Corporate Social Responsibility Discussion

User Generated

zbqpuvc

Business Finance

Description

DEFINITION: a brief definition of "Corporate Social Responsibility" followed by the APA reference for the term; this does not count in the word requirement. 

SUMMARY: Summarize the article in your own words- this should be in the 150-200-word range. Be sure to note the article's author, note their credentials and why we should put any weight behind his/her opinions, research or findings regarding the key term.

DISCUSSION: Using 300-350 words, write a brief discussion, in your own words of how the article relates to the selected chapter Key Term. A discussion is not rehashing what was already stated in the article, but the opportunity for you to add value by sharing your experiences, thoughts and opinions. This is the most important part of the assignment. 

Unformatted Attachment Preview

r Academy of Management Journal 2019, Vol. 62, No. 5, 1609–1642. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2014.0795 MICROFOUNDATIONS OF CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY AND IRRESPONSIBILITY CATHERINE T. SHEA Carnegie Mellon University OLGA V. HAWN University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill This study examines the importance of social perception of corporate social responsibility (CSR) and irresponsibility (CSI). Drawing from social psychology literature on stereotypes, we argue that two fundamental dimensions of social perception—warmth and competence—help explain the underlying processes and conditions under which CSR leads to specific outcomes. We propose that firms engaging in CSR are perceived as higher in warmth and, by default, competence; moreover, different perceptions of the organization’s warmth and competence can moderate CSR rewards and CSI penalties. To demonstrate this, we conduct three experiments. Experiment 1 links CSR with perceptions of warmth and competence, showing that warmth perceptions mediate the relationship between CSR and important outcomes, such as purchase intentions and reputation. Experiment 2 adds information on firms’ countries of origin, revealing that CSR rewards and CSI penalties differ depending on the (mis)alignment of CSR strategy with country stereotypes. Experiment 3 replicates these findings using behavioral paradigms. We find that firms from high-warmth countries (the United States, Sweden, Portugal) receive lower CSR rewards and pay higher CSI penalties than firms from low-warmth countries (Germany, Pakistan) but this effect is moderated by competence. Our micro–macro study advances social evaluation, strategic CSR, and international management literatures. McGuire, Sundgren, & Schneeweis, 1988; Orlitzky, Schmidt, & Rynes, 2003; Russo & Fouts, 1997) and other outcomes (Berrone & Gomez-Mejia, 2009; Flammer, 2013; Turban & Greening, 1997; Yoon, Gürhan-Canli, & Schwarz, 2006). Yet CSR is primarily studied at the macro level (i.e., institutional or organizational level) compared to the micro level (i.e., individual level) of analysis: a recent review of the CSR literature shows that only 4% of all studies examine the individual level, while only 5% address CSR at two or more levels of analysis (Aguinis & Glavas, 2012). Therefore, what is lacking in CSR research is deeper appreciation, at the individual level, of how CSR makes an impact (Wang et al., 2016). Accordingly, this paper addresses the need for micro studies of CSR with a multilevel approach (Morgeson, Aguinis, Waldman, & Siegel, 2013) in order to understand the underlying processes (i.e., mediating effects) and conditions under which (i.e., moderating effects) CSR leads to specific outcomes. In particular, we still know very little about the microfoundations of CSR (for the most recent review, see Gond, El Akremi, Swaen, & Babu, 2017): how CSR and, importantly, corporate social irresponsibility Corporate social responsibility (CSR) has grown markedly in the past decade both as an important phenomenon in practice and as a critical field in academia (Wang, Tong, Takeuchi, & George, 2016). We have theorized about its institutional (Campbell, 2007; Ioannou & Serafeim, 2012) and organizational drivers (Aguilera, Rupp, Williams, & Ganapathi, 2007; McWilliams & Siegel, 2001) as well as examined its effect on firm performance (Berman, Wicks, Kotha, & Jones, 1999; Cochran & Wood, 1984; The authors thank anonymous reviewers and conference participants at 2014 Academy of Management, Academy of International Business, and Strategic Management Society annual meetings, as well as Sinziana Dorobantu, Sanjay Patnaik, Elena Kulchina, Nel Dutt, Elena Vidal, Amandine Ody-Brasier, Marlo Raveendran, Zach Burns, and the brown-bag participants at Boston University for comments on the early version of this paper. An earlier version of this manuscript was a Finalist for 2014 AIB Haynes Prize for the Most Promising Scholar. Please address all correspondence to Catherine Shea: Tepper School of Business, Carnegie Mellon University, 5000 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA, 15213, email: ctshea@andrew.cmu.edu 1609 Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright holder’s express written permission. Users may print, download, or email articles for individual use only. 1610 Academy of Management Journal (CSI) (Lange & Washburn, 2012; Surroca, Tribó, & Zahra, 2013) are perceived by individuals, and what effect this perception might have on the relationship between CSR and specific outcomes at individual and organizational levels of analysis. For example, we know that CSR positively affects company reputation (Turban & Greening, 1997)—one of our outcomes— but why and what mediates this relationship at the individual level is still unclear. A small but growing literature on the micro approaches to CSR shows that involvement in CSR positively influences employee performance, behaviors, and attitudes (Burbano, 2016), such as employee engagement (Caligiuri, Mencin, & Jiang, 2013), organizational citizenship behavior (Rupp, Shao, Thornton, & Skarlicki, 2013), identification with the firm (Farooq, Rupp, & Farooq, 2017), retention (Jones, 2010), in-role performance, and commitment, as well as attractiveness to prospective employees (Jones, Willness, & Madey, 2014; Turban & Greening, 1997). Yet, few studies go beyond employees (i.e., providing information on other stakeholders) or seek to unpack the processes of CSR evaluations by individuals more generally (Gond et al., 2017). Our study applies to a larger number of stakeholders—which may include employees, customers, environmentalists, suppliers, the community as a whole, and owners/shareholders—because it examines general individual judgments and perceptions of warmth and competence. Warmth and competence serve as universal dimensions of social judgment (Cuddy, Fiske, & Glick, 2004; Fiske, Cuddy, & Glick, 2007; Fiske, Cuddy, Glick, & Xu, 2002). “Warmth” is defined as perceptions related to intent, including friendliness, trustworthiness, helpfulness, sincerity, and morality, whereas “competence” is conceptualized as perceptions related to ability, including skill, intelligence, creativity, and efficacy (Cuddy, Fiske, & Glick, 2008). With the help of these two dimensions, one can portray social perceptions of activities, individuals, organizations, and even countries (Cuddy, Fiske, & Glick, 2007). Moreover, social judgment of various degrees (i.e., high or low) of warmth and/or competence can predict a distinct emotion and behavior toward a target; for example, being perceived as high on warmth and/or competence is beneficial, while being low on one of the dimensions is costly (Aaker, Vohs, & Mogilner, 2010). Importantly, compared to other potential mechanisms, warmth and competence help predict specific behavioral outcomes from these social perceptions (e.g., helping those higher in warmth; Cuddy et al., 2007), adding a more nuanced mechanism between CSR, social perception, and October behavior toward the firm, which can ultimately affect more macro-level outcomes (e.g., reputation, sales, stakeholder and shareholder value). While previous research mainly examines CSR, we apply these two fundamental dimensions of social perception to understand the microfoundations of CSR and CSI. Naturally, our basic argument is that firms with CSR generate a greater warmth and (by default, without any other information) competence perception than control firms or firms engaging in CSI. We extend this logic to argue that this perception of warmth in turn mediates CSR and CSI effects on various outcomes (i.e., CSR rewards and CSI penalties— the effects for CSR and CSI above and below the control condition). Importantly, we then argue that different perceptions of warmth and competence of the organization from other sources (in this paper, based on its country of origin) moderate CSR rewards and CSI penalties depending on the (mis)alignment of CSR strategy with the (home country) stereotype. Using three experiments with 774 participants and the warmth and competence variation across five countries (i.e., the United States, Sweden, Germany, Portugal, Pakistan), we show that warmth and competence perceptions explain causal effects of CSR and CSI on purchase intentions, price, reputation, and quality assessments. Moreover, consistent with the stereotype content model (SCM), firms from high-warmth countries pay a higher price for CSI than firms from lowwarmth countries (Germany, Pakistan), yet this effect changes when combined with perceptions of high competence (the United States, Sweden). Our study has several important theoretical implications for the management literature on CSR, social cognition, and international business, as well as practical applications. First, we develop a deeper understanding of the microfoundations of CSR and CSI—by examining their social perception by individuals. We extend existing individual-level CSR research that relies on a different set of theoretical frameworks, such as system justification theory (Hafenbrädl & Waeger, 2016), organizational justice, social influence, needs, and self-determination theories (Aguinis & Glavas, 2012), by drawing from the social psychology research on social perception and stereotypes and arguing that CSR influences and is influenced by two fundamental dimensions of social perception—warmth and competence—which mediate and moderate the effects of CSR (and CSI) on different outcomes. Our work is important because, in comparison to objective CSR ratings, the “subjective” evaluations of CSR likely matter more for individual reactions to CSR (Rupp et al., 2013), 2019 Shea and Hawn which in turn lead to different outcomes (Gond et al., 2017). For example, employees’ exposure to CSR initiatives does not directly translate into favorable CSR attitudes (Glavas & Godwin, 2013). Thus, it is important to understand how the social perception of CSR is formed more generally. Second, we advance prior literature examining different mediators and moderators of CSR at the individual level, such as trust (or whether, how, and when consumers’ perceptions of motives directly influence consumer responses to CSR) (Vlachos, Tsamakos, Vrechopoulos, & Avramidis, 2009), customer satisfaction (Luo & Bhattacharya, 2006), and organizational pride and identity (Jones, 2010; Jones et al., 2014), by conducting a multidisciplinary multi-experimental analysis of the role of warmth and competence in the CSR context. If we understand how the average individual perceives CSR and CSI and how these social perceptions may coincide (or diverge) with (from) their expectations (stereotypes) of organizations, we can understand more about how the value from CSR is generated more broadly for a variety of stakeholders. In addition, since most firms try to avoid CSI, we can understand which firms will not suffer from CSI as much as others and why. Third, while most prior studies focus on only one organizational practice, we distinguish between CSR and CSI—crucial for moving the CSR literature forward. Another important contribution to the CSR literature, prone to endogeneity and causality issues, is empirical: by utilizing controlled experimental methods, we are able to isolate discrete mechanisms linking CSR/CSI to organizational outcomes. This gives managers unequivocal insights into which “levers to pull” when activating a CSR/CSI strategy based on their current organizational context, and, importantly, this helps specify conditions under which CSR/ CSI does not reap the expected benefits/costs. Finally, we extend the international management literature by showing that initial social judgments about the origin of the firm may improve or worsen outcomes based on the choice of CSR strategy. This has important practical implications, particularly for managers of firms that expand abroad for the first time. THEORY AND HYPOTHESES Social Perception The ability to quickly judge another individual is a fundamental evolutionary skill. It helps us to ascertain whether “they” are a part of our social group and 1611 to assess the goodness of their motives and competence to enact these good motives (see Fiske et al., 2007, for a review). Despite common beliefs that we need (and use) a wealth of knowledge to form judgments about other individuals, research shows that we make trait inferences spontaneously (Newman & Uleman, 1993; Winter & Uleman, 1984; Winter, Uleman, & Cunniff, 1985). For instance, when observing a fictional character, Donald, help an old lady cross the street, we quickly (and somewhat permanently) conclude that Donald is a kind and helpful individual—despite our having only limited information about him. Related work on “thin slicing” shows that a mere 30 seconds watching a college professor teach is sufficient to predict their end-ofterm teaching evaluations (see Ambady & Rosenthal, 1992, for a review). Thus, despite the wealth of social information at our disposal, individuals primarily rely on quick social judgments of others, and filter all subsequent social information based—barring a major behavioral change—on the first impression of someone (Newman & Uleman, 1993; Ross, Lepper, & Hubbard, 1975). Many of these quick social judgments about other individuals result from stereotypes. Stereotypes are cognitive beliefs about the characteristics of another group (Fiske, 1998). Fiske and colleagues (Cuddy et al., 2008; Fiske et al., 2007; Fiske et al., 2002) identified two fundamental dimensions of all stereotypes used to evaluate people and social groups: warmth and competence. The SCM posits that all social groups fit into one of four quadrants based on whether they are high or low on warmth and competence. Further research (Cuddy et al., 2008; Fiske et al., 2007; Fiske et al., 2002; Fiske, Xu, Cuddy, & Glick, 1999) has demonstrated the robustness of the warmth and competence dimensions, and the fact that they can be used to classify not only individuals but also social groups (e.g., elderly people, Jews, housewives, immigrants, and the homeless) and even national cultures. Importantly, this work on social perception has a behavioral analog, the “behaviors from intergroup affect and stereotypes” (BIAS) map framework (Cuddy et al., 2007). Based on the dimensions of warmth and competence, the BIAS map predicts not only cognitions derived from group stereotypes but also specific behaviors toward the group. Warmth and competence evoke active and passive behaviors, respectively: in particular, while high-warmth targets are helped, low-warmth targets are harmed, and whereas high-competence targets are passively facilitated, low-competence targets are neglected (Cuddy 1612 Academy of Management Journal et al., 2007). Furthermore, each combination of the two trait dimensions predicts a distinct emotion or behavior toward the target: people admire those who are high in both competence and warmth, they feel contempt toward those who are low competence and low warmth, they envy those who are competent but not warm, and they pity those who are incompetent but warm (Fiske et al., 2002; Lee & Fiske, 2006). Firms as Subject to Stereotypes Although originally developed to explain personal and social group perception, the SCM has been extrapolated to non-human objects. Kervyn, Fiske, and Malone (2012), in their “brands as intentional agents” framework, showed that consumers perceive brands in the same way they perceive people. Cuddy et al. (2007) used the SCM to map social perceptions of European Union countries. Aaker et al. (2010) applied the SCM to organizations, explaining forprofit and not-for-profit firms’ success and failure, and showing that not-for-profit organizations are associated with higher warmth and lower competence than for-profit firms. It is not surprising that organizations are often anthropomorphized into human beings—famously so in the movie The Corporation and in recent decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court, such as in the Citizens United case. In management studies, organizations are often perceived to possess actions, thoughts, opinions (Knobe & Prinz, 2008), goals, tastes, styles, personalities (Pfeffer, 1981), and even attention (Ocasio, 1997). In fact, they are viewed as social actors similar to individuals precisely because the features that distinguish humans as actors are functionally equivalent to the features common to organizational actors (King, Felin, & Whetten, 2010). Yet, when compared to human beings, organizations are thought to have equal capability for agentic (i.e., competence) behavior (Gray & Wegner, 2010; Haran, 2013; Knobe & Prinz, 2008) but are less likely to be seen as experiencing emotions and feelings (Gray & Wegner, 2010). Nonetheless, a large literature in marketing demonstrates that people perceive brands to have personalities (Aaker, 1997) and that people form “relationships” with various brands and products (Aaker & Fournier, 1995; Fournier, 1998). We build off this previous literature by going beyond brands and products and examining the perceptions of organizational practices. Specifically, in this paper, we will compare perceptions of socially responsible and irresponsible organizations, predicated on October social perception dimensions developed to classify individuals and social groups. Before we discuss how socially (ir)responsible activities may generate social perceptions of warmth and/or competence, we need to define CSR and CSI. Main Effect: CSR, CSI, and Social Perception CSR, sustainability, corporate citizenship, and other terms are generally used to describe a portfolio of socioeconomic activities, including environmental, social, and corporate governance actions of the firm (Gardberg & Fombrun, 2006). Because these voluntary actions are aimed at improving social or ecological conditions (McWilliams & Siegel, 2001), many observers regard CSR as an activity that benefits firms, markets, and societies (Orlitzky, 2013). We propose that CSR represents organizational behavior that connotes warmth, and that, as such, it should lead to perceptions of greater warmth. Why should CSR be associated with warmth? Individuals and social groups associated with high warmth are associated with behaviors that are trustworthy and moral (Fiske et al., 2007). Additionally, warmth has both a moral dimension (e.g., good intentions) as well as a relational component (e.g., can successfully work with allies) (Goodwin, 2015). By definition, CSR includes a trustworthy behavior (i.e., “responsible” in its name); furthermore, CSR involves working with others (e.g., stakeholders; Harrison & Freeman, 1999). Prior literature distinguishes CSR—social actions motivated by moral obligation—from corporate social performance—social actions of firms—to highlight that CSR is a moral behavior (Baron, 2009). In turn, to distinguish between CSR and CSI, we will follow Campbell’s (2007) threshold: if corporations (a) knowingly do something that could harm their stakeholders—their investors, employees, customers, suppliers, or the local community within which they operate—and (b) do not rectify the harm caused by them (whenever it is discovered and brought to their attention), the minimum behavioral standard with respect to the corporation’s relationship to its stakeholders is broken, and such corporate behavior becomes socially irresponsible. For example, CSI behavior includes using child labor, sweatshops, and polluting facilities in manufacturing operations. CSR behavior, on the other hand, includes charity, volunteering, community engagement, fair labor practices, and environmentally friendly manufacturing facilities. In comparison to CSI and other organizational behavior, CSR behavior resembles the same set of attributes that social psychologists traditionally associate with 2019 Shea and Hawn being high in warmth. Therefore, as our baseline hypothesis, we propose: Hypothesis 1. Ceteris paribus, firms engaging in CSR (CSI) will be perceived as having higher (lower) levels of warmth. Mediating Effect: Spillover and Primacy Effects of Warmth Judgments Warmth perceptions have two effects that are worth discussing: halo effects (Nisbett & Wilson, 1977) and the primacy of warmth over competence. First, let us discuss the “halo effect”—that is, when the presence (or lack) of warmth spills over into our judgments of competence (Cuddy et al., 2008; Fiske et al., 2007; Singh & Teoh, 2000; Tausch, Kenworthy, & Hewstone, 2007). This effect is particularly salient when we have no information beyond that on warmth. Thus, we automatically assume—in the absence of further information—that an individual possessing warmth also possesses some degree of competence. In our setting, this will mean that, in comparison to CSI firms, in the absence of further information, because CSR firms are associated with higher warmth they will also be associated with higher competence. We argue that this will be the case because the limited information on CSR practices suggests to the evaluator that the organization mastered at least one skill and therefore is intelligent and competent. Competence is conceptualized as perceptions related to ability, including skill, intelligence, creativity, and efficacy; therefore, in comparison to firms engaging in CSI demonstrating their inability to be a corporate citizen and behave in socially responsible ways, the perception of competence will be greater for firms engaging in CSR. This prediction is consistent with recent work in consumer research: products of companies engaged in prosocial activities are perceived as performing better—due to the moral undertone of the company’s motivation for engaging in socially responsible behavior; more importantly, this effect holds even when consumers can directly observe and experience the product and when the acts of social goodwill are unrelated to the company’s core business (Chernev & Blair, 2015). Another alternative explanation for why CSR engagement may be perceived to be high in competence is that, in comparison with CSI, it can improve firm reputation, performance, and other outcomes (Choi & Wang, 2009; Yoon et al., 2006) traditionally associated with competence. 1613 A counterargument will require a discussion of the purpose of the firm (Friedman, 1970), market actors as social evaluators, and more information on other organizational practices, activities, or performance. For example, if evaluators were market actors (particularly in earlier years), they might have assumed that firms engaging in CSR were less competent because CSR investment requires diverting scarce resources from other more strategic or core business activities of the firm. However, in comparison to CSI, recent strategy work shows that CSR engagement is now making organizations more competent because they perform better even in financial markets (Cheng, Ioannou, & Serafeim, 2013; Eccles, Ioannou, & Serafeim, 2014; Ioannou & Serafeim, 2015). Therefore, due to the “halo effect” of warmth, as well as other alternative explanations listed above, we propose: Hypothesis 2. Ceteris paribus, firms engaging in CSR (CSI) will be perceived as having higher (lower) levels of competence. Second, let us discuss the primacy effect of warmth judgment. Although the SCM is predicted on two dimensions—warmth and competence—when it comes to forming a social perception, a large body of research highlights the primacy of warmth (Cacioppo, Gardner, & Berntson, 1997; Kenworthy & Tausch, 2008; Wojciszke, Bazinska, & Jaworski, 1998). That is, we anchor on perceptions of warmth and adjust, albeit insufficiently, based on perceptions of competence. At the individual level, this happens because information needed to determine warmth (e.g., facial expressions, interpersonal skills) is simply more readily available during the beginning of social interactions than information needed to determine competence (e.g., skills, knowledge, and abilities). Hence, when it comes to initial social judgments, warmth information carries more weight than competence information (Cuddy et al., 2008: 89–92; Singh & Teoh, 2000; Tausch et al., 2007). At the level of organizations, we argue that this primacy effect will be important in the relationship between CSR and organizational outcomes, particularly those that involve a single immediate evaluation or a first encounter with the firm, because, just like at the individual level, information needed to determine warmth is simply more readily available during the beginning of social interactions with this social actor (King et al., 2010) than information needed to determine competence. CSR studies have long examined the effect of CSR on firm performance (Cochran & Wood, 1984; Waddock & Graves, 1997) among other outcomes (Sen & Bhattacharya, 2001; 1614 Academy of Management Journal Turban & Greening, 1997), generally finding a significant positive effect (Margolis, Elfenbein, & Walsh, 2009). We distinguish between outcomes that involve a single immediate evaluation (i.e., a purchase intention or reputation assessment based on the first encounter with the firm) and those involving an ongoing evaluation (e.g., by market analysts and investors who collect information over time, accumulate more information contributing to a competence perception of the firm, and value competence over warmth in their judgment). We argue that, for first-time encounters, the warmth perception that CSR generates could in fact act as the mechanism by which CSR affects these outcomes. In particular, we suggest that, in the absence of further information, the primacy of warmth over competence will play a mediating role in the relationship between CSR and the outcome of the first encounter. We previously argued that, when individuals evaluate CSR, they perceive greater levels of warmth and, by default, competence than when they evaluate CSI (Hypotheses 1 and 2). Now, we argue that, when observers make single immediate evaluations of CSR/CSI behavior, they will pay more attention to the warmth than to the competence perception. There are three reasons for this. First, cognitively, people prove more sensitive to warmth information than to competence information. Second, they judge warmth faster than they do competence (Cuddy et al., 2008: 90). Third, higher warmth leads to higher levels of helping behavior (Cuddy et al., 2007); in an organizational context, help can be conceptualized as positive evaluations and willingness to purchase from the firm. Therefore: Hypothesis 3. Warmth perceptions will mediate the relationship between CSR/CSI and outcomes that involve single immediate evaluation. Moderating Effect: Stereotype Fulfillment and Violation While Hypotheses 1–3 posit CSR as a source of warmth and, by default, competence perception, and warmth as a potential mediator between CSR and outcomes that involve single immediate evaluation, we next discuss how other sources of warmth perception in an organizational context can interact with CSR and potentially moderate the relationship between CSR/CSI and organizational outcomes. In doing so, we assume, based on prior literature, that engaging in CSR leads to rewards (Margolis et al., 2009) and engaging in CSI leads to penalties for the focal organization (Salaiz, 2016). October Thus, we theorize about organizational contexts in which the rewards/penalties to a CSR/CSI strategy are amplified/mitigated, answering the following question: “Is it always useful to engage in CSR and/ or avoid CSI?” We propose that the answer to this question is grounded in the literature on stereotype fulfillment and violation. When we evaluate people from other social groups or cultures, stereotypes act as cognitive shortcuts. For instance, we meet a rule-abiding, formal German and our stereotype of German people is confirmed (i.e., high competence, low warmth; Cuddy et al., 2007). But, what happens when we meet a bubbly, scatterbrained German? Social judgments broadly fall into two categories: assimilation and contrast (Biernat, 2005; Newman & Uleman, 1993; Sherif & Hovland, 1961). “Assimilation” occurs when we judge the target according to the held stereotype (e.g., rule-abiding, formal German), and “contrast” occurs when we differentiate the target from our traditionally held stereotype (e.g., bubbly, scatterbrained German). In the absence of contradictory evidence, assimilation is relatively automatic (Dijksterhuis, Spears, & Lépinasse, 2001); otherwise, contrast takes place. The effect of contrasting social judgments can be both positive and negative. For instance, professionals—perceived as highly competent— receive differential treatment based on their gender after having a baby (Cuddy et al., 2004). Professional women are seen as less competent and do not experience a boost in perceived warmth from motherhood to make up for their newly perceived lack of competence. Men, on the other hand, receive increased perceptions of warmth and maintain their competence, gaining a net benefit from parenthood (Cuddy et al., 2004). Likewise, agentic women— violating the female stereotype—experience a backlash when they apply for feminized jobs, whereas prototypical women do not (Rudman & Glick, 1999, 2001). These studies suggest that additional information on other sources of warmth and/or competence perception for the subject of interest (e.g., gender) can help explain the benefits and detriments of certain behavior. The mechanism is that additional information may strengthen the original stereotype through assimilation, or change it through contrast. In order to examine under what conditions CSR and CSI behaviors generate greater (lower) outcomes, we add another piece of information about the firm that exogenously changes perceptions of its warmth and competence. As discussed in Studies 2 and 3, we achieve this by adding cues on the firm’s 2019 Shea and Hawn origin; Cuddy and colleagues (2007) portrayed stereotypes of countries on the two dimensions of warmth and competence, finding significant variation. In this section, to further our understanding of CSR as a warmth strategy, we mainly focus on the warmth dimension of the firm (or its origin); this helps to disentangle the mediating or supplemental warmth effects, if any, of CSR. This also helps address a potential reverse-causality issue: if firms perceived to be high in warmth are the ones who engage in CSR in the first place, this section of our theory (and analysis) helps to identify the leftover effect, if any, of CSR as a warmth strategy. We are interested in how social perception of the firm based on other sources of information (i.e., its origin) moderates CSR and CSI outcomes. In particular, if firms that engage in CSR are perceived to be higher in warmth and this warmth perception mediates the effect of CSR on our outcomes (Hypotheses 1 and 3), does an exogenous increase (decrease) in warmth of the firm help improve (attenuate) these outcomes for firms engaging in CSI (CSR)? We suggest that, because of assimilation with the existing stereotype (i.e., a match between low-warmth country of origin and low-warmth practice of CSI), firms perceived to be low in warmth will be forgiven for CSI behavior, and, therefore, will not be punished as harshly. Highwarmth firms, on the other hand, assimilate with CSR, not CSI, so, when they engage in socially irresponsible practices, contrast occurs and the penalty is high (i.e., a mismatch between high-warmth country of origin and low-warmth practice of CSI results in greater punishment). A similar logic applies to CSR: if a high-warmth firm engages in CSR, this demonstrates stereotypical behavior for this kind of a firm (i.e., assimilation occurs); hence, the benefits are mediocre. If a lowwarmth firm engages in CSR, on the other hand, that contradicts the stereotype and, as a result, generates greater rewards from the surprised but positive reaction of the firm’s observers. Importantly, stereotype match and violation based on the fit between the social perception of the firm and its behavior (CSR/ CSI) help advance our understanding of the cognitive mechanisms behind the efficacy of CSR investments, suggesting that not all firms engaging in CSR/CSI reap the same benefits/costs. Hypothesis 4. The higher the perception of warmth of the firm, the higher the penalties for CSI. Hypothesis 5. The higher the perception of warmth of the firm, the lower the rewards for CSR. 1615 Our key hypothesis is that CSR is predominantly perceived as influencing warmth. However, individuals do not only evaluate organizations on warmth but also competence, and thus we need to consider competence in our predictions. Prior research found that, although not-for-profit organizations were perceived to be high in warmth, consumers were less willing to buy from them unless they perceived them to be highly competent (Aaker et al., 2010). Therefore, we speculate that the presence of high (low) levels of perceived competence in addition to high (low) warmth may affect the above relationships. As we consider CSR and CSI, it is important to examine how the valence of these actions interacts with both warmth and competence. While warmth has a moral dimension (e.g., good intentions) and a relational component (e.g., can successfully work with allies) (Goodwin, 2015), competence relates directly to ability to execute a plan, positive or negative. In the case of CSI, organizations are behaving negatively, and we know that negative news generates stronger observer reactions than positive events in the CSR context (Lange & Washburn, 2012). As per Hypothesis 1, these negative events should bear negatively on warmth, particularly the moral aspects of warmth (Goodwin, Piazza, & Rozin, 2014), thus canceling out the positive effects of warmth on organizational outcomes. Moreover, negative behaviors are diagnostic of competence (Fiske et al., 2002), or lack thereof, and, per Hypothesis 2, CSI should decrease competence evaluations. Thus, a firm caught engaging in CSI will be perceived to be low on both competence and warmth. However, when additional information on warmth and competence stemming from other sources than organizational behavior (e.g., origin) is revealed, it may change the observers’ reaction to CSI, and, in fact, if the levels of both warmth and competence are high from this additional source, it could potentially buffer the firm against negative effects of CSI (Koh, Qian, & Wang, 2014; Shiu & Yang, 2017). This is once again due to the stereotype fulfillment and violation mechanism: observers expect high-competence– high-warmth firms to solve CSI issues much faster than low-competence–high-/low-warmth firms, and therefore do not punish them as harshly for CSI. Therefore, high competence and warmth of the home country of the firm that engages in CSI will buffer it from the negative effects of its poor behavior when we assess both dimensions of social perception (compared to firms high only on warmth). In turn, in the case of CSR, if a firm from a lowcompetence–low-warmth country is found to engage in CSR, observers may perceive it as an exemplar in 1616 Academy of Management Journal that country (due to the stereotype violation on both warmth and competence dimensions). As a result, this perception will increase their helping behaviors and positive evaluations toward such firms because they are doing the “most good” (namely, helping those who need it the most). Moreover, because CSR engagement is costly—as it may divert scarce resources from other more strategic or core business activities of the firm (Friedman, 1970)—engaging in CSR when low in both warmth and competence provides a stronger positive signal compared to firms low only on warmth. To summarize, we predict that the simultaneous presence of high warmth and high competence will lower the negative impact of CSI (attenuating Hypothesis 4), while the simultaneous presence of low warmth and low competence will amplify the positive effect of CSR (strengthening Hypothesis 5). Hypothesis 6. The perception of competence of the firm moderates the relationships in Hypotheses 4 and 5, such that (a) the higher the perception of warmth and competence of the firm (as opposed to lower), the lower the penalties for CSI, and (b) the lower the perception of warmth and competence (as opposed to higher), the higher the rewards to CSR. METHODS Given the plethora of empirical challenges in CSR research, it was important to conduct experiments to examine and establish the causal links between CSR/CSI, social perceptions, and different outcomes. Experiments allowed us to make causal statements based on control of the environment (Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002), making them ideal for testing our theory. They helped isolate our theoretical mechanisms and, therefore, advance theory (Haslam & McGarty, 2004; Mook, 1983). Moreover, as we test our hypotheses using multiple paradigms and outcomes, multiple experiments allow for conceptual replication and extension, highlighting the robustness of the effects. We conducted three experiments. In Study 1, we manipulated CSR and CSI to examine perceptions of warmth and competence as well as such outcomes as reputation and purchase intentions. In addition, thanks to the temporal order in our experimental design, we were able to infer warmth mediation. In Study 2, owing to the differences in the domain of the country of origin— organizational context—we were able to manipulate warmth and competence of the organization, and examine them as moderators in the relationship between CSR, CSI, and firm outcomes. Specifically, we October examined four countries representing each quadrant of the warmth–competence BIAS map (i.e., the United States, Germany, Portugal, and Pakistan) and three conditions (i.e., CSR, CSI, and control). Finally, in Study 3, we replicated and extended these effects in a behavioral experiment measuring helping and purchasing behaviors using a within-subjects design. STUDY 1 Study 1 examines the relationship between CSR activities and perceptions of warmth and competence (Hypotheses 1 and 2). It also examines whether warmth and competence serve as mediating mechanisms between CSR and important organizational outcomes (Hypothesis 3), such as purchase intentions (Sen & Bhattacharya, 2001) and reputation (Wagner, Lutz, & Weitz, 2009). Sample and Procedures Participants and design. One hundred and two participants (66 males, meanage 5 31, SD 5 10.11) were recruited from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (Buhrmester, Kwang, & Gosling, 2011; Horton, Rand, & Zeckhauser, 2011; see also O’Reilly, Robinson, Berdahl, & Banki, 2015, for recent management research using this data source; Paolacci & Chandler, 2014) in exchange for $0.30 in Amazon credits. All participants were based in the United States and were employed full-time. All participants passed attention filters embedded in the survey (i.e., “I will choose ‘disagree’ to demonstrate that I am paying attention”), and all participants had a unique IP address located within the United States. We used a one-factor design that assigned participants to either a CSR, CSI, or control condition randomly. Procedure. Participants were told that they would read a brief business scenario and provide their opinions. Participants completed the study online. CSR manipulation. Participants read about “Company X,” a fictitious company that engaged in either CSR or CSI activities, involving fair/unfair manufacturing processes overseas—the vignette had been established in prior literature (Sen & Bhattacharya, 2001). We also included a control condition with no information on CSR (see Appendix A for full vignettes). Measures Warmth and competence. Immediately following the CSR manipulation, participants rated whether 2019 Shea and Hawn 1617 significantly different levels of warmth, F(2, 99) 5 133.43, p , .000, hp2 5 .73 (see Table 1). Results of planned comparisons indicated that participants assigned to the CSR condition (M 5 4.33, SD 5 0.58) were more likely to view the firm as warm than were participants assigned to the CSI condition (M 5 2.02, SD 5 0.61), F(1, 67) 5 265.25, p , .000, hp2 5 .80, d 5 3.95, 95% CI [3.74, 4.17], or to our control condition (M 5 3.20, SD 5 0.59), F(1, 67) 5 66.71, p , .000, hp2 5 .50, d 5 1.96, 95% CI [1.76, 2.18]. Moreover, participants in the control condition perceived the firm as having significantly higher levels of warmth than did those in the CSI condition, F(1, 64) 5 64.32, p , .000, hp2 5 .50, d 5 2.00, 95% CI [1.79, 2.22]. The means are displayed in Table 1 and provide support for Hypothesis 1. Hypothesis 2: Competence. A one-way ANOVA showed that participants who were assigned to CSR, CSI, or control manipulations were more likely to judge the firm as possessing significantly different levels of competence, F(2, 99) 5 15.65, p , .000, hp2 5 .24 (see Table 1). Results of planned comparisons indicated that participants assigned to the CSR condition (M 5 4.14, SD 5 0.48) were more likely to view the firm as competent than were participants assigned to the CSI condition (M 5 3.30, SD 5 0.88), F(1, 67) 5 24.68, p , .000, hp2 5 .27, d 5 1.21, 95% CI [1.03, 1.52], and the control condition (M 5 3.93, SD 5 0.50), F(1, 67) 5 3.18, p 5 .08, hp2 5 .05, d 5 0.44, 95% CI [0.26, 0.61], while participants in the control condition perceived the firm as having significantly higher levels of competence than did participants in the CSI condition, F(1, 64) 5 12.70, p 5 .001, hp2 5 .17, d 5 1.28, 95% CI [1.10, 1.46]. The means are displayed in Table 1 and provide support for Hypothesis 2. Reputation. To check the validity of our assumption that CSR generates rewards and CSI generates penalties (Margolis et al., 2009; Salaiz, 2016), we ran the same analysis on Reputation. Participants who were assigned to CSR, CSI, or control manipulations they believed Company X to possess various attributes. Specifically, they rated whether Company X was tolerant, warm, good natured, and sincere (Fiske et al., 2002), and competent, confident, independent, competitive, and intelligent (Fiske et al., 2002). These items were randomly embedded in other, unrelated attribute items. Confirmatory factor analysis supported a two-factor solution that explained 72.2% of the variance. The four warmth items loaded onto Factor 1 with loadings ranging from .80 to .85. The five competence items loaded onto Factor 2 with loadings ranging from .77 to .84. The internal consistency coefficient of the warmth and competence items, measured using Cronbach’s alpha, were .93 and .86 respectively. In the control condition, warmth and competence were not correlated (r 5 .19, p 5 .26). Additional dependent variables. After rating Company X on the dimensions of warmth and competence, participants answered questions about two additional dependent variables. First, participants indicated their purchase intentions. Specifically, they were asked: “If the products from Company X were available for purchase, what is your likelihood of purchasing a product from Company X?” (1 5 not at all likely, 7 5 very likely) (see Chandon, Morwitz, & Reinartz, 2005, for a discussion of external validity). Additionally, participants rated their perceptions of the firm’s reputation: favorable, good, pleasant, positive (reputation a 5 .97; Homer, 1995; Wagner et al., 2009). Then, participants completed another manipulation check, regarding the content of the CSR scenario, and provided demographic data. Results Hypothesis 1: Warmth. A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed that participants who were assigned to CSR, CSI, or control manipulations were more likely to judge the firm as possessing TABLE 1 Summary of Results for Experiment 1 Study 1 (one-way ANOVA) Condition CSR CSI Control Warmth (1–5 scale) Competence (1–5 scale) Purchase Intentions (1–7 scale) Reputation (1–5 scale) 4.33 (0.58)*** 2.02 (0.61)*** 3.2 (0.59)*** 4.14 (0.48)*** 3.3 (0.88)*** 3.93 (0.5)* 5.61 (1.15)*** 2.7 (1.38)*** 4.82 (1.03)** 4.57 (0.63)*** 1.84 (0.73)*** 3.48 (0.72)*** Notes: Table 1 shows means with standard deviations in brackets. CSR 5 corporate social responsibility; CSI 5 corporate social irresponsibility (see Appendix A for scenarios). *p , .10 **p , .05 ***p , .01 1618 Academy of Management Journal perceived significantly different levels of firm reputation, F(2, 99) 5 134.71, p , .000, hp2 5 .73 (see Table 1). Results of planned comparisons indicated that participants assigned to the CSR condition (M 5 4.57, SD 5 0.63) perceived the firm as having a better reputation than did participants assigned to the CSI condition (M 5 1.84, SD 5 0.73), F(1, 67) 5 279.94, p , .000, hp2 5 .81, d 5 4.07, 95% CI [3.85, 4.33], or to our control condition (M 5 3.48, SD 5 0.72), F(1, 67) 5 45.12, p , .000, hp2 5 .40, d 5 1.64, 95% CI [1.41, 1.90]. Participants in the control condition perceived the firm as having a significantly better reputation than did participants in the CSI condition, F(1, 64) 5 83.73, p , .000, hp2 5 .57, d 5 2.30, 95% CI [2.04, 2.56]. Results from this test support our assumption that rewards are above and penalties are below the control condition—see Table 1. Purchase intentions. Similarly, a one-way ANOVA showed that participants who were assigned to CSR, CSI, or control manipulations were more likely to report different levels of purchase intentions, F(2, 99) 5 52.15, p , .000, hp2 5 .513 (see Table 1). Results of planned comparisons indicated that participants assigned to the CSR condition (M 5 5.61, SD 5 1.15) were more likely to have higher purchase intentions than participants assigned to the CSI condition (M 5 2.70, SD 5 1.38), F(1, 67) 5 91.11, p , .000, hp2 5 .58, d 5 2.33, 95% CI [1.92, 2.82] or to our control condition (M 5 4.82, SD 5 1.03), F(1, 67) 5 8.49, p 5 .005, hp2 5 .11, d 5 0.74, 95% CI [0.32, 1.10]. Moreover, participants in the control condition had higher purchase intentions than participants in the CSI condition, F(1, 64) 5 47.57, p , .000, hp2 5 .43, d 5 1.77, 95% CI [1.40, 2.26]. These results support our assumption that CSR generates rewards, and CSI penalties (i.e., rewards are above and penalties are below the control condition—see Table 1). Hypothesis 3: Warmth and competence as mediators. Using Hayes’s (2013) process macros and the bootstrap method, we ran mediational analyses, predicting two dependent variables: firm reputation and purchase intentions. We used the bootstrap model of Preacher and Hayes (2004) to estimate the indirect effect of warmth and competence based on 10,000 bootstrap samples. This method is preferred to the traditional method proposed by Baron and Kenny (1986), as it does not rely on the assumption that the sampling distribution of the mediation effect is normal. We undertook multiple sets of analyses. First, we looked at mediation of CSR versus Control, and CSI versus Control for warmth while controlling for competence1 to 1 We footnote results for mediations with both warmth and competence as simultaneous mediators. October predict reputation and purchase intentions.2 Next, we looked at a sequential mediation model between warmth, competence, reputation, and purchase intentions. This allowed us to examine the distinct effects of warmth and competence in both socially responsible and irresponsible firms. Results for reputation. We first constructed two mediation models in which CSR versus control, CSI versus control predicted reputation, with warmth as a mediator (controlling for competence).3 We then examined the indirect pathway comparing CSR and control (i.e., CSR influences reputation through increased warmth). The 95% CI for the bootstrap estimation of the indirect pathway did not overlap with 0 when examining warmth in the CSR condition, b 5 0.91, 95% CI [0.59, 1.19], indicating mediation.4 Next, we examined the indirect pathway comparing CSI and control (i.e., CSI influences reputation through decreased warmth controlling for competence). The 95% CI for the bootstrap estimation of the indirect pathway did not overlap with 0 when examining warmth in the CSI condition, b 5 20.95, 95% CI [21.28, 20.67].5 This indicates that warmth mediates the relationship between CSR/CSI and firm reputation, further substantiating Hypothesis 3. Results for purchase intentions. We constructed two mediation models in which CSR versus control, CSI versus control predicted purchase intentions, with warmth as mediator controlling for competence.6 First, we examined the indirect pathway comparing CSR and control (i.e., CSR influences 2 We code such that the control condition is the reference group in each separate analysis. 3 When examined as joint predictors with the three experimental conditions, warmth, b 5 0.75, t 5 2.63, p 5 .009, predicted reputation, while competence, b 5 0.04, t 5 0.44, p 5 .44, did not. 4 According to the same analysis where Competence serves as a joint mediator with Warmth, a significant indirect effect emerges for warmth, b 5 0.83, 95% CI [0.51, 1.10], but the 95% CI for competence contains 0, b 5 0.05, 95% CI [20.02, 0.16], suggesting warmth, not competence, mediates this relationship. 5 According to the same analysis where Competence serves as a joint mediator with Warmth, a significant indirect effect emerges for warmth, b 5 20.93, 95% CI [21.28, 20.66], but the 95% CI for competence contains 0, b 5 20.02, 95% CI [20.15, 0.12], suggesting warmth, not competence, mediates this relationship. 6 When examined as joint predictors with the three experimental conditions, both warmth, b 5 0.50, t 5 2.48, p 5 .01, and competence, b 5 0.73, t 5 3.99, p 5 .001, predicted purchase intentions. 2019 Shea and Hawn Purchase Intentions through increased warmth controlling for competence). The estimation of the indirect effect did not overlap with 0, b 5 0.83, 95% CI [0.15, 1.46], indicating mediation of purchase intentions by warmth.7 Next, we completed the same analyses for CSI versus control (i.e., CSI influences Purchase Intentions through decreased warmth controlling for competence). The estimation of the indirect effect did not overlap with 0, b 5 20.98, 95% CI [21.84, 20.33], indicating mediation of purchase intentions by warmth.8 Sequential mediation. We constructed sequential mediation models including reputation (a cognitive evaluation) to predict purchase intentions (a behavioral intention). We examined purchase intentions as the final dependent variable as it is the most distant variable and represents a behavioral intention. We also tested primacy of warmth assumptions by adding in competence as a sequential mediator following warmth. We examined the indirect pathway (i.e., CSR/CSI influences purchase intentions through warmth, competence, and reputation; PROCESS, Model 6). Using three mediators, seven potential indirect effects were calculated. The 95% CI for the bootstrap estimation of the indirect pathway between CSR → Warmth → Competence → Purchase Intentions excluded 0, b 5 0.34, 95% CI [0.09, 0.64], indicating sequential mediation. Likewise, the 95% CI for the bootstrap estimation of the indirect pathway between CSR → Warmth → Reputation → Purchase Intentions excluded 0, b 5 0.64, 95% CI [0.19, 1.11], indicating sequential mediation as well. No other indirect effects excluded 0. Next, we examined the indirect pathway with CSI. The 95% CI for the bootstrap estimation of the indirect pathway between CSI → Warmth → Competence → Purchase Intentions excluded 0, b 5 20.49, 95% CI [20.82, 20.19], indicating sequential mediation. Likewise, the 95% CI for the bootstrap estimation of the indirect pathway between CSI → Warmth → 7 According to the same analysis where Competence serves as a joint mediator with Warmth, the 95% CI for the bootstrap estimation of the indirect pathway did overlap with 0 when examining warmth and competence together in the CSR condition, bwarmth 5 0.43, 95% CI [20.18, 1.008]; bcompetence 5 0.20, 95% CI [20.02, 0.53]. 8 According to the same analysis where Competence serves as a joint mediator with Warmth, the 95% CI for the bootstrap estimation of the indirect pathway did overlap with 0 when examining warmth and competence together in the CSI condition, bwarmth 5 20.47, 95% CI [21.29, 0.07], but not for competence, bcompetence 5 20.50, 95% CI [20.86, 20.19]. 1619 Reputation → Purchase Intentions excluded 0, b 5 20.81, 95% CI [21.42, 20.43], indicating sequential mediation as well. No other indirect effects excluded 0. We ran equivalent models changing the order of the potential mediators. Importantly, analyses in which competence preceded warmth in the model did not produce indirect effects excluding 0, suggesting the primacy of warmth as a mediating mechanism in our data set. Overall, our results indicate that warmth consistently mediates the relationship between CSR/CSI and purchase intentions (on its own and when predicting Purchase intentions in conjunction with Reputation), whereas competence does not consistently mediate it, supporting Hypothesis 3. Discussion Study 1 provides support for Hypotheses 1 through 3. When “Company X” engaged in CSR activities, it was judged to be significantly higher in warmth than both control and CSI firms (supporting Hypothesis 1). In addition, per traditional halo effects in psychological research (Ross & Nisbett, 1991) as well as other alternative explanations, we observed a positive relationship between CSR and competence ratings (supporting Hypothesis 2). However, although ratings of competence differed between CSR and CSI conditions, the control condition was not significantly different from the CSR condition, p . .08, indicating that competence may not be directly related to the presence of CSR activities but is rather related to their absence (i.e., CSI). This finding is consistent with Fiske et al. (2007), which found that negative behaviors are more indicative of competence while positive behaviors are more indicative of warmth. Next, we established further evidence of CSR as a warmth strategy in our mediational analyses. Specifically, warmth mediates the relationship between CSR/CSI and the control condition to predict reputation and purchase intentions (supporting Hypothesis 3). When examined as a sequential mediator, warmth is necessary to mediate the relationship between CSR/CSI and purchase intention while including measures of competence and reputation. This evidence confirms previous research on the primacy of warmth when forming social judgments (Cuddy et al., 2008; Fiske et al., 2007; Singh & Teoh, 2000; Tausch et al., 2007). Although this study represents, to our knowledge, one of the first empirical links between corporate strategy and social perception, many questions remain. These results are about “Company X”—a fictitious organization used to maintain experimental 1620 Academy of Management Journal control. Typically, we know more about an organization when making a purchase and evaluating firm reputation (e.g., country of origin, size, status/brand of the firm). Much of this auxiliary information can be related to the dimensions of warmth and competence. Our results so far suggest that, just like stereotypes of organizations (Aaker et al., 2010), stereotypes of organizational practices indeed exist, and warmth and competence are in fact organizing dimensions that help individuals categorize companies and their strategies (i.e., CSR or CSI). Moreover, warmth perceptions mediate the relationship between CSR/CSI and outcomes. However, if this is the case, do warmth and competence perceptions of organizations from other sources of evaluation color the way in which CSR and CSI are evaluated? Could they shift individual willingness to buy or evaluation of firm reputation or other behavioral outcomes of CSR and CSI? Experiments 2 and 3 were designed to address these questions. October Study 1 examined the relationship between a firm’s CSR activities and perceptions of warmth and competence, establishing CSR as a warmth strategy via mediation. Study 2 shifts our focus to the warmth– competence moderating effect: in particular, do warmth and competence perceptions of the organization from other sources (i.e., country of origin) moderate the effects of CSR (CSI) on different outcomes? In other words, under what conditions do firms achieve greater rewards (penalties) for CSR (CSI) in terms of favorable (unfavorable) evaluations? To test this, we manipulated the perception of the organization by changing a firm’s country of origin to reflect different levels of warmth and competence (i.e., high or low). Just as the national origin of immigrants guides majority members’ perceptions of them (Lee & Fiske, 2006), we expect the country of origin to affect the social perception of the firm and of its strategic choices. attention filters embedded in the survey. We used a three-factor design that randomly assigned participants to a CSR state (i.e., CSR, CSI, or control), country-of-origin warmth (i.e., high, low), and competence (i.e., high, low). We also included a pure control condition that did not manipulate country of origin; its inclusion did not change the significance or pattern of our results. However, because this experiment tests Hypotheses 4 through 6 using warmth and competence perceptions of the countries of origin and the control condition does not specify any country (and, hence, warmth or competence), we did not include it in the final analyses. Procedure. Participants completed the study online. They were asked to read a brief business scenario and to provide their opinions by rating the warmth and competence of the firm’s country of origin as well as their perceptions of the firm based on the CSR vignette. CSR manipulation. Participants read the same vignettes as in Study 1 (Sen & Bhattacharya, 2001), modified to manipulate warmth and competence via country of origin. Warmth and competence manipulations. Based on previous research, we chose the in-group to represent the high-warmth, high-competence country (in our sample, the United States, as all participants were based in the United States) (e.g. Cuddy et al., 2008). We chose Germany (low warmth, high competence) and Portugal (high warmth, low competence) as the two countries farthest from each other on the BIAS map (see Cuddy et al., 2007). Finally, because there was no European low–low country and it has the lowest ranking on the BIAS map, we chose Pakistan as our lowwarmth, low-competence country (see Cuddy et al., 2007). To manipulate warmth and competence, we changed the name of the organization in the vignette to include the country of origin: thus, U.S. Tech Corp., Pakistan Tech Corp., German Tech Corp., Portugal Tech Corp., and Company X for the control condition. Sample and Procedures Measures Participants and design. Five hundred and seventy-two participants (357 males, meanage 5 32.13, SD 5 11.12) were recruited from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (Buhrmester et al., 2011) in exchange for $0.50 in Amazon credits. To avoid the out-of-group bias (e.g., rating a U.S. firm differently if you were based outside the United States), all participants were based in the United States and passed Measures of warmth and competence. Participants completed the same warmth and competence items as in Study 1 (warmth, a 5 .94; competence, a 5 .84) (Fiske et al., 2002). In our pure control condition (no CSR/CSI, or country of origin), we performed a confirmatory factor analysis, which supported a two-factor solution that explained 75.69% of the variance. The four warmth items STUDY 2 2019 Shea and Hawn loaded onto Factor 1 with loadings ranging from .73 to .97. The five competence items loaded onto Factor 2 with loadings ranging from .40 to .92. Warmth and competence were not significantly correlated in our control condition, r 5 .35, p 5 .12. Additional dependent variables. After rating the firm on the dimensions of warmth and competence, participants answered the same questions constituting our two dependent variables as in Study 1. Participants then completed a manipulation check regarding the content of the CSR scenario and provided demographic information.9 Results Data analysis strategy. To test Hypotheses 4 and 5, we analyzed the two-way interaction effects between Warmth (high, low) and CSR/CSI conditions (vs. control), collapsing across firm competence. To test Hypothesis 6, we conducted pairwise comparisons regarding whether changes in competence moderate the effects of warmth on CSR/CSI outcomes. Table 2 presents our results. Reputation. Table 2a presents the means with standard errors across all conditions predicting reputation. Table 2b collapses across our warmth conditions. We ran a three-way ANOVA to analyze the effect of Condition (CSR, CSI, Control) by Warmth (high, low) and Competence (high, low) on Reputation. A significant main effect emerged for CSR condition, F(2, 494) 5 613.94, p 5 .000, hp2 5 .71. Interaction effects emerged between Warmth 3 Condition, Competence 3 Condition, and Warmth 3 Competence, Fs . 2.4, ps , .10, hp2 . .009. These effects were qualified by a significant three-way interaction, F(2, 494) 5 4.37, p 5 .01, hp2 5 .017. The main effect of CSR condition once again confirms our initial assumption about rewards to CSR and penalties to CSI: firms engaging in CSR (M 5 4.27, SD 5 0.69) attained higher levels of reputation than firms engaging in CSI (M 5 1.67, SD 5 0.79), F(1, 351) 5 1068.95, p 5 .00, hp2 5 .75, d 5 3.52, 95% CI [3.41, 3.63], and control firms (M 5 3.58, SD 5 0.69), F(1, 331) 5 83.64, p 5 .00, hp2 5 .20, d 5 1.00, 95% CI [0.90, 1.11). Control firms had higher reputation than CSI firms, F(1, 326) 5 530.55, p 5 .00, hp2 5 .62, d 5 2.58, 95% CI [2.48, 2.70] (Figure 1a and Figure 1b). To test Hypothesis 4 (comparing CSI outcomes across high- and low-warmth firms), a two-way 9 In our pure control condition, purchase intentions and reputation were not significantly correlated, r 5 .29, p 5 21. 1621 TABLE 2 Summary of Results for Experiment 2 TABLE 2a Mean Levels of Reputation by Country (Hypothesis 6) United States (high, high) Germany (low, high) Portugal (high, low) Pakistan (low, low) CSI Control CSR 1.60 (0.11) 3.54 (0.10) 4.16 (0.12) 1.82 (0.15) 1.51 (0.11) 1.74 (0.12) 3.85 (0.08) 3.75 (0.10) 3.20 (0.14) 4.25 (0.10) 4.34 (0.10) 4.35 (0.09) Notes: Reputation was measured on a 5-point scale. Standard errors in brackets. TABLE 2b Mean Levels of Reputation by Warmth (Hypotheses 4 and 5) High Warmth Low Warmth CSI Control CSR 1.56 (0.07) 1.78 (0.09) 3.63 (0.07) 3.52 (0.09) 4.25 (0.08) 4.30 (0.07) Notes: Reputation was measured on a 5-point scale. Standard errors in brackets. TABLE 2c Mean Levels of Purchase Intentions by Country (Hypothesis 6) United States (high, high) Germany (low, high) Portugal (high, low) Pakistan (low, low) CSI Control CSR 2.32 (0.19) 4.70 (0.13) 5.43 (0.18) 2.41 (0.25) 2.32 (0.35) 2.74 (0.21) 4.81 (0.16) 4.75 (0.17) 4.11 (0.18) 5.40 (0.18) 5.36 (0.21) 5.52 (0.20) Notes: Purchase Intentions was measured on a 7-point scale. Standard errors in brackets. TABLE 2d Mean Levels of Purchase Intentions by Warmth (Hypotheses 4 and 5) High Warmth Low Warmth CSI Control CSR 2.28 (0.14) 2.57 (0.16) 4.73 (0.11) 4.45 (0.12) 5.39 (0.13) 5.46 (0.14) Notes: Purchase Intentions was measured on a 7-point scale. Standard errors in brackets. ANOVA was run to analyze the relative effect of Condition (CSI, control) by Warmth (high, low) on Reputation. A main effect for CSI emerged, 1622 Academy of Management Journal FIGURE 1a Results of Study 2: Average Effect of Warmth and Condition on Reputation 5 4.5 Reputation 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 CSR Control High Warmth CSI Low Warmth FIGURE 1b Results of Study 2: Average Effect of Warmth and Condition on Purchase Intentions Purchase Intentions 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 CSR Control High Warmth CSI Low Warmth F(1, 324) 5 533.72, p 5 .000, hp2 5 .62, and this effect was qualified by a significant interaction between CSI x Warmth, F(1, 324) 5 4.37, p 5 .04, hp2 5 .01, suggesting moderation. No significant differences emerged in the control condition between high (M 5 3.63, SD 5 0.62) and low (M 5 3.52, SD 5 0.75) warmth firms, F(1, 152) 5 1.12, p 5 .29, hp2 5 .007, d 5 0.17, 95% CI [0.03, 0.44]. However, when highwarmth firms engaged in CSI (M 5 1.56, SD 5 0.70), they received lower reputation evaluations than lowwarmth firms (M 5 1.78, SD 5 0.88), F(1, 172) 5 3.58, p 5 .06, hp2 5 .02, d 5 0.31, 95% CI [0.15, 0.45]. This provides support for Hypothesis 4 for reputation: high-warmth firms face a larger reputation penalty (Δ2.07) for engaging in CSI than low-warmth firms (Δ1.74). October To test Hypothesis 5 (comparing CSR outcomes across high- and low-warmth firms), a two-way ANOVA was run to analyze the relative effect of Condition (CSR, control) by Warmth (high, low) on Reputation. The interaction was not significant, F(1, 328) 5 1.18, p 5 .28, hp2 5 .004, and, thus, we do not find support for Hypothesis 5 for reputation: high- and low-warmth firms had equivalent outcomes for engaging in CSR compared to control firms. Next, to test Hypothesis 6 (comparing CSI outcomes for Germany–Pakistan, United States– Portugal), a Condition (CSI, control) by Competence (high, low) ANOVA was run within both high- and low-warmth conditions. At low levels of country warmth (Germany–Pakistan), a Condition (CSI, control) by Competence (high, low) ANOVA revealed an interaction between CSI and competence, F(1, 157) 5 5.00, p 5 .02, hp2 5 .03. Specifically, while firms from Germany (M 5 1.83, SD 5 0.99) and Pakistan (M 5 1.74, SD 5 0.75) do not differ when they engage in CSI, F , .18, p . .67, a significant difference emerges in the control condition, F(1, 72) 5 16.31, p 5 .000, hp2 5 .19, d 5 0.97, 95% CI [0.82, 1.24], such that firms from Germany (M 5 3.85, SD 5 0.47) have higher reputation than firms from Pakistan (M 5 3.20, SD 5 0.84). This suggests that competence may not buffer reputation when low-warmth firms engage in CSI in terms of the relative losses to reputation (ΔGermany 5 2.02; ΔPakistan 5 1.46). At high levels of country warmth (United States–Portugal), the interaction between CSI and competence is not significant, F , .02, p . .88; therefore, we find no support for Hypothesis 6a regarding reputation. Next, to test Hypothesis 6b (comparing CSR outcomes for Germany–Pakistan, United States– Portugal), a Condition (CSR, control) by Competence (high, low) ANOVA was run within both high and low warmth conditions. At low levels of country warmth (Germany–Pakistan), a Condition (CSR, control) by Competence (high, low) revealed an interaction between CSR and competence, F(1, 159) 5 12.59, p 5 .001, hp2 5 .07, d 5 0.98, 95% CI [0.83, 1.13]. Specifically, while Germany (M 5 4.25, SD 5 0.66) and Pakistan (M 5 4.35, SD 5 0.63) do not differ when they engage in CSR, F , .18, p . .67, the interaction is driven by the relative differences (ΔGermany 5 0.41; ΔPakistan 5 1.14) gained from engaging in CSR versus control (Germany: M 5 3.84, SD 5 0.47; Pakistan: M 5 3.20, SD 5 0.84). When engaging in CSR, a firm from Pakistan, a low–low country, made higher relative gains compared to 2019 Shea and Hawn that from Germany (low-warmth–high-competence country), suggesting that initial competence did not have an additive effect, but, rather, low–low firms are seen as exemplars and get higher returns to CSR, supporting Hypothesis 6b. At high levels of country warmth (United States–Portugal), however, the interaction between CSR and competence is not significant, F , .02, p . .88, suggesting that the additive benefits of competence are limited to lowwarmth firms engaging in CSR (which violates the stereotype of low–low organizations). Purchase intentions. Table 2c presents the means with standard error bars across all conditions predicting purchase intentions. Table 2d includes a separate plot collapsing across our warmthcompetence conditions. First, a three-way ANOVA was run to analyze the effect of Condition (CSR, CSI, Control) by Warmth (high, low) and Competence (high, low) on Purchase Intentions. While the threeway interaction did not reach statistical significance, F(2, 494) 5 2.00, p 5 .14, hp2 5 .008, we tested our hypotheses using a series of two-way ANOVAs reported below. A significant main effect emerged for CSR condition, F(2, 494) 5 266.50, p 5 .000, hp2 5 .52. Once again, the main effect of CSR condition supported our assumption: firms engaging in CSR (M 5 5.43, SD 5 1.28) attained higher levels of purchase intentions than firms engaging in CSI (M 5 2.43, SD 5 1.42), F(1, 351) 5 434.86, p 5 .00, hp2 5 .55, d 5 2.23, 95% CI [2.04, 2.44], and control firms (M 5 4.59, SD 5 1.01), F(1, 331) 5 42.82, p 5 .00, hp2 5 .43, d 5 0.73, 95% CI [0.54, 0.88]. Control firms had greater purchase intentions than CSI firms, F(1, 327) 5 245.99, p 5 .00, hp2 5 .12, d 5 1.76, 95% CI [1.61, 1.97]. To test Hypothesis 4 (comparing CSI outcomes across high and low warmth), a two-way ANOVA was run to analyze the effect of Condition (CSI, control) by Warmth (high, low) on Purchase Intentions. A main effect for CSI emerged, F(1, 324) 5 246.41, p 5 .000, hp2 5 .432, and this effect was qualified by a significant interaction between CSI 3 Warmth, F(1, 324) 5 4.41, p 5 .04, hp2 5 .01. When firms high (M 5 2.28, SD 5 1.30) or low (M 5 2.57, SD 5 1.52) in warmth engage in CSI, purchase intentions are not significantly different, F(1, 172) 5 1.93, p 5 .16, hp2 5 .01, d 5 0.21, 95% CI [0.12, 0.48]. However, marginally significant differences emerged between high (M 5 4.73, SD 5 0.94) and low (M 5 4.45, SD 5 1.07) warmth firms in the control condition, F(1, 152) 5 2.95, p 5 .09, hp2 5 .02, d 5 0.28, 95% CI [0.07, 0.52]. Thus, when highwarmth firms shift from no strategy to CSI (Δ2.45), 1623 compared to low-warmth firms (Δ1.88), they face a bigger deficit in purchase intentions. This provides support for Hypothesis 4. To test Hypothesis 5 (comparing CSR outcomes across high and low warmth), a two-way ANOVA was run to analyze the effect of Condition (CSR, control) by Warmth (high, low) on purchase intentions. The interaction was not significant, F(1, 328) 5 1.84, p 5 .18, hp2 5 .006, and does not provide support for Hypothesis 5 for purchase intentions. Next, to test Hypothesis 6a (comparing CSI outcomes for Germany–Pakistan, United States– Portugal), a condition (CSI, control) by Competence (high, low) ANOVA was run within both high and low warmth conditions. At low levels of country warmth (Germany–Pakistan), an interaction between CSI and competence emerged, F(1, 157) 5 6.18, p 5 .01, hp2 5 .04. Specifically, while Germany (M 5 2.41, SD 5 1.64) and Pakistan (M 5 2.74, SD 5 1.38) do not differ in purchase intentions when they engage in CSI, F , 1.05, p . .30, a significant difference emerges in the control condition, F(1, 72) 5 8.68, p 5 .004, hp2 5 .11, d 5 0.69, 95% CI [.38, 1.05], such that Germany (M 5 4.81, SD 5 0.95) has higher purchase intentions than Pakistan (M 5 4.11, SD 5 1.09). When low-warmth firms engage in CSI, competence does not buffer the negative impact leading to greater relative decreases in purchases intentions (ΔGermany 5 2.40; ΔPakistan 5 1.37). At high levels of warmth, the interaction between CSI and competence is not significant, F , .02, p . .91. Therefore, just like for reputation, we do not find support for Hypothesis 6a for purchase intentions. Next, to test Hypothesis 6b (comparing CSR outcomes for Germany–Pakistan, United States– Portugal), a Condition (CSR, control) by Competence (high, low) ANOVA was run within both high and low warmth conditions. At low levels of warmth (Germany–Pakistan), an interaction between CSR and competence emerged, F(1, 159) 5 5.11, p 5 .03, hp2 5 .03, d 5 0.56, 95% CI [0.28, 0.87]. Specifically, while Germany (M 5 5.40, SD 5 1.18) and Pakistan (M 5 5.52, SD 5 1.34) do not differ when they engage in CSR, F , .21, p . .64, the interaction is driven by the relative differences gained (ΔGermany 5 .59; ΔPakistan 5 1.41) versus control (Germany: M 5 4.81, SD 5 0.95; Pakistan: M 5 4.11, SD 5 1.09). At high levels of warmth, the interaction between CSR and competence is not significant, F , .12, p . .77. Thus, our findings suggest that low-warmth–low-competence firms receive a larger relative benefit when engaging in 1624 Academy of Management Journal CSR—supporting Hypothesis 6b—even though high-warmth firms do not see differences with the addition of competence. Discussion There are several implications of Study 2, with the main one being that we find no support for Hypotheses 5 and 6a for both outcomes (reputation and purchase intentions). Hypotheses 4 and 6b demonstrated consistent results for both outcomes for firms from a low–low country (Pakistan), suggesting that, in comparison to Hypothesis 5, which only considers warmth perception, both high competence and warmth help a low–low company achieve higher rewards for CSR. Thus, the effectiveness of a CSR strategy is contingent on the warmth and competence perception of the organization’s country of origin (Hypothesis 6b), while firms from high-warmth countries received harsher evaluations for engaging in CSI (Hypothesis 4). We theorize that these effects are driven by assimilation (CSI) and contrast (CSR) effects from the stereotypes associated with low-warmth countries. Importantly, this study provides insight into why some organizations fare better or worse in observer reactions to their corporate strategies. The attributes of the firm—conceptualized as countryof-origin warmth and competence—influenced important organizational perceptions, such as reputation and purchase intentions. In addition, Study 2 helps explore the question of endogeneity regarding whether high-warmth organizations are more likely to engage in CSR behavior in the first place—to earn greater benefits from it. We find consistent marginal support for Hypothesis 4 that states that firms with higher warmth will pay a higher cost for CSI, and no support for Hypothesis 5 about lower rewards for CSR. Likewise, we do not find support for the argument that the costs for engaging in irresponsible behavior are lower for organizations from high–high countries. In fact, firms from Pakistan (a low-warmth and low-competence country) experienced the greatest rewards for CSR engagement, due to stereotype violation. To conclude, Study 2 demonstrates that a firm’s country of origin (manipulating warmth and competence perceptions) influences the success or failure of its CSR strategies relative to its baseline state. Specifically, we find that CSR can supplement for low-warmth (and low-competence) country of origin, and that low-warmth country of origin shields organizations from harsher judgments of CSI. October STUDY 3 Studies 1 and 2 showed how CSR and CSI affect the perceived warmth and competence of an organization, and that these effects are amplified depending on the firms’ country of origin. Study 3 aims to replicate and extend these findings while addressing various shortcomings of Studies 1 and 2. First, while Studies 1 and 2 measure perceptions, Study 3 uses behavioral measures (Colquitt, 2008), adding external validity to our previous measures. Specifically, participants used their own money to purchase products from firms with differing social strategies and also provided help (e.g., feedback) to the organizations. Second, to ensure that our high-warmth–highcompetence results are not an artifact of an in-group bias, Study 3 uses Sweden as the high-warmth– high-competence country.10 Third, we switched our CSR manipulations to a fact-sheet format that included information on both labor and environmental 10 Prior to running Study 3, we sought to validate previous research on the BIAS map (Cuddy et al., 2007) with regard to where countries fall on the warmth and competence dimensions. In addition, we sought to replace the United States in the final study. Using a unique sample of 95 Mechanical Turk workers, we assessed the warmth and competence of seven countries (Germany, Iran, Pakistan, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and the United States) previous research had classified into one of the four quadrants on the BIAS map. We first asked about the warmth and competence of each country (Fiske et al., 2002) and then had participants rank order the countries in terms of their warmth and competence. Pairwise comparisons, rank order, and correlational evidence support the classification in our experimental paradigm. First, ranked from highest to lowest warmth, were Sweden, the United States, Spain, Portugal, Germany, Pakistan, and Iran; and, second, ranked from highest to lowest competence were Germany, the United States, Sweden, Spain, Portugal, Iran, and Pakistan. Looking at correlations between warmth and competence, the United States, r 5 .55, p , .000, and Sweden, r 5 .70, p , .000, are seen as high warmth and competence. Given that our study comprises U.S. participants, we used Sweden to mitigate ingroup bias concerns and “Made in America” preferences in our Study 3. Pakistan is viewed as low warmth and competence, r 5 .50, p , .000, as compared to Iran, r 5 .21, p , .000, given the high correlation between warmth and competence as well as low means. Germany is viewed as high competence and low warmth, r 5 .21, p 5 .04, given the smaller correlation. Portugal is viewed as high warmth and low competence. r 5 .48, p , .000, as compared to Spain, r 5 .63, p , .000; although not as cleanly manipulated, we believe that Portugal represents the better manipulation of low competence and high warmth, given the smaller correlation coefficient and previous research on the BIAS map. 2019 Shea and Hawn performance to ensure that the effects were not idiosyncratic to our Study 1 and 2 materials. And, finally, to provide a conservative test of our hypotheses, we modified our design to assess these behaviors within subjects; that is, all participants engaged with firms from four countries within CSR and CSI conditions. Sample and Procedures Participants. We recruited 100 participants from a paid student research lab at a private Midwestern university. We excluded one participant due to expletive language in all of our written prompts, and 11 participants who failed the manipulation check. Including these participants in analyses does not alter the direction of effects. Design. Study 3 employed a mixed design methodology; in particular, 3 (CSR, CSI, control condition) by 2 (Order: Pricing first, Feedback first) between-subjects factors across a four-factor country-of-origin warmth by competence (HH 5 Sweden; HL 5 Germany; LH 5 Portugal; LL 5 Pakistan) within-subjects factor. We randomized the order of our country of origin manipulation as a repeated measure across all conditions. Procedure. The study was advertised as a 30-minute product development study. Participants received $8 in exchange for their participation and an additional $1 for a purchase decision. The study asked participants to test, evaluate, and make purchase decisions about a series of pens. We chose pens as an experimental stimulus because pens have been used successfully in previous research (e.g., Shah & Wolford, 2007). We purchased four types of pens priced $0.78–$0.83 from a wholesaler. The pens did not differ on measures of quality or looks. Upon arrival to the lab, each participant was seated at a computer station where they received a plastic bag containing four “prototype” pens to evaluate as well as $1 in coins for the pricing task (in addition to the $8 payment). They also received a notepad to test out each pen. Participants completed the entire study at a computer station. Warmth–Competence manipulation. To manipulate country of origin we had the pens labeled as “Made in Sweden,” “Made in Germany,” “Made in Portugal,” and “Made in Pakistan” in a 1-millimeter font. We then used neutral labels on each pen to serve as logos and translated the word “fine” into each of the four languages to put on the logo. Each participant received and rated each of these four pens as a withinsubjects variable. Social responsibility manipulation. Participants were randomly assigned one of three experimental conditions: CSR, CSI or control. We provided them 1625 with background information about each of the four pen manufacturers whose products they would be testing. Embedded within neutral performance information was information on environmental impact and labor practices of each of the manufacturers. In the CSR condition, participants read that all four pen manufacturers were going out of their way to promote strong environmental protection and repair, as well as employee standards. In the CSI condition, pen manufacturers were stated to be poor in environmental standards and not desirable in terms of their labor practices. In the control condition, participants were provided with neutral information. All companies were established in their industries and in good financial standing. Each condition had the same number of categories to describe the organization.11 Please see Appendix B. 11 As a manipulation check, participants rated both the warmth and competence of the pen manufacturing organizations using a single-item measure (“The pen manufacturing organizations seem to be warm/competent”). A three-cell (CSR, CSI, control conditions) betweensubjects analysis of variance on perceptions of Warmth revealed a significant effect of social responsibility condition, F(2, 81) 5 5.73, p 5 .005, hp2 5 .12. Specifically, individuals in the CSR condition (M 5 4.56, SD 5 1.41) had significantly higher perceptions of warmth than individuals in the CSI condition (M 5 3.33, SD 5 1.42), F(1, 53) 5 10.18, p 5 .002, hp2 5 .16, d 5 0.88, 95% CI [0.38, 1.39]. Individuals in the Control condition (M 5 3.97, SD 5 1.18) had marginally higher perceptions of warmth than individuals in the CSI condition, F(1, 57) 5 3.44, p 5 .07, hp2 5 .06, d 5 0.50, 95% CI [0.08, 1.01]. Individuals in the CSR condition had marginally higher perceptions of warmth than individuals in the control condition, F(1, 52) 5 2.82, p 5 .09, hp2 5 .05, d 5 0.46, 95% CI [20.04, 0.88]. This replicates our previous studies that found CSR and CSI are linked with perceptions of warmth, supporting Hypothesis 1. A threecell (CSR, CSI, control conditions) between-subjects analysis of variance on perceptions of Competence revealed a significant effect of social responsibility condition, F(2, 81) 5 5.14, p 5 .008, hp2 5 .11. Specifically, individuals in the CSR condition (M 5 5.56, SD 5 0.82) had significantly higher perceptions of competence than individuals in the CSI condition (M 5 4.70, SD 5 1.26), F(1, 53) 5 8.56, p 5 .005, hp2 5 .14, d 5 0.82, 95% CI [0.53, 1.27]. Individuals in the Control condition (M 5 5.31, SD 5 0.93) had significantly higher perceptions of competence than individuals in the CSI condition, F(1, 57) 5 4.44, p 5 .04, hp2 5 .07, d 5 0.56, 95% CI [0.23, 1.01]. Individuals in the CSR and control conditions did not differ significantly in perceptions of competence, F(1, 52) 5 1.08, p 5 .30, hp2 5 .02, d 5 0.29, CI [0.00, 0.62]. This replicates our previous studies that found CSR and CSI are linked with perceptions of competence while control conditions oftentimes do not differ from CSR, supporting Hypothesis 2. 1626 Academy of Management Journal Measures Participants completed a feedback task set and a purchasing task. The two tasks were counterbalanced.12 When relevant, we controlled for order. Each participant completed each dependent measure across the four country of origin manipulations. Feedback task. The first set of tasks examined the time and effort that participants devoted to providing feedback to each pen manufacturing organization. Participants were told that the pens were prototypes and that the organizations would like feedback on the pen designs. We encouraged participants to try out each pen in order to form an opinion of each product. Participants were given a blank essay box to provide feedback to the organization on their pen design. We measured the number of words written (M 5 21.87, SD 5 10.42) as a measure of helping (adapted from Porath & Erez, 2007). We also measured the subjective quality of each pen (“The pen is of high quality,” “The pen is desirable”; as 5 .72–.76). Purchasing task. The second task was a purchasing task using the Becker–DeGroot–Marschak method (Becker, DeGroot, & Marschak, 1964), which has been used to reveal true reservation prices in a variety of contexts (Burbano, 2016; Kahneman, Knetsch, & Thaler, 1991; Lerner, Small, & Loewenstein, 2004). In this task, participants were given an additional dollar and were told that they could use this money to purchase the pens from the experiment and to keep whatever money they did not use. Participants were told that the computer program would randomly select one pen and a random price at which they had the opportunity to purchase it. If their stated price was below the randomly generated price, they would not have the opportunity to purchase the pen. If their stated price was above the randomly generated price, they would have the opportunity to purchase the pen. Participants had to successfully recall these instructions prior to continuing to ensure that they understood the experimental paradigm. This goes above traditional willingness-to-pay measures by forcing participants to forgo some of their bonus pay to make a purchase. Likewise, the random lottery nature of the task ensures that participants reveal their true purchase prices (Becker et al., 1964). Participants stated a purchase price for each of the four pens on a sliding scale between $0.01 and $1.00 (M 5 12 Pre-tests indicated that licensing effects may occur when tasks were sequential (i.e., “I did not help the organization, so I supplement by overpaying for their product,” or vice versa). October $0.33, SD 5 $0.17). No pens significantly differed from this price and no pen was consistently priced as the “top” pen across the entire sample. After participants stated their price for each pen, a random payment price was generated, they took the pen (if purchased), and left the purchase price at the computer station at the end of the study. Participants then completed a manipulation check about the social practices of the pen manufacturers, as well as demographic questions. Results Data analysis strategy. We ran a series of repeated measures ANOVA across dependent measures. We first ran a CSR condition (three: CSR, CSI, Control) by Order (two: Pricing first, Feedback first) across the four country of origin manipulations (separately as well as grouped together by high and low warmth) as a repeated measures ANOVA.13 To directly test hypotheses, we re-ran models with a series of planned comparisons to probe statistically significant mean differences both within and between conditions (see Table 3). Assumption of sphericity was not violated in any of the analyses; therefore, we report the sphericity-assumed results. Number of words. A three-cell (CSI, CSI, control condition) by two (Order: Pricing first, Feedback first) repeated measures ANOVA was run on the number of words written for the high- and low-warmth firms, as well as the Sweden, Germany, Portugal, and Pakistan country of origin conditions. No significant differences emerged in the models, Fs , 2.02, ps . .11. When examined as a between-subjects analysis, a significant effect emerged for the social responsibility condition, F(2,78) 5 3.46, p 5 .04, hp2 5 .08. Specifically, individuals in the CSR condition (M 5 26.28, SD 5 14.10) wrote marginally more words than individuals in the CSI condition (M 5 20.53, SD 5 7.22), F(1,53) 5 3.81, p 5 .05, hp2 5 .07, d 5 0.52, 95% CI [24.52, 3.11], and individuals in the control condition (M 5 19.45, SD 5 8.48), F(1,52) 5 4.80, p 5 .03, hp2 5 .09, d 5 0.60, 95% CI [24.45, 3.63]. The CSI and control conditions did not significantly differ, F , .3, p . .60. Although we did not see variation within our country of origin manipulation, individuals offered more help to organizations that engaged in CSR, providing behavioral replication and extension of Hypothesis 1 as 13 We re-ran analyses excluding the control condition as it did not produce any significant effect, nor were there any significant interactions between the control condition and other conditions. We report both sets of ANOVAs below. 2019 Shea and Hawn TABLE 3 Summary of Results for Experiment 3 1627 FIGURE 2a Results of Study 3: Average Effect of Warmth and Condition on Perceived Quality TABLE 3a Mean Levels of Purchase Price by Country (Hypothesis 6) Control CSR 0.43 (0.07) 0.25 (0.03) 0.37 (0.08) 0.31 (0.05) 0.35 (0.06) 0.26 (0.05) 0.32 (0.06) 0.29 (0.05) 0.31 (0.08) 0.35 (0.06) 0.27 (0.06) 0.37 (0.05) Notes: Purchase Price was measured on a $1 scale. Standard errors in brackets. CSI, Control, and CSR are between-subjects factors, while country of origin is a within-subjects factor. 4.000 Subjective Quality Sweden (high, high) Germany (low, high) Portugal (high, low) Pakistan (low, low) CSI Evaluation Task First 3.500 3.000 2.500 2.000 1.500 1.000 CSI High Warmth TABLE 3b Mean Levels of Purchase Price by Warmth (Hypotheses 4 and 5) CSI Control CSR 4.000 0.40 (0.06) 0.28 (0.05) 0.33 (0.06) 0.28 (0.05) 0.29 (0.06) 0.36 (0.06) 3.500 Notes: Purchase Price was measured on a $1 scale. Standard errors in brackets. CSI, Control, and CSR are between-subjects factors, while warmth is a within-subjects factor. TABLE 3c Mean Levels of Subjective Quality by Country (Hypothesis 6) Sweden (high, high) Germany (low, high) Portugal (high, low) Pakistan (low, low) CSI Control CSR 3.19 (0.22) 2.88 (0.16) 2.88 (0.21) 2.54 (0.18) 3.09 (0.21) 2.94 (0.25) 3.03 (0.19) 3.12 (0.27) 3.00 (0.26) 3.00 (0.20) 2.83 (0.19) 3.58 (0.25) Notes: Subjective quality was measured on a 5-point scale. Standard errors in brackets. CSI, Control, and CSR are betweensubjects factors, while country of origin is a within-subjects factor. TABLE 3d Mean Levels of Subjective Quality by Warmth (Hypotheses 4 and 5) High Warmth Low Warmth Control CSR 3.04 (0.20) 2.71 (0.21) 3.06 (0.18) 3.03 (0.19) 2.92 (0.21) 3.29 (0.22) Notes: Subjective quality was measured on a 5-point scale. Standard errors in brackets. CSI, Control, and CSR are betweensubjects factors, while warmth is a within-subjects factor. Low Warmth 3.000 2.500 2.000 1.500 1.000 CSI Control High Warmth CSR Low Warmth well as support for our initial assumption about CSR generating rewards. Subjective quality. To test Hypotheses 4 and 5, a two-cell (CSI or CSI) by two (Order: Pricing first, Feedback first) repeated measures ANOVA was run on subjective quality in high- and low-warmth firms.14 The three-way interaction was significant, F(1, 51) 5 4.71, p 5 .04, hp2 5 .08. When participants completed the feedback tasks first,15 an interaction emerged, F(1, 23) 5 6.51, p 5 .02, hp2 5 .22, suggesting moderation. While no differences between high- and low-warmth 14 CSI CSR Pricing Task First Subjective Quality High Warmth Low Warmth Control Including all CSR/CSI/control conditions, the threeway interaction is not significant, F(2, 78) 5 1.68, p 5 .19, hp2 5 .041. 15 When participants completed the pricing task first, a main effect for factor emerges, F(1, 28) 5 4.45, p 5 .04, hp2 5 .137, such that participants had a preference for highwarmth firms (M 5 3.20, SD 5 0.64) over low-warmth firms (M 5 2.88, SD 5 0.70) across conditions. 1628 Academy of Management Journal FIGURE 2b Results of Study 3: Average Effect of Warmth and Condition on Purchase Price Purchase Price Evaluation Task First 0.500 0.450 0.400 0.350 0.300 0.250 0.200 0.150 0.100 0.050 0.000 CSI Control High Warmth CSR Low Warmth Pricing Task First Purchase Price 0.500 0.400 0.300 0.200 0.100 0.000 CSI Control High Warmth CSR Low Warmth firms emerged in the CSR condition, t(11) 5 1.62, p 5 .13, within the CSI condition, paired samples t tests revealed that high-warmth firms (M 5 3.09, SD 5 0.45) had marginally higher quality ratings than low-warmth firms (M 5 2.71, SD 5 0.50), t(12) 5 2.10, p 5 .06, failing to provide support for Hypothesis 4. However, exploring the moderation effect between conditions, no significant differences emerged for high-warmth firms, F , .3, p . .59, while low-warmth firms saw significant gains between CSI (M 5 2.71, SD 5 0.50) and CSR (M 5 3.29, SD 5 0.54), F(1, 23) 5 7.78, p 5 .01, hp2 5 .25, d 5 1.16, 95% CI [0.86, 1.44]. Taken together, the significant moderation effect suggests that, while low-warmth firms receive equivalent outcomes for CSR, but not CSI, they significantly increase their outcomes as they changed strategies from CSI to CSR (Δ 5 .58), while high-warmth firms did not (Δ 5 .12). This provides indirect support for Hypothesis 5 that low-warmth firms reap higher gains from CSR. To test Hypothesis 6, a two-cell (CSI or CSI) by two (Order: Pricing first, Feedback first) repeated October measures ANOVA was run on subjective quality in the Sweden, Germany, Portugal, and Pakistan country of origin conditions.16 The three-way interaction was significant, F(3, 153) 5 3.46, p 5 .02, hp2 5 .06. When the feedback task came first, a significant interaction emerged between CSR/CSI and country of origin, F(3, 69) 5 3.90, p 5 .01, hp2 5 .25. We report paired samples t tests across countries of origin within the feedback task first condition. In the CSI condition, a paired samples t test indicated that Pakistan (M 5 2.54, SD 5 0.66) had a significantly lower subjective quality than Sweden (M 5 3.19, SD 5 0.78), t(12) 5 2.85, p 5 .02, d 5 0.94, 95% CI [0.50, 1.31]. No significant effects were observed between other countries, all ts , 1.67, ps . .12. This does not provide clear support for Hypothesis 6a. In the CSR condition, a paired samples t test indicated that Pakistan (M 5 3.58, SD 5 0.87)17 had a significantly higher subjective quality than Portugal (M 5 2.83, SD 5 0.65), t(11) 5 2.37, p 5 .04, and a marginally significant higher subjective quality than Sweden (M 5 3.00, SD 5 0.90), t(11) 5 1.83, p 5 .09. No significant effects were observed between other countries, all ts , 1.74, ps . .11.18 This provides support for Hypothesis 6b, which predicted higher rewards to CSR for low–low firms. These results—obtained within subject—suggest that a low-warmth–low-competence firm gains significantly higher benefits for doing CSR than high-warmth firms. Purchase price. To test Hypotheses 4 and 5, a twocell (CSI, CSI) by two (Order: Pricing first, Feedback first) repeated measures ANOVA was run on Purchase Price in the high- and low-warmth firms.19 A marginal effect emerged for Condition, F(1, 51) 5 3.08, 16 Including all CSR/CSI/control conditions, the threeway interaction is marginally significant, F(6, 234) 5 1.83, p 5 .09, hp2 5 .045. 17 Probing this interaction between conditions, a onefactor ANOVA on Pakistan’s subjective quality revealed a significant effect, F(1,23) 5 11.48, p 5 .003, hp2 5 .333, d 5 1.37, 95% CI [1.06, 1.61]. Specifically, subjective quality for the Pakistani pen was significantly higher in the CSR condition (M 5 3.58, SD 5 0.87) than in the CSI condition (M 5 2.54, SD 5 0.66). 18 While not directly testing a hypothesis, a one-factor ANOVA between CSR and CSI conditions on Pakistan’s subjective quality revealed a significant effect, F(1,23) 5 11.48, p 5 .003, hp2 5 .333. Specifically, subjective quality for the Pakistani pen was significantly higher in the CSR condition (M 5 3.58, SD 5 0.87) than in the CSI condition (M 5 2.54, SD 5 0.66). 19 Including all CSR/CSI/control conditions, the threeway interaction is marginally significant, F(2, 78) 5 2.68, p 5 .07, hp2 5 .064. 2019 Shea and Hawn p 5 .09, hp2 5 .06. This effect was qualified by a significant three-way interaction, F(1, 51) 5 5.69, p 5 .02, hp2 5 .10. When participants completed the feedback tasks first,20 an interaction emerged, F(1, 23) 5 7.04, p 5 .01, hp2 5 .23, suggesting moderation. Exploring these interactions, in the CSI condition, paired samples t tests revealed that high-warmth firms (M 5 0.40, SD 5 0.07) and low-warmth firms (M 5 0.28, SD 5 0.03) had significantly different purchase prices, t(12) 5 2.44, p 5 .02, with highwarmth firms having significantly higher prices, which does not support Hypothesis 4. However, in the CSR condition, we observed no differences between high- and low-warmth firms, t(11) 5 1.35, p 5 .20. Looking between conditions, no significant differences emerged for high- or low-warmth firms, F , 1.8, p . .19. Thus, the interaction term reaches significance, driven by the difference in prices in the CSI condition, with the means crossover: when highwarmth firms switch from CSI to CSR, their purchase price decreased (Δ 5 .11), while low-warmth firm’s price increased (Δ 5 .08). Taken together, these results suggest that low-warmth firms closed the gap as they changed strategies from CSI to CSR, while highwarmth firms surprisingly saw a decrease in terms of pricing (between conditions), providing indirect support for Hypothesis 5. To test Hypothesis 6, a two (Condition: CSI or CSI) by two (Order: Pricing first, Feedback first) repeated measures ANOVA was run on Purchase Price in the Sweden, Germany, Portugal, and Pakistan country of origin conditions.21 The three-way interaction was significant, F(3, 153) 5 2.61, p 5 .05, hp2 5 .05. Probing this interaction further within Order conditions, when purchase price was determined after the feedback task, a significant interaction emerged between CSR/CSI and country of origin, F(3, 69) 5 3.45, p 5 .03, hp2 5 .13.22 In the CSI condition, a paired samples t test indicated that Sweden (M 5 0.43, SD 5 0.25) had a significantly higher price than Germany (M 5 0.25, SD 5 0.12), t(12) 5 2.69, p 5 .02, d 5 0.94, 95% CI [0.83, 0.99]; likewise, Sweden had a higher price than Pakistan (M 5 0.31, SD 5 0.17), t(12) 5 2.70, 20 When participants completed the pricing task first, participants had higher purchase prices, F(1, 28) 5 3.74, p 5 .06, hp2 5 .117, for high-warmth firms (M 5 0.37, SD 5 0.20) than low-warmth firms (M 5 0.31, SD 5 0.20). 21 Including all social responsibility conditions, a marginally significant interaction effect between Order and country of origin emerged, F(3, 234) 5 2.56, p 5 .08, hp2 5 .028. 22 Including control, F(6, 114) 5 1.99, p 5 .07, hp2 5 .095. 1629 p 5 .02, d 5 0.58, 95% CI [0.47, 0.65]. No significant effects were observed between any other conditions, ts , 1.87, ps . .15. In the CSR condition, no significant differences in purchase price emerged, all ts , 1.55, ps . .14, providing no evidence to support Hypothesis 6b. The finding that our high-warmth, high-competence country of origin (Sweden) was able to maintain a higher purchase price than the two lowwarmth countries while acting irresponsibly provides some support to Hypothesis 6a. Discussion Study 3 replicates and adds nuance to effects observed in Studies 1 and 2. When it came to helping behaviors, participants in the CSR condi...
Purchase answer to see full attachment
Explanation & Answer:
350 words
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

Hello, please find the attached document which is the final version of your work. Please go through it and inform me in case of anything. I am looking forward to continue working with you in future. Thank you.

Running head: CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY

Corporate Social Responsibility
Name
Institutional Affiliation

1

CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY

2

Corporate Social Responsibility
Definition
Companies and large organizations are always expected to show their commitments to
promote the welfare of local communities and the environmental sustainability in areas they
operate in, objectives which can only be achieved through corporate socially responsibility.
Corporate social responsibility refers to the corporate obligations and business practice pursued
by a firm, which are beyond that required by law and economics, and are aimed at promoting the
general good of the society (Moir, 2001).
Article Summary
The first article titled “Reflections on the 2018 Decade Award: The Meaning and
Dynamics of Corporate Social Responsibility,” gives a reflection of the dynamics ...


Anonymous
Great study resource, helped me a lot.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Similar Content

Related Tags