CLC - Productivity Measurement Rubric Benchmarking Data

CLC - Productivity Measurement - Rubric
Benchmarking Data 16 points
Criteria Description
Benchmarking Data
5. Excellent 16 points
The presentation comprehensively explains how the
benchmarking data was
collected and how the information could be used for an
employee review.
4. Good 13.6 points
The presentation thoroughly explains how the benchmarking
data was collected
and how the information could be used for an employee review.
3. Satisfactory 12 points
The presentation clearly explains how the benchmarking data
was collected and
how the information could be used for an employee review.
2. Less Than Satisfactory 10.4 points

The presentation does not clearly explain how the benchmarking
data was collected
and how the information could be used for an employee review.
1. Unsatisfactory 0 points
The presentation does not adequately explain how the
benchmarking data was
collected and how the information could be used for an
employee review.
Educational Requirements 8 points
Educational Requirements
The presentation concisely explains the minimal educational
requirements.
4. Good 6.8 points
The presentation thoroughly explains the minimal educational
requirements.
Collapse All
The presentation clearly explains the minimal educational

requirements.
The presentation does not clearly explain the minimal
educational requirements.
The presentation does not adequately explain the minimal
educational
requirements.
Licensing or Certi�cation 8 points
Licensing or Certification
The presentation comprehensively explains the licensing or
certification process in
the selected state.
4. Good 6.8 points
The presentation thoroughly explains the licensing or
certification process in the
selected state.

The presentation clearly explains the licensing or certification
process in the
selected state.
The presentation does not clearly explain the licensing or
certification process in
the selected state.
The presentation does not adequately explain the licensing or
certification process
in the selected state.
Advancement Opportunities 8 points
Advancement Opportunities
The presentation comprehensively examines what career
advancement
opportunities exist such as additional certifications or board
certifications.
4. Good 6.8 points

The presentation thoroughly examines what career advancement
opportunities
exist such as additional certifications or board certifications.
The presentation clearly examines what career advancement
opportunities exist
such as additional certifications or board certifications.
The presentation does not clearly examine what career
advancement opportunities
exist such as additional certifications or board certifications.
The presentation does not adequately examine what career
advancement
opportunities exist such as additional certifications or board
certifications.
Productivity Measurements and Evaluations 16 points
Productivity Measurements and Evaluations

The presentation succinctly and thoroughly describes the
criteria used to meet
productivity measurements and evaluations to improve
efficiency.
4. Good 13.6 points
The presentation thoroughly describes the criteria used to meet
productivity
measurements and evaluations to improve efficiency.
The presentation clearly describes the criteria used to meet
productivity
The presentation does not clearly describe the criteria used to
meet productivity
The presentation does not adequately describe the criteria used
to meet
productivity measurements and evaluations to improve
efficiency.

Presentation of Content 8 points
Presentation of Content
The content is written clearly and concisely. Ideas universally
progress and relate to
each other. The project includes motivating questions and
advanced organizers.
The project gives the audience a clear sense of the main idea.
4. Good 6.8 points
The content is written with a logical progression of ideas and
supporting
information exhibiting a unity, coherence, and cohesiveness.
Includes persuasive
information from reliable sources.
The presentation slides are generally competent, but ideas may
show some
inconsistency in organization and/or in their relationships to
each other.

The content is vague in conveying a point of view and does not
create a strong
sense of purpose. Includes some persuasive information.
The content lacks a clear point of view and logical sequence of
information. Includes
little persuasive information. Sequencing of ideas is unclear.
Layout 4 points
Layout
The layout is visually pleasing and contributes to the overall
message with
appropriate use of headings, subheadings, and white space. Text
is appropriate in
length for the target audience and to the point. The background
and colors enhance
the readability of the text.
4. Good 3.4 points

The layout background and text complement each other and
enable the content to
be easily read. The fonts are easy to read and point size varies
appropriately for
headings and text.
The layout uses horizontal and vertical white space
appropriately. Sometimes the
fonts are easy to read, but in a few places the use of fonts,
italics, bold, long
paragraphs, color, or busy background detracts and does not
enhance readability.
The layout shows some structure but appears cluttered and busy
or distracting with
large gaps of white space or a distracting background. Overall
readability is difficult
due to lengthy paragraphs, too many different fonts, dark or
busy background,
overuse of bold, or lack of appropriate indentations of text.
The layout is cluttered, confusing, and does not use spacing,
headings, and

subheadings to enhance the readability. The text is extremely
difficult to read with
long blocks of text, small point size for fonts, and inappropriate
contrasting colors.
Poor use of headings, subheadings, indentations, or bold
formatting is evident.
Language Use and Audience Awareness (includes sentence
construction,
word choice, etc.)
4 points
Language Use and Audience Awareness (includes sentence
construction, word choice,
etc.)
The writer uses a variety of sentence constructions, figures of
speech, and word
choice in distinctive and creative ways that are appropriate to
purpose, discipline,
and scope.
4. Good 3.4 points

The writer is clearly aware of audience, uses a variety of
appropriate vocabulary for
the target audience, and uses figures of speech to communica te
clearly.
Language is appropriate to the targeted audience for the most
part.
Some distracting inconsistencies in language choice (register)
or word choice are
present. The writer exhibits some lack of control in using
figures of speech
appropriately.
Inappropriate word choice and lack of variety in language use
are evident. Writer
appears to be unaware of audience. Use of primer prose
indicates writer either
does not apply figures of speech or uses them inappropriately.
Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar,
language
use)

4 points
Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar,
language use)
Writer is clearly in control of standard, written academic
English.
4. Good 3.4 points
Slides are largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may
be present.
Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not
overly distracting to
the reader.
Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader.
Slide errors are pervasive enough that they impede
communication of meaning.
Documentation of Sources 4 points

Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references,
bibliography, etc., as
appropriate to assignment and style)
Sources are completely and correctly documented, as
appropriate to assignment
and style, and format is free of error.
4. Good 3.4 points
Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style,
and format is
mostly correct.
Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style,
although some
formatting errors may be present.
Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as
appropriate to
assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors.

Sources are not documented.
Total 80 points
ATTITUDINAL BALANCEBASIL AND HERR
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER PSYCHOLOGY, 16(4), 391–403
Copyright © 2006, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Attitudinal Balance and Cause-Related Marketing:
An Empirical Application of Balance Theory
Debra Z. Basil
University of Lethbridge Centre for Socially Responsible
Marketing
Paul M. Herr
University of Colorado at Boulder
We examine the effects of pre-existing organizational attitudes
on consumer response to cause-
related marketing (CRM) alliances, using a Balance Theory
framework. Two experiments dem-
onstrate that balanced attitudes (either both positive or both
negative) resulted in perceptions of
appropriateness, but did not necessarily lead to positive affect.
The positive balance scenario
led to a synergistic attitudinal boost when both pre-existing
attitudes were positive. Attitudinal
contamination was evident when either pre-existing attitude was
negative. Fit operated within

the balance scenario to enhance perceptions of the strength of
the CRM alliance, leading to
more positive responses.
Cause-related marketing (CRM) involves the pairing of a
firm and a charity in a marketing effort. Alliances are often
formed by well-known firms pairing with well-known orga-
nizations, as in American Express’ CRM alliance with the
Ronald McDonald House. American Express donates to the
Ronald McDonald House for every transaction made on an
American Express card. Presumably, both American Express
and the Ronald McDonald House hope to benefit from ally-
ing with an organization for which consumers hold positive
pre-existing attitudes.
CRM alliances continue to grow in popularity (Cone/
Roper, 1999; PMA/Gable Group, 2000). The body of re-
search addressing CRM issues is also growing, but many
questions remain. Attitudes toward the CRM alliance and the
alliance partners have been examined, but the exact nature of
these attitudes has yet to be assessed. Does affect toward
CRM alliances depend on the perceived appropriateness of
the alliance, or are these issues independent? Pre-existing or-
ganizational attitudes impact attitude toward the CRM alli -
ance, but little if any research has examined the dynamic na-
ture of this impact. For instance, how do these attitudes
jointly influence CRM attitude? Fit between the allying orga-
nizations influences attitude toward the alliance, but, again,
the mechanism remains unknown. Our goal is to clarify the
Correspondence should be addressed to Debra Z. Basil,
Associate Pro-
fessor, University of Lethbridge Centre for Socially
Responsible Marketing,
Lethbridge, Alberta CANADA, T1K 3M4. E-mail:
[email protected]

role of pre-existing organizational attitudes and fit in
determining consumer response to CRM alliances, using a
Balance Theory framework. Balance Theory addresses situa-
tions where an individual evaluates the pairing of two sepa-
rate elements—precisely the situation with CRM.
LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETIC
FRAMEWORK
CRM enhances product choice (Barone, Miyazaki, & Taylor,
2000; Lichtenstein, Drumwright, & Braig, 2004; Yechiam,
Barron, Erev, & Erez, 2003,). However, socially oriented
messages are perceived differently, depending upon the
sponsor (Szykman, Bloom, & Blazing, 2004), and percep-
tions of a firm’s motive for forming the CRM partnership can
impact resulting attitudes (Barone et al., 2000). Tying nega-
tive information to the firm moderates response to CRM
(Dean, 2003/2004; Deshpande & Hitchon, 2002), as do con-
sumers’ elaboration levels (Menon & Kahn, 2003). More-
over, CRM may negatively influence the charity (Basil &
Herr, 2003). Hence, CRM alliances should be considered
carefully, as alliances may not only influence immediate pur-
chase decisions, but attitudes toward the partners as well.
Previous research has examined the impact of pre-existing
firm and charity attitudes on attitude toward the CRM alli -
ance, as well as attitude change toward the alliance partners
(Lafferty, Goldsmith, & Hult, 2004). Pre-existing firm and
mailto:[email protected]
392 BASIL AND HERR
charity attitudes, and attitude toward the CRM alliance, are
positively correlated. A similar relationship exists for atti -

tude change toward the alliance partners. Although these re-
sults offer insight into the impact of pre-existing attitudes,
they do not address attitude dynamics. How do pre-existing
organizational attitudes interact to impact CRM alliance atti -
tude? We address this question.
Fit between the organizations also influences response to
CRM alliances. “Fit” has been addressed in the branding lit-
erature. Good fit between a brand extension and the firm’s
current brand offerings (Aaker & Keller, 1990), and similar -
ity, typicality, or relatedness between the extension and the
core brand (Bottomley & Holden, 2001; Boush & Loken,
1991; Broniarczyk & Alba, 1994; Dacin & Smith, 1994;
Herr, Farquhar, & Fazio, 1996) foster more favorable con-
sumer attitudes toward a brand extension. Similarly, when
two organizations’ brands and products are viewed as “fit-
ting” together, consumer attitudes toward a cobranding effort
are more favorable (Simonin & Ruth, 1998). Likewise, fit be-
tween an event and its sponsor influences consumer response
(Speed & Thompson, 2000).
Fit is important in cause-related marketing alliances, as
well (Basil & Herr, 2003; Hamlin & Wilson, 2004; Lafferty
et al., 2004; Menon & Kahn, 2003; Sen & Bhattacharya,
2001). Different types of fit have been proposed (e.g.
Lafferty et al., 2004). Although fit matters, the means by
which fit impacts CRM attitudes has received scant attention.
Our goal is to clarify the process by which fit impacts attitude
toward the CRM alliance.
CRM attitude measures vary dramatically in the literature.
Some researchers report attitude toward the CRM alliance as
a summary evaluation (Basil & Herr, 2002). Others report a
blend of affective and cognitive measures, such as whether
the alliance is good, positive, and favorable (Lafferty et al.,
2004). Still others take a behavioral approach to measuring

CRM alliance attitude (Barone et al., 2000; Strahilevitz &
Myers, 1998). Although behavioral responses to CRM alli -
ances have been extensively examined, no research has ad-
dressed the distinction between cognitive and affective re-
sponses to CRM alliances. Do these attitudinal responses
differ? We also address this issue.
Three primary factors are common to CRM alliances.
These include consumers’ pre- existing attitudes toward the
firm, pre-existing attitudes toward the charity, and percep-
tions of an alliance between these two. In some cases, con-
sumers may be unfamiliar with one or the other organization
(see Lafferty & Goldsmith, 2005), but such alliances are not
the focus of this research. Rather, we examine CRM alliances
involving organizations familiar to the individual, for which
attitudes exist.
Different theoretical approaches have been used to exam-
ine responses to CRM alliances, such as information integra-
tion (Lafferty, Goldsmith, & Hult, 2004), cognitive elabora-
tion (Menon & Kahn, 2003), and identification (Lichtenstein
et al., 2004). Each approach has strengths and weaknesses.
We sought a parsimonious framework that effectively ad-
dresses the three issues of interest: (1) the interactive effects
of firm and charity pre-existing attitudes, (2) the mechanism
by which fit impacts responses, and (3) differences between
affective and cognitive attitudinal responses. None of the the-
ories above addresses all of these issues. Balance Theory par -
simoniously addresses each issue and guides hypothesis for -
mation. Hence, we rely exclusively on Balance Theory to
generate and test our specific research hypotheses.
Balance Theory
Balance Theory (Heider, 1946, 1958) examines relational tri -

ads. Relationships between three individuals may be exam-
ined, from the perspective of one of the individuals. For ex-
ample, the relationship between Bob, Brad, and Bill’s
attitude toward Bob and Brad’s relationship, as well as Bill’s
attitude toward Bob and Brad individually, may be examined.
Heider (1946, 1958) proposed that individuals seek balance
among their interpersonal relationships and among attitudes
toward these relationships. Balance may be ascertained by
multiplying the signs in a triad of relationships (Cartwright &
Harary, 1956). A positive result indicates balance (see
Figure 1a).
Balance triads may contain relations between entities
other than people. Relationships between people are referred
to as sentiments, whereas relationships between entities are
referred to as unit relationships (Heider, 1958). In a CRM
scenario, the relationship between a firm and a charity is thus
a unit relationship.
FIGURE 1 Balance Theory Triads.
ATTITUDINAL BALANCE 393
Jordan (1953) proposed that balance leads to a judgment
of propriety or conforming to expectations, but for a situation
to be pleasant both balance and a positive interpersonal rela -
tionship are required. Hence, although two negative attitudes
represent balance, the situation is not deemed pleasant. Judg-
ments of unpleasantness require only the perception of im-
balance or the perception of a negative relationship.
Cacioppo and Petty’s (1981) findings that balance contrib-
utes to a sense of propriety, whereas agreement and attraction
between the individuals contribute to positive affect, further
support this position.

These findings provide a foundation for hypothesizing
consumer responses to CRM alliances. Cognitive and affec-
tive responses to CRM alliances are expected to differ ac-
cordingly. Previous research suggests that affect impacts
judgments, but this area has not been thoroughly researched
(Olsen & Pracejus, 2004; Pham, 2004). Consumers are ex-
pected to judge as “appropriate” alliances for which their
pre-existing attitudes yield balance. Judgments of propriety
represent the cognitive element in a CRM alliance attitude.
Either a positive–positive or a negative–negative alliance
should be judged “appropriate.” Balance does not suggest
positive affect toward the alliance itself. The negative–nega-
tive balance situation may be deemed appropriate, but not be
well liked, per Cacioppo and Petty (1981). This represents
the affective element in a CRM alliance attitude. Thus,
H1: The positive impact of balance will be greater for
judgments of propriety than for judgments of affect, as
evidenced in a balance × judgment type interaction.
An individual’s attitude toward a CRM alliance should
consist of some combination of his or her attitude toward the
firm, the charity, and the pairing of these two, per Balance
Theory. Hence, positive pre-existing attitudes toward the
firm and the charity should contribute to a positive alliance
attitude. Likewise, a positive view of the pair together should
contribute to a positive alliance attitude (discussed later).
However, Jordan’s (1953) findings regarding pleasantness
perceptions demonstrated a benefit for the combination of
balance plus a positive relationship. If, indeed, positive
pre-existing attitudes toward the alliance partners are impor-
tant for generating a positive attitude toward the alliance it-
self, then the combination of balance plus positive pre-exist-
ing attitudes should lead to a more positive response to the
alliance, above and beyond the simple additive effects of

each individual pre-existing attitude. This interactive affect
of organizational attitudes has not been previously examined.
Thus,
H2: Consumers’ pre-existing attitudes toward the firm
and the charity will interact such that attitudes toward
the alliance will be multiplicatively more positive
when both pre-existing organizational attitudes are
balanced and both are positive.
Fit
We propose that fit may be viewed as a measure of the
strength of the relational tie between the two organizations.
In a CRM alliance, the individual’s attitude toward the firm
and the charity are two legs of a Balance triad. The presence
(absence) of an organizational relationship may be viewed as
the third leg of the triad. In Balance Theory’s original con-
ceptualization, all relations were represented dichotomously.
Extensions (e.g. Osgood & Tannenbaum, 1955) viewed the
relations as continuous. This perspective allows for an exam-
ination of the strength of the relationships in the triad. Fit in a
CRM alliance can thus be viewed as strengthening the unit
relationship between the firm and the charity, defining the na-
ture of their association. A positive firm attitude, a positive
charity attitude, and fit between the firm and charity reflect a
strong, positive balance scenario (see Figure 1b).
We expect the relationship between organizations that fit
to be judged stronger than the relationship between organiza-
tions that do not fit. Moreover, if fit at least partly increases
perceptions of relationship strength, then the impact of fit on
attitude toward the CRM alliance should be at least partially
mediated by perceptions of relationship strength. Hence,
H3a: The relationship between organizations that fit

will be viewed as stronger than the relationship be-
tween organizations that do not fit.
H3b: The effect of fit on CRM attitude will be partially
mediated by perceptions of relationship strength.
If fit enhances perceptions of the strength of the relation-
ship between a firm and a charity, then fit should similarly in-
fluence judgments. Specifically, fit between the firm and
charity should be viewed as more appropriate, regardless of
attitudes toward the organizations. This is because fit should
be seen as appropriate, based on individuals’ preference for
balance. The same is not expected for affect, however. Two
organizations may fit well, but an individual may not neces-
sarily like the pairing, simply because they fit. Thus,
H4: Fit will more strongly influence judgments of ap-
propriateness or propriety than judgments of positive
affect, as reflected in a fit × judgment type interaction.
Balance is expected to influence target organizational atti -
tude change in a manner similar to its anticipated effect on al-
liance attitude. Consumers are expected to exhibit more posi -
tive attitude change toward a target alliance member when
they hold positive pre-existing attitudes toward the alliance
partner, and are expected to prefer balanced attitudes. Hence,
balanced attitudes with a liked pre-existing partner should
enjoy additional positive response, beyond the benefit of
simply owning positive pre-existing attitudes. The expecta-
tion here is slightly different than that proposed in Hypothe-
394 BASIL AND HERR
sis 2: Only the partner’s pre-existing attitude valence must be

positive, rather than requiring positive pre-existing attitudes
toward both organizations. Practically speaking, however,
this distinction is irrelevant, as pre-existing attitudes toward
the target alliance member must in fact be positive for both
balanced attitudes and a positive pre- existing attitude toward
the alliance partner to exist. If pre-existing attitudes toward
the partner are positive, then, by definition, pre-existing atti-
tudes toward the target must be positive to attain balance.
Hence, we predict a synergy for balanced attitudes and a pos -
itive pre-existing partner attitude, not driven by pre-existing
target organization attitudes, as follows:
H5: Consumers’ pre-existing attitudes toward the part-
ner organization will interact with attitudinal balance.
When pre-existing partner attitudes are positive and
balanced, attitude change toward the target organiza-
tion will be multiplicatively more positive.
EXPERIMENT 1
Experiment 1 tests these hypotheses. The experiment was ad-
ministered via computer. The firm represents the target orga-
nization and the charity represents the partner organization.
Pretests
All pretest and experiment participants were from the same
major Western university. Pretests were conducted to select
appropriate organizational profiles for fictitious firms and
charities. The profiles were intended to create either positive
or negative attitudes toward the fictitious organizations. Pre-
test 1 involved 36 undergraduate business students, partici -
pating for partial course credit. Participants were asked to list
information about firms and charities that would lead them to
hold either a positive or negative attitude toward the organi-
zation. In Pretest 2, the most commonly cited information

from Pretest 1 was further tested. Forty undergraduate busi -
ness students participated in this Pretest for partial course
credit. Pretest 3 combined these statements into firm and
charity profiles to create reliably positive or negative atti -
tudes toward the fictitious organization. Twenty-eight under-
graduate business students participated for extra course
credit. Pretest 4 determined product and charity categories
that, when paired in a cause-related alliance, “fit” together,
and pairs that did not “fit” together. “Fit” was defined for
subjects in terms of whether the organizations’ purposes
were complementary, and whether the organizations’ alli -
ance “made sense.” Sixty-five undergraduates participated to
partially fulfill a course requirement. The resulting firm and
charity profiles created positive or negative attitudes, as well
as CRM alliances that did or did not fit.
Participants and Design
One hundred sixty-eight undergraduate business students
participated for extra course credit. A 2 (organizational fit) ×
2 (firm attitude: positive or negative) × 2 (charity attitude:
positive or negative) × 2 (judgment type: affect or propriety)
mixed design was used. Fit and judgment type were within-
subjects factors.
Independent Variables
Firm and charity attitudes were manipulated via the ficti -
tious organizational profiles. Each organizational profile
contained five statements about the organization, based on
pretest results. These profiles were used to generate posi -
tive or negative attitudes toward the firm and charity. (See
Appendix A for sample profiles.) Profiles were randomly
generated for each subject, from a pool of 15 possible state -
ments, to assure that results were not due to excessive im-
pact from any single statement. Both the statements dis-

played and their order were randomized. Participants were
randomly assigned to one of four between-subjects attitude
conditions: positive firm attitude/positive charity attitude;
negative firm attitude/negative charity attitude; positive
firm attitude/negative charity attitude; or negative firm atti -
tude/positive charity attitude.
Fit was manipulated through the pairing of firms and char-
ities. Two fictitious firms and two fictitious charities were se-
lected from Pretests. “Bakerman’s Bread” was paired with
“Stop Starvation” in the fit condition, and with “Prevent
Children’s Polio” in the no-fit condition. “Tikes Toys” was
paired with “Prevent Children’s Polio” in the fit condition
and “Stop Starvation” in the no-fit condition. Each partici-
pant evaluated all four pairings.
Each subject was exposed to both propriety-based and af-
fect-based adjectives. This exposure was a within-subjects
factor for analysis purposes. Participants’ actual responses to
these adjectives served as a dependent variable.
Dependent Variables
Attitude toward the CRM alliance was assessed by asking
participants to agree or disagree with adjectives describing
the alliance. These adjectives were: like, dislike, appealing,
unappealing, good, bad, appropriate, and inappropriate. Atti -
tude toward the CRM alliance was also assessed by asking
participants to indicate their attitude toward the CRM on a
7-point scale, anchored by “very negative” at –3 and “very
positive” at +3.
Attitude change toward the firm due to the CRM alliance
was assessed. Participants were asked the extent to which the
CRM alliance would make their attitude toward the firm
more positive, and then asked the extent to which the alliance

would make their attitude toward the firm more negative.
Perceptions of the strength of the relationship between the
firm and the charity were measured. Since a CRM alliance in-
volves an overt donation from the firm to the charity, with no
corresponding overt helping behavior from the charity to the
firm, the items assessing relationship strength primarily fo-
cused on perceptions of the firm’s assistance to the charity.
Scale creation is discussed in the next section. Perceptions of
the relationship were assessed through comments made in
the thought-listing exercise also discussed in the next section.
Procedure
Participants were run in groups of 8 to 12. Stimuli were pre-
sented and responses recorded via personal computer. Partic-
ipants were first shown a firm profile containing five state-
ments regarding the fictitious firm. Participants were told to
examine the information until they felt comfortable with it.
Participants then indicated their attitude toward the firm.
They were presented with the charity profile, again contain-
ing five statements, and indicated their attitude toward the
charity. A definition of cause-related marketing was pro-
vided next, along with an example of a CRM alliance. Partic-
ipants completed a thought-listing task regarding their re-
sponse to the CRM alliance between the fictitious firm and
charity. They were given three minutes, and told to type ev-
erything that came to mind when considering the alliance.
Participants then were asked to consider a CRM alliance be-
tween the two organizations, and to either agree or disagree
with adjectives describing the alliance.

Immediately following the adjective-response activity,
participants answered a series of attitudinal questions regard-
ing the firm, charity, and alliance between them. Responses
were collected on a 7-point scale, ranging from –3 to +3. This
procedure was repeated for the remaining three CRM pair-
ings for a total of four randomly ordered iterations per partic-
ipant.
Analyses
First, manipulations were assessed and scales created.
Thought-listing results were used to assess the fit manipula-
tion. Two coders, naïve to hypotheses and study condition,
coded subjects’ open-ended responses. Intercoder agreement
was 91%. The primary researcher resolved disagreements.
Participants made more comments about poor fit in the no-fit
condition, compared to the fit condition (t = –5.4, p < .001),
suggesting a successful manipulation.
Mean firm attitudes in the positive attitude conditions (M
= 2.18) were significantly higher than in the negative attitude
conditions (M = –1.89, p < .001). Similarly, mean charity at-
titudes in the positive attitude conditions (M = 2.41) were sig-
nificantly higher than in the negative attitude conditions (M =
–1.13, p < .001). The firm and charity attitude manipulations
were thus deemed successful.
Participants’ responses to the positive (appealing, appro-
priate, good, like) and negative (unappealing, inappropriate,
bad, dislike) adjectives were coded “1” for agree and “–1” for
disagree. Adjective responses were combined into scales by
averaging the positive adjectives and averaging the negative
adjectives. The four positive adjectives were assessed for
scale reliability. Scale reliability was good (α = .92). The
four negative adjectives were assessed and the resulting scale
was also reliable (α = .90).

Scales were also created to assess perceptions of propriety
and affect separately. Scores for the negative adjectives were
reverse coded. For the affect-based adjectives (like, appeal-
ing, dislike reverse coded, unappealing reverse coded), reli -
ability was good (α = .96). The affect scale was created by
averaging these scores. Similarly, the propriety-based adjec-
tives scale (good, appropriate, bad reverse coded, inappropri -
ate reverse coded) reliability was good (α = .97). The propri -
ety scale was created by averaging these scores.
A scale was created for the dependent variable firm atti-
tude change. Responses to the negatively framed question
were reverse coded, then combined with the positively
framed question. Scale reliability was good (α = .83).
Results
Hypothesis 1 proposed a distinction between affect-based re-
sponses and propriety-based responses. Specifically, balance
was expected to increase perceptions of propriety more than
feelings of positive affect. A repeated-measures ANOVA was
conducted. The balance condition was recoded into two cate-
gories, balance and imbalance. Two-level attitude balance
(balanced/unbalanced) served as a between-subjects factor,
and judgment type (affect-based adjectives, propriety-based
adjectives) a within-subjects factor. Mean scores for adjec-
tive responses served as the dependent variable. A main ef-
fect for judgment type was evident, F(1, 158) = 48.4, p <
.001, ε2 = .26. Responses to propriety-based adjectives
(good/bad, appropriate/inappropriate) were significantly
more positive than responses to affect- based adjectives (like/
dislike, appealing/unappealing). A significant interaction be-
tween judgment type and balance was also evident, F(1, 158)
= 5.3, p < .05, ε2 = .03, supporting Hypothesis 1. Attitudinal
balance had a significantly larger impact on perceptions of

propriety regarding the CRM alliance than on affect toward
the alliance (see Figure 2). Specifically, balanced attitudes
(positive–positive or negative–negative) generated a judg-
ment of propriety (M = 1.26), although they did not necessar-
ily generate positive affect (M = .21). Since the adjectives
“good” and “bad” have been used in other research to indi -
cate affect rather than propriety, an assessment was made us-
ing only the adjectives “appropriate” and “appealing.” Con-
sistent with the prior analysis, balanced attitudes were judged
somewhat appropriate (M = 1.9) but not very appealing (M =
.09), t (79) = 2.0, p = .05, per Hypothesis 1.
396 BASIL AND HERR
FIGURE 2 Balance × Judgment Type Interaction.
FIGURE 3 CRM Attitude.
Another repeated-measures ANOVA was run to test Hy-
potheses 2 and 4. Fit and judgment type served as within-sub-
jects factors, firm and charity attitudes as between-subjects
factors. Responses to the valenced adjectives served as the
dependent variable. Hypothesis 2 was supported, F(1, 161) =
4.6, p < .05, ε2 = .03. Firm and charity attitudes interacted
such that responses were significantly more positive when
both pre-existing attitudes were positive and balanced, above
the simple additive effects expected from each of the pre-ex-
isting attitudes individually (see Figure 3). Hypothesis 4 was
also supported, F(1, 161) = 20.7, p < .001, ε2 = .09. Fit had a
stronger impact on perceptions of propriety than on affect.
Alliances that fit were judged appropriate even if not well
liked.
Hypothesis 3 proposed a main effect for fit on perceptions

of relationship strength (part a) and that perceptions of rela -
tionship strength would mediate the impact of fit on CRM at-
titude (part b). First, responses to the thought-listing exercise
(comments regarding the relationship between the firm and
charity) were examined. A paired-samples t test was con-
ducted. More negative comments regarding the relationship
were made in the no-fit conditions, compared to the fit condi-
tions, t(172) = 2.5, p < .05, supporting Hypothesis 3a.
To further assess Hypothesis 3, a mediation test was con-
ducted (Baron & Kenny, 1986). First, a repeated measures
ANOVA was run with fit serving as the repeated measure,
and perceptions of relationship strength as the dependent
variable. Fit significantly increased perceptions of relation-
ship strength, F(1, 166) = 56, p < .001, ε2 = .25, again sup-
porting Hypothesis 3a. Moreover, firm attitude, F(1,155) =
67.4, p < .001, ε2 = .29, and charity attitude, F(1, 166) = 9.9, p
< .005, ε2 = .06, both predicted relationship strength. A re-
peated-measures ANOVA was then conducted, with fit serv-
ing as the repeated measure and CRM attitude as the depend-
ent variable. Fit significantly predicted CRM attitude, F(1,
166) = 77, p < .001, ε2 = .32. Finally, a third repeated-mea-
FIGURE 4 Firm Attitude Change.
sures ANOVA was conducted, with fit serving as the repeated
measure, perceived strength of the relationship a covariate,
and CRM attitude the dependent variable. Both fit, F(1, 164)
= 23, p < .001, ε2 = .13, and perceived relationship strength,
fit F(1, 164) = 47, p < .001, ε2 = .22; no fit F(1, 164) = 15, p <
.001, ε2 = .08, significantly predicted CRM attitude. Since

the impact of fit was reduced with the inclusion of relation-
ship strength (ε2 reduced from .32 to .13), fit was partially
mediated by perceived relationship strength, supporting Hy-
pothesis 3b.
To test Hypothesis 5, change in attitude toward the firm
was assessed using an ANOVA. Firm and charity pre-exist-
ing attitudes served as between-subjects factors. The firm at-
titude change scale served as the dependent variable. Pre-ex-
isting firm and charity attitudes significantly interacted, F(1,
166) = 7.0, p < .01, ε2 = .04, supporting Hypothesis 5. A syn-
ergy of organizational attitudes was evident. When both
pre-existing firm and charity attitudes were positive, change
in attitude toward the firm was significantly larger than the
simple additive effects would suggest (see Figure 4).
Discussion
The results of Experiment 1 support the hypotheses regard-
ing attitude toward the CRM alliance. These results enhance
understanding of the impact of fit on attitudes toward the
CRM alliance. Prior research has demonstrated an impact for
fit, but the nature of this impact has not been thoroughly ex-
amined. This research demonstrates that fit enhances the
sense of relationship strength between the two organizations.
Organizations that fit are seen to have a stronger relationship.
Moreover, more negative thoughts regarding the alliance
come to mind when the organizations do not fit. Thus, fit
strengthens the relationship between the two organizations,
creating a stronger unit relationship. The effect of fit on CRM
attitude is partially mediated by perceptions of strength of the
CRM alliance. Hence, when organizations fit, the CRM alli -
ance is seen as more appropriate, although this alone may not
generate much positive affect. This finding is an important
step toward explicating the nature of the impact of fit.

A similar effect is found for balance. The significant bal -
ance by judgment-type interaction suggests that balanced at-
titudes lead to perceptions of appropriateness, but not neces-
sarily to positive affect. Collectively, these results suggest
that individuals have a sense of propriety for CRM alliances,
with views on whether the pairing is appropriate or not, inde-
pendent of their liking for the CRM alliance.
The results also support hypotheses regarding attitude
change toward the firm. Pre-existing charity attitude is a
strong determinant of attitude change toward the firm. Con-
sistent with Balance Theory, firm attitudes changed to be-
come more consistent with attitudes toward the alliance part-
ner. A synergistic interaction of pre-existing attitudes was
also evident, yielding benefits to the firm attitude given bal -
ance and a positive pre-existing charity attitude.
The interaction between firm and charity attitude consis-
tently attained significance. Both when predicting attitude to-
ward the CRM alliance and when predicting firm attitude
change, an interaction between firm and charity attitude was
evident. This may be due to a synergistic effect when both
balance and positive attitudes are present. When everything
is perfect (pre-existing attitudes are positive and balance ex-
ists), responses are much more positive. Alternatively, this
pattern of results may be due to a “contamination effect.”
Specifically, any one negative element may lead to a more
negative response. In order to assess which of these is the
case, it is necessary to compare responses for positive, neu-
tral, and negative pre-existing organizational attitudes. If
positive firm and charity attitudes lead to more positive eval -
uations than when one or both of these is neutral, a synergy
effect exists. Alternatively, if the difference stems from dif-
ferences between negative and neutral attitudes, rather than
neutral and positive attitudes, a contamination effect is sup-

ported. Thus, the competing hypotheses:
398 BASIL AND HERR
H6a: The interaction between pre-existing firm and
charity attitudes is due to a synergy effect such that
CRM alliance attitudes will experience an enhance-
ment only when both pre-existing attitudes are posi-
tive, compared to neutral attitudes.
-OR-
H6b: The interaction between pre-existing firm and
charity attitudes is due to a contamination effect such
that CRM alliance attitudes will experience a decre-
ment whether one or both pre- existing attitudes are
negative, compared to neutral attitudes.
EXPERIMENT 2
Experiment 1 tested the proposed hypotheses. However, the
stimuli used were of fictitious firms and charities, and organi-
zational attitudes were created as part of the study. Although
germane to newly formed attitudes, it is impossible to deter -
mine whether the results generalize to situations involving
longstanding pre-existing attitudes. In Experiment 2, a con-
ceptual replication is performed. Real firms and charities are
used, allowing a test of the proposed hypotheses with pre-ex-
isting attitudes. The use of real organization names also en-
hances external validity by allowing for a test of the hypothe-
ses in a situation where many complex elements have likely
contributed to attitude formation, as opposed to the simplistic
firm profiles used in Experiment 1. Moreover, a larger num-
ber of pairings is used, to improve the generalizability of re -

sults. Experiment 2 addresses Hypotheses 6a and 6b to fur-
ther clarify the nature of the firm by charity attitude
interaction. Finally, need for cognition (NFC) was added to
this experiment as a covariate, as previous research indicates
that extent of cognitive elaboration affects consumer re-
sponse to advertising efforts (Priester, Godek,
Nayakankuppum, & Park, 2004) and may impact response to
CRM alliances (Menon & Kahn, 2003). NFC was used as a
proxy to control for possible elaboration differences.
Participants and Design
Sixty undergraduate business students participated in Exper -
iment 2 for extra course credit. Males comprised 58% of the
sample. No participant took part in any Pretest or Experiment
1. Experiment 2 used a 2 (fit) × 6 (pairings) within-subjects
design, with firm and charity attitudes serving as measured
(rather than manipulated) variables. Need for Cognition
(Cacioppo & Petty, 1982) served as a covariate. Six firms
were paired with 2 charities each, 1 fit and 1 no-fit charity, for
a total of 12 CRM alliances (see Table 1).
Each participant evaluated all 12 of the CRM alliances in
a random order. Participants were run in four groups, ranging
in size from 12 to 19. Paper and pencil stimuli were used,
which participants completed at their own pace.
Independent Variables
“Fit” was manipulated by the selection of specific firms and
charities, based on pretesting. Each firm was paired with one
charity deemed to fit, and one deemed not to fit. “Pairing”
was a nontheoretical replication variable included to increase
generalizability. Testing multiple CRM alliances helps as-
sure that results are not idiosyncratic.

Pre-existing firm and charity attitudes were measured in-
dependent variables. Participants indicated their pre-existing
attitudes toward the firm and the charity on an 11-point scale
ranging from –5 to +5, with anchors “very negative” and
“very positive.” A larger response scale was used in Experi -
ment 2 than in Experiment 1 (10 point vs. 7 point), in case
measures of pre-existing attitudes toward charities were con-
stricted to positive or neutral scale responses. Efforts were
made to select charities toward which some people held neg-
ative attitudes.
Participants responded to 22 questions regarding each al -
liance. Each question was posed on an 11-point scale, an-
chored by “not at all” at –5 and “very much” at +5. The de-
pendent variables of interest were attitude toward the CRM
alliance, perception that this was a good CRM alliance, atti -
tude change toward the firm, and perceptions of the strength
of the alliance.
Since pre-existing firm and charity attitudes were mea-
sured, rather than manipulated, a standard within-subjects
ANOVA was deemed unsuitable. Within-subjects regression
(Judd, Kenny, & McClelland, 2001) was used instead. This
procedure provides a test of the moderating effects of continu-
ous variables in within-subjects designs. To conduct a
within-subjects regression, the dependent variable of interest
TABLE 1
Firm and Charity Pairings
Fit No Fit
Nike Athletic Shoes/The American Heart Association Nike
Athletic Shoes/Feed the Children
Velveeta Cheese/Feed the Children Velveeta Cheese/The

American Heart Association
Nintendo Video Games/Youth at Risk Nintendo Video
Games/National Rifle Association
Smith & Wesson Guns/National Rifle Association Smith &
Wesson Guns/Youth at Risk
Gerber Baby Food/The Pro-Life Action League Gerber Baby
Food/Greenpeace Environmental Conservation Charity
Big 5 Sporting Goods/Greenpeace Environmental Conservation
Charity Big 5 Sporting Goods/The Pro-Life Action League
is regressed on the within-subjects factors for each participant
separately. The resulting betas for the within-subjects factors
represent the relationship between each within-subjects factor
and the dependent variable for each participant. These betas
are then regressed on the between-subjects factors and indi-
vidual difference variables using the data set as a whole. For
example, regressions were performed for each individual par-
ticipant, regressing firm attitude change (one of the dependent
variables) on pre-existing firm attitude, pre-existing charity
attitude, pre-existing firm attitude × pre-existing charity atti-
tude interaction, and fit. The resulting betas for pre-existing
firm attitude represented the relationship between pre- exist-
ing firm attitude and firm attitude change due to the CRM alli -
ance for each individual participant when controlling for other
variables in the equation. Similarly, the resulting betas for fit
represented the relationship between fit and firm attitude
change for each participant, and so forth. The purpose of these
individual regressions, then, is to ascertain the relational pat-
tern between the within-subjects independent variables and
the dependent variables for each participant, not to determine
any form of statistical significance. After this step, the result-
ing within-subjects beta weights were used in a series of be-

tween-subjects regressions that regressed the beta weight on
NFC (Cacioppo & Petty, 1982) in order to assess statistical sig-
nificance. This was repeated for each dependent variable. For a
more detailed description of this procedure, see Judd et al.
(2001).
Pre-existing firm and charity attitudes were tested as con-
tinuous variables, but trichotomized to simplify reporting.
Responses between 1 and 5 were grouped as positive pre-ex-
isting attitudes (N = 477 for firms, N = 521 for charities). Re -
sponses between –1 and –5 were grouped together as nega-
tive pre-existing attitudes (N = 107 for firms, N = 109 for
charities). Responses of zero were categorized “neutral” (N =
136 for firms, N = 88 for charities).
Results
Throughout Experiment 2, NFC served as a control variable.
This variable did not attain significance in any of the analyses
(p > .05), so it is not discussed further.
Hypothesis 2 was tested using a within-subjects regres-
sion. Pre-existing firm and charity attitudes significantly in-
teracted to predict attitude toward the CRM alliance (t = 2.5,
p < .05, ε2 = .09), supporting Hypothesis 2. The synergistic
effect of positive pre- existing attitudes and balance was evi-
dent, demonstrating more positive attitudes toward the CRM
alliance in the positive–positive condition.
Hypothesis 3 was tested to examine the effect of fit.
B-weights calculated from responses to the statement “This
will be a long-lasting alliance,” answered on an 11-point
scale, served as the dependent variable. Baron and Kenny’s
(1986) approach to testing mediation was used, adapted to a
within-subjects design. First, a within-subjects regression
was conducted to assess whether fit and pre-existing firm and

charity attitudes served to predict relationship strength. Fit
significantly predicted perception of relationship strength (t
= 11.6, p < .001), supporting Hypothesis 3a. Additionally,
firm attitude and charity attitude significantly interacted to
predict perceptions of strength (t = 3.0, p < .005). In the sec -
ond step of the mediation test, fit significantly predicted atti-
tude toward the CRM alliance (t = 6.2, B = 1.3, SE = .21, p <
.001). Finally, with perception of relationship strength and fit
included in the calculation of the B-weights, strength signifi-
cantly predicted CRM attitude (t = 15, B = .71, SE = .05, p <
.001), as did fit (t = 2, B = .22, SE = .11, p < .05). To assess
the
difference in the predictive power of fit with the inclusion of
perceived strength, thus assessing mediation, the change in
unstandardized betas was compared in terms of standard er -
rors. Specifically, the unstandardized beta with strength in-
cluded (.22) was subtracted from the unstandardized beta
without strength included (1.3), and this amount was divided
by the standard error for the unstandardized beta without
strength included (.21). The unstandardized betas differed by
5.1 standard errors, suggesting a significant difference (dif-
ferences exceeding 2 standard errors are significant). The ef-
fect of fit was reduced when perceived strength was included,
suggesting the effect of fit is partially mediated by percep-
tions of relationship strength; this supports Hypothesis 3b.
To test Hypothesis 5, the effect of the CRM alliance on at-
titudes toward the firm was assessed next. Pre-existing firm
and charity attitudes interacted marginally to predict firm at-
titude change (t = 1.9, p = .06, ε2 = .06). The positive–positive
condition elicited more attitude change than the other condi -
tions, marginally supporting Hypothesis 5.
Hypothesis 6 queried whether the interactive effect of
pre-existing organizational attitudes was due to a synergy or

a contamination effect. In order to assess this, trichotomized
firm and charity attitudes were examined using t tests. The
dependent variable attitude toward the CRM alliance was
used. When both firm and charity attitudes were positive,
CRM attitude was significantly more positive than when ei -
ther attitude was neutral, t (418) = 4.3, p < .001, suggesting a
synergy, supporting Hypothesis 6a (see Figure 5).
However, when either firm or charity attitude was nega-
tive, CRM attitude was less favorable than when both atti -
tudes were at least neutral (all p < .001). A single negative or -
ganizational attitude served to contaminate CRM attitude,
supporting Hypothesis 6b (see Figure 6).
Discussion
These results are consistent with and clarify the findings of
Experiment 1. Pre-existing firm and charity attitudes interact
to determine attitude toward the CRM alliance. Two disti nct
effects occur. First, positive pre-existing attitudes synergisti-
cally enhance attitude toward the CRM alliance. This effect
is magnified when both attitudes are positive, suggesting a
“balance boost.” Attitude toward the CRM alliance becomes
multiplicatively more positive when both pre-existing atti-
400 BASIL AND HERR
FIGURE 5 Synergy Effect.
FIGURE 6 Contamination Effect.
tudes are positive. A synergy is obtained by “having every-
thing right.” A contamination effect also occurs, as a result of
“having anything wrong.” If either the firm or the charity atti -

tude is negative, attitude toward the CRM alliance deterio-
rates.
These findings do not simply reflect ordinal results
whereby neutral attitudes fall between negative and positi ve
attitudes. Rather, one negative pre-existing attitude is equiva-
lent to both attitudes being negative, suggesting contamina-
tion. Similarly, only when both pre-existing attitudes are pos-
itive is a multiplicative enhancement to CRM attitude
evident. When either one or both of the pre-existing attitudes
are neutral, CRM attitudes are depressed. This again demon-
strates a deviation from ordinal results. Everything must be
“right” to obtain multiplicative attitudinal benefit; if anything
is “wrong,” an attitudinal penalty occurs.
Balance Theory helps to explicate the effect of fit in a
CRM alliance, as well. Fit consistently influenced attitudes.
Fit positively impacted both CRM attitude and attitude
change toward the firm. Moreover, fit led to perceptions of a
stronger unit relationship between the firm and the charity,
partially mediating the impact of fit.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
Prior work demonstrated that fit impacts consumer response
to CRM alliances, but the nature of this impact was uncertain.
Fit’s role was clarified in the present research. Fit increased
perceptions of the relationship between the firm and the char -
ity. This effect may be understood in terms of Balance The-
ory (Heider, 1946, 1958). The beneficial impact of fit in a
CRM alliance appears partly to stem from a perception that

the relationship between the firm and the charity is stronger
when fit exists. In Balance Theory terms, the unit relation-
ship between the CRM (firm and the charity) becomes stron-
ger when fit exists. Fit’s impact on alliance attitudes was par -
tially mediated by perceptions of relationship strength. In
part, fit influences CRM attitude by strengthening percep-
tions of the unit relationship between the firm and the charity.
These results suggest that when contemplating an alliance, fit
should be a primary consideration.
Previous research has also demonstrated that pre-existing
firm and charity attitudes impact attitude toward the CRM al -
liance. This research advances our understanding of the role
of pre- existing attitudes by demonstrating that this impact is
interactive: The effect of pre-existing firm attitude depends
upon the valence of pre-existing charity attitude, and vice
versa. Specifically, a synergistic benefit was evident when
pre-existing attitudes toward both of the organizations were
positive. If pre-existing attitudes toward the target organiza-
tion are negative, pre-existing attitudes toward the partner or-
ganization become less important. This suggests that if con-
sumer attitudes toward a firm are negative, adding a CRM
partner will have reduced impact. Partner attitudes do have a
significant impact on attitude toward the target organization,
so if a firm with negative pre-existing attitudes partners with
a charity with positive pre-existing attitudes, the firm will
benefit from the alliance, but the benefit is far less than what
would be enjoyed by a more positively viewed firm. If
pre-existing firm attitudes are positive, the firm stands to gain
a good deal through a CRM alliance, but only if the alliance
partner enjoys positive consumer attitudes as well. These re-
sults represent a synergistic effect for having both positive
firm and charity attitudes, and a contamination effect for hav-
ing either a negative firm or a negative charity attitude.
Attitudinal balance has differential impact depending

upon the type of judgment being made. Balanced attitudes
are seen as appropriate. It is appropriate for an organization
to partner with another organization toward which pre-exist-
ing attitudes are comparable. Balance, however, has far less
influence on affect toward the alliance. Positive attitudes are
necessary to generate positive affect, whereas only balance is
necessary to generate a sense of propriety. This effect was
mirrored with fit. Specifically, fit between two organizations
has a stronger impact on perceptions of propriety than on
positive affect. Collectively, these results suggest that when
two organizations appear to “go together,” either because
they share a common attitude valence (balance) or they share
a common purpose (fit), their alliance is seen to be appropri -
ate. This does not indicate that the alliance will be well liked,
however. Positive organizational attitudes are necessary to
generate positive affect toward the alliance.
Practical Implications
The interaction between firm and charity pre-existing atti-
tudes suggests that the organizations most likely to benefit
from a CRM alliance may in fact be those that need it least.
The greatest benefit is attained (a multiplicative enhance-
ment to attitudes) when pre-existing attitudes toward both
firm and charity are positive. Firms already enjoying positive
consumer attitudes may be particularly good candidates for
CRM campaigns, to further solidify their attitudinal advan-
tage.
These results also suggest that an organization may not be
able to overcome negative consumer attitudes by simply
forming a CRM alliance. If attitudes toward the firm are neg-
ative, it makes little difference whether the charity has posi -
tive or negative consumer attitudes. Attitudes toward the firm
change very little either way as a result of a CRM alliance.

Finally, fit is important for CRM alliances. CRM alliances
are seen as more appropriate when they fit. At least in part, fit
operates by strengthening perceptions of the firm and charity
relationship. Given that consumers are often skeptical about
firms’ motives for helping charities, enhancing perceptions
of the strength of the firm/charity relationship may help to re-
duce skepticism and thus should benefit the firm.
Limitations
This research faces the limitations common to many labora-
tory experiments in which student participants are used, in-
cluding questions of generalization. The homogenous sam-
ple, however, is acceptable for theory testing (Calder,
Phillips, & Tybout, 1981). Replications with “real-world”
samples are clearly warranted before extending our results
very far.
The benefit of a within-subjects design is that more CRM
alliance pairings could be tested without increasing sample
size. This also helps to assure that our results are not due to an
idiosyncratic CRM pairing. The within-subjects design may,
however, increase experimental awareness of the study par-
ticipants. Future research should seek to replicate this work
in a between-subjects design.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We gratefully acknowledge funding from the University of
Colorado at Boulder.
402 BASIL AND HERR

REFERENCES
Aaker, D. A., & Keller, K. L. (1990). Consumer evaluations of
brand exten-
sions. Journal of Marketing, 54(1), 27–41.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator
variable dis-
tinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic,
and statisti-
cal considerations. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 51(6),
1173.
Barone, M. J., Miyazaki, A. D., & Taylor, K. A. (2000). The
influence of
cause-related marketing on consumer choice: Does one good
turn de-
serve another? Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
28(2),
248–262.
Basil, D. Z., & Herr, P. M. (2003). Dangerous donations? The
effects of
cause-related marketing on charity attitude. Journal of
Nonprofit and
Public Sector Marketing, 11(1), 59–76.
Bottomley, P. A., & Holden, S. J. S. (2001). Do we really know
how consum-
ers evaluate brand extensions? Empirical generalizations based
on sec-
ondary analysis of eight studies. Journal of Marketing Research,
38(4),
494–500.

Boush, D. M., & Loken, B. (1991). A process-tracing study of
brand exten-
sion evaluation. Journal of Marketing Research, 28(1), 16–28.
Broniarczyk, S. M., & Alba, J. W. (1994). The importance of
the brand in
brand extension. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(2), 214–
228.
Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1981). Effects of extent of
thought on the
pleasantness ratings of P-O-X triads: Evidence for three
judgmental ten-
dencies in evaluating social situations. Journal of Personality
and Social
Psychology, 40, 1000–1009.
Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition.
Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 42(1), 116–131.
Calder, B. J., Phillips, L. W., & Tybout, A. M. (1981).
Designing research for
application. Journal of Consumer Research, 8(2), 197–208.
Cartwright, D., & Harary, F. (1956). Structural balance: A
generalization of
Heider’s theory. Psychological Review, 63, 277–293.
Cone/Roper. (1999). Cause-Related Trends Report. Boston:
Cone, Inc.
Roper Starch Worldwide, Inc.
Dacin, P. A., & Smith, D. C. (1994). The effect of brand
portfolio character-
istics on consumer evaluations of brand extensions. Journal of

Marketing
Research, 31(2), 229–242.
Dean, D. H. (2004). Consumer perception of corporate
donations. Journal of
Advertising, 32(4), 91–102.
Deshpande, S., & Hitchon, J. (2002). Ethical implications of use
of cause-re-
lated marketing ads in the light of negative news. Journalism
and Mass
Communication Quarterly, 79(4), 905–926.
Hamlin, R. P., & Wilson, T. (2004). The impact of cause
branding on con-
sumer reactions to products: Does product/cause “fit” really
matter? Jour-
nal of Marketing Management 20(7&8), 663.
Heider, F. (1946). Attitudes and cognitive organization. Journal
of Psychol-
ogy, 21, 107–112.
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations.
New York:
Wiley.
Herr, P. M., Farquhar, P. H., & Fazio, R. H. (1996). Impact of
dominance and
relatedness on brand extensions. Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 5(2),
135–159.
Jordan, N. (1953). Behavioral forces that are a function of
attitudes and of
cognitive organization. Human Relations, 6, 273–287.

Judd, C. M., Kenny, D. A., & McClelland, G. H. (2001).
Estimating and test-
ing mediation and moderation in within-subject designs.
Psychological
Methods, 6, 115–134.
Lafferty, B. A., & Goldsmith, R. E. (2005). Cause-brand
alliances: Does the
cause help the brand or does the brand help the cause? Journal
of Business
Research, 58(4), 423.
Lafferty, B. A., Goldsmith, R. E., & Hult, T. M. (2004). The
impact of the al-
liance on the partners: A look at cause-brand alliances.
Psychology &
Marketing, 21(7), 509–531.
Lichtenstein, D. R., Drumwright, M. E., & Braig, B. M. (2004).
The effect of
corporate social responsibility on customer donations to
corporate-sup-
ported nonprofits. Journal of Marketing, 68(4), 16.
Menon, S., & Kahn, B. E. (2003). Corporate sponsorships of
philanthropic
activities: When do they impact perception of sponsor brand?
Journal of
Consumer Psychology, 13(3), 316–327.
Olsen, G. D., & Pracejus, J. (2004). Integration of positive and
negative af-
fective stimuli. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(4), 374–
384.

Osgood, C. E., & Tannenbaum, P. H. (1955). The principle of
congruity in
the prediction of attitude change. Psychological Review, 61,
42–55.
Pham, M. T. (2002). The logic of feeling. Journal of Consumer
Psychology,
14(4), 360–369.
PMA/Gable Group. (2000). Survey of cause marketing.
Retrieved October
19, 2001, from http://www.pmalink.org
Priester, J. R., Godek, J., Nayakankuppum, D. J., & Kiwan, P.
(2004). Brand
congruity and comparative advertising: When and why
comparative ad-
vertisements lead to greater elaboration. Journal of Consumer
Psychol-
ogy, 14(1&2), 115–123.
Sankar, S., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2001). Does doing good
always lead to
doing better? Consumer reactions to corporate social
responsibility. Jour-
nal of Marketing Research, 38(2), 225–243.
Simonin, B. L., & Ruth, J. A. (1998). Is a company known by
the company it
keeps? Assessing the spillover effects of brand alliances on
consumer
brand attitudes. Journal of Marketing Research, 35(1), 30–42.
Speed, R., & Thompson, P. (2000). Determinants of sports
sponsorship re-
sponse. Academy of Marketing Science Journal, 28(2), 226–

238.
Strahilevitz, M., & Myers, J. G. (1998). Donations to charity as
purchase in-
centives: How well they work may depend on what you are
trying to sell.
Journal of Consumer Psychology, 24(4), 434–446.
Szykman, L. R., Bloom, P. N., & Blazing, J. (2004). Does
corporate sponsor-
ship of a socially-oriented message make a difference? An
investigation
of the effects of sponsorship identity on responses to an anti -
drinking and
driving message. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(1&2),
13–20.
Yechiam, E., Barron, G., Erev, I., & Erez, M. (2003). On the
robustness and
the direction of the effect of cause-related marketing. Journal of
Con-
sumer Behaviour, 2(4), 320.
APPENDIX
Subjects rated their attitudes toward the following atti -
tude-formation statements on 11-point Likert scales. The av-
erage rating for each statement was then compared against
the scale midpoint (5), using a one-sample t test (or z test).
Mean scores significantly below five indicate statements that
generated negative attitudes. Mean scores significantly
above 5 indicate statements that generated positive attitudes.
Statements not significantly different from five represent
neutral attitudes. Each organizational profile contained three
valenced statements (positive or negative) and two neutral
statements.

Charity Statements
Average volunteer tenure is over 5 years, M = 7.0, t = 6.5, p <
.0001
Average volunteer tenure is 3 months, M = 4.2, t = 4.3, p <
.0001
http://www.pmalink.org
In an organization-wide survey, volunteers ranked their job
satisfaction as “very high”, on average, M = 8.3, t = 16.6, p <
.0001
In an organization-wide survey, volunteers ranked their job
satisfaction as “somewhat low”, on average, M = 2.7, t =
12.2, p < .0001
An independently conducted survey of those charity X has
worked to help demonstrated very high levels of satisfaction,
M = 8.5, t = 15.6, p < .0001
An independently conducted survey of those Charity X has
worked to help demonstrated low to moderate levels of satis -
faction, M = 3.3, t = 6.8, p < .0001
An industry consortium of charities voted to honor the presi -
dent of Charity X for his exceptional management, M = 7.4, t
= 8.6, p < .0001
The president of Charity X is under investigation for misuse
of organization funds, M = 1.2, t = 18.2, p < .0001
Charity X has been operating for over 50 years, M = 7.9, t =

12.1, p < .0001
Charity X has been operating for almost 1 year, M = 4.5, t =
2.5, p = .016
Charity X was voted best overall charity by a consortium of
charities in their field, M = 8.6, t = 16.1, p < .0001
Charity X has not received any honors from the consortium
of charities, M = 4.3, t = 3.2, p = .003
Charity X has never been reported to the Better Business Bu-
reau for inappropriate fund-raising methods, M = 7.2, t = 6.6,
p < .0001
The Better Business Bureau recently received several com-
plaints regarding fund-raising methods of Charity X, M =
1.9, t = 13.4, p < .0001
Less than 10% of all funds donated go toward overhead, M =
7.4, t = 8.6, p < .0001
Approximately 50% of all funds donated go toward over-
head, M = 3.6, t = 4.9, p < .0001
Charity X operates in eight states, M = 5.4, t = 1.8, p = .078
Charity X has been in operation for 6 years, M = 5.6, t = 2.6, p
= .012
Charity X is headquartered in Tucson, Arizona, M = 5.1, t =
.62, p = .54
Firm Statements

Average employee tenure is over 5 years, M = 6.3, t = 5.3, p <
.0001
In a firm-wide survey, employees ranked their job satisfac-
tion as “very high”, on average, M = 8.5, t = 21.4, p < .0001
Average employee tenure is 3 months, M = 2.9, t = 8.5, p <
.0001
In an organization-wide survey, employees ranked their job
satisfaction as “somewhat low”, on average, M = 2.5, t =
14.9, p < .0001
An independently conducted survey of customers demon-
strated very high levels of customer satisfaction, M = 8.1, t =
13.5, p < .0001
An industry consortium of businesses voted to honor the
president of Firm Y for his exceptional management, M =
7.5, t = 13.5, p < .0001
The president of Firm Y is under investigation for misuse of
corporate funds, M = 1.7, t = 17.6, p < .0001
Firm Y has been operating for over 50 years, M = 7.7, t =
12.3, p < .0001
Firm Y has been operating for almost 1 year, M = 4.6, t = 3.6,
p < .005
Industry analysts have ranked Firm Y as the best overall in-
vestment in its industry, M = 8.3, t = 14.6, p < .0001
Firm Y has never been ranked by industry analysts, M = 5.3, t
= .9, p < .4

Firm Y has never been reported to the Better Business Bu-
reau for inappropriate marketing methods, M = 6.6, t = 5.2, p
< .0001
The Better Business Bureau recently received several com-
plaints regarding marketing methods of Firm Y, M = 2.5, t =
13.8, p < .0001
Firm Y uses only the highest-quality materials/ingredients in
all aspects of production, M = 7.7, t = 10.2, p < .0001
The ingredients and materials used by Firm Y minimally
meet legal requirements, M = 3.8, t = 4.5, p < .0001
Firm Y operates in eight states, M = 5.7, t = 4.3, p < .0001
Firm Y has been in business for 6 years, M = 5.6, t = 4.8, p <
.0001
Firm Y is headquartered in Tucson, Arizona, M = 4.9, t = .5, p
< .6
Substantive Ethics
I found this article by Mark S. Blodgett to be quite
refreshing and informative in terms of the new perspectives
being presented. In the article, the issue being presented is the
differences between ethics and law within corporate programs.
It is an interesting issue that not many seem to think about when
mentioning business rules and regulations. Moreover, ethics and
law are typically viewed as two completely separate things, but
the author digresses. Blodgett believes that in order to better
integrate ethical codes and legal terms into a corporation, both

entities should be viewed as one and the same. This is a fair
point because as mentioned in the article, ethical codes are used
by more than 90% of companies today, yet law has not really
sunken into businesses as much as it should. Also, as mentioned
in the text, legal obligations can be easily ignored by business
executives simply because they are ignorant of the laws that are
proposed. This is another huge factor as to why laws and ethics
should be two sides of the same coin and not be viewed as
differences.
It must be mentioned that I do agree with the author and
what the articles findings suggested. Both legal and ethical
approaches should be taken when considering corporations and
businesses in order to integrate a more fluent and
accommodable environment. Additionally, I can imagine this
study was a long and difficult one as over twenty different
compliance areas were assessed in order to compile an accurate
study. Not only that, the term frequencies needed to be
operationally defined correctly which is no easy feat.
Overall, I feel this study is a very helpful and useful one
not only for corporate business, but for anyone in the
workplace. Legal obligations must be enforced but at the same
time ethical codes must be placed so that businesses may
prosper in a healthy way.
Justice at the Millennium
This article by Colquitt et al. was very interesting and
insightful on the topic of justice and fairness. Before reading
this study, I did not even consider what defines justice or how
fairness is accounted for. The authors are correct when stating
that we only judge something as just based on past research and
experiences and I found this quite interesting. Furthermore, the
authors found research studies dating back to 1975 up to the
date of publication in order to see just how much things have
changed in terms of the workplace. When considering this, it
was a great choice to conduct this study as a meta-analysis to
see the key differences between older definitions of justice, and
a modern take on the concept. Between all this time, lots of

rules and regulations have been implemented into what defines
justice and more specifically, into the workplace. This study
mainly focuses on how justice today plays a role in an
organizational point of view rather than a courtroom, which can
relate to a lot more people. Rightfully so, the researchers
proposed three important questions to take into consideration
when analyzing all the different types of articles over the years.
Personally, I believe this meta-analysis is very important
for anyone in the workplace because the questions posed by the
researchers are prominent issues in today’s society. For
instance, an employee may have more than one boss and those
bosses may define fairness in differing ways. A study like this
may help both bosses come to a happy medium and decide on
whatever the employee has done as fair or not. Even more so,
thousands of new individuals are entering the workforce every
month and with increasing demand for jobs comes new
accommodations for what defines as just. Again, I cannot stress
enough how important this study is to those already in the
workplace or to those who are looking to make a change into
any work environment.

CLC - Productivity Measurement Rubric Benchmarking Data

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to CLC - Productivity Measurement Rubric Benchmarking Data

Similar to CLC - Productivity Measurement Rubric Benchmarking Data (20)

More from WilheminaRossi174

More from WilheminaRossi174 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

CLC - Productivity Measurement Rubric Benchmarking Data