Corporate Social Responsibility Communicaton
Lecture 2 – Theoretcal rameeork (artcle and 10)
Introduction in social idnntity thnory alnd social idnntifcaltion
Basis of social idnntifcaltion: “The percepton of oneness eith or belongingness to an organizatonn
ehere the individual defnes him or herself in terms of the organizaton(s) in ehich he or she is a
member.”
Both artcles are based on the social idnntity thnory: “Why do group members malign other groups
and ehat makes people so ofen believe that their oen group is beter than the other?”
Your social identty is your consciousness that you belong to a partcular group and to be treated by
other as such. You and your group have a certain (desired) self-image and you are identfed by other
as unique. Social identty is about: I’m proud to be part of a group versus. I don’t like them.
There are teo functons of social identfcaton: self-categorizaton and self-enhancement.
Why is it important to knoe that you identfy eith someonen a group or an organizaton? You
connect eith an organizatonn and it can enhance performance. It all has to do that it has positve
outcomes: for yourself as eell as for the company.
Tajfel already found a frst anseer on the above queston in the early 70s of the last century by the
means of the so-called ‘minimal group studies’. High school students eere divided into toe groups
‘fair conditons’:
On the basis of an estmate of number of points on a (computer) screen (pixels).
Or on the basis of the preference for one of the painters
The real division eas random! Afer the division in teo groups every student had to give credit points
(associated eith small money amount) to an anonymous member of both their oen group as eell as
the other group.
The result eas that even in minimal conditons ehere students do not knoe each other and had
never metn there eas in-group falvoring. In other eordsn students eere more motvated to realize the
relatve gain of their oen group versus another group than their oen absolute individual gain.
As of thenn the social identty theory eas born.
Social identty theory (SIT) stll lef open some questons: “one important limitaton of SIT is that it
offers a relatvely underdeveloped analysis of the cognitve processes associated eith social idnntity
sal inncn.”
Sn f-caltngorizaltion theory: identty salience says something about the visibility of your (social)
identty. There are different context ehere you have different kind of identtes. When you feel (in
ehich contexts):
A student at Tilburg University?
A supporter of an associaton?
A member of a hockey club?
1
,Self-categorizaton:
Depersonalizaton: from self-identty to social identty.
Prototypes: specifc persons eho are representatve for the group (a specifc group in the
Netherlands does criminal actvites).
Categoriesn context and multple identtes.
Sn f-nnhalncnmnnt: to gain en preserve a positve self image. When you belong to a specifc groupn
that has a positve prototypen it makes you feel beter. You are going to be happier because you are
part of the einning team.
You can also use social identty to explain human behavior:
We Dutch versus those refugees/ asylum seekers.
We Brits versus them Europe.
We Trump supporters versus those Clinton supporters.
We ant black Piet versus them pro black Piet.
But also in a CSR context:
If you identfy eith a CSR company or brandn ehich are doing a good jobn you can believe that you are
doing a good job as eell. So ehy people mostly identfy eith a brand? This is because of self-
enhancement. It makes you feel beter.
Artic n 4. Snn alnd Bhaltalchalryal (200001):0 Dons doing good al aalys nald to doing bntnr?
Consumnr rnalctions to corporaltn social rnsponsibi ity.
Theme 2: Consumer responses to a company’s CSR
Exam questons about artcle are about the introducton theory or the discussion secton (not about
method or resultsn No specifc questons on mediators/mediators in exam).
Why did Sen & Bhatacharya (2001) conduct their study? Because there eere only four studies of
ehich only one eas explicitly linking consumer responses to CSR.
The aim of the study (Sen & Bhatacharyan 2001) is to understand ehenn hoen and ehy consumers
react to CSR by focusing on both some key moderators of consumers’ CSR responses and the
mechanisms underlying these responses (mediators).
2
,They focused on the folloeing topics:
CSR informaton
Nee product quality informaton
CSR support
Consumer – Company Congruence (social identty theory en person-organizaton ft)
CSR Domains (relevant – irrelevant)
CSR-CA beliefs
Company evaluaton and purchase intenton (as product evaluaton)
Only focusing on the blue ones.
What kind of defniton do Sen & Bhatacharya (2001) elaborate on? They use a largen societal viee of
CSR adopted by Broen and Dacin (1997n p.68) as the company’s “status and actvites eith respect to
[i.e. responsiveness to] its perceived societal obligatons.”
CSR Domains
They use the division of the Socrates database. This database reduces the CSR initatves into six
broad domains:
Community support (e.g.n support of arts and health programsn educatonal and housing
initatves for the economically disadvantagedn generous/innovatve giving).
Diversity (e.g.n sex-n race-n family-n sexual orientaton-n and disability based diversity record
and initatvesn or lack thereofn eithin and outside the frm).
Employee support (e.g.n concern for safetyn job securityn proft sharingn union relatonsn
employee involvement).
Environment (e.g.n environment-friendly productsn hazardous-easte managementn use of
ozone-depletng chemicalsn animal testngn polluton controln recycling).
Non-U.S. operatons (e.g.n overseas labor practcesn operatons in countries eith human
rights violatons).
Product (e.g.n product safetyn research and development/innovatonn marketng/contractng
controversiesn anttrust disputes).
CA-CSR beliefs
Corporaltn albi ity is concerned eith associatons related to company’s expertse in producing and
delivering its outputs. E.g.n product qualityn market leadershipn innovatonn R&D.
Corporaltn social rnsponsibi ity is concerned eith the organizaton’s status and actvites eith respect
to its perceived societal obligatons.
Expectatons: consumers eho think that more CSR also is associated eith beter quality (ein-ein) alrn
different from consumers eho think more CSR eill lead to less quality (because they have to invest in
CSR). Different kind of consumersn different kind of perceptonsn different kind of outcomes.
Contralst nfncts: ehen something happens that you don’t expect:
A company has a good track record on innovatonn and then you expect a high quality nee
product/service. If the quality is loen this does not meet your expectaton and you’ll be extra
disappointed.
Even more contrastng is a company that has a loe reputaton on innovaton and introduces a high-
level nee product/ service. Broen and Dacin (1997) then assume that the evaluaton of the nee
product is even more positven since consumers don’t expect a high quality product. Sen and
Bhatacharya (2001) expect similar processes for CSRn also dependent on the level of involvement of
consumer in CSR.
What did Sen & Bhatacharya (2001) expect?
3
, The model says that CSR Informaton is the manipulaton (positven negatven neutral) that has
influence on the C-C congruence you have eith the company and that eill lead to a positve company
evaluaton. C-C congruence is the mediaton beteeen CSR informaton and the company evaluaton.
But the CSR support is a moderator. So the result also depends on hoe much you support CSR.
The second manipulaton is ehen a company comes eith a high quality product versus a loe quality
product
It’s a very complex model. Not going to ask about moderator/mediatorn but about the theory and the
general conclusion of the artcle.
What did Sen & Bhatacharya (2001) do?
They did teo experiments:
Study 1
ocused on CSR-company evaluaton relatonship. 277 MBA students completed the study as
an in-classn paper and pencil exercise.
3 (CSR Recordn positve-negatve-control) X 2 (Nee Product Qualityn high-loe) beteeen-
subjects design.
Diversity as quality irrelevant CSR dimension.
C-C congruence eas measured eith 1) social identfcaton and 2) overlap of 20 values beteeen
organizaton and the self (person-organizaton ft):
1. Social identfcaton (cognitve scale)
2. Overlap personality traits: the difference eith the cognitve scale is in this measure you ask
about different kind of personality trades (ehat do you think is important for the companyn
and ehat do you think is important for yourself? The more they overlapn the more your ft
eith the company). E.g.n actvistn the bestn capablen compassionaten democratcn expertn fairn
high qualityn innovatven a leadern progressiven risk-averse etc.
4
Lecture 2 – Theoretcal rameeork (artcle and 10)
Introduction in social idnntity thnory alnd social idnntifcaltion
Basis of social idnntifcaltion: “The percepton of oneness eith or belongingness to an organizatonn
ehere the individual defnes him or herself in terms of the organizaton(s) in ehich he or she is a
member.”
Both artcles are based on the social idnntity thnory: “Why do group members malign other groups
and ehat makes people so ofen believe that their oen group is beter than the other?”
Your social identty is your consciousness that you belong to a partcular group and to be treated by
other as such. You and your group have a certain (desired) self-image and you are identfed by other
as unique. Social identty is about: I’m proud to be part of a group versus. I don’t like them.
There are teo functons of social identfcaton: self-categorizaton and self-enhancement.
Why is it important to knoe that you identfy eith someonen a group or an organizaton? You
connect eith an organizatonn and it can enhance performance. It all has to do that it has positve
outcomes: for yourself as eell as for the company.
Tajfel already found a frst anseer on the above queston in the early 70s of the last century by the
means of the so-called ‘minimal group studies’. High school students eere divided into toe groups
‘fair conditons’:
On the basis of an estmate of number of points on a (computer) screen (pixels).
Or on the basis of the preference for one of the painters
The real division eas random! Afer the division in teo groups every student had to give credit points
(associated eith small money amount) to an anonymous member of both their oen group as eell as
the other group.
The result eas that even in minimal conditons ehere students do not knoe each other and had
never metn there eas in-group falvoring. In other eordsn students eere more motvated to realize the
relatve gain of their oen group versus another group than their oen absolute individual gain.
As of thenn the social identty theory eas born.
Social identty theory (SIT) stll lef open some questons: “one important limitaton of SIT is that it
offers a relatvely underdeveloped analysis of the cognitve processes associated eith social idnntity
sal inncn.”
Sn f-caltngorizaltion theory: identty salience says something about the visibility of your (social)
identty. There are different context ehere you have different kind of identtes. When you feel (in
ehich contexts):
A student at Tilburg University?
A supporter of an associaton?
A member of a hockey club?
1
,Self-categorizaton:
Depersonalizaton: from self-identty to social identty.
Prototypes: specifc persons eho are representatve for the group (a specifc group in the
Netherlands does criminal actvites).
Categoriesn context and multple identtes.
Sn f-nnhalncnmnnt: to gain en preserve a positve self image. When you belong to a specifc groupn
that has a positve prototypen it makes you feel beter. You are going to be happier because you are
part of the einning team.
You can also use social identty to explain human behavior:
We Dutch versus those refugees/ asylum seekers.
We Brits versus them Europe.
We Trump supporters versus those Clinton supporters.
We ant black Piet versus them pro black Piet.
But also in a CSR context:
If you identfy eith a CSR company or brandn ehich are doing a good jobn you can believe that you are
doing a good job as eell. So ehy people mostly identfy eith a brand? This is because of self-
enhancement. It makes you feel beter.
Artic n 4. Snn alnd Bhaltalchalryal (200001):0 Dons doing good al aalys nald to doing bntnr?
Consumnr rnalctions to corporaltn social rnsponsibi ity.
Theme 2: Consumer responses to a company’s CSR
Exam questons about artcle are about the introducton theory or the discussion secton (not about
method or resultsn No specifc questons on mediators/mediators in exam).
Why did Sen & Bhatacharya (2001) conduct their study? Because there eere only four studies of
ehich only one eas explicitly linking consumer responses to CSR.
The aim of the study (Sen & Bhatacharyan 2001) is to understand ehenn hoen and ehy consumers
react to CSR by focusing on both some key moderators of consumers’ CSR responses and the
mechanisms underlying these responses (mediators).
2
,They focused on the folloeing topics:
CSR informaton
Nee product quality informaton
CSR support
Consumer – Company Congruence (social identty theory en person-organizaton ft)
CSR Domains (relevant – irrelevant)
CSR-CA beliefs
Company evaluaton and purchase intenton (as product evaluaton)
Only focusing on the blue ones.
What kind of defniton do Sen & Bhatacharya (2001) elaborate on? They use a largen societal viee of
CSR adopted by Broen and Dacin (1997n p.68) as the company’s “status and actvites eith respect to
[i.e. responsiveness to] its perceived societal obligatons.”
CSR Domains
They use the division of the Socrates database. This database reduces the CSR initatves into six
broad domains:
Community support (e.g.n support of arts and health programsn educatonal and housing
initatves for the economically disadvantagedn generous/innovatve giving).
Diversity (e.g.n sex-n race-n family-n sexual orientaton-n and disability based diversity record
and initatvesn or lack thereofn eithin and outside the frm).
Employee support (e.g.n concern for safetyn job securityn proft sharingn union relatonsn
employee involvement).
Environment (e.g.n environment-friendly productsn hazardous-easte managementn use of
ozone-depletng chemicalsn animal testngn polluton controln recycling).
Non-U.S. operatons (e.g.n overseas labor practcesn operatons in countries eith human
rights violatons).
Product (e.g.n product safetyn research and development/innovatonn marketng/contractng
controversiesn anttrust disputes).
CA-CSR beliefs
Corporaltn albi ity is concerned eith associatons related to company’s expertse in producing and
delivering its outputs. E.g.n product qualityn market leadershipn innovatonn R&D.
Corporaltn social rnsponsibi ity is concerned eith the organizaton’s status and actvites eith respect
to its perceived societal obligatons.
Expectatons: consumers eho think that more CSR also is associated eith beter quality (ein-ein) alrn
different from consumers eho think more CSR eill lead to less quality (because they have to invest in
CSR). Different kind of consumersn different kind of perceptonsn different kind of outcomes.
Contralst nfncts: ehen something happens that you don’t expect:
A company has a good track record on innovatonn and then you expect a high quality nee
product/service. If the quality is loen this does not meet your expectaton and you’ll be extra
disappointed.
Even more contrastng is a company that has a loe reputaton on innovaton and introduces a high-
level nee product/ service. Broen and Dacin (1997) then assume that the evaluaton of the nee
product is even more positven since consumers don’t expect a high quality product. Sen and
Bhatacharya (2001) expect similar processes for CSRn also dependent on the level of involvement of
consumer in CSR.
What did Sen & Bhatacharya (2001) expect?
3
, The model says that CSR Informaton is the manipulaton (positven negatven neutral) that has
influence on the C-C congruence you have eith the company and that eill lead to a positve company
evaluaton. C-C congruence is the mediaton beteeen CSR informaton and the company evaluaton.
But the CSR support is a moderator. So the result also depends on hoe much you support CSR.
The second manipulaton is ehen a company comes eith a high quality product versus a loe quality
product
It’s a very complex model. Not going to ask about moderator/mediatorn but about the theory and the
general conclusion of the artcle.
What did Sen & Bhatacharya (2001) do?
They did teo experiments:
Study 1
ocused on CSR-company evaluaton relatonship. 277 MBA students completed the study as
an in-classn paper and pencil exercise.
3 (CSR Recordn positve-negatve-control) X 2 (Nee Product Qualityn high-loe) beteeen-
subjects design.
Diversity as quality irrelevant CSR dimension.
C-C congruence eas measured eith 1) social identfcaton and 2) overlap of 20 values beteeen
organizaton and the self (person-organizaton ft):
1. Social identfcaton (cognitve scale)
2. Overlap personality traits: the difference eith the cognitve scale is in this measure you ask
about different kind of personality trades (ehat do you think is important for the companyn
and ehat do you think is important for yourself? The more they overlapn the more your ft
eith the company). E.g.n actvistn the bestn capablen compassionaten democratcn expertn fairn
high qualityn innovatven a leadern progressiven risk-averse etc.
4
