Consumer reactions to corporate social

responsibility brands: the role of face concern

Lisa C. Wan
School of Hotel and Tourism Management, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
Patrick S. Poon
Marketing and International Business, Lingnan University, Hong Kong, and
Chunling Yu
Department of Marketing, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China

Abstract
Purpose – Face concern is a personal value that refers to the extent an individual shows regard for or interest in the protection and enhancement
of face. This study aims to examine the moderating influence of face concern on consumer responses to brands associated with corporate social
responsibility (CSR).
Design/methodology/approach – An experimental study was conducted to test the proposed conceptual model in consumer reactions to CSR brands.
Findings – The results show that consumers with a high face concern (vs low face concern) have a better quality perception toward CSR brands
than non-CSR brands. In addition, they also have a higher purchase intention and propensity to recommend the CSR brands than those with a low
face concern. However, this interaction effect between face concern and brand type (CSR brand vs non-CSR brand) is mediated by consumers’
perceived quality of the brand.
Practical implications – This study provides critical implications for the formulation of brand management strategies, particularly for international
firms entering an Asian country like China where people generally have a high degree of face concern.
Originality/value – This study highlights the moderating role of face concern in the relationship between consumer responses and brands
associated with CSR. It also suggests the mediating role of consumers’ perceived brand quality in the relationship between brand types (CSR brands
vs non-CSR brands) and consumer responses.
Keywords Corporate social responsibility, Perceived brand quality, Brand management, Face concern
Paper type Research paper

Introduction development. Indeed, much research has shown that there is a

positive relationship between corporate social performance
Given the trend of globalization and emerging salience of
and corporate financial performance. In the consumer
social issues around the world, consumers are becoming
behavioral context, past research has pointed out that
increasingly concerned about corporate ethics and social
consumer attitudes toward ethical and socially responsible
performance. Not surprisingly, issues of corporate social
companies are largely positive, such as having a higher
responsibility (CSR) have received emerging research
purchase intention for products or services that are offered by
attention in recent years (Becker-Olsen et al., 2011; Berens
socially responsible companies. Despite the fact that some
et al., 2005; Lantos, 2002; Sen and Bhattacharya, 2001;
people may doubt about the underlying motives of the
Stanwick and Stanwick, 1998; Todd and Peloza, 2011;
implementation of CSR initiatives, corporations still tend to
Turban and Greening, 1997; Wiig and Kolstad, 2010). Owing
position itself as a socially responsible company and establish
to the fact that a series of corporate scandals (such as Arthur
its brands with an association with CSR so as to enhance its
Andersen and the Enron Scandal in the USA, and toxic milk
brand image (Brown and Danci, 1997; Sen and Bhattacharya,
powder with melamine in China) have occurred, the public
2001). Du et al. (2007, p. 225) highlight that some companies
concern of CSR and ethical behavior of corporations has
like Body Shop and Ben and Jerry have gone beyond just
increased significantly. As denoted by Kolk and van Tulder
engaging in CSR activities to position themselves wholly in
(2010), multinational corporations have started to pay
terms of CSR, becoming known as the socially responsible
high attention to CSR-related activities and sustainable
brands (i.e. CSR brands).
Coca Cola India received a Golden Peacock Global Award
for Corporate Social Responsibility for replenishing ground
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on water and setting a target to reach a “net zero” balance with
Emerald Insight at: www.emeraldinsight.com/0736-3761.htm respect to groundwater usage in 2009. Undoubtedly, winning
such a CSR award would improve the perception or image of

Journal of Consumer Marketing

33/1 (2016) 52–60 Received 4 March 2013
© Emerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 0736-3761] Revised 4 March 2013
[DOI 10.1108/JCM-03-2013-0493] Accepted 4 March 2013

52
 The role of face concern
Lisa C. Wan, Patrick C. Poon and Chunling Yu
the company and provide a positive impact on consumers’
responses to its products. However, would the impact be the
same for different consumers with different personal values?
Notably, different consumers may put different values on
social ethics and therefore some consumers may be more
sensitive to CSR brands than others. In fact, very little
research has explored the role of personal values in consumer
reactions to brands associated with CSR. Building on the face
concern literature (Ting-Toomey and Kurogi, 1998),
consumers with different degrees of face concern would react
differently toward CSR brands. Chan et al. (2009, p. 293)
denote that face is a positive image of self that is affirmed
through interaction with others, and face concern refers to the
extent to which an individual shows regard for or interest in
the protection and enhancement of face. This study aims to fill
the existing research gaps by proposing a comprehensive
theoretical framework that highlights the moderating role of
face concern in consumer reactions toward CSR brands.
Specifically, the main objectives of this research are to examine
consumer responses toward CSR brands; to investigate the
moderating role of face concern in consumer responses toward
CSR brands; and to develop an understanding of the underlying
mechanism of the proposed model.
Research on CSR and face concern
Corporate social responsibility
CSR is broadly defined as “the organization’s status and
activities with respect to its perceived societal obligations”
(Brown and Danci, 1997). It is also known as prosocial
corporate endeavors or corporate social performance, which is
integrated into a business model as a form of corporate
self-regulation (Murray and Vogel, 1997; Sen and
Bhattacharya, 2001). Examples of CSR activities include a
focus on environmental friendliness, cause-related marketing,
community involvement, minority support programs, social
responsible employment, manufacturing practices and a
strong support toward human and animal rights, etc.
Although CSR generally refers to the organization’s
commitment to societal obligations, prior literature has found
that an organization’s CSR activities will exert influence on
consumers’ purchase-related decisions, such as choosing a
product brand that is endorsed by the corporate brand (Berens
et al., 2005). Drawing on the definition of a corporate-level
CSR, the brand-level CSR can be referred to a consumer’s
perception of “a brand’s status and activities with respect to its
perceived societal obligations”. In this regard, the term “CSR
brand” serves as a generic label for a brand that is associated
with CSR activities, whereas the term “non-CSR brand” is a
brand without such associations.
In recent years, CSR programs have become popular
elements of branding strategies because these programs have
been recognized as one of the strategic business imperatives
that bring economic benefits to international business firms in
the global marketplace (Kang et al., 2010; Nan and Heo,
2007; Sen and Bhattacharya, 2001; Waller and Lanis, 2009).
For example, past research has shown that there is a positive
association between corporate social performance and
corporate financial performance (McGuire et al., 1988; Pava
and Krausz, 1996; Stanwick and Stanwick, 1998). In
marketing, researchers have found that consumers in general
53
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 33 · Number 1 · 2016 · 52–60
will form a positive attitude and also have a higher purchase
intention toward a company’s products or brands if they
perceive that the company is associated with CSR activities
(Barone et al., 2000; Brown and Danci, 1997; Creyer and
Ross, 1997; Dean, 2004; Sen and Bhattacharya, 2001; Sen
et al., 2006). More recently, some researchers have also found
that CSR influences consumer attributions and brand
evaluations in a product-harm crisis. Indeed, a company’s
CSR activities can mitigate consumer negative brand
evaluations in a product-harm crisis (Klein and Dawar, 2004).
As highlighted by Auger et al., (2010, p. 143), the increase of
consumers’ attention in social product attributions (such as
environmental and labor condition) can be due to the
emergence of pressure groups, increasing media interest in
social and ethical issues, increasing focus on CSR by major
corporations and the availability of better-quality “ethical”
products. In a study of global brand purchase likelihood,
Ozsomer and Altaras (2008) point out that social
responsibility may be one of the ways through which global
brand managers can increase the likelihood of their brand’s
purchase. A brand’s perceived credibility may imply that the
brand acts in a socially responsible way which would lead to a
stronger consumer preference.
Why would CSR exert positive influences on consumer
attitudes or evaluations toward a particular brand offered by a
company? Brown and Danci (1997) have explained that
consumers form different types of cognitive associations (i.e.
all the information about a company that a consumer holds)
with a company and these associations will influence their
product or brand evaluations. They classified two types of
corporate associations, namely, corporate ability (CA) and
CSR associations. While the former refers to the associations
related to a company’s capability to produce quality products,
the latter refers to the associations related to a company’s
commitment to its societal obligations. When making
comparisons, CSR associations are less relevant than CA
associations to the company’s ability to produce goods and
services, and therefore, are less likely to influence consumer
evaluations through their influence on product or brand
attribute perceptions. However, CSR associations are still able
to influence consumer evaluations through enhancing the
company positive image and trustworthiness. CSR
associations influence consumers to form a positive overall
evaluation of the company, and thus to form a positive
product or brand evaluation of that company. Building on
social identity theory (Tajfel and John, 1985) and research on
organizational identification, Sen and Bhattacharya (2001)
have further pointed out that the positive impact of CSR on
consumers’ company evaluations is mediated by consumers’
perceived congruence between their own characters and that
of the company. In general, people have a general tendency to
identify with organizations that have favorable aspects for the
sake of achieving self-enhancement purposes (Tajfel and John,
1985). Prior research has shown that CSR associations
enhance the reputation and image of a company (Brown and
Danci, 1997). Consumers are more likely to identify
themselves with companies that are associated with CSR
because it can fulfill their needs to maintain a positive
self-image. Consequently, they will form a positive evaluation
toward the company with CSR associations.
 The role of face concern
Lisa C. Wan, Patrick C. Poon and Chunling Yu
In fact, a handful of researchers have started to examine and
identify the moderating variables on consumer evaluations
and reactions toward CSR brands. For example, past research
has shown that the impact of CSR on brand evaluation is
contingent on consumers’ personal support for the CSR issues
and their general beliefs about CSR (Sen and Bhattacharya,
2001). More recently, some researchers have suggested that
consumer attitudes toward a CSR brand are dependent on
their level of involvement with a product category (Berens
et al., 2005) as well as their brand consciousness and perceived
fit between the brand nature and the social cause (Nan and
Heo, 2007). In addition, the impact of CSR on consumers’
purchase intention is dependent on consumers’ awareness of
the CSR initiatives (Sen et al., 2006). Although prior research
has identified different moderators that can influence the
relationship between CSR and consumer reactions, relatively
little attention has been paid to examining how a consumer’s
personal value would influence his/her evaluations reactions
toward CSR brands. Notably, values are enduring beliefs
which guide actions and judgments across specific situations,
and personal values have long been recognized as important
constructs that drive various consumer behaviors (Rokeach,
1979). Therefore, this paper aims to identify a value construct
that would shed new light to the existing CSR literature.
Specifically, this paper attempts to identify and propose a
well-established value construct – face concern– that would
influence consumer evaluations and reactions toward CSR
brands.
Face concern
Originating in Chinese culture, the concept of face has
become one of the key constructs that influences social
interactions universally and has received considerable research
attention in cross-cultural psychology, social psychology and
sociology literature (Bond, 1996; Brown and Levinson, 1987;
Du et al., 2010; Goffman, 1959, 1967; White et al., 2004). For
example, prior cross-cultural psychology literature has
recognized the pervasive and powerful impact of face on
various aspects across Asian and Western societies, such as
conflict management, negotiation, gift giving behaviors, etc.
(Bond, 1996; Oetzel et al., 2001; Ting-Toomey, 1985;
Ting-Toomey and Kurogi, 1998). According to Goffman
(1967, p. 5), face refers to “the positive social value a person
effectively claims for himself”. It can be regarded as a “public
property” and depends on others for its existence. Therefore,
face can be enhanced, saved and lost through social
interactions. Following Goffman (1959, 1967), Brown and
Levinson (1987) have pointed out that the concept of face
underlies the human need for social acceptance and people in
general tend to use a series of strategies, that is, facework, to
enhance and maintain their face when presenting themselves
in everyday life. Some common faceworks used to cope with
one’s “face needs” in social interactions include compliment,
compromise, apology, etc. They further developed a theory of
politeness and advocated that there are two types of face:
positive face and negative face. Positive face is the basic claim
to be appreciated and have approval of others, whereas
negative face is the basic claim to autonomy or not to be
imposed on by others. The politeness theory of Oetzel et al.
54
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 33 · Number 1 · 2016 · 52–60
(2001) has significant impact on facework research, especially
in the area of conflict management.
Building on the works from Goffman (1967) and Brown
and Levinson (1987), Chan et al. (2009) have further
explained that face is a positive image of self that is affirmed
through interaction with others. Face is a social resource that
cannot be claimed unilaterally and consists of the public,
social and fluid aspects of the self-concept that is contingent
on others’ attitudes and behaviors. Chan et al. (2009, p. 293)
define face concern as “the extent to which an individual
shows regard for or interest in the protection and
enhancement of face”.
Despite the fact that face has a universal impact on human
behaviors in social interactions, cross-cultural research has
agreed that people in Asian societies put greater emphasis on
face issues than those in Western societies (Bond, 1996; Hui
and Triandis, 1986; Oetzel et al., 2001; Ting-Toomey and
Kurogi, 1998). As pointed out by prior cross-cultural
research, Asian and Western societies are characterized by the
cultural dimension of collectivism and individualism,
respectively. In collectivist cultures of Asia, people emphasize
on interdependence and define their self-concepts in relation
to others. Hence, Asians value social relationships, norms and
obligations. In contrast, people in individualist cultures
emphasize independence and view themselves as an
individuated entity (i.e. separate from others). They tend to
value personal needs, rights and freedom. Given that face
underlies the human need for social acceptance and is a
critical social resource in maintaining social relationships,
Asians who focus on interdependence will be more concerned
for face than Westerners.
Although research on cross-cultural psychology, social
psychology and sociology has recognized the pervasive
impacts of face concern on social interactions, surprisingly,
very little attention has been paid to examine the role of face
concern on consumer behaviors. Recently, some researchers
have started to use face concern as an explanatory variable for
consumption differences (Bao et al., 2003; Li and Su, 2007;
Wong and Ahuvia, 1998) and for consumer reactions to
service failures (Chan et al., 2009) between Asian and Western
consumers. For example, as Asians are generally more
concerned about face than Westerners, some researchers have
pointed out that Asians are more likely to engage in
conspicuous consumption (i.e. buying luxury products/
services) than Westerners because buying well-known brands
and luxury products/services enable consumers to maintain
and enhance their face in front of others in society (Bao et al.,
2003; Li and Su, 2007; Wong and Ahuvia, 1998). In a more
recent study, Chan et al. (2009) find that Asians will be more
dissatisfied in service failure than Westerners if the service
failure involves face-threatening elements (e.g. the waiter is
rude) and causes a loss of face in front of others.
Among the studies concerning the role of face concern in
consumer behaviors, the majority of them have mainly focused
on the situations of conspicuous consumption. However, the
impact of face concern should not be restricted to conspicuous
consumption, face concern can indeed exert influence on
consumer evaluations and reactions toward CSR brands. In
addition, although face concern has largely been used to
examine different consumer behavior across cultures, some
 The role of face concern
Lisa C. Wan, Patrick C. Poon and Chunling Yu
researchers have found that face concern also influences
consumer behavior at an individual level (Chan et al., 2007;
Chan and Wan, 2009; Chan et al., 2009). In this regard, this
study focuses on investigating the role of face concern in
consumer evaluations and reactions toward CSR brands at an
individual level and measures face concern as an individual
difference variable.
Research framework and hypotheses
In previous face concern literature, the main argument for
purchasing name brands or luxury products/services which
can contribute to face enhancement is the high social
recognition and status associated with the name brands or
luxury products/services (Bao et al., 2003; Li and Su, 2007;
Wong and Ahuvia, 1998). In other words, purchasing luxury
brands fulfills the consumers’ needs for social acceptance.
Therefore, the higher the face concern of a consumer, the
higher is the consumer’s purchase intention for those luxury
brands. In line with this literature, face concern may also exert
influence on consumers’ perceived quality, purchase intention
and propensity to recommend CSR brands because
purchasing CSR brands may also contribute to face
enhancement.
According to the CSR literature, consumers in general
have a positive attitude toward CSR brands because CSR
associations enhance the reputation and image of a company,
and therefore increase consumer liking of the company as well
as its brands (Berens et al., 2005; Brown and Danci, 1997).
More importantly, Sen and Bhattacharya (2001) have further
explained that people are motivated to identify themselves
with organizations which have an excellent reputation so as to
maintain their positive self-image. By identifying oneself with
companies associated with CSR activities, they are able to
fulfill this self-enhancement need. Building on this argument,
purchasing CSR brands also contributes to face enhancement.
On one hand, the action of purchasing CSR brands will be
considered as a good and ethical behavior in society (i.e. an
action with social acceptance). On the other hand, this also
signifies the good taste of the consumer who chooses those
CSR brands. Given this face enhancement function,
consumers who have a high face concern may have better
quality perceptions and evaluations of CSR brands, and they
have a higher purchase intention for CSR brands than those
who have a low face concern.
In addition, previous word-of-mouth literature has
suggested that one of the motivations for consumers to
spread “negative word-of-mouth” to others is to convey
that the consumer has high standards (Nyer, 1999).
Therefore, spreading “negative word-of-mouth” has a
face-enhancing function and consumers with a high face
concern are more motivated to engage in “negative
word-of-mouth” than those with a low face concern (Chan
and Wan, 2009). Building on this literature, a
recommendation of CSR brands to others may also has a
face-enhancing function because it signifies the good taste
of consumers in making such a recommendation.
In short, given that face concern is the extent to which an
individual shows regard for or interest in the protection and
enhancement of face (Chan et al., 2009), consumers with a
high (vs low) face concern would:
55
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 33 · Number 1 · 2016 · 52–60
● perceive CSR brands to have a higher quality;
● have a higher purchase intention for CSR brands; and
● have a higher propensity to recommend CSR brands to
family and friends.
Therefore, we hypothesize that:
H1. Consumers with a high face concern will perceive a
higher brand quality than those with a low face concern
when the brand is associated with CSR, but this
difference is not significant when the brand is not
associated with CSR.
H2a. Consumers with a high face concern will have a higher
purchase intention than those with a low face concern
when the brand is associated with CSR, but this
difference is not significant when the brand is not
associated with CSR.
H2b. Consumers with a high face concern will have a higher
propensity to recommend CSR brands than those with
a low face, but this difference is not significant when the
brand is not associated with CSR.
However, the above consumption differences between
consumers with a high face concern and a low face concern
may not occur in non-CSR brands, given that non-CSR
brands in general do not involve the face-enhancing elements
(i.e. elements that heighten the needs for social acceptance).
More importantly, the impact of face concern on consumers’
purchase intention and recommendation of CSR brands are
mediated by perceived quality (see Figure 1 for the conceptual
model). This argument is built on prior literature that
consumer behavioral reactions are mediated by their
evaluations of brands (Brown and Danci, 1997; Sen and
Bhattacharya, 2001). Therefore:
H3a. The interaction effect between face concern and brand
type (CSR brand vs non-CSR brand) on consumers’
purchase intention is mediated by perceived quality of
the brand.
H3b. The interaction effect between face concern and brand
type (CSR brand vs non-CSR brand) on consumers’
propensity to recommend is mediated by perceived
quality of the brand.
Figure 1 The impact of face concern on consumer reactions to
CSR and non-CSR brands
Face Concern
Consumer Responses:
Purchase Intention
Brand Type:
CSR Brand vs. Perceived Quality
Non-CSR Brand
Recommendation
 The role of face concern Journal of Consumer Marketing
Lisa C. Wan, Patrick C. Poon and Chunling Yu Volume 33 · Number 1 · 2016 · 52–60

Methodology Procedure
Participants were first exposed to a print advertisement
Participants and design depicting either a new cell phone model of Sony Ericsson –
To examine the impact of face concern on consumer GreenHeart or CyberClear. After 1 minute, they were invited
perceived quality, purchase intention and propensity to to respond to a series of questions including an item of
recommend, an experimental study was conducted with a perceived product quality measured by a seven-point semantic
manipulation of the two different brand types (i.e. CSR differential scale (i.e. I think the overall quality of this brand is:
brands vs non-CSR brands). In total, 160 young adult 1 ⫽ very bad; 7 ⫽ very good), an item of purchase intention
consumers were randomly recruited in the city of Hong Kong, measured by a seven-point semantic differential scale (i.e. If
aged between 20-26 years, 46 per cent were male and 54 per you are going to buy a cell phone, how likely would you buy
cent were female. A small gift was given to the participants for this new model/brand? 1 ⫽ very unlikely; 7 ⫽ very likely), and
their voluntary participation in the study. They were randomly an item of propensity to recommend also measured by a
assigned to either a CSR brand or non-CSR brand condition seven-point semantic differential scale (i.e. how likely are you
(a control condition), and their face concern scores were to recommend this new model/brand to your friends? 1 ⫽ very
measured with the scale adapted from Chan et al. (2009). unlikely; 7 ⫽ very likely). Then, participants completed a
As young consumers are frequent users of mobile phone, they four-item face concern scale (i.e. I care about others’ attitudes
were selected as the subjects of the experiment. Many extraneous toward me; I will be very angry if others are impolite to me; I
variables, such as age, education and income level could be care about praise and criticism from others; I will be very upset
controlled due to their homogeneous backgrounds. To enhance if I am criticized in public) adapted from Chan et al. (2009),
the external validity, this experimental study used a real cell
and their responses were measured by a ten-point Likert scale
phone brand – “Sony Ericsson” – as a context to examine the role
(1 ⫽ strongly disagree; 10 ⫽ strongly agree). Finally, after
of face concern in consumer reactions to CSR brands.
providing their demographic information, participants were
thanked and debriefed.
Stimulus development
This experiment used Sony Ericsson as the target brand due to
Results and findings
its recent launch of a new cell phone sub-brand –
“GreenHeart” which emphasized on eco-friendly, such as Table I shows the correlations and descriptive statistics of
using recycled plastics, adopting e-manual to save papers, variables. The within-subjects variable, face concern, is
using a low-power charger for energy saving, etc. After Sony continuous in scale. The between-subjects variable, brand
Ericsson launched its new sub-brand of GreenHeart for a type, is categorical (coded 0 for CSR brand, and 1 for
week in Hong Kong, two sets of fictitious print ads were made non-CSR brand). Purchase intention, propensity to
to manipulate the CSR brand and non-CSR brand conditions. recommend and perceived quality are found to be significantly
The general layout was identical for the two print correlated with face concern (p ⬍ 0.01). However, these
advertisements. The only differences between them were the significant correlations are only found for CSR brands, but not
names of the sub-brands and the advertisement messages. In the for non-CSR brands. Hierarchical regressions were performed
CSR brand condition, a print advertisement was made for to assess the impact of face concern on perceived quality,
GreenHeart, with two pictures of the GreenHeart cell phone purchase intention and propensity to recommend. Table II
being displayed with eco-friendly advertising messages adapted summarizes the main results of these hierarchical regressions
from the real advertisement for GreenHeart. The messages for each dependent variable.
included “minimum 50 per cent recycled plastics, minimal
Table I Correlations and descriptive statistics
packaging, e-manual reduces paper usage by over 90 per cent,
and non-toxic paints”. In the non-CSR brand condition (a 1 2 3 4
control condition), another print advertisement with a fictitious
CSR brand
sub-brand of CyberClear was made. The messages in this print Purchase intention 1.00
advertisement emphasized the camera functions the cell phone Recommendation 0.77ⴱⴱ 1.00
and no messages were related to CSR. The messages included
Perceived quality 0.78ⴱⴱ 0.72ⴱⴱ 1.00
“13mm thick, a five-megapixel camera, xenon flash, instant
Face concern 0.50ⴱⴱ 0.44ⴱⴱ 0.59ⴱⴱ 1.00
web-uploads, and a 240 ⫻ 320 pixel display”.
Mean 4.35 4.04 4.61 6.82
Thirty-eight participants drawn from the same pool, as
SD 1.52 1.26 1.29 1.85
participants in the main study were recruited for a pretest
which was conducted to check the successfulness of the Non-CSR brand 1 2 3 4
manipulation. The objective of the pretest was to ensure that Purchase intention 1.00
the two advertisements showed a significant perceived Recommendation 0.80ⴱⴱ 1.00
difference in CSR associations (e.g. Do you think this brand Perceived quality 0.81ⴱⴱ 0.87ⴱⴱ 1.00
behaves responsibly regarding the environment? 1 ⫽ strongly Face concern ⫺0.01 ⫺0.02 0.02 1.00
disagree; 7 ⫽ strongly agree). As predicted, participants in the Mean 3.85 3.78 4.24 7.11
CSR brand condition perceived a higher CSR association than
SD 1.10 1.25 1.18 1.12
those in the non-CSR brand condition (6.26 vs 3.21; t(36) ⫽
12.37). The manipulation of CSR brand vs non-CSR brand Notes: n ⫽ 160; ⴱⴱ p ⬍ 0.01; purchase intention, recommendation
and perceived quality were measured by a seven-point scale while face
was successful. In addition, the majority of participants (95
concern was measured by a ten-point scale
per cent) perceived that Sony Ericsson was not a luxury brand.

56
 The role of face concern Journal of Consumer Marketing
Lisa C. Wan, Patrick C. Poon and Chunling Yu Volume 33 · Number 1 · 2016 · 52–60

Table II Summary of hierarchical regression analyses low face concern groups based on a median-split procedure.
Dependent variables Estimate Standard error t-statistic Given the median of face concern (␣ ⫽ 0.92) was 6.93,
participants with a face concern score higher (lower) than 6.97
Perceived quality were considered as the high (low) face concern group. Figure 2
Intercept 2.53 0.57 4.46ⴱⴱ shows the interaction effects and pattern of means (i.e.
Brand type ⫺0.46 0.24 ⫺1.91† perceived quality, purchase intention, propensity to
Face concern 0.31 0.08 3.86ⴱⴱ recommend) of the two face concern groups (high vs low)
Brand type ⴛ face concern ⫺0.39 0.18 ⫺2.22ⴱ across the two brand type conditions (CSR brand vs non-CSR
brand).
Purchase intention
Intercept 2.32 0.62 3.77ⴱⴱ
Mediated moderation
Brand type ⫺0.59 0.26 ⫺2.24ⴱ
To examine the mediating role of consumer’s perceived
Face concern 0.30 0.09 3.45ⴱⴱ
quality in the interaction effect of face concern and brand type
Brand type ⴛ face concern ⫺0.43 0.19 ⫺2.25ⴱ
on purchase intention (H3a) and the interaction effect of face
Recommendation concern and brand type on propensity to recommend (H3b),
Intercept 2.59 0.60 4.32ⴱⴱ two mediated moderation analyses were performed (Baron
Brand type ⫺0.33 0.26 ⫺1.27
Face concern 0.21 0.08 2.55ⴱ Figure 2 The impact of face concern on consumers’ perceived
Brand type ⴛ face concern ⫺0.32 0.19 ⫺1.73† quality, purchase intention and propensity to recommend
Notes: Brand type: 0 ⫽ CSR brand; 1 ⫽ non-CSR brand; † p ⬍ 5.5
0.10; ⴱ p ⬍ 0.05; ⴱⴱ p ⬍ 0.01
5.08
5

Perceived Quality
Perceived quality 4.5 4.36
The results indicate that there is a significant face concern
main effect (b ⫽ 0.31, t ⫽ 3.86, p ⬍ 0.01), qualified by a 4 4.09 4.13
significant face concern ⫻ brand type interaction (b ⫽ ⫺0.39,
3.5
t ⫽ ⫺2.22, p ⬍ 0.05) on perceived quality. The positive sign
of the main effect coefficient indicates that face concern has a 3
positive effect on consumer’s perceived quality of the CSR CSR Brand Non-CSR Brand
brand. More importantly, the negative sign of the interaction
High Face
coefficient points to a stronger face concern effect in the CSR Low Face
brand condition (coded 0) than in the non-CSR brand
condition (coded 1). Therefore, these results support H1.
5.5
Purchase intention
The results show a significant face concern main effect (b ⫽ 5
Purchase Intention

4.87
0.30, t ⫽ 3.45, p ⬍ 0.01) and a significant brand type effect 4.5
(b ⫽ ⫺0.59, t ⫽ ⫺2.24, p ⬍ 0.05). There is a significant face
concern ⫻ brand type interaction (b ⫽ ⫺0.43, t ⫽ ⫺2.25, p ⬍ 4 3.91
0.05) on perceived quality. The positive sign of the main effect 3.77 3.79
3.5
coefficient indicates that face concern has a positive effect on
consumers’ purchase intention of the CSR brand. The 3
negative sign of the interaction coefficient points to a stronger CSR Brand Non-CSR Brand
face concern effect in the CSR brand condition (coded 0) than
High Face
in the non-CSR brand condition (coded 1). Therefore, these
Low Face
results support H2a.

Propensity to recommend 5.5

Similarly, there is a significant face concern main effect (b ⫽
0.21, t ⫽ 2.55, p ⬍ 0.05). However, the face concern ⫻ brand 5
Recommendation

type interaction effect on propensity to recommend is

4.5 4.42
marginally significant (b ⫽ ⫺0.32, t ⫽ ⫺1.73, p ⫽ 0.08). The
positive sign of the main effect coefficient indicates that face 4
concern has a positive effect on propensity to recommend. 3.86
3.5
3.64 3.71
The negative sign of the interaction coefficient suggests a
stronger face concern effect in the CSR brand condition
3
(coded 0) than in the non-CSR brand condition (coded 1). CSR Brand Non-CSR Brand
Hence, these results support H2b.
Supplementary analyses were conducted to show the High Face
Low Face
pattern of means of the dependent variables across high and

57
 The role of face concern
Lisa C. Wan, Patrick C. Poon and Chunling Yu
and Kenny, 1986). H3a predicts that the interaction effect
between face concern and brand type (face concern ⫻ brand
type) on purchase intention is mediated by perceived quality.
To verify this prediction, first, purchase intention was
regressed on the main effect and the interaction effect between
face concern and brand type. There was a significant face
concern ⫻ brand type interaction (p ⬍ 0.05). Second,
perceived quality was regressed on the face concern ⫻ brand
type interaction, and it was significant (p ⬍ 0.05). Finally,
when the main effect of perceived quality was added to the
main model, the original face concern ⫻ brand type
interaction effect became non-significant (p ⬎ 0.10). These
results indicate a full mediation (Z ⫽ ⫺2.17; p ⬍ 0.05) and
support H3a.
Another mediated moderation test was also conducted to
examine H3b. H3b predicts that the face concern ⫻ brand type
interaction effect on propensity to recommend is mediated by
consumers’ perceived quality. First, propensity to recommend
was regressed on the main effect and the interaction effect
between face concern and brand type. There was a marginally
significant face concern ⫻ brand type interaction (p ⫽ 0.08).
Second, perceived quality was regressed on the face concern ⫻
brand type interaction and it was significant (p ⬍ 0.05).
Finally, when the main effect of perceived quality was added
to the main model, the original face concern ⫻ brand type
interaction effect became non-significant (p ⬎ 0.10). These
results indicate a full mediation (Z ⫽ ⫺2.18; p ⬍ 0.05) and
support H3b.
Discussion and conclusions
This paper focuses on investigating the role of face concern in
consumer reactions to CSR brands. The results show that face
concern has a favorable effect on consumers’ perceived
quality, purchase intention and recommendation of CSR
brands. More specifically, when compared to consumers with
low face concern, consumers with high face concern have a
higher-quality perception of CSR brands. This leads to a
higher purchase intention and propensity to recommend CSR
brands. However, these consumption differences between the
two face concern groups disappear in non-CSR brand
condition because of the fact that non-CSR brands of similar
product categories are less likely to facilitate face
enhancement. Theoretically, this study provides important
contributions, as it sheds new light on current CSR literature
in the context of consumer reactions to CSR brands. Although
previous research has identified various factors (such as
consumers’ general belief and personal support toward CSR
activities, level of product involvement, and awareness of CSR
initiatives) which affect consumer responses to CSR brands,
there is a lack of understanding concerning the influence of
personal values. In fact, personal values have long been
recognized as key variables that shape consumer buying
behavior. This research proposes a model that captures the
effect of a personal value (i.e. face-concern) on consumer
evaluations and reactions toward CSR brands. It
demonstrates that consumers with high (vs low) face concern
would have higher evaluation and purchase intention for CSR
brands.
Managerially, this study provides critical implications for
international corporations in the formulation of brand
58
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 33 · Number 1 · 2016 · 52–60
management strategies, particularly for entering an Asian
country like China where people generally have a high degree
of face concern. This research also provides updated insights
on how and when a firm should build up a brand associated
with CSR. China has now become the world’s second largest
consumer market for luxury goods. Possession of luxury
brands is undoubtedly considered as a way to enhance the face
or social image of a person. Accordingly, marketing managers
of international corporations may make use of these findings
in promoting their products. When launching a new product,
the product can be positioned as a product associated with
CSR or simply introduced as a CSR brand. The marketing
managers may try to highlight the enrichment of one’s own
face for being an owner of a CSR brand. Degree of face
concern can serve as a consumer segmentation variable so that
consumers can be classified into groups of high or low face
concern. International marketing managers should be aware
of those countries which have a high level of face concern,
such as China or other Asian countries. On the other hand,
green products or brands may appear to be more attractive to
consumers with high (vs low) face concern. Given the
face-enhancing function of CSR brands, international
corporations may allocate more resources to develop and
promote CSR brands in Asian markets. Undoubtedly, the
positive impact of face concern on consumers’ purchase
intention of CSR brands should be more salient for publicly
consumed products than for privately consumed products.
Future research may address this issue and examine the role
of product conspicuousness as an additional variable
(Griskevicius et al., 2010).
Like other studies, this research suffers from a number of
limitations that diminish the generalizability of findings. This
study only involved a small group of young consumers in a single
country. It would be better to involve some more countries with
different degree of face concern so as to increase the validity of
the findings. Future research can be extended to conduct
empirical tests in more realistic setting such as running actual
field experiments by measuring real consumer responses toward
CSR brands and non-CSR brands. Previous cross-cultural
studies have shown that people in Asian societies appraise face
concern more than those in Western societies (Bond, 1996; Hui
and Triandis, 1986; Ting-Toomey and Kurogi, 1998).
According to Hofstede (1980), Asian societies and Western
societies are characterized by collectivism (with a focus on
interdependence) and individualism (with a focus on
independence), respectively.
As face is a social resource that helps in maintaining social
relationship, Asians who focus on interdependence will be
more concerned for face than Westerners. Therefore, the
positive impact of face concern on consumers’ evaluation and
preference for CSR brands should be more salient for Asian
consumers than Western consumers. Future research may
empirically investigate this cross-cultural argument to obtain a
better picture of the mechanism involved and provide richer
implications. Furthermore, it may be interesting to examine
whether there are any differences in the gift-giving of CSR
branded products vs non-CSR branded products, especially as
gift-giving in a very common social practice in China and
other Asian countries.
 The role of face concern
Lisa C. Wan, Patrick C. Poon and Chunling Yu
References
Auger, P., Devinney, T.M., Louviere, J.J. and Burke, P.F.
(2010), “The importance of social product attributes in
consumer purchasing decisions: a multi-country
comparative study”, International Business Review, Vol. 19
No. 2, pp. 140-159.
Bao, Y., Zhou, K.Z. and Su, C. (2003), “Face consciousness
and risk aversion: do they affect consumer
decision-making?”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 8,
pp. 733-755.
Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986), “The moderator-
mediator variable distinction in social psychological
research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical
considerations”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
Vol. 51 No. 6, pp. 1173-1182.
Barone, M.J., Miyazaki, A.D. and Taylor, K.A. (2000), “The
influence of cause-related marketing on consumer choice:
does one good turn deserve another?”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 248-263.
Becker-Olsen, K.L., Taylor, C.R., Hill, R.P. and Yalcinkaya,
G. (2011), “A cross-cultural examination of corporate
social responsibility marketing communication in Mexico
and the United States: strategies for global brands”, Journal
of International Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 30-44.
Berens, G., van Riel, C.B.M. and van Bruggen, G.H. (2005),
“Corporate associations and consumer product responses:
the moderating role of corporate brand dominance”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 69 No. 3, pp. 35-48.
Bond, M.H. (1996), The Handbook of Chinese Psychology,
Oxford University Press, Hong Kong.
Brown, J.T. and Danci, P.A. (1997), “The company and the
product: corporate associations and consumer product
responses”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 61 No. 1, pp. 68-84.
Brown, P. and Levinson, S. (1987), Politeness: Some Universals
in Language Usage, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Chan, H. and Wan, L.C. (2009), “Dual influences of
moderating variables in the dissatisfaction process: theory
and evidence”, Journal of International Consumer Marketing,
Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 125-135.
Chan, H., Wan, L.C. and Sin, L.Y.M. (2007), “Hospitality
service failures: who will be more dissatisfied?”, International
Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 26 No. 3,
pp. 531-545.
Chan, H., Wan, L.C. and Sin, L.Y.M. (2009), “The
contrasting effects of culture on consumer tolerance:
interpersonal face and impersonal fate”, Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 292-304.
Creyer, E.H. and Ross, W.T. (1997), “The influence of firm
behavior on purchase intention: do consumers really care
about business ethics?”, Journal of Consumer Marketing,
Vol. 14 No. 6, pp. 421-432.
Dean, D.H. (2004), “Consumer perception of corporate
donations: effects of company reputation for social
responsibility and type of donation”, Journal of Advertising,
Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 91-102.
Du, F., Fan, X. and Feng, T. (2010), “An experimental
investigation of the role of face in service failure and
59
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 33 · Number 1 · 2016 · 52–60
recovery encounters”, Journal of Consumer Marketing,
Vol. 27 No. 7, pp. 584-593.
Du, S., Bhattcharya, C.B. and Sen, S. (2007), “Reaping
relational rewards from corporate social responsibility: the
role of competitive positioning”, International Journal of
Research in Marketing, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 224-241.
Goffman, E. (1959), The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life,
Doubleday, Garden City, NY.
Goffman, E. (1967), Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face
Behavior, Doubleday, London.
Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J.M. and Van den Bergh, B. (2010),
“Going green to be seen: status, reputation, and
conspicuous conservation”, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, Vol. 98 No. 3, pp. 392-404.
Hofstede, G.H. (1980), Culture’s Consequences: International
Differences in Work-Related Values, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.
Hui, C.H. and Triandis, H.C. (1986),
“Individualism-collectivism, a study of cross-cultural
researchers”, Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, Vol. 17
No. 2, pp. 225-248.
Kang, K.H., Lee, S. and Huh, C. (2010), “Impacts of positive
and negative corporate social responsibility activities on
company performance in the hospitality industry”,
International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 29
No. 1, pp. 72-82.
Klein, J. and Dawar, N. (2004), “Corporate social
responsibility and consumers’ attributions brand
evaluations in a product-harm crisis”, International Journal
of Research in Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 203-217.
Kolk, A. and van Tulder, R. (2010), “International business,
corporate social responsibility and sustainable
development”, International Business Review, Vol. 19 No. 1,
pp. 119-125.
Lantos, G.P. (2002), “The ethicality of altruistic corporate
social responsibility”, Journal of Consumer Marketing,
Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 205-232.
Li, J.J. and Su, C. (2007), “How face influences consumption:
a comparative study of American and Chinese consumers”,
International Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 49 No. 2,
pp. 237-256.
McGuire, J.B., Sundgren, A. and Schneeweis, T. (1988),
“Corporate social responsibility and firm financial
performance”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 31
No. 6, pp. 854-872.
Murray, K.B. and Vogel, C.M. (1997), “Using a hierarchy of
effects approach to gauge the effectiveness of CSR to
generate goodwill towards the firm: financial versus
nonfinancial impacts”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 38
No. 2, pp. 141-159.
Nan, X. and Heo, K. (2007), “Consumer responses to
corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives”, Journal of
Advertising, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 63-74.
Nyer, P. (1999), “Cathartic complaining as a means of
reducing consumer dissatisfaction”, Journal of Consumer
Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction, and Complaining Behaviour,
Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 15-25.
Oetzel, J., Ting-Toomey, S., Masumoto, T., Yokochi, Y.,
Pan, X., Takai, J. and Wilcox, R. (2001), “Face and
facework in conflict: a cross-cultural comparison of China,
 The role of face concern
Lisa C. Wan, Patrick C. Poon and Chunling Yu
Germany, Japan, and the United States”, Communication
Monographs, Vol. 68 No. 3, pp. 235-258.
Ozsomer, A. and Altaras, S. (2008), “Global brand purchase
likelihood: a critical synthesis and an integrated conceptual
framework”, Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 16
No. 4, pp. 1-28.
Pava, M.L. and Krausz, J. (1996), Corporate Social
Responsibility and Financial Performance: The Paradox of
Social Cost, Quorum Books, Westport, CT.
Rokeach, M. (1979), Understanding Human Values: Individual
and Societal, Free Press, New York, NY.
Sen, S. and Bhattacharya, C.B. (2001), “Does doing good
always lead to doing better? Consumer reactions to
corporate social responsibility”, Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 225-243.
Sen, S., Bhattacharya, C.B. and Korschun, D. (2006), “The
role of corporate social responsibility in strengthening
multiple stakeholder relationships: a field experiment”,
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 34 No. 2,
pp. 158-166.
Stanwick, P.A. and Stanwick, S.D. (1998), “The relationship
between corporate social performance and organizational size,
financial performance, and environmental performance: an
empirical examination”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 17
No. 2, pp. 195-204.
Tajfel, H. and John, C.T. (1985), “The social identity theory
of group behavior”, in Worchel, S. and Austin, W.G (Eds),
Psychology of Intergroup Relations, Vol. 2, Nelson-Hall,
Chicago, IL, pp. 7-24.
Ting-Toomey, S. (1985), “Towards a theory of conflict and
culture”, in Gudykunst, W., Stewart, L. and Ting-Toomey,
S. (Eds), Communication, Culture, and Organizational
Processes, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA, pp. 71-86.
Ting-Toomey, S. and Kurogi, A. (1998), “Facework
competence in intercultural conflict: an updated
face-negotiation theory”, International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 187-225.
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
60
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 33 · Number 1 · 2016 · 52–60
Todd, G. and Peloza, J. (2011), “How does corporate social
responsibility create value for consumers”, Journal of
Consumer Marketing, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 48-56.
Turban, D.B. and Greening, D.W. (1997), “Corporate social
performance and organizational attractiveness to
prospective employees”, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 658-672.
Waller, D.S. and Lanis, R. (2009), “Corporate social
responsibility (CSR) disclosure of advertising agencies”,
Journal of Advertising, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 109-121.
White, J.B., Tynan, R., Galinsky, A.D. and Thompson, L.
(2004), “Face threat sensitivity in negotiation: roadblock to
agreement and joint gain”, Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, Vol. 94 No. 2, pp. 102-124.
Wiig, A. and Kolstad, I. (2010), “Multinational corporations
and host country institutions: a case study of CSR activities
in Angola”, International Business Review, Vol. 19 No. 2,
pp. 178-190.
Wong, N.Y. and Ahuvia, A.C. (1998), “Personal taste and
family face: luxury consumption in confucian and western
societies”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 15 No. 5,
pp. 423-441.
About the authors
Lisa C. Wan is Assistant Professor in the School of Hotel and
Tourism Management, The Chinese University of Hong
Kong, Hong Kong.
Patrick S. Poon is Associate Professor in the Department of
Marketing and International Business, Lingnan University,
Hong Kong. Patrick Poon is the corresponding author and can
be contacted at: patpoon@ln.edu.hk
Chunling Yu is Associate Professor in the Department of
Marketing, School of Economics and Management, Tsinghua
University, Beijing, China.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.