Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explore the corporate social responsibility (CSR) paradox, when a social campaign hurts the sponsoring brand even while raising concern for the campaign issue. Design/methodology/approach A between-subjects experiment tested the effects of regulatory frames, issue involvement and collective efficacy on brand attitude, attitude toward the campaign messages, and concern for the issue. Findings A promotion-oriented frame (vs prevention-oriented frame) produced a more unfavorable brand attitude among consumers who had low levels of collective efficacy, even though the promotion-oriented frame generated strong concern for the issue itself. Attitudes toward the campaign messages remained favorable, suggesting that the negative effect of message frames was directly specifically at the brand. Originality/value Using real-world campaign materials demonstrated that a firm’s CSR campaign efforts can create important brand risks.

Breastfeeding is one of the top maternal priorities for many organizations, including the World Health Organization (WHO), The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), and the Center for Disease Control (CDC). Focusing on the goals of Healthy People 2020, as well as the recommendations of other organizations, this paper investigates the impacts on women's intentions to breastfeed newborns for 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year. This research used the theory of planned behavior (TPB) as a model to predict intentions for each duration of time. Body satisfaction was included as a moderating variable given research demonstrating a possible connection of body satisfaction to breastfeeding. A survey of 156 pregnant women was conducted. Results demonstrated the importance of the three TPB measures in predicting intentions. Further, significant interactions between body satisfaction and attitudes, as well as body satisfaction and subjective norms were present in predicting intentions to exclusively breastfeed one's baby from infant to 6 months of age. Theoretical implications are discussed, as well as practical implications for breastfeeding interventions and campaigns.

Introduction: Guns remain a major cause of injury and death among children. We determined pediatric residents’ familiarity with gun safety campaigns and their gun safety counseling practices. We determined pediatric residents’ comfort with the Asking Saves Kids (ASK) campaign, which recommends that parents ask about gun safety and storage where their children play. Methods: Cross-sectional 27-item electronic survey was distributed to three pediatric residency programs in Baltimore, Maryland, USA. Residents were asked to respond to statements using a seven-point Likert scale on familiarity with three gun safety campaigns and their attitudes toward gun safety counseling. Results: 82% of respondents were not familiar with gun safety programs. 23% reported not counseling. 87% believed it is a good idea to ask about guns in a home but only 64% were comfortable recommending their patients’ parents to ask about guns. 59% were personally comfortable asking about guns in the home. 15% believed their patients’ parents would be comfortable asking about guns in the homes of friends and families. Conclusions: The residents in this survey supported the idea of gun safety anticipatory guidance but discussing firearms can be problematic. Educational programs and strategies are needed to support physicians’ counselling on gun safety.

A collective efficacy scale is presented and used in 2 experiments that tested the effects of collective efficacy and regulatory framing on concern for body image. In Study 1 (N = 73), participants viewed online video messages from a health campaign that varied in their regulatory frame (promotion vs. prevention), after which they expressed the likelihood that they would discuss it with someone else. In Study 2, participants (N = 307) viewed either a regulatory-framed message or no message, after which they expressed their concern for the issue and their behavioral intentions. Study 2 also introduced moderating variables and addressed potential alternate explanations. Overall, participants who were higher in collective efficacy indicated greater concern for the issue of body image and expressed a greater likelihood to discuss the issue. The messages' regulatory frame also moderated the effect of collective efficacy. Collective efficacy was a stronger predictor in the prevention condition than in the promotion condition, presumably because the promotion frame was more effective in increasing participants' concern and intentions regardless of their sense of collective efficacy.

No abstract