Examining the Moderating Effect of Consumer Skepticism on Guilt Appeals in Cause-Related Marketing

Abstract

Cause-related marketing (CRM) has become an important part of a company’s corporate social responsibility (CSR) efforts. Beyond helping organizations meet their social obligations, CRM also strengthens corporate reputation, shapes brand preferences, and influences consumers’ purchase decisions. To communicate these initiatives, marketers often use different advertising appeals—one of which is the guilt appeal. As a moral emotion that encourages prosocial behavior, guilt can motivate consumers to act in ways that support social causes, making it a powerful tool in both social marketing and CRM. Yet, not all consumers view or respond to CRM messages in the same way. People differ in how they interpret and react to guilt-based messages, and these individual differences can significantly influence the success of such campaigns. One key factor shaping these responses is consumer skepticism. This study examines how skepticism moderates the impact of guilt appeals in CRM. Drawing on an experiment conducted with student participants, the results reveal that consumers with high levels of skepticism react less positively to guilt appeals compared to non-guilt messages. Conversely, consumers who are less skeptical respond more favorably when a guilt appeal is used. By highlighting the moderating role of skepticism, this study deepens our understanding more authentic and effective CRM communications.