are the first determinant of
sharing. In line with previous studies they conclude that a positive emotional reaction
increases the likelihood to share content, but their conclusion that negative ones decrease the
likelihood to share is a bit contradicting with for example Berger and Milkman’s (2012)
findings.
Remember the focus in this research is on reactions regarding random acts of
kindness. Looking at the type of content and characteristics of these kindness actions, prior
research suggest that in general people will respond positively towards these actions. First of
all because random acts of kindness are positive: a consumer receives a present, special
service treatment or something like that. In addition, as consumers are suddenly approached
by a brand and receive something positive, a high-arousal emotion is evoked: surprise.
Derbaix and Vanhamme (2003) show that surprise leads to social sharing and the studies just
mentioned show that this type of content is likely to go viral in an online context, which
means that observers are likely to pass along content like this. So, based on previous research
that shows what type of content goes viral, this research hypothesizes:
H1: Random acts of kindness will lead to positive eWOM.
9
It is not only hypothesized that random acts of kindness in general will lead to positive
eWOM, but it is also expected to lead to positive brand attitudes. CSR studies (Brown &
Dacin, 1997; Handelman & Arnold, 1999) provide evidence revealing that consumers create
goodwill towards companies who perform campaigns based on good intention behavior. As
mentioned previously, consumers are more willing to give incentives to companies with
kindness actions. Besides, studies (Brown & Dacin, 1997; Handelman & Arnold, 1999;
Smith, 1996) show that consumers are more likely to buy from a company that is socially
responsible, positive associations about social responsible companies can enhance product
and brand evaluations and marketing actions with a social dimension generate consumers’
support for the organization. The same positive effects regarding brand attitude are in general
expected for random acts of kindness as it is similar to CSR initiatives by performing
kindness actions and to some extent being socially responsible. Therefore, this research
hypothesizes the following:
H2: Random acts of kindness will lead to positive brand attitudes.
2.2 Implicit theories of personality
Although random acts of kindness may infer by its name and definition it is truly random and
focused on surprising consumers, these actions as well serve other purposes just as any
marketing campaign. In line with other kindness actions like CSR initiatives, companies’
good intention behavior does not solely serve the public good but also stems from selfcentered motives. This results in consumers having different evaluations of companies’
kindness actions (Kim & Lee, 2012). Therefore, implicit theories of personality are used to
divide consumers into two groups to measure those different evaluations of different types of
people. First, some information is provided about this theory in general.
10
Implicit theories of personality are lay beliefs about the malleability of traits and
attributes regarding the self and the environment (Poon & Koehler, 2008; Skowronski, 2002).
Those beliefs about the malleability of personality play a key role in social judgments and
reactions (Dweck, Hong, & Chiu, 1993). Previous studies (Dweck et al., 1995b; Poon &
Koehler, 2008) propose that implicit theories develop as a result of socialization practices,
accumulated personal experiences that highlight trait versus situational forces and everyday
contextual cues. Implicit theories can be activated through changes in real-life occurrences,
exposure to persuasive arguments or media evidence that advocates a particular theory view
(Dweck et al., 1995b; Levy, Chiu, & Hong, 2006). Implicit theories influence how people use
personality trait information in order to make inferences about the causes of behaviors
(Dweck et al., 1995b; Plaks, Levy, & Dweck, 2009). Moreover, they affect the way people
form judgments of others from a particular instance of behavior (Plaks et al., 2009).
As mentioned before, implicit theories of personality classify people in two groups:
entity theorists and incremental theorists. People who believe that personality is fixed and
determined by static traits are referred to as entity theorists. They suppose that a behavior
observed in a specific situation is a reliable indicator of a corresponding personality trait
(Chiu, Hong, & Dweck, 1997). Those who believe that personality is malleable are referred to
as incremental theorists. They think that behavior and traits can change over time and across
situations. Thus, they base their judgments not solely on one specific trait or situation but
more on contextual information.
This research expects a moderating role for implicit theories of personality, which has
already been showed by a study that shows that the theory moderates the effect of brand
anthropomorphization (Puzakova, Kwak & Rocereto, 2013). They find that entity theorists
view anthropomorphized brands that undergo negative publicity less favorably than
nonanthropomorphized brands. In contrast, incremental theorists are less likely to devalue an
11
anthropomorphized brand from a single instance of negative publicity. In line with the
premise that different types of people (entity versus incremental theorists) react differently to
things (Dweck et al., 1995b), this research expects implicit theories of personality to play a
moderating role between random acts of kindness and reactions in terms of willingness to
share and attitude towards the brand. This research expects consumers with different theories
of personality to make sense of random acts of kindness in different ways. Specifically, entity
theorists are likely to view a brand’s random act of kindness as an indicator of stable positive
brand characteristics. They view a brand’s kindness action as corresponding to the brand and
thus perceive the brand as positive and kind (Chiu et al., 1997). Their perception is fixed and
does not change so they are likely to stay positive and are valuable in the long run. They are
likely to consider a single positive action of a brand as a stable and ongoing type of behavior
of that brand on which they can rely to make predictions about future positive brand
performance (Ross & Nisbett, 1991). Therefore, given that entity theorists perceive a brand’s
kindness action as positive and a stable manifestation of the brand’s characteristics, they are
likely to evaluate the brand better. On the other hand, incremental theorists do not base their
judgements on one trait or situation and expect variation in future behaviors after being
exposed to a brand’s single kindness action (Dweck et al., 1995b; Levy, Plaks, Hong, Chi, &
Dweck, 2001). This means that they are likely to see a brand’s random act of kindness as
unstable and temporal. They perceive a random act of kindness as a one-off; only performed
this one time, which means it does not correspond to the brand. So, although they might
perceive the brand’s kindness as positive, incremental theorists are not likely to rely on a
single, positive act to form an overall judgment of the brand, instead they need more examples
of behavior to render a robust judgement (Plaks, Stroessner, Dweck, & Sherman, 2001). So,
they are not likely to evaluate the brand better because of its single random act of kindness.
Following this line of argument, this research hypothesizes the following:
12
H3: Personality will be a moderator of the relationship between random acts of
kindness and reactions towards it in terms of willingness to share and brand attitude.
H3a: Entity theorists are more positive towards willingness to share and brand attitude.
H3b: Incremental theorists are less positive towards willingness to share and brand
attitude.
2.3 Random versus strategic acts of kindness
As already assumed random acts of kindness do not solely serve the public good as brands
may as well serve their own interests with their kindness actions. This means random acts of
kindness do not have to be necessarily random. They can be part of a bigger, surrounding
marketing campaign and thus may in that case be better referred to as a strategic act of
kindness (to avoid confusion, from now on random acts of kindness in general are referred to
as acts of kindness, truly random ones as random acts of kindness and strategic ones as
strategic acts of kindness). Just like KLM describes their act of kindness as looking for ways
to surprise their customers and make them happy, and eventually, discover how this happiness
spreads (SocialTimes, 2011). In other words, they are constantly looking for ways to interact
with customers. This is an indication that acts of kindness are not necessarily random and in
some cases they may be seen more as a strategic move. Kim and Lee’s study (2012) already
shows that the existence of firm-serving motives regarding companies’ kindness actions
results in different evaluations of that particular company.
An interesting question for companies is whether consumers are willing to accept
firm-serving motives for their kindness actions. CSR literature has focused on this issue and
studies yield different results. Some studies suggest that consumers’ perceptions of firmserving motives negatively influence a company’s CSR effectiveness and hence an
unfavorable evaluation of the company, while public-serving motives positively influence its
13
effectiveness (Campbell & Kirmani, 2000; Ellen, Mohr, & Webb, 2000; Webb & Mohr,
1998). This may be explained as consumers use the existence of firm-serving motives as a cue
to their attitude towards the company. Consumers would ideally like to see pure publicserving motives behind a company’s actions and any deviation from that is viewed negatively
resulting in a less positive reaction (Forehand & Grier, 2003). An alternative explanation is
that the negative evaluation of firm-serving motives may also be caused as companies’
strategies seem deceptive or manipulative (Campbell, 1995; Forehand, 2000). Whether
consumers perceive firm-serving motives is not so important but rather whether the perceived
motives are contradictory to the company’s stated motives.
On the other hand, results of other studies indicate that consumers are willing to accept
and give reputational credit for firm-serving motives, as long as they also perceive that the
companies are sincere in serving public interests (Ellen, Webb, & Mohr, 2006; Kim & Lee,
2012; Sen, Bhattacharya, & Korschun, 2006). Even though the salience of firm-serving
motives negatively influences consumer responses in general, such impact should be
considered in relation to the apparently greater salience of public-serving motives. This
indicates that as consumers learn more about CSR and companies’ motivations, they are
increasingly willing to accept the main purpose of business (having firm-serving motives) in
society. They believe that kindness actions like CSR initiatives can and should serve both the
needs of society and companies. In line with this, Forehand and Grier (2003) argue that
consumers do not respond negatively to firm-serving motives per se, but rather to marketing
strategies whereby the company is being deceptive about its true motives. Any discrepancy
between consumers’ perceived CSR motives and a company’s publicly stated motives will
trigger scepticism and feelings of being deceived, which in turn will drive negative reactions
to the CSR activities. Forehand and Grier (2003) show that when companies also
communicate their firm-serving motives besides their public-serving motives, companies can
14
inhibit scepticism, enhance the credibility of its CSR message and generate goodwill. So, if
companies are forthright about their motives and publicly state the potential self-serving
benefits of their actions, consumers are willing to accept firm-serving motives.
In this research, reactions regarding random acts of kindness are measured among
entity and incremental theorists. It is expected that the previous argumentation has to some
extent an impact on their reactions. In line with H3a, this research assumes that entity
theorists react positively towards random acts of kindness. They see the brand’s kindness as a
consistent characteristic of and corresponding to the brand, which leads to a positive
evaluation of the brand. Their perception will not change when a brand’s kindness action
turns out to be a strategic move because entity theorists believe personality traits are fixed
(Dweck et al., 1995b). It is expected that they will accept firm-serving motives as long as the
brand serves the public good. As long as they do that, entity theorists will believe the kindness
action is a reflection of the brand’s personality. For incremental theorists this research
assumes that they will react less positively towards truly random acts of kindness. They
perceive the brand’s single kindness action as a one-off which is not corresponding to the
brand. They need more examples of behavior to form an overall judgement of the brand
(Plaks et al., 2001), which therefore means that they do not evaluate the brand better.
However, their perception is expected to change when a brand’s act of kindness turns out to
be strategic. A temporarily campaign in which the brand is acting kind in order to serve also
its own interests, is in line with incremental theorists’ line of thinking that personality is
malleable and behavior varies, either over time or across situations (Dweck et al., 1995b).
When a brand’s act of kindness is strategic, it can indeed be seen as a one-off, which means
that this corresponds whit incremental theorists’ perception that it does not stand for the brand
and thus that personality can change. Besides, they are likely to value the brand’s firm-serving
motives in order to enhance business. It is just one campaign that is part of a long-term
15
strategy in order to improve the brand’s image for example, and to reach that goal the brand
may perform different campaigns with varying approaches.
So, in general this research hypothesizes the following:
H4: Types of acts of kindness (random versus strategic) moderate the moderated
relationship of H3 where personality is the moderator between acts of kindness and
reactions towards it.
For entity theorists, this research hypothesizes the following:
H4a: Entity theorists will react positively when a brand’s act of kindness is truly
random.
H4b: Entity theorists will react positively when a brand’s act of kindness is strategic.
For incremental theorists this research hypothesizes the following:
H4c: Incremental theorists will react less positively when a brand’s act of kindness is
truly random.
H4d: Incremental theorists will react more positively when a brand’s act of kindness is
strategic.
2.4 Attribution theory and sincerity
How people react to acts of kindness may not solely depend on whether they see a brand’s
characteristics and behavior as fixed or malleable. In literature, one key mediator found before
between consumer reactions towards companies’ good intention behavior is sincerity. So did
for example Yoon et al. (2006) stress the mediating role of perceived sincerity of company’s
motives underlying CSR activities in determining its effectiveness. They show that sincere
16
motives improve a company’s image, insincere motives hurt a company’s image and when the
sincerity of motives is ambiguous, CSR activities are ineffective.
One way to explain sincerity’s mediating role is through attribution theory. Although
most attribution theory research has been conducted in social psychology, applying attribution
theory to consumer behavior issues is quite common. It appears to be particularly helpful in
understanding a receiver's interpretation of a sender's motives for communicating certain
information. In marketing research, attribution theory suggests that consumers assign causes
for managerial actions (Folkes, 1988). Processes by which individuals evaluate the motives of
others are addressed and the theory explains how these perceived motives influence
subsequent attitudes and behavior (Forehand & Grier, 2003). Previous studies (Campbell,
1995; Campbell & Kirmani, 2000; Ellen et al., 2000; Forehand, 2000; Webb & Mohr, 1998)
have found that consumers draw inferences about marketer motives and that attributions of
marketer motives impact subsequent evaluations of the company.
In this research, sincerity may play a crucial role regarding the type of motivations
people attribute to a brand’s act of kindness. Literature in CSR already revealed that when
companies do good consumers not necessarily become happier or more positive (Forehand &
Grier, 2003; Kim, 2011; Yoon et al., 2006). These studies have shown that sincere consumer
perceptions regarding a brand’s kindness are very important as insincere perceptions lead to
negative evaluations of the brand. So, in general, positive evaluations regarding random acts
of kindness are only possible when the brand’s kindness action is perceived as sincere. In
contrast, perceived insincerity does not lead to favorable evaluations. Moreover, perceived
insincerity may even backfire, leaving the brand with more negative evaluations than would
have been the case without its kindness action (Yoon et al., 2006). In addition, research in
psychology (Klein & Dawar, 2004; Sen, Bhattacharya, & Korschun, 2006; Yoon et al., 2006)
has shown that publics’ perceived attributions about the sincerity of the CSR purposes is most
17
important for the success of a CSR program. This means that when consumers do not perceive
a brand’s act of kindness as sincere, they will not be able to evaluate the brand’s kindness as
favorable. Therefore, sincerity will mediate consumers’ reactions regarding acts of kindness.
Hence, this research proposes the following hypothesis:
H5: Sincerity is the mediator between acts of kindness and reactions towards it in
terms of brand attitude and willingness to share.
Figure 1 presents the overall conceptual model of this research.
Personality
(entity vs. incremental)
Acts of kindness
(random vs. strategic)
Sincerity
Attitude
towards the
brand
Willingness
to share
Figure 1: Conceptual model
18
3. Research design
3.1 Procedure
Data is gathered through an online experiment, primarily because it requires far less time to
design and conduct, which is important given the limited time period of this research. Besides,
the target group (students) is easily approachable online. The experiment is further
characterized by a between-subjects design. Here, participants are either part of the control
group or the treatment group, but they cannot be part of both. This design fits this research as
it consists of three different groups.
More specifically, this research is an experimental vignette study. Vignette studies use
short descriptions of situations or persons (vignettes) that are usually shown to respondents
within surveys in order to elicit their judgments about these scenarios (Atzmüller & Steiner,
2010). This approach fits this research as its aim is to show short descriptions of three
different situations. These situations are each formed by a news article representing one time a
general description of the brand and two times a brand performing an act of kindness. The two
versions in which an act of kindness is performed are further distinguished by the type of
kindness action: random or strategic. So, version 1 gives a general description of the brand
and its activities, without mentioning any act of kindness (the control group). In version 2 the
act of kindness is truly random, focused on surprising customers and making them happy
because the brand really cares. Finally, version 3 describes a strategic act of kindness, focused
on the brand intentionally developing and performing a campaign to surprise customers.
Participants were randomly assigned to one of the three versions.
The brand involved in this research is a fictitious airplane company, called Universal
Airlines. It is a fictitious brand so participants do not hold existing or previous attitudes
towards the brand which may bias them. Besides, this research has chosen to use an airline
19
company because the service approach used in this research is frequently used in this
business-to-consumer industry (Accenture, 2009). Service is very important in the airline
industry, a study by Airline Quality Rating (2012) reports that customer service is even the
most important consideration for air travel consumers. Airline companies need to significantly
improve their customer experience and often use activities around their services to boost
customer loyalty (Accenture, 2009). Therefore, an airline company seems to be the most
appropriate brand for this research.
3.2 Manipulation check
The approach of the manipulation in this research is similar to that applied by Puzakova et al.
(2013), who study the effects of brand anthropomorphization on consumers’ brand attitudes
and brand performance. The authors manipulated the anthropomorphism of the brand by print
advertisements and its accompanying text. In this research, the text of the news article is
manipulated. More specifically, this research manipulates the salience of firm-serving benefits
in the news article about the brand’s act of kindness. The style, design and length of the three
news articles are all the same (see appendix 1 for all news articles). So, the only difference is
the focus of the article in the last few sentences (no act of kindness versus random act of
kindness versus strategic act of kindness).
In short, the news article is about the airline company that faces a travelling peak
during the Easter holidays. The article starts with some general information about the
busyness like the total number of passengers. Next, the marketing manager talks about how
the brand copes with the busy period emphasizing their high service, like adding more staff to
accommodate all passengers with caring service and comfort. From this point onwards the
articles differ. First, version 1 (control group) continues to focus on the brand’s everyday
attempt to deliver their service professionally, like navigating passengers as smoothly as they
20
can. This text presents a general picture of the brand as a high service company, also in busy
days like the Easter holidays. Version 2, including a random act of kindness, continues that
the brand ‘at random surprised their customers with some small, personalized gifts’. The
focus here is on the fact that the brand initiated the gift-giving spontaneously (without a plan)
and that it pleases the brand to make their passengers happy with unexpected kindness.
Finally, version 3, including a strategic act of kindness, continues that the brand as usual
offered gifts during the Easter holidays. The focus is on the tradition of gift-giving of the
brand during this period and that it pleases the brand to make their passengers happy with this
tradition of theirs.
3.3 Pre-test
A pre-test among 30 participants (70% male, 90% aged between 17 and 35) was conducted to
ensure that the experimental manipulation of the news articles worked. First, by means of a
summarizing question (for more details see chapter 3.5.3) it was checked whether respondents
indeed distinguished between the news article without an act of kindness (control group) and
the two treatments with an act of kindness. All participants correctly summarized what they
had been reading. Second, it was checked if the participants also distinguished between the
random and strategic act of kindness. An independent samples t-test showed that the two
treatments did not differ significantly at the .05 level (p = .081). Despite this finding, in
agreement is decided to not adjust the manipulation as there is a limit to making seem
initiatives totally random.
The pre-test was further used to check the reliability of the different scales. Reliability
analyses in SPSS showed that all scales (brand attitude, willingness to share, sincerity,
perceived motives, manipulation check, credibility, realistic check, familiarity, likeability and
personality) were reliable as all cronbach’s alpha (from now on α) scores were bigger than .7.
21
3.4 Sample
The sample consists of students and acquaintances. A total of 17 respondents were dropped
out because of missing values or they misinterpreted the news article. So, the final sample size
is 159 respondents (59.1% men and 40.9% women) of which 67.3% of all respondents fall
into age group 17-25 (86.8% is aged between 17 and 35). The author chose to approach
primarily students to participate in this research. The main reason is that students are most
online and the heaviest users of social media (CBS, 2012). Research by CBS (2012) reveals
that 93% of people between 12-18 years old use social media and people aged between 18-25
years old use social media even more (98%). In contrast, only 50% of people aged 55 and up
uses social media. Hence, students best fit this research to collect the best possible results.
3.5 Measures
All the different variables are explained below. Before variables were added, a literature
search was conducted in the hope of finding relevant existing measurement instruments. The
measures used to operationalize the variables were adapted from relevant studies, when
available, with changes in wording to fit the target context.
3.5.1 Dependent variables
After reading the news article, consumers’ attitude towards the brand was measured on a fiveitem, seven-point differential scale (1 = “negative, dislike, bad, unfavorable, unpleasant” and
7 = “positive, like, good, favorable, pleasant”) (Coulter & Punj, 2007; Puzakova et al., 2013).
The items were averaged to form a total brand attitude score on this scale (α = .92).
Next, participants rated their willingness to share the article on a three-item, sevenpoint Likert scale (1 = “strongly disagree” and 7 = “strongly agree”). Specifically, two items
were used from Eckler and Bolls’ (2011) research with small changes in wording to fit the
22
target context: “I will pass on this news article to others” and “I will recommend this news
article to others”. The third item that was added to this scale was “I am willing to share this
news article on my social media account (e.g. Facebook)”. The addition of this last item is
important as this research is particularly interested in online sharing behavior because acts of
kindness are performed in combination with social media. The three items were averaged to
form a willingness to share index and together form a reliable scale (α = .85).
3.5.2 Control variables
Credibility
Participants indicated their level of agreement with two statements concerning the credibility
of the information about the airline company. The two statements were adopted from research
by Yoon et al. (2006) and are as follows: “I believe the information I have read about
Universal Airlines in the news article” and “The information about Universal Airlines is
credible”. The two statements, measured on a seven-point Likert scale (1 = “strongly
disagree” and 7 = “strongly agree”), were averaged to form a credibility index (α = .88).
Realistic check
Two questions were added to check whether respondents, especially in the act of kindness
treatments, perceived the brand’s activities as realistic. Although a fictitious airline brand is
used in this research, it is very important that participants perceive the setting as realistic. An
unrealistic setting may tend respondents to give random answers as they do not believe the
scenario described. That is why the news article is identical in its length and style to a news
article of an existing source. The article also includes an existing source name (Dutch
newspaper “De Telegraaf”) and a marketing manager who is being interviewed. Because the
scenario takes place during the Easter period, the article is even more realistic as the
23
experiment is actually performed one day after the Easter weekend, as if the news article was
actually released one day after the Easter weekend in an existing Dutch newspaper.
In order to check respondents’ perceived reality of the story, two items in the control
variables section are included. Existing measurement instruments from Ribbens and Malliet’s
(2010) study were adapted, with changes in wording to fit the target context, and resulted in
the following items: “The scenario described in the article is realistic” and “I can imagine the
scenario described in the article happens in real life”. The two statements, measured on a
seven-point Likert scale (1 = “strongly disagree” and 7 = “strongly agree”), were averaged to
form a realistic check index (α = .88).
Familiarity
Participants were asked to indicate their level of familiarity with acts of kindness. This
construct was measured as it may influence a respondent’s answers. For example, a
respondent that is very familiar with these activities may perceive it as a general activity, not
very special or unique, while someone who is not familiar with acts of kindness may perceive
it as an unique action by a brand. Familiarity was measured according to the experimental
design suggested by Puzakova et al.’s (2013) research where they use the following two
items: “I am familiar with companies that surprise their customers with gifts” and “I have
seen companies surprising their customers with gifts before”. These items, measured on a
seven-point Likert scale (1 = “strongly disagree” and 7 = “strongly agree”), were averaged to
form a familiarity index (α = .86).
Likeability
The extent to which participants liked the airline’s act of kindness may also influence their
answers. Participants who do not like it may have more negative attitudes and perceptions
24
regarding the brand than the ones who do like it. That is why this construct is measured on a
seven-point Likert scale (1 = “strongly disagree” and 7 = “strongly agree”), consisting of the
following items: “I like companies that surprise customers with gifts or special service
treatments” and “I would like to be surprised by a company with a gift or special service
treatment”. These two items were averaged to form a likeability index (α = .88).
Demographics
Three demographic questions were asked at the end of the experiment. These questions may
help the author to determine what factors may influence a respondent’s answers, interests and
opinions. First, participants were asked to indicate their gender and next they had to fill in
their age. The author has chosen to classify age into six groups for the main reason that
students are not of one specific age, but usually fall into the age category of 17-25. Besides,
this group is of special interest for this research. The other age categories were “0-16”, “2635”, “36-45”, “46-55” and “55+”. Finally, participants were asked to select their highest level
of education completed by choosing one of the following: “Elementary school”, “High
school”, “Intermediate vocational education”, “Bachelor” and “Master”.
Time spend online
The last question of the experiment asked participants to indicate how much time they spend
online on average per day. Here, online does not only mean visiting websites but also
activities on Facebook, Twitter, etc. Respondents had to choose between the following five
groups: “0-30 minutes”, “30-60 minutes”, “1-2 hours”, “2-3 hours” and “ >3 hours”.
25
3.5.3 Manipulation check
Two manipulation checks were included. The purpose of the first and most important one was
to control if participants distinguished between the control group (no act of kindness) and the
two other treatments (including a random or strategic act of kindness). Immediately after
reading the news article, participants were asked to summarize in one or two sentences what
they thought the article was about. In the case of the treatments including an act of kindness,
responses had to be related to the act of kindness, mentioning for example the gift-giving
itself or a marketing campaign or something like that. Responses that were not related, for
example those only mentioning the busyness at the airport because of the Easter period, were
dropped out because they misinterpreted the message of the news article.
The purpose of the second manipulation check was to verify whether participants in
the two treatments including an act of kindness distinguished between a random and a
strategic act of kindness. The following four statements formed a scale for this manipulation:
“Universal Airlines’ act of kindness is delivered spontaneously”, “Universal Airlines’ act of
kindness is delivered strategically”, “Universal Airlines’ act of kindness is random” and
“Universal Airlines’ act of kindness is planned”. The first and third item, corresponding to the
randomness of the act of kindness, were recoded. In this way, a high score indicates a stronger
belief in the strategicness of the act of kindness. The four items were measured on a sevenpoint Likert scale (1 = “strongly disagree” and 7 = “strongly agree”) and together formed a
reliable scale (α = .79).
3.5.4 Moderator
The moderating effect of implicit theories of personality has already been showed by
Puzakova et al.’s (2013) study where it moderates the effect of brand anthropomorphization.
In line with the premise that different types of people (entity versus incremental theorists)
26
react differently to things (Dweck et al., 1995b), this research expects implicit theories of
personality to play a moderating role between acts of kindness and reactions towards it in
terms of willingness to share and brand attitude. Belief in entity or incremental theories of
personality was assessed using the Implicit Persons Theory Measure (Levy, Stroessner, &
Dweck, 1998). Respondents rated the extent to which they agree on eight statements, four
statements representative of entity theory (E) and four representative of incremental theory
(I). The eight statements, measured on a seven-point Likert scale (1 = “strongly disagree” and
7 = “strongly agree”), are as follows:
• Everyone is a certain kind of person, and there is not much that they can do to really change
that. (E)
• The kind of person someone is, is something basic about them, and it can’t be changed very
much. (E)
• People can do things differently, but the important parts of who they are can’t really be
changed. (E)
• As much as I hate to admit it, you can’t teach an old dog new tricks. People can’t really
change their deepest attributes. (E)
• People can change even their most basic qualities. (I: reverse coded)
• Everyone, no matter who they are, can significantly change their basic characteristics. (I:
reverse coded)
• People can substantially change the kind of person who they are. (I: reverse coded)
• No matter what kind of person someone is, they can always change very much. (I: reverse
coded)
Disagreement with the entity items represents agreement with the incremental items,
and the other way around (Levy et al., 1998). Responses were averaged to these eight items to
27
create an implicit person theory index for each participant (α = .92). The responses to the
incremental statements were recoded, hence a high score indicates a stronger belief in entity
theory.
3.5.5 Mediator
Sincerity has been recognized as a mediator between consumer reactions towards companies’
good intention behavior in many disciplines, including CSR (Yoon et al., 2006) and
psychology (Klein & Dawar, 2004; Sen, Bhattacharya, & Korschun, 2006; Yoon et al., 2006).
The focus in this study is on sincerity referring to whether or not the brand really cares about
its customers and thus has an honest interest in the kindness action (Yoon et al., 2006).
Sincerity was measured on a seven-point Likert scale anchored by “extremely unlikely”
versus “extremely likely”. Participants indicated attributions about the sincerity of the
company’s purposes for pursuing the act of kindness through responses to the following three
statements: “Universal Airlines has genuine concerns for its customers and their happiness”,
“Universal Airlines sincerely cares about its customers and their happiness” and “Universal
Airlines is an honest company”. These measures were averaged to form a sincerity index (α =
.82).
Also, participants indicated their attributions about the airline company’s motives for
pursuing an act of kindness. This variable, called perceived motives, was measured according
to the experimental design suggested by studies of Ellen et al. (2006) and Yoon et al. (2006).
The three statements, measured on the same Likert scale as sincerity, were as follows:
“Universal Airlines tried to make a good image of the company”, “Universal Airlines tried to
improve its existing image” and “Universal Airlines wants to attract more customers through
their act of kindness”. These three measures were averaged to form a perceived motive index
(α = .85).
28
4. Results
4.1 Manipulation check
To make sure that the manipulation of the act of kindness worked, participants had to
summarize what they read in one or two sentences. Participants in the control group focused
their summary of the news article on the high service of the airline company performed in an
extremely busy period, which was as intended. Besides, almost all participants in the act of
kindness treatments summarized their news article (in which an act of kindness was
performed) correctly. Everyone recognized in their own way a marketing campaign and most
of them directly referred to the gift-giving. Only two participants (both in one of the act of
kindness treatments) were dropped out because of a misinterpretation of the news article.
They completely ignored the marketing campaign and gift-giving and instead solely focused
on how busy the period was for the airline company. So, only two participants were dropped
out of an initial sample size consisting of 176 participants. This means that 98.9% of the
whole sample correctly summarized the message of the article. Given this high score, it can be
concluded that participants indeed distinguished between the news articles of the control
group (without an act of kindness) and the two other treatments (including a random or
strategic act of kindness). Hence, the main manipulation check worked.
On the other hand, participants did not fully distinguish between the randomness and
the strategicness of an act of kindness. An independent samples t-test did not show a
significant difference between the random (M = 5.22, SD = 1.28) and strategic act of kindness
(M = 5.47, SD = .93; t(90) = -1.14, p = .256). An explanation for this might be that consumers
critically evaluate the randomness of a marketing campaign. They may believe that a
marketing campaign is always prepared. Besides, familiarity may also provide an explanation
here. The average score (M = 4.35) on the scale that measures the extent to which consumers
29
are familiar with acts of kindness is bigger than half the scale (3.5), suggesting that more
consumers are familiar with acts of kindness than they are not. This might increase
consumers’ perceptions of the strategicness of the act of kindness and decrease the possibility
that they perceive it as unique as they have seen or heard about it before.
Finally, participants viewed the articles and its story as realistic. Descriptive statistics
of the realistic check showed that participants perceived the scenario described as realistic and
they can imagine the scenario happening in real life (M = 5.18, SE = 1.11).
4.2 Correlations matrix
Descriptive statistics and correlations between the variables are presented in table 1. The first
noteworthy correlation for this study is that between sincerity and both willingness to share (r
= .37, p < .01) and brand attitude (r = .55, p < .01). In line with H5, sincerity would play a
mediating role and suggests that when consumers perceive an act of kindness as sincere, more
positive reactions in terms of willingness to share and brand attitude are the result.
The dependent variables together, willingness to share and brand attitude, also show a
positive correlation (r = .25, p < .01). This suggests that a positive brand attitude increases
consumers’ willingness to share and one who is willing to share the act of kindness probably
has a more positive brand attitude.
Table 1 further sows that credibility positively correlates with brand attitude (r = .37, p
< .01) and sincerity (r = .35, p < .01). This makes sense in a way that when consumers
perceive a brand’s act of kindness as credible this leads to a more positive brand attitude and
more sincere perceptions.
Finally, noteworthy are several correlations of the extent to which consumers like the
act of kindness. The more one likes a brand’s kindness action, the more positive brand
30
attitudes, sincere and credible perceptions are evoked. These correlations are not surprising
and seem to make sense.
Table 1: Means, standard deviations and correlations
Variables
M
SD
1
2
3
4
5
6
1. Brand attitude
5.46
.79 (.92)
2. Willingness to share
2.39 1.17 .25** (.85)
3. Sincerity
4.58 1.03 .55** .37** (.82)
4. Perceived motives
5.83
.83
.20*
.09
-.02 (.72)
5. Credibility
4.75 1.06 .37** .14 .35** -.07 (.88)
6. Familiarity
4.35 1.67
.06
-.06
.06
.11
-.03 (.86)
7. Likeability
5.69 1.12 .54** .11 .45** .09 .35** .19*
8. Personality type
4.01 1.17 -.01
.04
-.11
.10
.12
.07
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Note: Elements in parentheses on the diagonal represent cronbach's alpha scores.
4.3 Tests of hypotheses
4.3.1 Dependent variables
In this section are the results of both dependent variables presented, starting with willingness
to share followed by brand attitude.
Willingness to share
This research proposed that acts of kindness in general (so both random and strategic ones)
lead to positive eWOM (H1). To test this hypothesis, an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA)
was performed with act of kindness as independent variable, willingness to share as
dependent variable and credibility, likeability and personality as covariates. Familiarity was
dropped out as a covariate because preliminary tests showed the variable to be dependent on
the independent variable. This is in contrast with the assumption of the independence of
covariate, which means that familiarity cannot be used as covariate to reduce the error
31
7
8
(.88)
-.04
(.92)
variance as overlapping covariates do not contribute to a reduction in error variance (Mayers,
2013). The violation of this assumption by familiarity applies to all hypotheses, hence
familiarity is dropped out as covariate for each ANCOVA. Table 2 presents the mean scores
of both dependent variables and the included covariates.
Table 2: Dependent variable (DV) and covariate (CV) scores, by act of kindness group
No act of kindness (N = 59)
Act of kindness (N = 100)
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
Willingness to share (DV)
2.19
.15
2.50
.12
Brand attitude (DV)
5.43
.10
5.47
.08
Credibility (CV)
4.79
1.08
4.73
1.05
Likeability (CV)
5.61
1.22
5.74
1.06
Personality (CV)
3.82
1.08
4.12
1.21
Note: This table includes the actual mean scores.
Next, an independent one-way ANOVA was used to show that there was no
significant difference in willingness to share scores between the control group (without an act
of kindness) and the group in which an act of kindness (random or strategic) was performed, F
(1, 157) = 2.635, p = .107. When the covariates where applied in ANCOVA, it indicated that
willingness to share scores were poorer for the control group (M = 2.19 versus M = 2.50 for
the act of kindness group), but it was not significantly poorer, F (1, 154) = 2.512, p = .115.
Thus, H1 is not supported. Table 3 presents the ANCOVA results for willingness to share
including the covariates. It shows none of the covariates to be significant.
Additional ANCOVA analyses suggested that variance in willingness to share scores
may be shared with variance in familiarity. Statistically, this finding suggests that they may be
measuring the same construct (Mayers, 2013). However, these two constructs are very
different, so an alternative explanation might be that the respondent starts the experiment with
32
reading the news article about an act of kindness and thus becomes more familiar with it,
more easily recognizes it or more easily compares it to a similar past experience. This may
influence responses in a way that may lead to higher familiarity scores when the participant at
the end answers how familiar he/she is with acts of kindness.
Table 3: ANCOVA results for H1
Dependent Variable: Total score on willingness to share scale
Source
Type III
df
Mean
F
Sig.
Sum of
Square
Squares
Corrected
8.675a
4
2.169 1.597 .178
Model
Intercept
5.881
1
5.881 4.332 .039
CredTOT
2.414
1
2.414 1.778 .184
LikeTOT
.848
1
.848 .624 .431
PersonTOT
.029
1
.029 .022 .883
ActofKindness
3.410
1
3.410 2.512 .115
Error
209.075 154
1.358
Total
1124.333 159
Corrected
217.750 158
Total
a. R Squared = .040 (Adjusted R Squared = .015)
Partial Eta
Squared
.040
.027
.011
.004
.000
.016
Brand attitude
In addition to H1, this research also proposed that acts of kindness in general lead to positive
a brand attitude (H1). Again, an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was performed with act
of kindness as independent variable, brand attitude as dependent variable and credibility,
likeability and personality as covariates (as mentioned before, familiarity was dropped out as
covariate in every ANCOVA). First, using an independent one-way ANOVA, it was shown
that there was no significant difference in brand attitude scores between the control group
(without an act of kindness) and the group in which an act of kindness (random or strategic)
was performed, F (1, 157) = .092, p = .762. When the covariates were applied in ANCOVA, it
33
indicated that brand attitude scores were almost the same for the control group (M = 5.43) and
the act of kindness group (M = 5.47). The minimal difference was not significant, F (1, 154) =
.009, p = .923. Thus, this finding does not provide support for H2. Table 4 presents the
ANCOVA results for brand attitude including the covariates.
Table 4: ANCOVA results for H2
Dependent Variable: Total score on brand attitude scale
Source
Type III
df
Mean
F
Sum of
Square
Squares
Corrected
32.771a
4
8.193 19.063
Model
Intercept
28.827
1
28.827 67.078
CredTOT
3.515
1
3.515 8.180
LikeTOT
18.890
1
18.890 43.956
PersonTOT
.020
1
.020
.045
ActofKindness
.004
1
.004
.009
Error
66.182 154
.430
Total
4830.920 159
Corrected
98.953 158
Total
a. R Squared = .331 (Adjusted R Squared = .314)
Sig.
Partial Eta
Squared
.000
.331
.000
.005
.000
.831
.923
.303
.050
.222
.000
.000
As illustrated in table 4, two covariates are significant: credibility (p = .005) and
likeability (p = .000). However, this is not such a surprising finding as it is straightforward
that the more one likes the act of kindness and perceives it as credible leads to a more positive
brand attitude.
4.3.2 Moderation effects
In this section are the results of both moderator hypotheses presented, starting with
personality as a moderator followed by type of act of kindness.
34
Personality
H3 posits that personality type moderates the effect of acts of kindness on consumers’
willingness to share and brand attitude. Testing this hypothesis includes an ANCOVA with
act of kindness and personality type as independent variables, willingness to share and brand
attitude as dependent variables and credibility, likeability and personality as covariates. Table
5 shows the mean scores for both dependent variables and the included covariates for entity
and incremental theorists under the two different act of kindness conditions.
Table 5: Dependent variable (DV) and covariate (CV) scores, by act of kindness group and
personality type
Willingness to share (DV)
Brand attitude (DV)
Credibility (CV)
Likeability (CV)
Personality (CV)
No act of kindness (N = 15)
Act of kindness (N = 37)
Entity
(N = 5)
1.73
(.28)
5.28
(.70)
4.70
(.27)
5.50
(.50)
5.68
(.57)
Entity
(N = 20)
2.93
(1.27)
5.82
(.65)
4.85
(.97)
5.90
(.85)
5.66
(.34)
Incremental
(N = 10)
1.63
(.85)
5.86
(.91)
5.05
(1.36)
6.10
(1.10)
2.23
(.35)
Incremental
(N = 17)
2.80
(1.19)
5.65
(.65)
4.26
(1.26)
5.88
(1.11)
2.19
(.56)
Notes: This table includes the actual mean scores. Standard deviations are in parentheses.
First, with willingness to share as dependent variable, the main effect of personality as
moderator was tested (before including covariates) but no significant difference was found, F
(1, 48) = .002, p = .967. When the covariates where applied in ANCOVA, it indicated that
willingness to share differ for entity and incremental theorists both when an act of kindness
was performed (M = 2.93 versus M = 2.80) as when no act of kindness was performed (M =
1.73 versus M = 1.63). However, the difference was not significant, F (1, 45) = .041, p = .841.
35
This finding is contradicting H3. Table 6 presents the ANCOVA results including personality
as a moderator, willingness to share as dependent variable and the covariates.
Table 6: ANCOVA results for H3 – willingness to share
Dependent Variable: Total score on willingness to share scale
Source
Type III
df
Mean
F
Sig.
Sum of
Square
Squares
Corrected
17.796a
6
2.966 2.290 .052
Model
Intercept
1.427
1
1.427 1.102 .299
CredTOT
1.113
1
1.113
.860 .359
LikeTOT
.262
1
.262
.203 .655
PersonTOT
.290
1
.290
.224 .639
ActofKindness
14.204
1
14.204 10.968 .002
Personality
.384
1
.384
.297 .589
ActofKindness
.053
1
.053
.041 .841
* Personality
Error
58.281
45
1.295
Total
407.778
52
Corrected
76.077
51
Total
a. R Squared = .234 (Adjusted R Squared = .132)
Partial Eta
Squared
.234
.024
.019
.004
.005
.196
.007
.001
In this model, act of kindness had a significant impact on willingness to share. Recall
that no significance was found while testing the same relationship for H1 (for an explanation,
see the discussion).
Next, the same ANCOVA was performed, only this time with brand attitude as
dependent variable. The main effect of personality as moderator was tested (before including
covariates) but no significant difference was found, F (1, 48) = 2.763, p = .103. When the
covariates where applied in ANCOVA, it indicated that entity and incremental theorists also
differ in terms of brand attitude. In the absence of an act of kindness, incremental theorists
held a more positive brand attitude (M = 5.86 versus M = 5.28 for entity theorists), but when
an act of kindness was performed entity theorists held a more positive brand attitude (M =
36
5.82 versus M = 5.65 for incremental theorists). Again, the difference was not significant, F
(1, 45) = 1.209, p = .277. Hence, H3 is not supported. Table 7 presents the ANCOVA results
including personality as a moderator, brand attitude as dependent variable and the covariates.
Again, the covariate likeability is significant (p = .003). As noted before, this seems to make
sense as the more one likes an act of kindness a more positive brand attitude is evoked.
Table 7: ANCOVA results for H3 – brand attitude
Dependent Variable: Total score on brand attitude scale
Source
Type III
df
Mean
F
Sum of
Square
Squares
Corrected
8.648a
6
1.441 3.840
Model
Intercept
2.464
1
2.464 6.564
CredTOT
.953
1
.953 2.539
LikeTOT
3.666
1
3.666 9.767
PersonTOT
.481
1
.481 1.281
ActofKindness
.321
1
.321 .856
Personality
.606
1
.606 1.613
ActofKindness
.454
1
.454 1.209
* Personality
Error
16.892
45
.375
Total
1726.440
52
Corrected
25.541
51
Total
a. R Squared = .339 (Adjusted R Squared = .250)
Sig.
Partial Eta
Squared
.004
.339
.014
.118
.003
.264
.360
.211
.127
.053
.178
.028
.019
.035
.277
.026
Types of act of kindness
H4 stated that the type of act of kindness (random or strategic) moderates the moderated
relationship of H3, where personality is the moderator between acts of kindness and reactions
towards it in terms of willingness to share and brand attitude. An ANCOVA was conducted
with personality type and type of act of kindness as independent variables, willingness to
share and brand attitude as dependent variables and sincerity, perceived motives, credibility,
37
likeability and personality as covariates. Table 8 shows the mean scores for both dependent
variables and the included covariates for entity and incremental theorists under the two
different act of kindness conditions.
Table 8: Dependent variable (DV) and covariate (CV) scores, by type of act of kindness and
personality type
Willingness to share (DV)
Brand attitude (DV)
Sincerity (CV)
Perceived motives (CV)
Credibility (CV)
Likeability (CV)
Personality (CV)
Entity theorists (N = 20)
Incremental theorists (N =17)
RAK
(N = 9)
2.48
(1.20)
5.60
(.70)
5.00
(1.14)
5.89
(1.07)
4.78
(1.42)
6.06
(.73)
5.71
(.40)
RAK
(N = 11)
2.82
(1.22)
5.65
(.76)
4.88
(1.02)
5.91
(.87)
3.95
(1.46)
5.91
(1.20)
2.11
(.66)
SAK
(N = 11)
3.30
(1.26)
6.00
(.57)
4.94
(.84)
5.97
(.72)
4.91
(.44)
5.77
(.96)
5.63
(.30)
SAK
(N = 6)
2.78
(1.24)
5.63
(.43)
5.22
(.54)
5.22
(1.22)
4.83
(.52)
5.83
(1.03)
2.33
(.31)
Notes: RAK = random act of kindness, SAK = strategic act of kindness. This table includes the actual mean
scores. Standard deviations are in parentheses.
First, with willingness to share as dependent variable, the main effect of act of
kindness type as moderator was tested (before including covariates) but no significant
difference was found, F (1, 33) = 1.064, p = .310. When the covariates where applied in
ANCOVA, it indicated that willingness to share differs per type of act of kindness for both
entity and incremental theorists. Entity theorists were more willing to share when the act of
kindness was strategic (M = 3.30) than when it was truly random (M = 2.48). In contrast,
incremental theorists were more willing to share when the act of kindness was truly random
38
(M = 2.82) compared to the strategic act (M = 2.78). However, the differences were not
significant, F (1, 28) = .820, p = .373. These results are contradictory to H4. Table 9 presents
the ANCOVA results including types of act of kindness as a moderator, willingness to share
as dependent variable and the covariates.
Table 9: ANCOVA results for H4 – willingness to share
Dependent Variable: Total score on willingness to share scale
Source
Type III
df
Mean
F
Sig.
Sum of
Square
Squares
Corrected
15.579a
8
1.947 1.433 .227
Model
Intercept
1.190
1
1.190 .876 .357
SincTOT
1.061
1
1.061 .781 .384
MotiveTOT
5.980
1
5.980 4.400 .045
CredTOT
1.723
1
1.723 1.268 .270
LikeTOT
.923
1
.923 .679 .417
PersonTOT
.262
1
.262 .193 .664
Personality
.139
1
.139 .103 .751
AoKType
1.485
1
1.485 1.093 .305
Personality *
1.115
1
1.115 .820 .373
AoKType
Error
38.055
28
1.359
Total
359.222
37
Corrected
53.634
36
Total
a. R Squared = .290 (Adjusted R Squared = .088)
Partial Eta
Squared
.290
.030
.027
.136
.043
.024
.007
.004
.038
.028
As illustrated in table 9, the covariate perceived motives has a significant impact (p =
.045) on willingness to share in this model. This finding is somewhat surprising as it suggests
that more perceived motives behind a brand’s act of kindness increase consumers’ willingness
to share.
Next, willingness to share was replaced by brand attitude as dependent variable. The
main effect of act of kindness type as moderator was tested (before including covariates) but
39
no significant difference was found, F (1, 33) = .923, p = .344. When the covariates where
applied in ANCOVA, it indicated that brand attitude differs per type of act of kindness for
both entity and incremental theorists. Entity theorists’ brand attitude scores were higher when
the act of kindness was strategic (M = 6.00 versus M = 5.60 for random). The result for
incremental theorists was the other way around as their scores were slightly higher when the
act of kindness was truly random (M = 5.65 versus M = 5.63 for strategic). However, the
differences were not significant, F (1, 28) = 1.755, p = .196. Thus, H4 is not supported. Table
10 presents the ANCOVA results including types of act of kindness as a moderator, brand
attitude as dependent variable and the covariates. None of the covariates is shown to be
significant.
Table 10: ANCOVA results for H4 – brand attitude
Dependent Variable: Total score on brand attitude scale
Source
Type III
df
Mean
F
Sum of
Square
Squares
Corrected
4.652a
8
.581 1.593
Model
Intercept
1.191
1
1.191 3.264
SincTOT
.110
1
.110 .301
MotiveTOT
.299
1
.299 .819
CredTOT
.839
1
.839 2.299
LikeTOT
.749
1
.749 2.053
PersonTOT
.132
1
.132 .361
Personality
.100
1
.100 .274
AoKType
.188
1
.188 .515
Personality *
.640
1
.640 1.755
AoKType
Error
10.218
28
.365
Total
1234.160
37
Corrected
14.869
36
Total
a. R Squared = .313 (Adjusted R Squared = .117)
40
Sig.
Partial Eta
Squared
.172
.313
.082
.588
.373
.141
.163
.553
.605
.479
.104
.011
.028
.076
.068
.013
.010
.018
.196
.059
4.3.4 Mediation effect
To see the extent to which sincerity mediated the effects of acts of kindness in general (so
both random and strategic ones) on willingness to share and brand attitude (H5), the author
conducted a standard multiple regression analyses. In this regression, act of kindness and
sincerity together form the independent variables and willingness to share and brand attitude
are the dependent variables. The result of the first regression with willingness to share as
dependent variable showed that the model explains 13.9% of variance in willingness to share.
The model as a whole makes sense as F (2, 98) = 7.92, p = .001. Consistent with what the
author proposed in H5, the analysis showed a significant effect of sincerity (β = .37, t(98) =
7.92, p = .000). In a simultaneous regression analyses with brand attitude as dependent
variable sincerity continued to be a predictor (β = .55, t(98) = 21.69, p = .000). This model
explained 30.7% of variance in brand attitude and the model as a whole makes sense as F (2,
98) = 21.689, p = .000. So, sincerity fully mediates reactions towards acts of kindness.
41
5. Discussion
This section begins with a discussion of the study findings along with their theoretical and
managerial implications. Next, the main limitations of this research are highlighted while
directions for future research are proposed.
5.1 Discussion of the results
This research sheds light on consumers’ reactions towards acts of kindness. The results
indicate that those reactions are not always as positive as expected. This is contradicting the
widely held assumption that acts of kindness are always positive, but it is in line with previous
studies (Forehand & Grier, 2003; Kim, 2011; Yoon, Gurhan-Canli, & Schwarz, 2006) that
already showed that when companies do good consumers not necessarily become happier or
more positive.
First, the experiment does not consistently demonstrate that a marketing campaign
including an act of kindness positively affects consumers’ eWOM. Although no significant
relationship was found between eWOM and acts of kindness, participants in both treatments
(with and without an act of kindness) were not positive in terms of eWOM. More specifically,
participants were not likely to pass on or recommend the information provided. They were
even less willing to share the story on their social media accounts. This indicates that although
consumers may like it when they read about a brand’s kindness, they do not find it sufficiently
important or unique to share. The non-uniqueness may be explained by the fact that most
participants are familiar with acts of kindness as the majority indicated that they already have
seen or heard about it before. However, this finding is conflicting previous studies (Berger &
Milkman, 2012; Botha & Reyneke, 2013; Derbaix & Vanhamme, 2003; Eckler & Bolls, 2011;
Henke, 2013) that suggest that positive content including high-arousal emotions is likely to go
42
viral. Here, the content of acts of kindness is positive and includes a high-arousal emotion in
the name of surprise. Nevertheless, there is little or no willing to share so this content is
definitely not going viral in this case. Maybe if the participants had not seen or heard about
acts of kindness before their willingness to share would be bigger because then the
information would be consistent with the characteristics of viral content and be unique. It may
be suggested that the uniqueness of content may be another important characteristic of viral
content, one which has not been studied yet. On the other hand, the involvement with acts of
kindness, resulting in sharing behavior and positive eWOM, may only be that high when a
consumer itself actually experiences the kindness action or when family or acquaintances are
involved for example. The results of this study show that when a neutral consumer reads
about a brand (with whom he/she has no existing relationship) who surprises other unknown
consumers with gifts, positive eWOM is not guaranteed.
In line with H2, a positive brand attitude was evoked when participants read the
brand’s act of kindness story. Participants who were exposed to an act of kindness (random or
strategic) evaluated the brand very positively. This is consistent with previous studies (Brown
& Dacin, 1997; Handelman & Arnold, 1999) that show consumers to create goodwill towards
companies who perform campaigns based on good intention behavior. However, in this study
it is unclear whether the act of kindness made the difference in consumers’ positive brand
attitude as no significant difference was found between brand attitude for consumers exposed
to an act of kindness and those who only read a general story about the high service delivering
airline brand. Brand attitude scores were almost the same which means it cannot be argued
that acts of kindness automatically lead to a positive brand attitude.
An interesting finding while testing for H2 was the significant relationship between
brand attitude and both credibility and likeability. This finding suggests that the more credible
the company’s kindness action is, a more positive brand attitude is evoked. Consumers thus
43
pay much attention to whether or not they believe a brand’s kindness action in determining
their attitude towards the brand. A more obvious finding is that the more one likes a brand’s
kindness action, the more positive his/her attitude is towards the brand.
The research continued by expecting personality (entity versus incremental theorists)
to be a moderator between acts of kindness and reactions towards it. In contrast with this
expectation, no significant impact of implicit theories of personality as a moderator of acts of
kindness was found. However, as hypothesized in H3a and H3b, entity theorists were more
positive towards willingness to share than their incremental counterparts, although the
average score on willingness to share for entity theorists was too low (< 3.5, which represents
half way the scale), indicating they were also negative instead of positive regarding
willingness to share, which in turn is conflicting with H3a. The results showed the same effect
for brand attitude as entity theorists were also more positive regarding brand attitude than
incremental theorists, as hypothesized in H3a and H3b, although both personality types in
general held a very positive brand attitude.
In sum, these findings are consistent with Dweck et al.’s (1995b) premise that
different types of people (entity versus incremental theorists) react differently to things.
However, in contrast with for example Puzakova et al.’s study (2013) no moderating role of
personality was found. The main reason for this difference may be the sample size. In
Puzakova et al.’s study (2013) support was found for personality as a moderator using two
experiments with a total of 249 participants, whereas this study did not find support for it
including only 52 participants.
An interesting finding though is that when personality was tested as a moderator for
willingness to share, acts of kindness became significant, whereas testing H1 showed no
significance. An explanation for this finding is that testing H1 included the whole sample size
(N = 159) while testing H3 included a much smaller sample size (N = 52) as not every
44
respondent has a clear personality type. Only participants whose scores satisfied entity or
incremental theorist requirements were included, respondents who failed or fell in between (N
= 107) were not included in testing H3. However, this finding also suggests that a bigger
sample size including more entity and incremental theorists may result in a significant effect
of personality as a moderator.
Next, a distinction was made between random and strategic acts of kindness, which
were expected to moderate the moderated relationship of personality between acts of kindness
and reactions. In contrast with H4, no support was found for types of acts of kindness as a
moderator for willingness to share and brand attitude. The results showed, in contrast with
H4a and H4b, that entity theorists did not react positively in terms of willingness to share for
both random and strategic acts of kindness. As correctly hypothesized in H4a and H4b, entity
theorists did react positively in terms of brand attitude for random and strategic acts of
kindness. As suggested by H4c, incremental theorists reacted less positively in terms of
willingness to share when the brand’s kindness action was truly random, but in contrast with
H4d they were also less positive regarding sharing for strategic kindness acts. Incremental
theorists further held a very positive brand attitude when the act of kindness was truly
random, which is in contrast with H4c, and the same positive attitude was held when the act
was strategic, which was correctly hypothesized by H4d.
Some of these findings regarding the moderating role of types of acts of kindness were
not expected and thus differ with previous studies. The contradicting findings regarding
willingness to share are at this point not very surprising given the results of H1 and can be
discussed in the same way as H1. A more surprising finding for H4 that is contradicting the
literature is that incremental theorists are just as positive in terms of brand attitude for truly
random acts of kindness compared to strategic ones. As incremental theorists believe that
personality is malleable, view behavior as varying over time or across situations and do not
45
base their judgements on one trait or situation (Dweck et al., 1995b), it is likely that they view
a truly random act of kindness as less positive because they perceive it as unstable and
temporal (a one-off) which means it does not correspond to the brand and thus results in a less
positive brand evaluation. Or as Plaks et al. (2001) put it another way, incremental theorists
need more examples of this kindness behavior to form an overall judgement of the brand,
which therefore means that they do not evaluate the brand better. Hence, according to the
literature, we should expect incremental theorists to prefer strategic acts of kindness, but this
was not the case for brand attitude as they also held very positive brand attitudes when the act
of kindness was truly random.
While testing for H4, another interesting finding was obtained. The results showed
perceived motives to have a significant impact on willingness to share, suggesting that the
more a consumer perceives strategic motives behind a brand’s act of kindness, the more the
consumer is willing to share the content. Although, this finding must be put in perspective due
to the very low sample size of H4. However, it provides just another piece of evidence that as
shown before by for example Ellen et al. (2006) consumers are willing to accept and give
reputational credit for firm-serving motives of a brand’s kindness action.
Finally, the results provided support for the mediating role of sincerity for reactions
towards acts of kindness, both in terms of willingness to share and brand attitude. Thus,
confirming H5, sincerity serves as an underlying mechanism for the differential effects of acts
of kindness on willingness to share and brand attitude. Consumers use sincere attributions to
determine their willingness to share and to form subsequent attitudes towards the brand. This
finding is consistent with previous studies (Klein & Dawar, 2004; Sen, Bhattacharya, &
Korschun, 2006; Yoon et al., 2006) that already showed sincerity to be a mediator between
consumer reactions and companies’ good intention behavior and argue that publics’ perceived
46
attributions about the sincerity of the company’s purposes is most important for the success of
its kindness action.
5.2 Theoretical implications
The rise of social media offers new research and theory opportunities. Random acts of
kindness is an example of a marketing campaign developed during the rise of social media in
recent years. The results of this study regarding this marketing trend has several implications
for research. First, this study is the first attempt to investigate consumer reactions towards
random acts of kindness. The findings of the study provide some evidence against the widely
held assumption that acts of kindness are always positive as it not automatically lead to
positive eWOM and brand attitudes. This finding complements findings in CSR literature that
already showed that when companies do good consumers not necessarily become happier or
more positive (Forehand & Grier, 2003; Kim, 2011; Yoon, Gurhan-Canli, & Schwarz, 2006).
This work further contributes to the growing body of research in eWOM. Previous
studies (Berger & Milkman, 2012; Botha & Reyneke, 2013; Eckler & Bolls, 2011; Henke,
2013) have shown that positive content and content that evokes high-arousal emotions are
more viral. Also, a significant relationship between surprise and word-of-mouth is found
increasing the likelihood of inducing social sharing (Derbaix & Vanhamme, 2003). In this
study, content is involved that meets these characteristics of viral content, as acts of kindness
are positive and involve high-arousal emotions like surprise. However, the results showed that
there is very low willingness to share the content, suggesting that these characteristics of viral
content may not always be applicable. Specifically, high-arousal emotions may only be
evoked under certain circumstances. This may only be for acts of kindness when consumers
themselves actually experience the kindness action by being surprised or observing a
consumer being surprised in real life. Another circumstance may be when family or
47
acquaintances are involved in the brand’s kindness actions. The results show that when a
neutral consumer reads about a brand (with whom he/she has no existing relationship) who
surprises other unknown consumers with gifts, positive eWOM is not guaranteed and there is
little or no willingness to share.
This research enhances understanding of implicit theories of personality on
consumers’ brand evaluation. Although no support was found for personality as a moderator,
this study did show that entity and incremental theorists react differently towards acts of
kindness under the same circumstances. However, the results cast some doubt on the
assumption that person theories are relatively stable (Dweck, Chiu, & Hong, 1995a). So do
entity theorists believe that personality traits are fixed and they expect a high degree of
consistency in behavior (Dweck et al., 1995b), which suggests that they are likely to view any
act of kindness as corresponding to the brand and an indicator of stable positive brand
characteristics resulting in a more positive brand evaluation. Hence, in general we should
expect entity theories to display more positive brand attitudes than incremental theorists, but
that was not always the case. Besides, consumers who advocate personal malleability
(incremental theorists) believe behavior to be varying over time or across situations and do
not base their judgements on one trait or situation (Dweck et al., 1995b). So, as noted before,
it was expected that they view a truly random act of kindness as less positive because they
perceive it as a one-off and non-corresponding to the brand. However, the results showed
incremental theorists did not prefer strategic acts of kindness as they also held very positive
brand attitudes when the act of kindness was truly random.
Finally, this research contributes to the literature on attribution theory and the key role
of sincerity. The results suggested that attributions hardly vary by the nature of the act of
kindness (random versus strategic). This indicates that most consumers perceive a brand’s act
of kindness as strategic, although the true motives of it are not clear in or communicated to
48
the real world. However, only 16.8% of the participants did perceive the brand’s kindness
action as insincere. This finding suggests that although acts of kindness may be perceived as
strategic by most consumers, they still perceive it as sincere. In other words, as shown before
(e.g. Ellen et al., 2006) consumers are willing to accept and give reputational credit for firmserving motives of a brand’s act of kindness, like enhancing their image and relationships
with stakeholders, as long as they also sincerely perceive that the company serves public
interests, here by surprising consumers with gifts to make them happy.
5.3 Managerial implications
Whereas until now marketers used acts of kindness as mere experiments, this study
contributes to our understanding of the effects of acts of kindness and provides some lessons
in determining its success. First of all, marketers have to be aware that companies’ good deeds
are not always successful. Here, it is shown that good deeds not automatically generate
positive eWOM and sharing behavior for example. Another lesson is that consumers are
tolerant of the idea that part of the brand’s motives behind its act of kindness is imagepromotional. Consumers are able to recognize businesses can serve two masters: their own
business and the needs of society (Kim, 2011). At the same time, caution is advised because
this study showed that different consumers react differently and there can also be consumers
who cannot reconcile the two different motives.
Finally, marketers need to be aware of a possible gap between actual experiences of
acts of kindness and learning about it from distance, as this obviously affects the results of
acts of kindness. As noted before, the involvement with a brand’s kindness action is of course
much higher when the consumer itself is involved or his family or friends. The same
involvement may apply for consumers who stand next to another consumer who is being
surprised and thus directly observe a company making consumers truly happy. The experience
49
of an act of kindness from this point of view may have much better results in terms of eWOM,
sharing behavior and brand attitudes. However, when learning about an act of kindness
without a similar experience but in a more neutral way, like reading a news article in which
unknown other consumers are surprised with for example gifts, worse results may be the
consequence.
5.4 Limitations and future research
The results of this study are limited by a number of factors, many of which can be addressed
in future studies. The relatively small sample size caused by the limited time period for this
study presents the first and foremost limitation. A small sample group is associated with
relatively low statistical power. The statistically non-significant findings might be caused by
relatively low statistical power, rather than a true absence of effects. For the moderation
hypotheses (H3 and H4) the sample is even smaller because first the control group is dropped
out of the analyses and additionally also every respondent without a clear personality type.
This resulted in very small sample sizes (H3: N = 52 and H4: N = 37), which makes it hard to
show significant moderator effects. Future studies using a larger sample size might efficiently
address this issue, resulting in more significant findings and better moderation tests. Besides,
the limited time period also caused the sample to consist of mainly students who almost all
have the Dutch nationality. This limits the generalizability of the findings of this study to
other settings.
A bigger sample size would also contribute to a more clear view of how personality
influences the consequences of acts of kindness. As noted before, differences were found
between different types of consumers, only without statistical support. It is also interesting to
see whether the doubt that has been casted on the assumption that person theories are
50
relatively stable holds for a bigger sample. So whether incremental theorists still evaluate the
brand positive when the act of kindness is truly random for example.
Second, the brand that was used in this study was a fictitious airplane company so
participants did not hold existing or previous attitudes towards the brand which may bias
them. However, using an existing, known brand may lead to different results. Also, due to the
limited time period of this research, only one type of brand was involved, while it may be
interesting to look whether acts of kindness performed by brands in other industries (e.g.
department stores or supermarkets) result in different outcomes. Would the same effects be
observed when the Bijenkorf for example performs an act of kindness? However, it is
important to show the unique contribution of acts of kindness to brand attitude, which this
study failed to prove. Future research should attempt to investigate the effect of acts of
kindness on brands with an existing image. Brand attitude can then be measured both before
and after the act of kindness to show what the exact effect is of the company’s kindness action
on consumers’ brand attitudes. Next, research can be extended by comparing the effect of acts
of kindness on fictitious versus existing brands. Additionally, it might be interesting to
investigate whether acts of kindness make a difference in terms of image and brand attitude
for positively reputed companies and negatively reputed companies.
Another limitation is that the experimental design of the study might have influenced
the outcomes. The participants were forced to read about a brand’s act of kindness, while
experiencing the brand’s kindness in real life may lead to different results. Future research
could therefore examine consumer reactions towards random acts of kindness in different
situations. One group may actually be surprised themselves with an act of kindness, while
others are direct observers and yet another group only reads about the marketing campaign. It
might be interesting to see how the role of the participant and its involvement may change
over these groups and lead to different results. This would also address the possible existing
51
gap in consequences of acts of kindness between actual experiencing it and learning about it
from distance and it may be easier this way to make seem an act of kindness totally random or
more strategic.
52
6. Conclusion
This research represents an initial attempt to show how (different) consumers react to acts of
kindness. Until now, marketers used acts of kindness as mere experiments. Moreover, a
widely held assumption exists that these brands’ kindness actions are positive, although no
research has investigated this marketing trend so far. The purpose of this research was to
check whether acts of kindness are indeed as positive as suggested and how reactions might
differ across different consumers. Through an online experiment participants read a news
article about a fictitious airline brand after which they had to evaluate the brand and its act of
kindness.
The findings of the study showed that acts of kindness are not always as positive as
assumed. Companies’ kindness actions do not automatically lead to positive eWOM and there
is little or no willingness to share. Although consumers do have a very positive brand attitude
after reading about the brand and its kindness action, it is unclear to what extent the act of
kindness contributed to this positive attitude. Participants in the control group who read a
general description of the brand (without an act of kindness) evaluated the brand just as
positive.
Furthermore, this research showed sincerity to play a mediating role between acts of
kindness and reactions towards it both in terms of willingness to share and brand attitude.
Although most participants perceive an act of kindness as strategic (also when it is told to be
performed as truly random) the majority perceives the brand’s kindness actions as sincere.
This suggests consumers are willing to accept and give reputational credit for firm-serving
motives of a brand’s act of kindness as long as they also sincerely perceive that the company
serves public interests.
53
Finally, no support was found for the moderation effects of personality and type of act
of kindness. However, this study provides encouraging support for the notion that both
implicit theories of personality and type of act of kindness may help explain how different
consumers react in different ways. The results showed that in general entity theorists are more
willing to share and have more positive brand attitudes than incremental theorists. Besides,
both personalities differ in reactions regarding the type of act of kindness. So did entity
theorists report higher scores on brand attitude when the act of kindness was strategic while
their incremental counterparts slightly preferred the truly random act. And whereas entity
theorists were more willing to share when the act of kindness was strategic, incremental
theorists were more willing to share truly random acts of kindness. Thus, differences are
shown, it is now up to future research including a bigger sample to demonstrate the
significance of these moderator effects.
In conclusion, this study yielded several interesting results including different
reactions by different type of consumers based upon their type of personality. However, future
research is needed before confidential conclusions can be made about consumer reactions
towards this marketing trend.
54
7. References
Atzmüller, C., & Steiner, P. M. (2010). Experimental Vignette Studies in Survey Research.
European Journal of Research Methods for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, 6(3),
128-138.
Baskerville, K., Johnson, K., Monk-Turner, E., Slone, Q., Standley, H., Stansbury, S.,
Williams, M., & Young, J. (2000). Reactions to Random Acts of Kindness. The Social
Science Journal, 37(2), 293-298.
Berger, J., & Milkman, K. L. (2012). What Makes Online Content Viral? Journal of
Marketing Research, 49(2), 192-205.
Botha, E., & Reyneke, M. (2013). To share or not to share: the role of content and emotion in
viral marketing. Journal of Public Affairs, 13(2), 160-171.
Brown, T. J. & Dacin, P. A. (1997). The Company and the Product: Corporate Associations
and Consumer Product Responses. Journal of Marketing, 61, 68-84.
Campbell, M. C. (1995). When attention-getting advertising tactics elicit consumer inferences
of manipulative intent: The importance of balancing benefits and investments. Journal
of Consumer Psychology, 4, 225-254.
Campbell, M. C., & Kirmani, A. (2000). Consumers' use of persuasion knowledge: The
effects of accessibility and cognitive capacity on perceptions of an influence agent.
Journal of Consumer Research, 27, 69-83.
Chiu, C., Hong, Y., & Dweck, C. S. (1997) Lay Dispositionism and Implicit Theories of
Personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(1), 19-30.
55
Coulter, Keith S. and Girish N. Punj (2007), Understanding the Role of Idiosyncratic
Thinking in Brand Attitude Formation, Journal of Advertising, 36(1), 7-20.
Creyer, E. H., & Ross, W. T. (1997). The influence of firm behavior of purchase motive: Do
consumers really care about business ethics? Journal of Consumer Marketing, 14,
421–432.
Derbaix, C., & Vanhamme, J. (2003). Inducing word-of-mouth by eliciting surprise – a pilot
investigation. Journal of Economic Psychology, 24(1), 99-116.
Dweck, C. S., Chiu, C., & Hong, Y. (1995a). Implicit theories and their role in judgment and
reactions: A world from two perspectives. Psychological Inquiry, 6, 267-285.
Dweck, C. S., Chiu C., & Hong, Y. (1995b). Implicit Theories: Elaboration and Extension of
the Model. Psychological Inquiry, 6(4), 322-333.
Dweck, C. S., Hong, Y., & Chiu, C. (1993). Implicit Theories Individual Differences in the
Likelihood and Meaning of Dispositional Inference. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 19(5), 644-656.
Eckler, P., & Bolls, P. (2011). Spreading the Virus: Emotional Tone of Viral Advertising and
its Effect on Forwarding Intentions and Attitudes. Journal of Interactive Advertising,
11(2), 1-11.
Ellen, P. S., Mohr, L. A., & Webb, D. J. (2000). Charitable programs and the retailer: Do they
mix? Journal of Retailing, 76, 393-406.
56
Ellen, P. S., Webb, D. J., & Mohr, L. A. (2006). Building corporate associations: consumer
attributions for corporate socially responsible program. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 34, 147–157.
Folkes, V. S. (1988). Recent Attribution Research in Consumer Behavior: A Review and New
Directions. Journal of Consumer Research, 14(4), 548-565.
Forehand, M. R. (2000). Extending overjustification: The effect of perceived reward-giver
intention on response to rewards. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 919-931.
Forehand, M. R., & Grier, S. (2003). When honesty is the best policy? The effect of stated
company intent on consumer skepticism. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13, 349356.
Handelman, J. M., & Arnold, S. J. (1999). The Role of Marketing Actions With a Social
Dimension: Appeals to the Institutional Environment. Journal of Marketing, 63, 3348.
Henke, L. L. (2013). Breaking through the Clutter: The Impact of Emotions and Flow on
Viral Marketing. Academy of Marketing Studies Journal, 17(2), 111-118.
Kim, H-S. (2011) A reputational approach examining publics' attributions on corporate social
responsibility motives. Asian Journal of Communication, 21(1), 84-101.
Kim, S., & Lee, Y-J. (2012). The complex attribution process of CSR motives. Public
Relations Review, 38(1), 168.
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(3), 203-217.
57
Levy, S. R., Chiu, C., & Hong, Y. (2006). Lay Theories and Intergroup Relations. Group
Processes and Intergroup Relations, 9(1), 5-24.
Levy, S. R., Plaks, J. E., Hong, Y., Chi, C., & Dweck, C. S. (2001). Static Versus Dynamic
Theories and the Perception of Groups: Different Routes to Different Destinations.
Personality & Social Psychology Review, 5(2), 156-168.
Levy, S. R., Stroessner, S. J., & Dweck, C. S. (1998). Stereotype Formation and
Endorsement: The Role of Implicit Theories. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 74(6), 1421-1436.
Mayers, A. (2013). Introduction to Statistics and SPSS in Psychology. Edinburgh Gate:
Pearson Education Limited.
Park, J. K., & John, D. R. (2010). Got to Get You into My Life: Do Brand Personalities Rub
Off on Consumers? Journal of Consumer Research, 31(4). 655-669.
Plaks, J. E., Levy, S. R., & Dweck, C. S. (2009). Lay Theories of Personality: Cornerstones of
Meaning in Social Cognition. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 3(6),
1069-1081.
Plaks, J. E., Stroessner, S. J., Dweck, C. S., & Sherman, J. W. (2001). Person Theories and
Attention Allocation: Preferences for Stereotypic Versus Counterstereotypic
Information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(6), 876-893.
Poon, C. S. K., & Koehler, D. J. (2008). Person Theories: Their Temporal Stability and
Relation to Intertrait Inferences. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(7), 965.
58
Puzakova, M., Kwak, H., & Rocereto, J. F. (2013). When Humanizing Brands Goes Wrong:
The Detrimental Effect of Brand Anthropomorphization Amid Product Wrongdoings.
Journal of Marketing, 77(3), 81-100.
Ribben, W., & Malliet, S. (2010). Perceived Digital Game Realism: A Quantitative
Exploration of its Structure. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 19(6),
585-600.
Ross, L., & Nisbett, R. E. (1991). The Person and the Situation. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Sen, S., Bhattacharya, C.B., & Korschun, D. (2006). The role of corporate social
responsibility in strengthening multiple stakeholder relationships: A field experiment.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34, 158-166.
Skowronski, J. J. (2002). Honesty and Intelligence Judgments of Individuals and Groups: The
Effects of Entity-Related Behavior Diagnosticity and Implicit Theories. Social
Cognition, 20 (2), 136-169.
Smith, N. C. (1996, September 8). Corporate Citizens and Their Critics. The New York
Times, p. 11.
Smith, S. M., & Alcorn, D. S. (1991). Cause marketing: A new direction in the marketing of
corporate social responsibility. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 8, 19–35.
Webb, D. J., & Mohr, L. A. (1998). A typology of consumer responses to cause-related
marketing: From skeptics to socially concerned. Journal of Public Policy and
Marketing, 17, 226-238.
59
Yoon, Y., Gurhan-Canli, Z., & Schwarz, N. (2006). The effect of Corporate Social
Responsibility (CSR) activities on companies with bad reputations. Journal of
Consumer Psychology, 16(4), 377-390.
Websites
Accenture (2009). Delivering High Performance to the Airline Industry. Retrieved from
http://www.accenture.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/PDF/Accenture_Airline_Capabil
ities.pdf
Airlinetrends.com (2010). KLM surprises Foursquare users with little acts of kindness.
Retrieved from http://www.airlinetrends.com/2010/11/10/klm-surprise-foursquare/
Airline Quality Rating (2012). Research: Customer service most important consideration for
air travelers. Retrieved from http://www.eturbonews.com/28672/research-customerservice-most-important-consideration-air-trave
Boondoggle (2014). KLM Surprise. Retrieved from http://www.boondoggle.eu/
CBS (2013). Bevolingstrends 2013. Gebruik en gebruikers van sociale media. Retrieved from:
http://www.cbs.nl/NR/rdonlyres/06A12225-495E-4620-80F6F2A53E819957/0/20131001b15art.pdf
SocialTimes (2011). KLM Stalks Passengers Through Social Media & Buys Them Gifts.
Retrieved from http://socialtimes.com/klm-stalks-passengers_b33673
Trendwatching (2011). Random Acts of Kindness. Retrieved from
http://trendwatching.com/trends/rak/
60
8. Appendix
61
8.1 Experiment
News article control group
News article random act of kindness group
News article strategic act of kindness group
62
Questions
63
64
65
Note: questions regarding sincerity (e.g. “Universal Airlines has genuine concerns for its
customers and their happiness”), perceived motives (e.g. “Universal Airlines tried to make a
good image of the company”) and the manipulation check (e.g. “Universal Airlines’ act of
kindness is delivered spontaneously”) were not shown to participants in the control group.
66