The myth of guilt: a replication study on the suitability of hedonic and utilitarian products for cause related marketing campaigns in Germany.

• Author: Fuljahn, Alexandre
• Position: Report

1. INTRODUCTION

   Corporate behavior, and corporate social responsibilities (CSR) in particular, have increasingly moved into the focus of public discussion in recent years. In this context, consumers' willingness to reward "good" and to punish "bad" corporate behavior has become an important prerequisite for effective CSR strategies (e.g. Beckmann 2006). Cause related marketing (CRM) has shown to be one option for companies to demonstrate social commitment by supporting an expert in the social field without the need to build up their own related expertise. While CRM has been a common marketing instrument for about 25 years in the U.S., it has only been introduced into Continental European countries in the past decade (e.g. Moosmayer and Fuljahn 2010). Consequently, most studies on CRM in Europe date from recent years.

   To be effective, CRM campaigns must meet certain consumer needs, e.g. regarding donation size or corporate motive. Further, the product type, hedonic or utilitarian, impacts the success of a linked campaign. In this context, empirical studies have shown that hedonic products are more suitable for CRM, as they may incur consumer feelings of guilt, which may be compensated by CRM-related donations (e.g. Strahilevitz and Myers 1998). However, Subrahmanyan (2004) showed differing results and argued that the impact of product type on consumers' responses to CRM depends on the consumers' cultural backgrounds. We therefore investigate the issue in Germany. First, we develop a conceptual frame regarding consumer reactions to CRM campaigns for different product types. Thereafter, we empirically replicate the study by Strahilevitz and Myers (1998) with 306 German students and discuss the consequences of the results for management practice and for research.

2. EMOTIONAL RESPONSE TO CRM CAMPAIGNS INVOLVING HEDONIC PRODUCTS

   Products may provide functional value (e.g. stain-removing power of a laundry detergent) as well as emotional value (e.g. pleasure of eating chocolate); and they may differ in the degree of pleasure that their consumption offers (Hirschman and Holbrook 1982; O'Curry and Strahilevitz 2001). This can be ascribed to the bi-dimensional character of products, which provide hedonic and utilitarian value (Batra and Ahtola 1990; Babin et al. 1994; Crowley et al. 1992). We will specify the concept of hedonic and utilitarian products, and we discuss feelings of guilt as a possible consequence of consumption. Finally, we discuss how CRM campaigns may help consumers to overcome such feelings.

   2.1 Hedonic and Utilitarian Products

   A product may be judged based on the hedonic and the utilitarian values it generates (Hirschmann and Holbrook 1982; Crowley et al. 1992). Hedonic product characteristics stimulate multiple senses in parallel and represent the emotional aspects of product experience (Hirschmann and Holbrook 1982). Accordingly, hedonic consumption is oriented towards pleasure and happiness (Babin et al. 1994). In contrast, the utilitarian dimension of a product is based on its instrumental functionality (Voss et al. 2003; Crowley et al. 1992). Thus, utilitarian characteristics contribute functionally to consumers' need satisfaction, while hedonic products contribute emotionally (Dhar and Wertenbroch 2000). Every product combines hedonic and utilitarian product characteristics (Batra and Ahtola 1990; Voss et al. 2003). Still, for most products it is possible to ascribe primarily hedonic or utilitarian characteristics (e.g. O'Curry and Strahilevitz 2001; Okada 2005).

   In line with the emotional character of hedonic goods, their purchase and consumption may cause emotional consumer response. Strahilevitz and Myers (1998) showed for a US student sample that hedonic goods, such as an expensive Bahamas vacation are perceived as "decadent" and "frivolous", whereas utilitarian goods, such as detergent and garbage bags are described as "practical" and "necessary" (Strahilevitz and Myers 1998). Accordingly, pleasure as a positive emotion but also feelings of guilt as a negative emotion are associated with the consumption of hedonic goods, but such feelings hardly arise for utilitarian goods (Strahilevitz and Myers 1998; Strahilevitz 1999; Subrahmanyan 2004). O'Curry and Strahilevitz (2001) further point out that hedonic products create more value than utilitarian goods when being given as a gift and in terms of anticipation of consumption (O'Curry and Strahilevitz 2001). Subrahmanyan (2004) investigated response to hedonic goods for a Singaporean student sample and, based on Confucian values as she argues, found no support for the findings by Strahilevitz and Meyers (1998). In this context, a replication in Europe may be particularly interesting.

   2.2 Feelings of Guilt as an Emotional Response to Consumption

   For understanding CRM campaigns, feelings of guilt are relevant as they may cause a consumer to behave in an altruistic way (Burnett and Lunsford 1994; Strahilevitz and Myers 1998; Cunningham et al. 1980; Cialdini et al. 1973). Thus, we discuss feelings of guilt as a possible consequence of consumption. Feelings of guilt are part of consumers' emotional responses to consumption and are thus important drivers for human action that may influence consumers' perceptions and behavior (Burnett and Lunsford 1994; Ghingold 1980). Feelings of guilt may be considered to be one of ten elementary emotions (e.g. Richins 1997; Eisenberg et al. 2000; Lascu 1991). They have evolutionary, i.e. biological, roots and can thus not be learned or transferred through socialization (Ferguson and Stegge 1995). Feelings of guilt can occur in three different types of situation: (1) feelings of guilt related to others (2) feelings of guilt based on breaking social norms; and (3) feelings of guilt related to oneself (Dahl et al. 2003). All three contexts result from action or passively from omission (Ferguson and Stegge 1995). With regard to consumption, guilt most often results from the third category, as it contradicts personal goals (Dahl et al. 2003).

   In a consumer context, guilt can be defined as an effect that is evoked by discomfort when a consumer realizes that s/he has overstepped a normative principle...