Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing ...

This article was downloaded by: [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online UMinho] On: 17 November 2014, At: 14:12 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wnon20

Theoretical Framework of Social Marketing Effectiveness: Drawing the Big Picture on its Functioning a

Julia Thaler & Bernd Helmig

a

a

Department of Business Administration, Public & Nonprofit Management , University of Mannheim , Mannheim , Germany Published online: 25 Aug 2013.

To cite this article: Julia Thaler & Bernd Helmig (2013) Theoretical Framework of Social Marketing Effectiveness: Drawing the Big Picture on its Functioning, Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 25:3, 211-236, DOI: 10.1080/10495142.2013.819708 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10495142.2013.819708

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions

Downloaded by [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online UMinho] at 14:13 17 November 2014

Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 25:211–236, 2013 Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1049-5142 print/1540-6997 online DOI: 10.1080/10495142.2013.819708

Theoretical Framework of Social Marketing Effectiveness: Drawing the Big Picture on its Functioning JULIA THALER and BERND HELMIG Department of Business Administration, Public & Nonprofit Management, University of Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany

Social marketing involves campaigns that aim to change individual behavior as well as prosocial behavior in diverse fields, such as health prevention and environment protection. Restricted public funds, debates about the social responsibilities of governments, nonprofit organizations and societies, as well as financial crises have increased interest in effective social marketing as a means of mitigating existing social problems. This article aims to draw the big picture on social marketing effectiveness by developing its theoretical framework. This framework brings together fragmented findings on social marketing effectiveness and incorporates a framework as a theoretically grounded process from relevant stimuli to intended responses. It provides a basis for further research. Recommendations for improved social marketing campaigns are derived. Managerial implications have great relevance for public and nonprofit management, as social marketing strongly influences the work and mission of public and nonprofit organizations. KEYWORDS social marketing effectiveness, social problems, behavior change, theoretical framework

We have presented prior versions of this article at the annual conference of the International Society for Third-Sector Research (ISTR), Istanbul, and at the Academy of Management Annual Meeting in San Antonio. We thank reviewers and participants for their very helpful suggestions and comments. We gratefully acknowledge the DAAD (German Academic Exchange Service) for supporting our conference participation. Address correspondence to Bernd Helmig, Department of Business Administration, Public & Nonprofit Management, University of Mannheim, L 5, 4, D-68131, Mannheim, Germany. E-mail: [email protected] 211

212

J. Thaler and B. Helmig


INTRODUCTION Social marketing is the adaptation of commercial marketing techniques to analyze, plan, execute, and evaluate programs that aim at influencing the behavior of target audiences (Andreasen, 1993, 1994) in order to have them “voluntarily accept, reject, modify, or abandon a behavior for the benefit of individuals, groups or society as a whole” (Kotler, Roberto, & Lee, 2002, p. 5). This definition includes a possible categorization of the behaviors promoted by social marketing campaigns: individual behavior (“for the benefit of individuals”) and prosocial behavior (for the benefit of particular “groups” and “society as a whole”). Various social marketing campaigns, supported by governments and nonprofit organizations with an interest in or responsibility for improving society, aspire to adjust a behavior (e.g., in the field of health prevention and environmental protection; cf. Alves, 2010). Thereby, an individual has to adjust a behavior, but this is either done for the own benefit (individual behavior) or the benefit of others or the society as a whole (prosocial behavior). Consequently, the notions of individual behavior and prosocial behavior refer to the beneficiaries of the behavior change. In times of restricted funds as well as constantly redefined relationships and responsibilities of public and nonprofit organizations, “funders and policy-makers are increasingly asking for hard evidence of [social marketing] effectiveness” (Gordon, McDermott, & Hastings, 2008, p. 334). Therefore, understanding what constitutes an effective social marketing is of utmost importance and motivates this study. Scholarly researchers have increasingly considered social marketing effectiveness and have particularly been investigating which variables enhance the persuasiveness of social marketing campaigns (Wymer, 2010; Griskevicius, Cant, & van Vugt, 2012; Kubacki, & Siemieniako, 2011). However, effective social marketing must be implemented against a broader societal background (Wymer, 2011), an aspect that can also be derived from the multidisciplinary literature on social marketing effectiveness ranging from health research, psychology, public policy and sociology to marketing. By the 1950s, sociologists were already focusing on social marketing (Wiebe, 1951); the marketing perspective followed a couple of decades later with the debate on broadening the concept of marketing (Kotler & Levy, 1969). Consequently, a multidisciplinary perspective is needed to capture social marketing effectiveness. The multidisciplinary research field is characterized by its fragmentation both regarding selective theoretical perspectives and diverse empirical findings (Lefebvre, 2001) as well as a lack of conceptual and operational definitions (cf. Thakeray, Fulkerson, & Neiger, 2012). For example Rothschild (1999) analyzed the usefulness of education marketing and law according to an individual’s motivation to change a behavior, the opportunity as well as the ability. However, existing literature on social marketing effectiveness lacks one combined theoretical framework explaining the broad picture of


Theoretical Framework of Social Marketing Effectiveness

213

social marketing effectiveness as a process model that links diverse social marketing stimuli with social marketing outcomes as mediated by individual cognition and emotion. A complete and clear understanding of a phenomenon can only be derived from theory building (Weick, 1995; Whetten, 1989). Against this background, this study attempts to combine existing knowledge about the process leading to social marketing effectiveness by analyzing multiple established theoretical perspectives previously used in the broader context of social marketing and empirical findings (Research Objective 1). The current research aims at integrating selective findings into one encompassing theoretical framework of social marketing effectiveness (Research Objective 2). This theoretical framework leads to a better understanding of social marketing effectiveness, encourages further research, and offers managerial implications for social marketers, public and nonprofit managers, and policy makers as they are all playing an important role for social marketing (cf. Peattie, Peattie, & Clarke, 2001). To attain these research goals, this paper begins by explaining the relevance of theory building that is useful for developing a theoretical framework. This study presents an overview of relevant factors and established theoretical perspectives in the field of social marketing effectiveness. This overview serves as the basis for the theoretical framework.

BACKGROUND ON THEORY BUILDING The importance of theory building and testing in the nonprofit field (Hodgkinson & Painter, 2003; Hustinx, Cnaan, & Handy, 2010; Salamon & Anheier, 1998a; Taylor, 2002) has been widely acknowledged, particularly due to its interdisciplinarity (e.g., Brandsen, 2009; Heurlin, 2010; Kramer, 2000; Salamon & Anheier, 1998b). As argued herein, the field of social marketing effectiveness as part of the broader nonprofit research needs theory building in the sense of an integrative theoretical framework. In academic research, a debate continues about the distinction between models and theories (Sutton & Staw, 1995) and the characteristics of theory (DiMaggio, 1995; Hunt, 1983; Weick, 1995). As we base the theoretical framework on multiple established theoretical perspectives including both theories and models, we rely on the designation chosen by their respective authors and focus on the partial contribution made regarding social marketing effectiveness. This research adopts the broad consensus that data, diagrams, and hypotheses are not equivalent to theory (Sutton & Staw, 1995). Theory building and thus the development of a theoretical framework goes hand in hand with the discussion of what constitutes theoretical contributions (Corley & Gioia, 2011). This question has particular relevance for management and marketing, as well as for findings from sociology, psychology, economy, political science, and communication, because all


214


these disciplines attempt to explain related phenomena (Okhysen & Bonardi, 2011). First, a theoretical contribution must determine the relevant factors (i.e., variables, constructs, concepts) of an analyzed phenomenon. Second, researchers can focus on the relationships of these identified relevant factors (Sutton & Staw, 1995; Weick, 1989). Third, theoretical research must justify the selected factors and their relationships through reflection of underlying psychological, economic, and social phenomena. Fourth, the boundaries of generalizability and the range of the theory should be set by temporal and contextual factors (Whetten, 1989). This work’s theoretical contribution to the field of social marketing effectiveness is the development of a theoretical framework built primarily on a combination of established theoretical perspectives but also on empirical findings. This study identifies relevant factors in the context of social marketing effectiveness taking into consideration secondary data and theoretical knowledge. The relationships between the identified relevant factors are explained by combining partial knowledge derived from explanatory models or theories so far used in the context of social marketing. Eventually, this theoretical framework includes contextual factors defining its boundaries of generalizability. Therefore, we categorize identified factors according to the well-known and valuable stimulus-organism-response paradigm (Woodworth, 1948) to cover the entire process from social marketing stimuli to the outcome of social marketing effectiveness. Thus, based on an integrative literature analysis, this work makes a significant contribution bringing together in one theoretical framework all elements relevant for achieving social marketing effectiveness.

RELEVANT FACTORS AND UNDERLYING THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES As mentioned previously, sociologists were the first to deal with social marketing. Over time, social marketing studies have been conducted in the fields of social psychology, behavioral science in general, and health behavior in particular, as well as marketing. A systematically established database of published academic research on social marketing effectiveness (Helmig & Thaler, 2010) served as basis for identifying factors relevant for the process of social marketing effectiveness as well as their theoretical roots. The literature review’s database reveals research in all of the aforementioned disciplines. Table 1 gives an overview of these key factors categorized according to the stimulus-organism-response framework. Table 1 also reflects the used explanatory theoretical perspectives as well as their respective fields of origin. Thus, it includes the information about what factors can be extracted from existing theoretical perspectives (Weick, 1995). As social marketing

215

• Perceived self-efficacy • Emotional reactions

• Perceived severity and susceptibility • Protection motivation

• Fear appeals

Social learning/cognitive theory (SCT) (Bandura, 1969; 1991) Protection motivation theory (PMT) (Rogers, 1975)

• Behavioral change

• Attitude change

(Continued)

• Social psychology/behavioral science • Communication • Mostly related to health issues

• Social psychology/behavioral science • Explain learning and development

• Social psychology/behavioral science • Explain human behavior in general

• Intention to change Theory of planned behavior (TPB) • Behavioral change (Ajzen, 1991)

• Belief-related variables (behavioral, normative and control beliefs) • Attitude toward behavior • Subjective norms • Perceived control

Origin and field of application • Social psychology/behavioral science • Explain human behavior in general

Theoretical perspective (selected authors)

• Intention to change Theory of reasoned action (TRA) • Behavioral change (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975)

Response

• Belief-related variables (behavioral and normative beliefs) • Attitude toward behavior • Subjective norms

Organism

• Observational learning

Stimuli

TABLE 1 Key Factors and Underlying Theoretical Perspectives


216

• Stressor

Motivation, opportunity, ability framework (MOA) (Batra & Ray, 1986)

Transtheoretical model of change (TMC) (Prochaska & DiClemente, 1983)

• Behavioral and Transactional model of stress and coping emotional outcomes (TMSC) (Bagozzi & Moore, 1994)

• Behavior change

• Motivation • Opportunity • Ability

• Cognitive appraisals • Emotional reactions • Coping

• Behavior change

• Different personal stages of motivation to comply

Health belief model (HBM) (Janz & Becker, 1984; Janz et al., 2002)

Extended parallel process model (EPPM) (Witte, 1992)

• Behavior change

• Behavior change

• Emotional and cognitive reactions • Efficacy appraisal • Threat appraisal • Fear • Protection motivation • Defensive motivation

• Fear appeals

Ordered protection motivation model (OPMM) (Tanner et al., 1991)

Theoretical perspective (selected authors)

• Behavior change

Response

• Personal characteristics • Perceived susceptibility to and severity of disease • Perceived threat • Perceived benefits and perceived barriers

• Emotional and cognitive reactions • Threat appraisal • Fear • Coping appraisal • Protection motivation

Organism

• Observational learning • Exposure and experience • Fear appeals

Stimuli

TABLE 1 (Continued)

• Psychology

• Behavioral science, marketing • Communication (advertising)

• Social psychology/behavioral science • Focus on health behavior

• Social psychology/behavioral science • Focus on health behavior



Origin and field of application


217

• Campaigns • Marketing mix variables (product, price, place, and promotion)

• Attitude change • Behavior change

• Central and peripheral routes • Attitude change of processing • Behavioral change

• Advertisement/campaigns • Framing determinants • Campaign characteristics (e.g., scope and targeting) • Marketing mix variables (product, price, place, and promotion)

• Conative reaction • Purchase

• Cognitive reactions • Affective reactions

• Advertisement/campaigns

Attention, interest, desire, action model (AIDA) (Strong, 1925)

Elaboration likelihood model (ELM) (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986)

Hierarchy of effects model (HEM) (Lavidge & Steiner, 1961)

• Marketing • Communication (advertising)

• Social psychology • Marketing • Communication (advertising) and persuasion in general

• Marketing: advertising effects



218


deals with an individual’s behavior change for the benefit of individuals and for the benefit of particular groups and society as a whole, social psychology/behavioral science is the mostly used theoretical perspective on social marketing besides marketing theory. This first step of our analysis gives an overview of what we already know about social marketing effectiveness by identifying relevant factors, as well as their theoretical underpinnings. A bench of variables could be detected as relevant factors for social marketing effectiveness. Observational learning, experience, fear appeals and campaigns in general can serve as stimuli. Mediating factors inside the organism include a variety of cognitive and emotional reactions as well as individual levels of motivation or individual routes of information processing. As response factors attitude, intention and behavior change could be identified. The theoretical underpinnings help explain the relationships between these relevant factors. This reveals that existing theoretical perspectives contribute to the understanding of the process of social marketing effectiveness by partially explaining it. Moreover, some of these theoretical perspectives have already been related to others in order to broaden the explanatory power of one theory or model. This holds true, for example, for the theory of planned behavior as an enlarged version of the theory of reasoned action or the ordered protection motivation model as an extended version of the protection motivation theory. As the theoretical perspectives are to a large extent rooted in social psychology, a strong focus on the individual organism can be observed. Stimuli have been analyzed to a smaller extent and without a combined focus on diverse campaign characteristics and personal experience. Regarded separately, the existing theoretical underpinnings fall short in explaining the complete process of social marketing effectiveness from any kind of stimuli via factors inside the organism to responses. In order to enhance social marketing effectiveness, an integrated approach taking into consideration all relevant factors and their potential relationships is needed. Therefore, the hereafter developed theoretical framework of social marketing goes beyond a pure addition of existing partial approaches but it also formulates clear propositions (Eisenhardt & Bourgeois, 1988) on the functioning of social marketing effectiveness. By combining diverse disciplines, although not as multidisciplinary as expected (see Table 1 column “Origin and field of application”), this theoretical framework constitutes the basis for social marketing implemented against the needed broader background (cf. Wymer, 2011).

TOWARD A THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK OF SOCIAL MARKETING EFFECTIVENESS The hereafter-developed theoretical framework of social marketing effectiveness consists of propositions that explain the relationships between


219


identified key factors in the process of creating social marketing effectiveness. In line with the stimulus-organism-response paradigm, social marketing stimuli serve as the starting point for describing the theoretical framework, followed by factors inside the organism. Lastly, the response factors will be analyzed. Figure 1 illustrates the proposed theoretical framework of social marketing effectiveness.

Social Marketing Stimuli Social learning/cognitive theory, protection motivation theory, the ordered protection motivation model as well as the extended parallel process model, the transactional model of stress and coping as well as the hierarchy of effects model, the elaboration likelihood model or the attention, interest, desire, action model all focus on specific stimuli causing individual processing (see Table 1). The ordered protection motivation model (Tanner, Hunt, & Eppright, 1991) and extended parallel process model (Witte, 1992) included different stimuli within one theoretical perspective. This theoretical framework also considers a variety of stimuli in the context of social marketing. First of all, this is caused by the fact that social marketing has to be regarded against a broad societal influence (Wymer, 2011). Moreover, persuading a person to do something (e.g., change a behavior in the context of social marketing) depends on central and/or peripheral information processing as cognitive processes (Petty & Cacioppo, 1981; Petty, Cacioppo, & Schumann, 1983). People vary in their use of central or peripheral modes of processing (Braverman, 2008; Cacioppo & Petty, 1982; Cacioppo, Petty, Feinstein, & Jarvis, 1996; Dunlop, Wakefield, & Kashima, 2010) and thus react to different stimuli in different ways. Findings from the ordered protection motivation model, extended parallel process model, and social cognitive theory indicate the importance of personal experience and prior behavior, such as prior environmentally protective or destructive behavior, together with observational learning, education and exposure to certain behaviors, which all represent stimuli in the context of social marketing (Bandura, 1991; Tanner et al., 1991; Witte 1992). Following Hoyer and MacInnis (2010) these stimuli constitute explicit (conscious) and implicit (unconscious) memories. Thus, we propose: Explicit and implicit memories affect the cognitive process within the individual organism (Proposition 1A).

P1A can be refined with additional details about the aforementioned stimuli as sources of explicit and implicit memory (Huang & Hutchinson, 2008; Whittlesea &Wright, 1997). To assess personal experience, we turn to the ordered protection motivation model (Tanner et al., 1991) and extended parallel process model (Witte, 1992), which show that it can influence social

FIGURE 1 Theoretical Framework of Social Marketing Effectiveness


220 J. Thaler and B. Helmig



221

marketing effectiveness. This contribution has been empirically validated for prior trial behavior (e.g., smoking, alcohol drinking, waste recycling) as a specific form of personal experience (Arthur & Quester, 2004; Basil & Brown, 1997; Beltramini, 1988; Best et al., 1984; Chaudhuri & Ray, 2004; Montaño & Taplin, 1991; Tangari et al., 2007; Traeen, 1990). According to social cognitive theory, observational learning also must be taken into consideration besides the already mentioned personal experience (Bandura, 1991; Baranowski, Perry, & Parcel, 2002). Observational learning is based on exposure to a certain behavior (e.g., smoking parents) as well as on education (e.g., lessons on healthy eating at school). Social cognitive theory represents an extended version of social learning theory (Rosenstock, Strecher, & Becker, 1988), which shows that observational learning causes attentional, retentional, reproductive, and motivational processes that lead to behavioral adaptations (Bandura, 1969). In the context of social marketing effectiveness, we conclude: Both experience (Proposition 1A1 ) and education or observational learning (Proposition 1A2 ) affect explicit and implicit memory.

Having explained the key variables of explicit and implicit memory, we now turn to a second group of stimuli affecting the individual organism. Protection motivation theory, the ordered protection motivation model, and the extended parallel process model emphasize the importance of a certain appeal that can initiate individual information processing (Rogers, 1975; Tanner et al., 1991; Witte, 1992). Moreover, marketing theory is based on the idea that appeals (e.g., in advertisements or other instruments of marketing campaigns) draw attention and consequently start a process leading to buying behavior. For the context of social marketing, we propose: Appeals affect the cognitive process within the individual organism (Proposition 1B).

Besides the given theoretical foundation of P1B, we note that appeals both within real social marketing campaigns or as part of experimental stimuli provide an important aspect in existing research on social marketing effectiveness. Appeals as stimuli can be refined further. In accordance with Andreasen’s (2002) social marketing criteria, the effectiveness of social marketing campaigns as appeals depends on the implementation of the marketing mix: the development of a product or idea to change behaviors; the description of the price in terms of barriers to change and needed efforts; decisions about the promotion, including the use of individual or mass communication with or without interactive elements; and a determination of place, such as which media channel to use. For example, with regard to communication channels, empirical findings indicate that mass media campaigns


222


as well as interactive elements positively affect social marketing effectiveness (e.g., Bauman et al., 1991; Biener, Gilpin, & Albers, 2004; Friend & Levy, 2002; Tobler & Stratton, 1997). Besides marketing mix variables, a campaign’s scope and its target group as general campaign characteristics affect social marketing effectiveness (cf. Scammon et al., 2011). Regarding scope, a comparison of a statewide versus a community-based campaign reveals that the former has a greater impact on social marketing effectiveness (Friend & Levy, 2002). Diverse studies also confirm the relevance of targeting (e.g., Gray & Bean, 2011; Hawkins & Hane, 2000; Talbert, 2008). From a theoretical perspective, the transtheoretical model of change explains the need of targeting as it highlights that people differ according to their stage of change, including their preparedness or willingness to change their behaviors (Prochaska & DiClemente, 1983; Prochaska & Velicer, 1997; Prochaska, Redding, & Evers, 2002). We derive: Both marketing mix variables (Proposition 1B1 ) and general campaign characteristics (Proposition 1B2 ) affect appeals.

To complete the discussion of appeals as stimuli, this research looks more closely at the details of these appeals within real campaigns or as part of experimental stimuli, besides the already mentioned relevance of marketing mix variables and general campaign characteristics. Protection motivation theory and its extended versions (i.e., the ordered protection motivation model and the extended parallel process model), show that fear appeals might be an important starting point of the process of social marketing effectiveness. Combining this knowledge with the elaboration likelihood model that individuals elaborate on different types of information in diverse manner, fear cannot be the only effective presentation of appeals. Also the transtheoretical model of change confirms the relevance of considering personal differences that call for appeals formulated in different ways. This is in line with the idea of framing that means “to select some aspects of a perceived reality and make them more salient in a communicating text, in such a way as to promote a particular problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or treatment recommendation for the item described” (Entnam, 1993, p. 52), such that it specifies how and what kind of information gets communicated (Levin, Schneider, & Gaeth, 1998; Scheufele, 1999). Fear appeals can thus be classified into one group of framing determinants that is tonality: emotional versus rational messages with varying threat levels (e.g., Jones & Owen, 2006; Samu & Bhatnagar, 2008; Tanner, Carlson, Raymond, & Hopkins, 2008). Besides tonality, social marketing research highlights framing direction, such as positively or negatively formulated messages (e.g., Block & Keller, 1995; Shao, 2012; Zhao & Pechmann, 2007). Few studies deal with social framing, such as self- versus other-referencing (e.g., Reardon & Miller, 2008), or temporal framing, including a focus on short- or


223

long-term consequences (e.g., Smith & Stutts, 2003). Framing-oriented empirical results show their relevance in the context of social marketing effectiveness (e.g., Kemp & Kopp, 2011) but remain diverse (Helmig & Thaler, 2010). Against the theoretical foundation of personal differences, we propose:


Diverse framing determinants affect appeals (Proposition 1B3 ).

The presented propositions 1A1 − 1B3 concretize the stimuli affecting an individual process. As argued herein, social marketing campaigns focus on an individual’s behavior change, although the aspired response may affect both the individual and others or society as a whole.

Processes within the Individual Organism The individual process (organism) describes how targeted persons react to sources of information and the steps they take to reach an intended response. As already mentioned in P1A and P1B, this individual process starts with a cognitive process step. At this process step, compelling arguments along the central or peripheral route are needed (Petty & Cacioppo, 1996) depending on the individual elaboration likelihood (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). In line with the theory of reasoned action and theory of planned behavior, the cognitive reflections entail reflections on the attitudes toward the topic of a campaign (Ajzen, 1991) as well as behavioral beliefs and their evaluations, such as cognitive reflections on the consequences of a certain behavior. Subjective normative beliefs (i.e., the prevailing norms for a specific good or bad behavior; Croson, Handy, & Shang, 2009), and the motivation to comply with good behaviors (Ajzen, 1991; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975) are also included in the individual cognitive reaction. Regarding empirical findings, both these theories have been applied in specific social marketing contexts, such as volunteering (Dolnicar & Randle, 2007; Haski-Leventhal et al., 2008; Lindenmeier, 2008). According to the health belief model, a person reflects on the perceived severity of and susceptibility to potential negative consequences of a bad behavior (Janz, Champion, & Strecher, 2002; cf. D’Souza et al., 2011). A smoker might reflect on the probability of getting lung cancer and its disastrous consequences. The theory of reasoned action and social cognitive theory suggest that reflections on perceived behavioral control (control beliefs and perceived power) and perceived self-efficacy (i.e., beliefs about whether avoiding negative outcomes is up to the person rather than due to an external influence; Bandura, 1977; Lindenmeier & Dietrich, 2011) represent key elements of the first cognitive step. To remain with the given example of a smoker, the perceived behavioral control might be evidenced in a decision to avoid lung cancer by not smoking (Ajzen, 1991; Ajzen & Madden, 1986; Albarracin, Fishbein, & Goldestein de Muchinik, 1997; Bagozzi, 1981; Bandura, 1991; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). Social cognitive theory thus suggests the relevance of perceived self-efficacy on this first


224


individual process step because of its effect on people’s ability to achieve behavioral changes. According to the health belief model, protection motivation theory, the ordered protection motivation model, and the extended parallel process model, the described cognitive reflections lead to emotional reactions such as perceptions of threat (Rogers, 1975; Tanner et al., 1991; Witte, 1992), which get modified by social, psychological, and demographic variables (Janz, Champion, & Strecher, 2002; Rosenstock, Strecher, & Becker, 1988). Thus, feelings of fear or threat are provoked by reflections on the efficacy of a recommended response, noxiousness of a wrong behavior, and the probability of negative consequences as described within the cognitive process. Other emotional reactions such as empathy are possible as well. To illustrate this emotional process step, cognitive perceptions of a high personal risk of lung cancer may cause a person to be afraid of becoming fatally ill. The traditional hierarchy of effects model (Lavidge & Steiner, 1961) also predicts that a cognitive process leads to affective reactions. Thus, in the context of social marketing effectiveness, we conclude: The cognitive process affects an emotional process within the individual organism (Proposition 2).

Social cognitive theory highlights the importance of emotional reactions in order to achieve an intended individual response (Bandura, 1969). The introduction of emotional responses to individual processing aligns with the predictions of the transactional model of stress and coping which deals with coping strategies used in conditions of stress (Bagozzi & Moore, 1994). The ordered protection motivation model further predicts that aroused fear enhances a next cognitive process step including reflections on coping response and self-efficacy (Tanner et al., 1991). The health belief model similarly notes reflections on possible benefits of changing a behavior and barriers to do so (Janz, Champion, & Strecher, 2002; Rosenstock, Strecher, & Becker, 1988). Protection motivation theory shows that fear induces a protection motivation leading to intended responses (Rogers, 1975). The extended parallel process model adds the insights that fear also might cause a defensive motivation that helps justify the unintended response (Witte, 1992). Therefore, we predict: The emotional process affects further cognitive processing within the individual organism (Proposition 3).

This second cognitive process can be illustrated by a person experiencing fear of lung cancer who is therefore cognitively balancing the benefits of smoking cessation (e.g., longer life) against personal barriers (e.g., mental or physical addiction).


225


Response to Social Marketing As mentioned before, protection or defensive motivation take place and lead to intended or unintended responses. According to protection motivation theory, both protection and defensive motivations, as cognition-related variables, prompt attitude changes as response (Rogers, 1975). In line with the ordered protection motivation model, adaptive or maladaptive coping behaviors can be caused (Tanner et al., 1991). The extended parallel process model refines this idea by showing that a protection motivation sparks adaptive changes in a danger control process. In contrast defensive motivation causes maladaptive changes through a fear control process (Witte, 1992). The health belief model explains behavioral change as a result of reflections on perceived benefits and barriers (Janz, Champion, & Strecher, 2002; Rosenstock, Strecher, & Becker, 1988). Thus, these theories all substantiate both attitude and behavior changes as responses (Rogers, 1975; Tanner et al., 1991; Witte, 1992). In addition, the theories of planned behavior and reasoned action point out that to achieve behavioral change, an intention change must emerge first (Ajzen, 1991; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). Therefore, we propose: The second cognitive process affects social marketing effectiveness in terms of behavioral change through mediating steps: The second cognitive process affects attitude changes (Proposition 4), which affect intention to change (Proposition 5) that in turn affects behavioral change (Proposition 6).

Propositions 4–6 can be illustrated by the following example: If a smoker trades off the perceived benefits and barriers of not smoking during the second cognitive phase, he or she might change his or her attitude towards smoking, develop an intention to quit, and ultimately quit. Table 2 gives an overview on the elaborated propositions. The developed propositions inform a theoretical framework of social marketing effectiveness. From existing empirical and theoretical knowledge relevant factors as well as their relationships could be derived. Moreover, the existing diverse theoretical perspectives explain these relationships. In a last step, theoretical efforts require boundaries of generalizability and a definition of temporal and contextual factors (Whetten, 1989). Regarding temporal factors the developed theoretical framework is based on a sequential process of social marketing effectiveness. Concerning contextual factors, the analyzed empirical findings stem from diverse social marketing contexts, e.g., smoking behavior, sexually transmitted diseases, environmental protection, antiviolence or blood donation (Helmig & Thaler, 2010). The same holds true for the theoretical perspectives that have been applied to various contexts. As we do not seek to explain human behavior in general but in the given contexts of social marketing and do not try to explain classical consumer behavior as a

226


TABLE 2 Overview on Propositions


Proposition No.

Content

1A

Explicit and implicit memories affect the cognitive process within the individual organism.

1A1

Experience affects explicit and implicit memory.

1A2

Education or observational learning affect explicit and implicit memory.

1B

Appeals affect the cognitive process within the individual organism.

1B1

Marketing mix variables affect appeals.

1B2

General campaign characteristics affect appeals.

1B3

Diverse framing determinants affect appeals.

2

The cognitive process affects an emotional process within the individual organism.

3

The emotional process affects further cognitive processing within the individual organism.

4

The second cognitive process affects social marketing effectiveness in terms of behavioral change through mediating steps: The second cognitive process affects attitude changes.

5

Attitude changes affect intention to change.

6

Intention to change affects behavioral change.

traditional marketing issue (e.g., Howard & Sheth, 1969), it becomes evident that this theoretical framework is restricted to social marketing, although this field is rather broad.

DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS Hereafter we will discuss the findings of this study and derive implications for further research as well as for practitioners. First of all, this discussion section reflects the contribution of the developed theoretical framework. With a research framework grounded in the stimulus-organism-response paradigm, a theoretical framework evolved that consists of multiple propositions and reflects interdisciplinary empirical findings as well as diverse theoretical perspectives. Thus, this study did not reveal new insights per se but contributes to existing knowledge by its unifying approach. Instead of primary empirical observations, secondary data inform our conceptual ideas, which is appropriate considering the fragmentation of existing data. Moreover, the developed theoretical framework includes a variety of preexisting theoretical models. The developed theoretical framework is situated between day-to-day observation or detailed research hypotheses and an all-encompassing theory that is



227

no longer empirically testable (Merton 1967a, 1967b). It might be regarded as a formal midrange theory of social marketing effectiveness (Bourgeois, 1979) that consists of propositions (Eisenhardt & Bourgeois, 1988). It offers a key theoretical contribution that includes relevant factors or variables, how these factors relate to each other, and why they should relate in the described way (cf. Sutton & Staw, 1995; Weick, 1989; Whetten, 1989). This theoretical framework remains subject to further empirical validation or refinement (Eisenhardt & Bourgeois, 1988). Included personal factors, such as subjective norms or individual stages of motivation to comply with a social marketing campaign (cf. Janz, Champion, & Strecher, 2002; Rogers, 1975; Rosenstock, Strecher, & Becker, 1988; Tanner et al., 1991; Witte, 1992), show that the developed propositions are subject to further refinement in terms of detailed hypotheses. A further specification of these temporal and contextual factors would be helpful, perhaps by empirically testing concrete elements of the theoretical framework to various settings with diverse social marketing topics and across different cultures. Furthermore, the stated propositions within a sequential process of social marketing effectiveness provide a basis for further research and will be presented next. Because P1–P6 confirm the relevance of psychological findings in the context of social marketing, an analysis of underlying theoretical models in social marketing research can increase understanding of the relevant variables and their causal relationships to characterize the route from stimuli to organism and response. Specifically P1A and P1B emphasize the impact of appeals and memory on the cognitive starting point; P1A and P1B demand refinement with regard to the probable temporal succession and relevance of single variables that come into focus during individual reflection within the organism. For example, researchers could analyze how reflection on perceived behavioral control compared with attitude toward the behavior varies according to the two types of stimuli. Focusing on one cognitive variable, researchers can figure out whether the power of the two different types of stimuli varies. In addition, P1A might be in the focus of the current discussion on upstream social marketing showing that social marketing effectiveness depends on the support of regulators, policy makers and the broader society (cf. Gordon, 2011; Hastings, MacFadyen, & Anderson, 2000; Hastings, Stead, & MacKintosh, 2002; Wymer, 2011). The latter might influence personal experiences and inform educational objectives. The focus in P2 on the established succession of an emotional state, after initial cognitive reactions, cannot discern whether emotional reactions also might be stimulated directly by the stimuli. Therefore, additional research should investigate the conditions in which the first two steps on the individual level are parallel or interactive. Moreover, possible differences between positive and negative emotional reactions could have significant consequences for further processing. With regard to P3 and the second cognitive process after the intermediate emotional state, further research needs


228


to verify the conditions under which the next process step occurs and the types of exit strategies that inhibit ongoing processing on the individual level. Researchers thus could focus on the simultaneity or temporal succession of perceived benefits and barriers, as well as protection versus defensive motivations. Propositions 4–6 show that attitude, intention, and behavior change are hierarchical. Further research should attempt to measure the effectiveness of a campaign using definitive behavior change. Overall, P1–P6 require further specification regarding the relevance of single cognitive and emotional factors for the achieved effectiveness of social marketing campaigns in terms of attitudes, intentions, or behavior changes. Furthermore, the stepwise process should receive support from further data, though it reflects the combination of multiple empirical findings with existing models and theories. The so far postulated linear process of social marketing effectiveness thus is based on validated findings and covers all process steps relevant for social marketing effectiveness. Refinement might reveal possible back steps creating circular arrangements within the described process. Also, at the organism and response levels, greater expertise and support from psychology researchers are still needed. One very important contribution of the developed theoretical framework is the focus on diverse factors that initiate and influence individual processing within the organism and thus ultimately lead to attitude, intention, and behavior changes. According to P1A and P1B, explicit and implicit memory as well as appeals have particular relevance and constitute the stimuli for individual processing. From a general research perspective the influential power of explicit and implicit memory on the one hand and appeals on the other hand might be investigated. From a marketing perspective, especially with regard to P1B1 and P1B2 , a particular research and practical focus should center on the marketing mix and general campaign characteristics. For example, the predicted functions of wide-scope, interactive campaigns require verification and likely adjustment to new settings. Although these propositions seem clearly pertinent to the marketing domain, psychological and sociological factors also should be considered when defining target groups. From a research perspective, the framing determinants from P1B3 should be investigated in terms of their individual relevance. A conjoint experiment could be adapted to social marketing, with likelihood of behavioral change, instead of traditional economic usage, as the intended outcome. The interaction effects between multiple framing determinants also could be a fruitful topic for experimental research. This theoretical framework points to the relevance of framing determinants, but a specification is needed to gain practically applicable guidelines. Having discussed how the propositions might inform future empirical research, managerial implications are presented. These implications are derived for social marketers, public and nonprofit managers and policy makers. Social marketers are in charge of social marketing campaigns.



229

Governments and nonprofit organizations have an interest in or responsibility for improving society and thus aspire to adjust individual and prosocial behavior. This theoretical framework points out that there is a clear need for thoroughly elaborated campaign as represented by appeals as stimuli. At the same time, the theoretical framework explains the importance of experience, education and observed learning as stimuli. Therefore, the first managerial implication is the need for a collaborative approach to solving social problems addressed by social marketing. Policy maker have an influence on legislation, such as alcohol consumption laws in the context of social marketing, as well as on curricula that might e.g. include obligatory nutrition counseling. The developed theoretical framework reveals their responsibility for social marketing effectiveness as the given influence affects explicit and implicit memory. On the contrary, social marketers cannot directly influence personal experience or observational learning. Thus, marketers in public and nonprofit organizations as well as social marketers are responsible for enhancing behavior change via adequate appeals. As included in the theoretical framework, these appeals are characterized by the marketing mix variables, general campaign characteristics, and frames. The formulated P1B1 –P1B3 show concrete reflections that have to be undertaken before implementing a campaign: What are the relevant marketing mix variables? What is a campaign’s scope and who is the target group? What framing has to be chosen? Nevertheless, campaigns cannot be developed and implemented without being embedded into the broader societal background. Regarding framing, the second managerial implication can be derived: There are five framing determinants that have to be taken into consideration (e.g, Thaler & Helmig, 2012). However, as this study developed a theoretical framework, it does not provide concrete testable research hypotheses or detailed recommendations on the most effective way of framing. The next managerial implication is the need for being aware of a process of social marketing effectiveness that reveals several needed steps before achieving a behavior change. An observed attitude change cannot be the final achievement of social marketing campaigns. Due to the relevance of psychological findings regarding the individual process steps within the organism, cooperation with psychological experts is indispensable as well. To sum up, the developed theoretical framework is helpful for practitioners as it gives an overview on all the aspects that have to be taken into consideration for an effective social marketing. This scheme does not include concrete and detailed practical recommendations for creating effective social marketing campaigns. The framework starts with different types of stimuli and ends up with pointing out that attitude change cannot be the final objective of an effective social marketing. Consequently, it includes all relevant facets of social marketing from a conceptual perspective. Finally, due to the broad range of stimuli the conceptual framework highlights the need for collaboration in the context of social marketing.

230



CONCLUSION This study contributes to existing knowledge on social marketing effectiveness by integrating existing theoretical perspectives previously used in the broader context of social marketing and empirical findings into one theoretical framework of social marketing effectiveness. This framework explains the basic functioning of social marketing effectiveness, including relevant variables and their relationships. Thus it might help social marketers and policy makers develop effective social marketing campaigns, as well as influence experiences and observed learning in a positive way, to encourage behavioral change. This contribution clearly has managerial relevance for a broad field of actors responsible for social issues. Furthermore, the theoretical framework combines existing findings from prior research while also introducing an instructive research agenda: There is a particular need for validating the developed framework, in particular the described sequential process. Moreover, further analyses of the power of different included factors might be helpful. This study answers the important call for theoretical contributions in interdisciplinary research fields and adds to social marketing research a common fundament. The framework of social marketing effectiveness draws the big picture of how to create effective social marketing. In line with the idea of an integrated social marketing, nonprofit marketing and commercial marketing (Andreasen, 2012), the developed framework on how to adjust behavior gains even more importance.

REFERENCES Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. Ajzen, I., & Madden T. J. (1986). Prediction of goal-directed behavior: Attitudes, intentions, and perceived behavioral control. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22(5), 453–474. Albarracin, D., Fishbein, M., & Goldestein de Muchinik, E. (1997). Seeking social support in old age as reasoned action. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27(6), 463–476. Alves, H. (2010). The who, where, and when of social marketing. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 22(4), 288–311. Andreasen, A. R. (1993). A social marketing research agenda for consumer behavior researchers. Advances in Consumer Research, 20(1), 1–5. Andreasen, A. R. (2002). Marketing social marketing in the social change marketplace. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 21(1), 3–13. Andreasen, A. R. (2003). The life trajectory of social marketing: Some implications. Marketing Theory, 33(3), 293–303. Andreasen, A. R. (2012). Rethinking the relationship between social/nonprofit marketing and commercial marketing. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 31(1), 36–41.



231

Andreasen, A. R. (1994). Social marketing: Its definition and domain. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 13(1), 108–114. Arthur, D., & Quester, P. (2004). Who’s afraid of that ad? Applying segmentation to the protection motivation model. Psychology and Marketing, 21(9), 671–696. Bagozzi, R. P. (1981). Attitudes, intentions, and behavior: A test of some key hypotheses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41(4), 607–627. Bagozzi, R. P., & Moore, D. J. (1994). Public service advertisements: Emotions and empathy guide prosocial behavior. Journal of Marketing, 58(1), 56–70. Bandura, A. (1969). Social learning theory of identificatory processes. In D. A. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and research (pp. 213–262). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally & Company. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 248–287. Baranowski, T., Perry, C. L., & Parcel G. S. (2002). How individuals, environments, and health behavior interact: Social cognitive theory. In K. Glanz, B. K. Rimer, & F. M. Lewis (Eds.), Health behavior and health education: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 165–184). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Basil, M. D., & Brown, W. J. (1997). Marketing AIDS prevention: The differential impact hypothesis versus identification effects. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 6(4), 389–411. Batra, R. & Ray, M. L. (1986). Situational effects of advertising repetition: The moderating influence of motivation, ability, and opportunity to respond. Journal of Consumer Research, 12(4), 432–445. Bauman, K. E., LaPrelle, J., Brown, J. D., Koch, G. G., & Padgett, C. A. (1991). The influence of three mass media campaigns on variables related to adolescent cigarette smoking: Results of a field experiment. American Journal of Public Health, 81(5), 597–604. Beltramini, R. F. (1988). Perceived believability of warning label information presented in cigarette advertising. Journal of Advertising, 17(1), 26–32. Best, J. A., Flay, B. R., Towson, S. M. J., Ryan, K. B., Perry, C. L., Brown, K. S., Kersell, M. W., & D’Avernas, J. R. (1984). Smoking prevention and the concept of risk. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 14(3), 257–273. Biener, L. M. J., Gilpin, E. A., & Albers A. B. (2004). The impact of emotional tone, message, and broadcast parameters in youth anti-smoking advertisements. Journal of Health Communication, 9(3), 259–274. Block, L. G., & Keller, P. A. (1995). When to accentuate the negative: The effects of perceived efficacy and message framing on intentions to perform a healthrelated behavior. Journal of Marketing Research, 32(2), 192–203. Bourgeois, L. J., III. (1979). Toward a method of middle-range theorizing. Academy of Management Review, 4(3), 443–447. Brandsen, T. (2009). Civicness in organizations: A reflection on the relationship between professionals and managers. Voluntas − International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 20(3), 260–273. Braverman, J. (2008). Testimonials versus informational persuasive messages: The moderating effect of delivery mode and personal involvement. Communication Research, 35(5), 666–694.


232


Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42(1), 116–131. Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., Feinstein, J. A., & Jarvis, W. B. G. (1996). Dispositional differences in cognitive motivation: The life and times of individuals varying in need for cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 197–253. Chaudhuri, A., & Ray, I. (2004). The effect of AIDS awareness on condom use intention among truck drivers in India: The role of beliefs, feelings and perceived vulnerability. Journal of Marketing Communications, 10(1), 17–33. Corley, K. G., & Gioia, D. A. (2011). Building theory about theory building: What constitutes a theoretical contribution. Academy of Management Journal, 36(1), 12–32. Croson, R., Handy, F., & Shang, J. (2009). Keeping up with the Joneses: The relationship between perceived descriptive social norms, social information and charitable giving. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 19(4), 467–489. DiMaggio, P. J. (1995). Comments on “What theory is not.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3), 391–397. Dolnicar, S., & Randle, M. (2007). What motivates which volunteers? Psychographic heterogeneity among volunteers in Australia. Voluntas − International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 18(2), 135–155. D’Souza, C., Zyngier, S., Robinson, P., Schlotterlein, M., & Sullivan-Mort, G. (2011). Health belief model: Evaluating marketing promotion in a public vaccination program. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 23(2), 134–157. Dunlop, S. M., Wakefield, M., & Kashima, Y. (2010). Pathways to persuasion: Cognitive and experiential responses to health-promoting mass media messages. Communication Research, 37(1), 133–164. Eisenhardt, K. M., & Bourgeois, L. J., III. (1988). Politics of strategic decision making in high-velocity environments: Toward a midrange theory. Academy of Management Journal, 31(4), 737–770. Entnam, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51–58. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley. Friend, K., & Levy, D. T. (2002). Reductions in smoking prevalence and cigarette consumption associated with mass-media campaigns. Health Education Research, 17(1), 85–98. Gordon, R. (2011). Critical social marketing: Definition, application and domain. Journal of Social Marketing, 1(2): 82–99. Gordon, R., McDermott, L., & Hastings, G. (2008). Critical issues in social marketing: A Review and research agenda. In A. Sargeant, & W. W. Wymer (Eds.), The Routledge companion to nonprofit marketing (pp. 333–346), Abingdon, UK; New York, NY: Routledge. Gray, D. M., & Bean, B. (2011). Can social marketing segmentation initiatives be used to increase household electricity conservation? Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 23(3), 269–305. Griskevicius, V., Cant, S. M., & van Vugt, M. (2012). The evolutionary bases for sustainable behavior: Implications for marketing, policy, and social entrepreneurship. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 31(1), 115–128.



233

Haski-Leventhal, D., Cnaan, R., Handy, F., Brudney, J., Holmes, K., Hustinx, L., . . . Zrinscak, S. (2008). Students’ vocational choices and voluntary action: A 12-nation study. Voluntas − International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 19(1), 1–21. Hastings, G. B., MacFadyen, L., & Anderson, S. (2000). Whose behaviour is it anyway? The broader potential of social marketing. Social Marketing Quarterly, 6(2), 46–58. Hastings, G. B., Stead, M., & MacKintosh, A. M. (2002). Rethinking drugs prevention: Radical thoughts from social marketing. Health Education Journal, 61(4), 347–364. Hawkins, K., & Hane, A. C. (2000). Adolescents’ perceptions of print cigarette advertising: A case for counteradvertising. Journal of Health Communication, 5(1), 83–96. Helmig, B., & Thaler, J. (2010). On the effectiveness of social marketing—what do we really know? Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 22(4), 264–287. Heurlin, C. (2010). Governing civil society: The political logic of NGO–state relations under dictatorship. Voluntas − International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 21(2), 220–239. Hodgkinson, V., & Painter, A. (2003). Third sector research in international perspective: The role of ISTR. Voluntas − International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 14(1), 1–14. Howard, J. A., & Sheth J. (1969). The theory of buyer behavior. New York, NY: Wiley. Hoyer, W. D., & MacInnis D. J. (2010). Consumer behavior. South Melbourne, Australia: South-Western Cengage Learning. Huang, Y., & Hutchinson, J.W. (2008). Counting every thought: Implicit measures of cognitive responses to advertising. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(1), 98–118. Hunt, S. D. (1983). General theories and the fundamental explanada of marketing. Journal of Marketing, 47(4), 9–17. Hustinx, L., Cnaan, R. A., & Handy, F. (2010). Navigating theories of volunteering: A hybrid map for a complex phenomenon. The Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 4(4), 410–434. Janz, N. K., & Becker, M. H. (1984). The health belief model: A decade later. Health Education & Behavior, 11(1): 1–47. Janz, N. K., Champion, V. L., & Strecher, V. J. (2002). The health belief model. In K. Glanz, B. K. Rimer, & F. M. Lewis (Eds.), Health behavior and health education: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 45–65). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Jones, S. C., & Owen, N. (2006). Using fear appeals to promote cancer screening: Are we scaring the wrong people? International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 11(2), 93–103. Kemp, E., & Kopp, S. W. (2011). Resistance and risk: Examining the effects of message cues in encouraging end-of-life planning. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 30(1), 100–109. Kotler, P., &. Levy, S. J. (1969). Broadening the concept of marketing. Journal of Marketing, 33(1), 10–15. Kotler, P., Roberto, N., & Lee, N. (2002). Social marketing—improving the quality of life. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.


234


Kramer, R. M. (2000). A third sector in the third millennium? Voluntas—International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 11(1): 1–23. Kubacki, K., & Siemieniako, D. (2011). Innovation in social marketing research methods: What can collages add to a multimethod research project exploring alcohol consumption among young people? Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 23(4), 387–407. Lavidge, R. J., & Steiner, G. A. (1961). A model for predictive measurements of advertising effectiveness. Journal of Marketing, 25(6), 59–62. Lefebvre, R. C. (2001). Theories and models in social marketing. In P. N. Bloom & G. T. Gundlach (Eds.), Handbook of marketing and society (pp. 506–518). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Levin, I. P., Schneider, S. L., & Gaeth, G. J. (1998). All frames are not created equal: A typology and critical analysis of framing effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76(2), 149–188. Lindenmeier, J. (2008). Promoting volunteerism: Effects of self-efficacy, advertisement-induced emotional arousal, perceived costs of volunteering and message framing. Voluntas – International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 19(1), 43–65. Lindenmeier, J., & Dietrich, M. (2011). Is this voluntary project going to be successful? Validation of an instrumental model of volunteering behavior. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 21(4), 399–415. Merton, R. K. (1967a). On theoretical sociology: Five essays, old and new. New York, NY: Free Press. Merton, R. K. (1967b). Social theory and social structure. New York, NY: Free Press. Montaño, D. E, &. Taplin, S. H. (1991). A test of an expanded theory of reasoned action to predict mammography participation. Social Science & Medicine, 32(6), 733–741. Okhysen, G., & Bonardi J.-P. (2011). Editors’ comments: The challenges of building theory by combining lenses. Academy of Management Review, 36(1), 6–11. Peattie, K., Peattie, S., & Clarke, P. (2001). Skin cancer prevention: Reevaluating the public policy implications. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 20(2), 268–279. Petty, R., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1981). Attitudes and persuasion—classic and contemporary approaches. Dubuque, IA: William C Brown Publications. Petty, R., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (pp. 123–205). New York, NY: Academic Press. Petty, R., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1996). Attitudes and persuasion. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Petty, R., Cacioppo, J. T., & Schumann, D. (1983). Central and peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness. Journal of Consumer Research, 10(2), 135–146. Prochaska, J. O., & DiClemente, C. C. (1983). Stages and processes of self-change of smoking: Toward an integrative model of change. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51(3), 390–395. Prochaska, J. O., Redding, C. A., & Evers, K. E. (2002). The transtheoretical model and stages of change. In K. Glanz, B. K. Rimer, & F. M. Lewis (Eds.), Health behavior and health education: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 99–120). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.



235

Prochaska, J. O., & Velicer, W. F. (1997). Behavior change: The transtheoretical model of health behavior change. American Journal of Health Promotion, 12(1), 38–48. Reardon, J., & Miller, C. (2008). Smoking prevention messages for adolescents: How intensity, valence, and recipient of consequences affect attitude toward the ad and intent to smoke. The Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 16(1), 67–77. Rogers, R. W. (1975). Protection motivation theory of fear appeals and attitude change. Journal of Psychology, 91(1), 93–114. Rosenstock, I. M., Strecher, V. J., & Becker, M. H. (1988). Social learning theory and the health belief model. Health Education and Behavior, 15(2), 175–183. Rothschild, M. L. (1999). Carrots, sticks, and promises: A conceptual framework for the management of public health and social issue behaviors. Journal of Marketing, 63(4): 24–37. Salamon, L. M., & Anheier, H. K. (1998a). Social origins of civil society: Explaining the nonprofit sector cross-nationally. Voluntas − International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 9(3), 213–248. Salamon, L. M., & Anheier, H. K. (1998b). On developing comparative nonprofitsector theory: A reply to Steinberg and Young, and Ragin. Voluntas − International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 9(3), 271–281. Samu, S., & Bhatnagar, N. (2008). The efficacy of anti-smoking advertisements: The role of source, message, and individual characteristics. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 13(3), 237–250. Scammon, D. L., Keller, P. A., Albinsson, P. A., Bahl, S., Catlin, J. R., Haws, K. L., . . . Schindler, R. M. (2011). Transforming Consumer Health. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 30(1), 14–22. Scheufele, D. A. (1999). Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of Communication, 49(1), 103–122. Shao, W. (2012). Framing and efficacy: The effect of regulatory fit on skin cancer prevention and detection. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 24(3), 161–180. Smith, K. H., & Stutts, M. A. (2003). Effects of short-term cosmetic versus long-term health fear appeals in anti-smoking advertisements on the smoking behavior of adolescents. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 3(2), 157–177. Strong, E. K., Jr. (1925). Theories of selling. Journal of Applied Psychology, 9(1), 75–86. Sutton, R. I., & Staw, B. M. (1995). What theory is not. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3), 371–384. Talbert, P. Y. (2008). Using social marketing to increase breast cancer screening among African American women: Perspectives from African American breast cancer survivors. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 13(4), 347–362. Tangari, A. H., Burton, S., Andrews, J. C., & Netemeyer, R. G. (2007). How do antitobacco campaign advertising and smoking status affect beliefs and intentions? Some similarities and differences between adults and adolescents. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 26(1), 60–74. Tanner, J. F., Jr., Carlson, L. A., Raymond M. A., & Hopkins C. D. (2008). Reaching parents to prevent adolescent risky behavior: Examining the effects of


236


threat portrayal and parenting orientation on parental participation perceptions. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 27(2), 149–155. Tanner, J. F., Jr., Hunt, J. B., & Eppright, D. R. (1991). The protection motivation model: A normative model of fear appeals. Journal of Marketing, 55(3), 36–45. Taylor, R. (2002). Interpreting global civil society. Voluntas − International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 13(4), 339–347. Thackeray, R., Fulkerson, R. K. N., & Neiger, B. L. (2012). Defining the product in social marketing: An analysis of published research. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 24(2), 83–100. Thaler, J., & Helmig, B. (2012). Promoting good behaviour: Does social and temporal framing make a difference? Voluntas—International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizationsm. doi:10.1007/s11266-012-9293-x Tobler, N. S., & Stratton, H. H. (1997). Effectiveness of school-based drug prevention programs: A meta-analysis of the research. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 18(1), 71–128. Traeen, B. (1990). Awareness of an AIDS campaign directed at Norwegian adolescents. Health Policy, 16(1), 33–41. Weick, K. E. (1989). Theory construction as disciplined imagination. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 516–531. Weick, K. E. (1995). What theory is not, theorizing is. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3), 385–390. Whetten, D. A. (1989). What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 490–495. Whittlesea, B. W. A., & Wright, R. L. (1997). Implicit (and explicit) learning: Acting adaptively without knowing the consequences. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory und Cognition, 23(1), 181–200. Wiebe, G. D. (1951). Merchandising commodities and citizenship on television. Public Opinion Quarterly, 15(4), 679–691. Witte, K. (1992). Putting the fear back into fear appeals: The extend parallel process model. Communication Monographs, 59(4), 329–349. Woodworth, R. S. (1948). Contemporary schools of psychology. New York, NY: Ronald. Wymer, W. W. (2010). Rethinking the boundaries of social marketing: Activism or advertising? Journal of Business Research, 63(2), 99–103. Wymer, W. W. (2011). Developing more effective social marketing strategies. Journal of Social Marketing, 1(1), 17–31. Zhao, G., & Pechmann, C. (2007). The impact of regulatory focus on adolescents’ response to antismoking advertising campaigns. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(4), 671–687.