Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 25:211236, 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: sekretariat.helmig@uni-mannheim.de
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 individuals 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

J. Thaler and B. Helmig

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 works 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 reviews 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

Social psychology/behavioral
science
Communication
Mostly related to health issues

Social psychology/behavioral
science
Communication
Mostly related to health issues

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

J. Thaler and B. Helmig

deals with an individuals 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

Theoretical Framework of Social Marketing Effectiveness

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

Theoretical Framework of Social Marketing Effectiveness

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; Montao
& 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 Andreasens (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

J. Thaler and B. Helmig

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 campaigns
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

Theoretical Framework of Social Marketing Effectiveness

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 individuals 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. DSouza
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

J. Thaler and B. Helmig

individual process step because of its effect on peoples 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).

Theoretical Framework of Social Marketing Effectiveness

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 46 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

J. Thaler and B. Helmig

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.

The cognitive process affects an emotional process within the individual

organism.

The emotional process affects further cognitive processing within the

individual organism.

The second cognitive process affects social marketing effectiveness in

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

Attitude changes affect intention to change.

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

Theoretical Framework of Social Marketing Effectiveness

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 P1P6 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

J. Thaler and B. Helmig

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 46 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, P1P6 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.

Theoretical Framework of Social Marketing Effectiveness

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 campaigns 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

J. Thaler and B. Helmig

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), 179211.
Ajzen, I., & Madden T. J. (1986). Prediction of goal-directed behavior: Attitudes,
intentions, and perceived behavioral control. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 22(5), 453474.
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), 463476.
Alves, H. (2010). The who, where, and when of social marketing. Journal of
Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 22(4), 288311.
Andreasen, A. R. (1993). A social marketing research agenda for consumer behavior
researchers. Advances in Consumer Research, 20(1), 15.
Andreasen, A. R. (2002). Marketing social marketing in the social change marketplace. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 21(1), 313.
Andreasen, A. R. (2003). The life trajectory of social marketing: Some implications.
Marketing Theory, 33(3), 293303.
Andreasen, A. R. (2012). Rethinking the relationship between social/nonprofit marketing and commercial marketing. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing,
31(1), 3641.

Theoretical Framework of Social Marketing Effectiveness

231

Andreasen, A. R. (1994). Social marketing: Its definition and domain. Journal of

Public Policy and Marketing, 13(1), 108114.
Arthur, D., & Quester, P. (2004). Whos afraid of that ad? Applying segmentation to
the protection motivation model. Psychology and Marketing, 21(9), 671696.
Bagozzi, R. P. (1981). Attitudes, intentions, and behavior: A test of some key
hypotheses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41(4), 607627.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Moore, D. J. (1994). Public service advertisements: Emotions and
empathy guide prosocial behavior. Journal of Marketing, 58(1), 5670.
Bandura, A. (1969). Social learning theory of identificatory processes. In D. A. Goslin
(Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and research (pp. 213262). Chicago,
IL: Rand McNally & Company.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84(2), 191215.
Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 248287.
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. 165184). 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), 389411.
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), 432445.
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), 597604.
Beltramini, R. F. (1988). Perceived believability of warning label information
presented in cigarette advertising. Journal of Advertising, 17(1), 2632.
Best, J. A., Flay, B. R., Towson, S. M. J., Ryan, K. B., Perry, C. L., Brown, K. S.,
Kersell, M. W., & DAvernas, J. R. (1984). Smoking prevention and the concept
of risk. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 14(3), 257273.
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), 259274.
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), 192203.
Bourgeois, L. J., III. (1979). Toward a method of middle-range theorizing. Academy
of Management Review, 4(3), 443447.
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), 260273.
Braverman, J. (2008). Testimonials versus informational persuasive messages: The
moderating effect of delivery mode and personal involvement. Communication
Research, 35(5), 666694.

232

J. Thaler and B. Helmig

Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 42(1), 116131.
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), 197253.
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), 1733.
Corley, K. G., & Gioia, D. A. (2011). Building theory about theory building: What
constitutes a theoretical contribution. Academy of Management Journal, 36(1),
1232.
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), 467489.
DiMaggio, P. J. (1995). Comments on What theory is not. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 40(3), 391397.
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), 135155.
DSouza, 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), 134157.
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), 133164.
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), 737770.
Entnam, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal
of Communication, 43(4), 5158.
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), 8598.
Gordon, R. (2011). Critical social marketing: Definition, application and domain.
Journal of Social Marketing, 1(2): 8299.
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. 333346), 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), 269305.
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), 115128.

Theoretical Framework of Social Marketing Effectiveness

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), 121.
Hastings, G. B., MacFadyen, L., & Anderson, S. (2000). Whose behaviour is it anyway? The broader potential of social marketing. Social Marketing Quarterly,
6(2), 4658.
Hastings, G. B., Stead, M., & MacKintosh, A. M. (2002). Rethinking drugs prevention: Radical thoughts from social marketing. Health Education Journal, 61(4),
347364.
Hawkins, K., & Hane, A. C. (2000). Adolescents perceptions of print cigarette advertising: A case for counteradvertising. Journal of Health Communication, 5(1),
8396.
Helmig, B., & Thaler, J. (2010). On the effectiveness of social marketingwhat do
we really know? Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 22(4), 264287.
Heurlin, C. (2010). Governing civil society: The political logic of NGOstate relations under dictatorship. Voluntas International Journal of Voluntary and
Nonprofit Organizations, 21(2), 220239.
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), 114.
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),
98118.
Hunt, S. D. (1983). General theories and the fundamental explanada of marketing.
Journal of Marketing, 47(4), 917.
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), 410434.
Janz, N. K., & Becker, M. H. (1984). The health belief model: A decade later. Health
Education & Behavior, 11(1): 147.
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. 4565). 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), 93103.
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), 100109.
Kotler, P., &. Levy, S. J. (1969). Broadening the concept of marketing. Journal of
Marketing, 33(1), 1015.
Kotler, P., Roberto, N., & Lee, N. (2002). Social marketingimproving the quality of
life. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

234

J. Thaler and B. Helmig

Kramer, R. M. (2000). A third sector in the third millennium? VoluntasInternational

Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 11(1): 123.
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), 387407.
Lavidge, R. J., & Steiner, G. A. (1961). A model for predictive measurements of
advertising effectiveness. Journal of Marketing, 25(6), 5962.
Lefebvre, R. C. (2001). Theories and models in social marketing. In P. N. Bloom
& G. T. Gundlach (Eds.), Handbook of marketing and society (pp. 506518).
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), 149188.
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), 4365.
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), 399415.
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.
Montao, D. E, &. Taplin, S. H. (1991). A test of an expanded theory of reasoned
action to predict mammography participation. Social Science & Medicine, 32(6),
733741.
Okhysen, G., & Bonardi J.-P. (2011). Editors comments: The challenges of building
theory by combining lenses. Academy of Management Review, 36(1), 611.
Peattie, K., Peattie, S., & Clarke, P. (2001). Skin cancer prevention: Reevaluating
the public policy implications. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 20(2),
268279.
Petty, R., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1981). Attitudes and persuasionclassic 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. 123205). 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), 135146.
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), 390395.
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. 99120).
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Theoretical Framework of Social Marketing Effectiveness

235

Prochaska, J. O., & Velicer, W. F. (1997). Behavior change: The transtheoretical

model of health behavior change. American Journal of Health Promotion, 12(1),
3848.
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),
6777.
Rogers, R. W. (1975). Protection motivation theory of fear appeals and attitude
change. Journal of Psychology, 91(1), 93114.
Rosenstock, I. M., Strecher, V. J., & Becker, M. H. (1988). Social learning theory and
the health belief model. Health Education and Behavior, 15(2), 175183.
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): 2437.
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), 213248.
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), 271281.
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), 237250.
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), 1422.
Scheufele, D. A. (1999). Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of
Communication, 49(1), 103122.
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),
161180.
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), 157177.
Strong, E. K., Jr. (1925). Theories of selling. Journal of Applied Psychology, 9(1),
7586.
Sutton, R. I., & Staw, B. M. (1995). What theory is not. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 40(3), 371384.
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), 347362.
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), 6074.
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

J. Thaler and B. Helmig

threat portrayal and parenting orientation on parental participation perceptions.

Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 27(2), 149155.
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), 3645.
Taylor, R. (2002). Interpreting global civil society. Voluntas International Journal
of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 13(4), 339347.
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), 83100.
Thaler, J., & Helmig, B. (2012). Promoting good behaviour: Does social and temporal
framing make a difference? VoluntasInternational 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), 71128.
Traeen, B. (1990). Awareness of an AIDS campaign directed at Norwegian adolescents. Health Policy, 16(1), 3341.
Weick, K. E. (1989). Theory construction as disciplined imagination. Academy of
Management Review, 14(4), 516531.
Weick, K. E. (1995). What theory is not, theorizing is. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 40(3), 385390.
Whetten, D. A. (1989). What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of
Management Review, 14(4), 490495.
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), 181200.
Wiebe, G. D. (1951). Merchandising commodities and citizenship on television.
Public Opinion Quarterly, 15(4), 679691.
Witte, K. (1992). Putting the fear back into fear appeals: The extend parallel process
model. Communication Monographs, 59(4), 329349.
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), 99103.
Wymer, W. W. (2011). Developing more effective social marketing strategies. Journal
of Social Marketing, 1(1), 1731.
Zhao, G., & Pechmann, C. (2007). The impact of regulatory focus on adolescents
response to antismoking advertising campaigns. Journal of Marketing Research,
44(4), 671687.

Copyright of Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing is the property of Taylor &
Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a
listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.