TIC Y ENSEÑANZA-APRENDIZAJE DE LSP PARA PERSONAS CON

Cause-proximity, defined as the distance between the donation activity of the charity in a CRM alliance and the potential consumers that would make the donation (Varadarajan &

101 Menon, 1988), is one of the most important structural elements of CRM campaigns, and it has been proven to significantly influence consumers' response towards CRM (Grau &

Folse, 2007; Anuar & Mohamad, 2011). According to prior literature, cause proximity is classified as local, regional (in terms of a city), national or international (e.g.: Ross et al., 1990–1991; Grau & Folse, 2007; Vanhamme et al., 2012). However, cause proximity has received little attention in prior literature and the effects of this structural construct on consumers' response towards CRM campaigns are mixed (Anuar & Mohamad, 2011).

Specifically, by reviewing the extant CRM research 8 empirical studies have been identified that empirically research the impact of cause proximity on consumers' positive attitudes in CRM practices (Smith & Alcorn, 1991; Grau & Folse, 2007; Hou, Du & Li, 2008; Liston-Heyes & Liu, 2010; Anuar & Mohamad, 2011; Vanhamme et al., 2012; La Ferle, Kuber & Edwards, 2013; Lii, Wu & Ding, 2013). Their results have empirically showed that cause proximity indeed affects the results of CRM practices. In particular, half of those studies found that consumers' positive purchase intentions are enhanced if the cause linked with the CRM campaign is local. In contrast, 1 study showed different results, that is, a national cause (instead of a local) affects consumers' positive purchase intentions (Liston-Heyes & Liu, 2010). This contradiction is explained in extant literature in terms of industry characteristics in which the CRM campaign is conducted (ibid.). In the same vein, Cui et al. (2003) examined how geographic scope (local versus national) affects assessment of CRM campaigns and the results showed that contrary to the authors' expectations, a local focus did not result in a more favorable attitude on the evaluation of the CRM offer than an offer with a national focus. In doing so, one study showed that cause proximity does not affect consumers' positive purchase intentions and positive attitudes towards the donor

102 organization (Ross, Patterson & Stutts, 1992). Finally, La Ferle et al. (2013) examined whether, among others, the location of the cause supported (national versus international) impacts the effectiveness of cause related marketing efforts among Indian (collectivistic mindset) and American consumers (individualistic mindset). However, the results showed that the beneficiary of the campaign (a national or international charity) does not affect attitudes toward the campaign for either consumer group.

The role of social exchange theory

Against these contradicting results, Vanhamme et al. (2012) stated that cause proximity can be explained with social exchange theory, whereby people try to maximize their self-interest (Bagozzi, 1979), so consumers identify with organizations that satisfy their basic, self-definitional needs, such as self-enhancement (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003). Thus, consumers prefer causes that are proximate to them, because they perceive that they could get something in return, such as benefit from improved conditions, or to see the impact of their donation to a local cause (Vanhamme et al., 2012). Also, according to this theory, one can explain the majority of the results identified in prior literature, but it cannot explain consumer preferences between local, regional, or national, causes, neither has it explained why consumers may also sometimes prefer international causes.

The role of collectivistic in-group boundaries

According to Vanhamme et al. (2012), consumers' preferences towards cause proximity may also depend on cultural norms. Contrary to this statement, the study conducted by La Ferle et al. (2013), showed no significant relationship between cultural values (collectivism versus individualism) and cause proximity in terms of national versus international causes, on consumer attitudes towards CRM campaigns. However, their study was based on a

103 student sample and not with consumers from a real world setting. Second, according to the authors themselves, the result of their study could be that they compared national versus international causes, thus leaving aside comparisons with local versus national or international causes. Thus, they stated that a possible future research topic could be to examine the role of national versus local charitable causes and that researchers could use a local city or town to develop a closer connection with respondents instead of a national charity. Finally, their study applied a quantitative methodology, thus leaving aside an in-depth exploration of the effects of cause proximity and collectivism in the CRM domain.

In line with these arguments, collectivistic in-group boundaries could possibly explain collectivistic consumer attitudes towards the cause proximity. According to the collectivistic mindset, people from such cultures belong to cohesive in-groups and place important value on and well-being (Kirkman et al., 2006; Lam et al., 2009; Soares et al., 2007). Thus collectivistic consumers tend to have greater felt obligation toward people in need in their own society than consumers in more individualistic countries (La Ferle et al., 2013). By nature, CRM is developed to help a charity/ cause that benefits a specific area.

Thus, one would expect that a collectivistic consumer will support a cause that advances the well-being of the group in which is a member. Thus, when a cause is of international nature, collectivistic consumers of a specific society will not support that cause.

Continuing, at the other end of the scale there are collectivistic societies in which the ties between the members are very tight (Hofstede, 1983). Individuals are born into in-groups (collectivities) which might be their extended family, such as uncles, grandparents, aunts, etc., their village, or their town, etc. (ibid.). And everybody look after the interest, harmony, and well-being of his or her in-group. Therefore, whether or not cause proximity,

104 in terms of local, regional or national cause will be of greater support from collectivistic societies, this depends on how each collectivistic society defines its in-group. For example, cause proximity would be less of an issue for collectivistic societies with very strong ties and with restricted in-group boundaries (such as the village boundary) if companies support causes that advance the well-being of their local community. In contrast, collectivistic societies in which social ties are loosen and in-groups have bigger boundaries, collectivistic consumers of such societies would promote a cause that advances the well-being of the region or nation in which they belong to.

To summarize, it is shown in prior literature that consumers' attitudes towards the cause proximity, in terms of local, regional, national, or international causes vary, and they can be explained with social exchange theory to a certain degree. However, it is also shown that prior literature on the topic did not consider cultural issues on consumer attitudes towards cause proximity in a CRM campaign. Against this gap in knowledge, the researcher based the different results of prior studies that investigated cause proximity in collectivistic countries, on the basis of collectivistic in-group boundaries. However, what lacks from prior CRM literature is a deeper understanding about what cause proximity means to collectivistic consumers. A detailed exploration of collectivistic consumer beliefs, perceptions, attitudes, and behavioral tendencies with regard to cause proximity in CRM campaigns is needed in order to understand how collectivistic consumers assign meaning to cause proximity in CRM campaigns and how these meanings translate into differential consumer behaviors.

From the above discussion, the following research questions are raised:

105 Research Question 2b (RQ2b): How do collectivistic consumers feel and think about the cause proximity in a CRM campaign?

Research Question 3b (RQ3b): What mechanisms explain collectivistic consumers' preferences, as regards to the cause proximity in a CRM campaign?