attitude and purchase intention towards tempe …

Ekuitas: Jurnal Ekonomi dan Keuangan ISSN 1411-0393Akreditasi No. 80/DIKTI/Kep/2012

18

ATTITUDE AND PURCHASE INTENTION TOWARDS TEMPE PRODUCERSJOINING THE PROTESTS

A Study in Central Java

Kresno Agus [email protected]

Basu Swastha DharmmestaB. M. Purwanto

Moira M. M. MoelionoBalai Penelitian Teknologi Hasil Hutan Bukan Kayu Mataram, NTB

Fakultas Ekonomika dan Bisnis Universitas Gadjah Mada, JogjakartaCenter for International Forestry Research, Bogor

ABSTRAK

Teori atribusi telah banyak digunakan dalam penelitian pemasaran. Meskipun demikian, teori ini memilikibeberapa kelemahan. Dengan menggunakan konteks protes produsen tempe, studi ini bertujuan meminimalisasikelemahan tersebut dengan mengintegrasikan teori atrubusi dengan teori perilaku kolektif, teori prososial, danteori nilai pengharapan dalam menjelaskan dan memprediksi perilaku konsumen tempe terhadap individu/kelompok produsen yang melakukan protes. Untuk menjawab tujuan tersebut, studi ini mengajukan model yangmengintegrasikan atribusi dari motif pengrajin tempe yang terlibat dalam protes, empati terhadap pengrajintempe yang terlibat protes, sikap terhadap pengrajin tempe yang terlibat protes dan niat beli. Hasil analisismeunjukkan bahwa model yang diajukan didukung oleh data. Hal ini mengimplikasikan bahwa integrasi antarateori atribusi dengan teori perilaku kolektif, teori prososial, dan nilai pengharapan dapat mengurangi kelemahanpenggunaan teori atribusi pada kritik tentang pengabaian motif dalam proses atribusi dan pembauran antaraproses atribusi dan proses atribusional

Kata kunci: protes pengrajin, motivasi, empati, sikap

ABSTRACT

The theory of attribution has been widely used in marketing studies. However, this theory containssome limitations as well. Using the context of protests of tempe producers, this study aims atminimizing the limitations by integrating the attribution theory with collective action theories,prosocial theories, and expectancy-value theories in explaining and predicting the behavior of productconsumers and individuals/groups that joined the protests. To answer the research objectives, thisstudy proposed a model integrating the attribution of perceived motives of tempe producers joiningthe, empathy towards tempe producers, attitude towards tempe producers, and subsequentpurchasing intention. The results indicate that the proposed model is supported by the data. Thisimplies that the integration of the attribution theory with collective action theories, prosocial theories,and expectancy-value theories can minimize the limitations with regard to the criticism in neglectingmotivation in attribution processes and confounding between attribution processes and attributionalprocesses.

Keywords: producers’ protest, motives, empathy, attitude

INTRODUCTIONThere have been numerous studies that

use the attribution theory to explain,predict, and understand behavioural pheno-mena (see for examples Sparkman and

Locander, 1980; Furse et al. 1981; Teas andMcElroy, 1986; Golden and Alpert, 1987;Bitner, 1990; Bitner et al. 1994; Stern, 1994;Taylor, 1994; DeCarlo and Leigh, 1996;Raghubir and Corfman, 1999; Dixon et al.

Attitude And Purchase Intention Towards ... – Hendarto, Dharmmesta, Purwanto, Moeliono 19

2001; Laczniak et al. 2001; Prabhu andStewart, 2001; Maxham and Netemeyer,2002; Bendapudi and Leone, 2003; Rifon etal. 2004; Tsiros et al. 2004; Morales, 2005). Byreviewing the previous studies that use theattribution theory, Wang (2008) identifies anumber of limitations of the theory inexplaining behaviour, namely: (1) lack ofthe holistic view of attribution; (2) con-founding between attribution processes andattributional processes; (3) neglecting moti-vation in attribution processes; (4) blurringdifferences between causal attribution andtrait attribution; and (5) misplacing attribu-tion as entire cognition. This study aims atminimizing the limitations in the context ofprotests of tempe producers. Protests aredefined as “an occasion when people cometogether in public to express disapproval oropposition to something” (Longman Ad-vanced American Dictionary, 2003). Reasonsfor using this context of protests of tempeproducers are (1) within a year, betweenJune 2012 and September 2013 the protestsof tempe producers had occurred twice. Theproducers halted the production for 3consecutive days to protest the hike in theprice of soybean, a raw material to maketempe, in a very short time interval; and (2)the protests were covered and reported bysome large scale printed and electronicmedia.

According to Manalu (2009), from thebeginning the perspective of social behaviorhas made significant contribution by statingthat the root caused of any conflict, violence,social movement, and protest is dissatis-faction. These forms of dissatisfaction maybe directed to the prevailing norms, theunfair social structure, the tyrannical politi-cal system, exploitative economic policies,or discrimination against particular groupsor identities all of which can be perceivedfrom different ideologies and perspectives.In our opinion, this can also be viewed fromthe perspective of the attribution theory.Reviewing the current literature pertainingto protests and customers, we found othergaps as follows: (1) most literature focuses

on identification of the determinant factorsof why consumers take part in the protest;(2) attitude is not the focal point in explain-ing why consumers take part in the protest;and (3) only few literature discusses consu-mers’ attitude and puchase intention to-wards the products manufactured by pro-ducers taking part in the protest. Based onthe aforementioned, the objectives of ourstudy are to narrow these gaps by inte-grating the attribution theory with collectiveaction theories, prosocial theories, andexpectancy value theories to explain, pre-dict, and understand consumers’ attitude toindividuals (groups) involved in the pro-tests.

THEORETICAL REVIEWSLimitation of the Attribution Theory

Attribution means an attempt to under-stand the underlying antecedents of otherpeople’s behaviour, and in some cases, theunderlying antecedents of our own beha-viour (Baron and Byrne, 2005). Wang (2008)states that there are five weaknesses whenusing the attribution theory in marketingstudies. The weaknesses are as follows:First, lack of the holistic view of attribution.Previous studies on marketing usually onlyadopt one single approach such as consu-mers when processing information about aperson or object. For an example, somestudies use the corespondence inferencetheory to investigate attribution from consu-mers to the message delivered by marketers.To process information, previous research-ers merely view that the attribution madeby consumers is based on a single factor,either the marketers or the marketplaceenvironment. However, in an attributionprocess, consumer attribution may be madenot only from the marketplace environmentwhere customers make transanctions, theproducts offered, and/or the customersthemself, but also based on the informationand experience that a customer has inrelation to the marketing massage; Second,confounding between attribution processesand attributional processes. The attribution

20 Ekuitas: Jurnal Ekonomi dan Keuangan – Volume 20, Nomor 1, Maret 2016 : 18 – 36

theory is frequently used as the theoreticalbasis to explain the antecedents and conse-quences while by definition and concept,this theory can only explain antecedents(attribution processes). For an example, in astudy, although consumers’ satisfaction canbe explained using this theory, the conse-quences (attributional processes) of attribut-ion theory will not be able to explain quitewell. In other words, the attribution theory,as a theoretical basis, is used as an inde-pendent variable, mediating or moderatingvariable, which is frequently inappro-priately applied; Third, neglecting moti-vation in attribution processes. In attribut-ion process, observers’ motives significantlyinfluence the attribution. This is apparentwhen observers involve “self-perception”.Taylor et al. (2009) mentions that self-perception is an idea that people sometimesconclude their own attitude based on theirexplicit behaviour rather than internalconditions. In this situation, self-perceptionserves as the factor that leads to attributionbias. In spite of the importance, in somestudies, this factor is often neglected;Fourth, blurring differences between causalattribution and trait attribution. The attri-bution theory has been used to analyze thecharacteristics of an object concluded by theobservers. For an example, in some studies,covariation theories were used to explainwhy a consumer, after being told that acertain product is inferior, attributes nega-tive comments to the product and regardsthe product as inferior. In this instance, thisis true when consumers are supported bycommunication or word of mouth literature.In the example above, covariation theoriescan be viewed to disclose the causesattributed by the consumer based on theteller’ behaviour (including word of mouthcommunication towards the product), butthese theories are not suitable for explainingcharacteristics of the inferred product (thatthe product indeed has inferior quality).Confounding between causal attributionand trait attribution may result in false

conclusions; and Fifth, misplacing attri-bution as entire cognition. Attributionprocesses are frequently considered as theentire cognitive process that leads to theformation of attitude towards a particularobject. In some studies, for an example,causal attribution made by consumers ismerely based on negative comments ofsellers to certain products. Weaknesses ofsuch studies: (1) the characteristics of theproducts fall within trait attribution, butcausal attribution is used; (2) the character-istics of the products inferred simply basedon the seller’s acting are taken as all theinformation that can be acquired for cogni-tive information processing. In reality,however, attitude towards a product can beformed based on information that a con-sumer obtain or experience. In other words,attitude towards a product may be formedfrom advertisement persuasion, personalexperience, and evaluation about the pro-duct (cognitive information processingacquired from various sources, one of themis interpersonal inference).

Adaptation of the Attribution TheoryThe attribution theory has been adapted

to minimize the inherent limitations.Johnson (2006) employed bibliometrics inthe use of this attribution theory and foundthat this theory has been adapted by anumber of researchers such as DeCarlo(2005); Fang et al. (2005). DeCarlo (2005)adapted this theory by integrating theattribution theory with persuasion theoriesto examine the impact of consumers’ sus-picion to the motives hidden by salesperson.

Meanwhile Fang et al. (2005) integratethe attribution theory with cultural theoriesto examine the relationship between salescontrol system (the outcome, activities, andcapabilities), origin of sellers’ attribution(attempts, strategies, and abilities), attribut-ion dimensions (internal/external, perma-nent/temporary) and psychological conse-quences (work satisfaction, achievementexpectation.


Source: Harvey and Weary (1984); Bierhoff (1989)Figure 1

Antecedents and Consequences of Attribution

They demonstrate that the controlsystem differentially affects attribution pro-cesses across two cultures: U.S. and China.

Mayer and Sparrowe (2013) mentionthat there are 4 approaches commonlyemployed in theoretical integration: (1)single phenomenon, two theoretical per-spectives; (2) one phenomenon, two see-mingly similar theoretical perspectives; (3)applying one theory to the domain ofanother theory; and (4) streams of researchsharing a similar explanation account. Thisstudy used the first and third approaches.The approach of “single phenomenon, twoperspectives” involves two theoretical per-spectives that highlight similar phenomenabut from different perspectives. In thisapproach, the two theories share variablesneeded to operate the integration. The twotheories do not necessarily have to haveoverlapped domains, but they have to beoverlapped as long as what they predict issomething specific in a particular context.One of the problems of this integration isaddressing the different assumptions ofdifferent theories in such a way that otherresearchers feel comfortable with theresulted integration. Two conditions arerequired to ensure successful model inte-gration: (a) appreciating assumption of eachtheory and combining different basicassumptions; (b) ensuring the way theintegrated theories will be taken and clearly

disclosing why each theory fails to answerquestions.

Another approach, applying one theoryto the domain of another theory, involvestwo theoretical perspectives that expresssimilar ideas but contain different pheno-mena. The application of one theory toanother domain will result in more compre-hensive perspectives. To be successful, thisapproach: (a) has to establish clear a relationbetween the theory and the new domainthat enables productive dialogue; (b) ensu-res suitability between the theory’s basicassumption and the new domain; inte-gration has to find the way to anticipate anyunsuitability.

Motives of Collective Incentive andAttribution

One of the limitations of the attributiontheory is neglecting motivation in attri-bution processes. Taylor et al. (2009); Baronand Byrnes (2005) call this weakness as theactor-observer effect, which means thatwhen we observe other people’s behavior,we tend to relate their behavior to theirdispositional quality, but when we explainour own behavior, we explain it based onsituational effects.

Information about the protests of tempeproducers will attract consumers to get toknow further about the value system heldby tempe producers. Considering the factthat tempe producers earn profit from


selling their products, consumers will easilyconclude that the protests are economically-motivated. However when the protests arefound everywhere, consumers will find itdifficult to conclude that the protests aremerely economically-oriented. Furthermore,since there are free riders who are involvedin the protests (i.e. tempe producers whodid not join the protests), one (consumers)will find it difficult make conclusions aboutwhy other people (tempe producers) behavein a particular way. With regard to freeriders, Mancur Olson in Coleman (2010)mentions that in offering public goods inindustries consisting of a great number ofsmall firms, the activities that promotecollective interests of the involved firms(i.e., legislative lobby for industrial favor)will be done in a lower frequency than thosein industries comprising of a single or fewlarge firms. Activities of one firm areprofitable for all, and for small-scale firms,the profit generated is not an adequatereason to do the activities. For the firmwhich becomes the larger fraction of aparticular industry, the activities deserve tobe done, although the activities are alsofavorable for smaller firms in the industry.

This study integrates the attributiontheory with the collective action theory. Theassumption of the attribution theory is thatindividuals are motivated by particularobjecttives to understand and organizeenvironment so that they will always con-clude the reasons why people have parti-cular behavior. Meanwhile, the assumptionof the collective action theory is thatindividuals involved in the activity, whenleft without monitoring, make decision tohave particular behavior based on per-sonal/selective interests instead of collectiveinterests. Some other researchers like Olson,Oberschall, and Oliver in Klandermans(1997) state that from the perspective ofmotives, the core of the collective actiontheory is distinction between collectiveincentive and selective incentive. In thecontext of the protests of tempe producers,attribution of protest motives takes two

types: collective incentive (i.e., to change thepolicy of the government) and selectiveincentive (i.e., to merely attract attention).

The two theories are integrated usingthe variable of consumer attribution aboutthe perceived motives of tempe producersjoining in the protests (perceived motives ofcollective incentives) and the variable ofattitude towards tempe producers joining inthe protests. Individual unit analysis of thetwo variables can estimate one’s trust andfeeling directed to a group of people. Thus,it is hypothesized that:H1a : The higher the consumers’ perceived

motives of collective incentives, themore positive the consumers’ atti-tude towards tempe producers join-ing in the protests

Empathy and AttributionAs mentioned previously, when

criticizing the act of neglecting motivationin attribution processes, we tend to observeother people from different perspectivesfrom when we observe ourselves. Reganand Totten (1975) demonstrate that inparticular situations these limitations can bereduced when we have empathy towardsthe people whose behavior we observe. Inother words, in condition where we haveempathy on someone, we tend to concludethe behavior of the person similarly as howthe person perceive it. Some studies haveshown that attitude towards groups ofminority can be improved by creating orstimulating empathy towards the groups (ofminority) (Finlay and Stephen, 2000; Vescioet al. 2003; Dovidio et al. 2004).

Empathy is a complicated response andhas effective and cognitive components(Mashoedi, 2009: 128). Cognitively, empathyenables someone to understand views andto learn about cultural practices, norms,values and beliefs of external groups(Miller, 2010). Cognitive empathy can alsoreduce differences in perceptions that maylead to better presumption. Affective empa-thy can be developed from the empathytowards other people’s suffering. In so


doing, we will have favorable changes inattitude towards external groups. Empathyalso enables people to realize that they aredifferent from others in a positive manner.In other words, empathy towards externalgroups may result in establishment ofpositive attitude towards external groups(Stephen and Finlay, 2009). Batson et al.(1997) argue that inducing positive empathytowards the stigmatized group memberswill improve the attitude to the wholeindividuals and groups.

The study conducted by Bickman andKamzan (1973) suggests that people insuper market are more likely to give somemoney to someone to purchase milk ratherthan candies. Darren George in Taylor et al.(2009) mentions that students have betterempathy and are not easily irritated tofriends who have academic problems due toexternal control rather than to friends whohave academic problems due to theirlaziness. This finding shows that whenobservers perceive an event as derivingfrom an internal factor, willingness to helpis low. On the contrary, when an observerperceives that an event is derived from anexternal factor that they cannot control itinternally, willingness to help is high (thepeople deserve help).

Assumptions of the prosocial theory isthat an evolutionary approach revealingthat tendency to help is a part of ourgenetically inherited evolution; the socio-cultural perspective approach suggests theimportance of social norms that rule whenwe should offer help to other people inneed. In the context of protests, both ofthese teories are integrated using the varia-ble of empathy towards tempe producersjoining the protests and the variable ofattitude towards tempe producers joiningthe protests. The individual unit analysis inboth variables may estimate the belief andfeeling to someone or a group of people.Hendarto et al. (2013) reveal that in responseto the increasing price of soybean, tempeproducers had to make some adjustments to

their products. The adjustments were madeto keep them from increasing the sellingprice to consumers. The adjustments inclu-de (1) reducing the profit resulting from thereduced production volume; (2) reducingthe size of tempe; and (3) using lower-quality soybean. In fact, consumers willconclude that tempe producers have nocontrol over the ongoing situation. There-fore, we hypothesize that:H1b : The higher the consumers’ empathy

towards tempe producers joining theprotests, the more positive theconsumers’ attitude towards tempeproducers joining the protests.

Purchase Intention and AttributionPrevious studies reveal that the attri-

bution theory influences attitude and beha-viour. However, as Fig. 1 shows, by defini-tion and concept, this theory can onlyexplain the antecedents (attribution process-es). To explain consequences of the attitude,we integrated the attribution theory withthe expectancy-value theory. The expectan-cy-value theory is the derivative of thedecision making theory. The decision ma-king theory assumes that individuals willcalculate the advantages and disadvantagesas well as costs and benefits of alternativeactions. Initially, individuals will makesome alternative actions and choose one ofthem. The chosen alternative is the mostbeneficial one. In the expectancy value theo-ry, the available alternatives are extendedby incorporating some additional elements.

In the present study, both theories areintegrated using the variable of purchaseintention towards the products of tempeproducers joining the protests. The indi-vidual unit analysis in the variable ofpurchase intention has a clear and suitablerelation to be integrated in order to estimatethe expectation which is the consequencesresulted from previous conclusions (indi-viduals’ belief and feeling to someone or agroup of people). Therefore, we propose thefollowing hypothesis:


H2 : The more positive the consumers’attitude towards tempe producersjoining the protests, the higher con-sumers’ purchase intention towardsthe products of tempe producersjoining the protests.

The conceptual model which integratesthe relationship among the hypotheses(Hypotheses 1a, 1b, and 2) appears in Fig. 2.

METHODSBecause the protests under study had

taken place, it is assumed that respondentshave prior knowledge and know that theprotests of tempe producers bear a greatrisk. In relation to consumer complaints,Singh and Wilkes (1996) employed thecritical incident approach, where respon-dents are required to recall their unpleasantexperience. A little bit different from whatSingh and Wilkes did, to minimize memorybias, Scammon and Kennard (1983); Kim etal. (2003) required respondents to imaginean unpleasant situation that may come up infuture time. Different from those studies, we

employ sample and filter questions. Inrelation to the sample, we collected datafrom respondents living near tempe produc-tion centers. It is expected that they knowclearly about the protests. Filter questionswere asked to the respondents concerningwhether they know about the protests ornot. If they know and remember the pro-tests, then they were required to go oncompleting the questionnaires. In case theyfail to recall it, respondents were required toreturn the questionnaires.

SampleThe sample in this study consisted of

two groups selected based on time; the firstgroup consists of the sample collectedbefore the second protest (n1 = 120) and thesecond group consists of the samplecollected after the second protest (n2 = 325).The sample was collected at tempe produc-tion centers in 5 kabupatens (regencies) inthe Provinces of Jogjakarta and Central Javausing purposive sampling. Tempe produc-tion centers are clustered in particularregions.

Figure 2Consumer Perceived Motives of CI, Attitude, and Purchase Intention Model


Bailey (1994: 96) mentions that theadvantage of this sampling technique is thatresearchers can employ their prior know-ledge and experiences to select respondents.In conformity with the technique, the inclu-sion criteria are: (1) giving consent to parti-cipate in the study; (2) women (house-wives); and (3) living around the cluster oftempe production centers. Housewiveswere recruited as the sample since, asJunaedi (2006) states, they are the purchasedecision makers in their own households,especially for the respondents in Jogjakarta(Central Java).

The data were collected within onemonth, from August to September 2013. Atotal of 517 questionaires was distributed toand collected from consumers living around

the cluster of tempe production centers. Ofthe total questionaires distributed, 67 ques-tionaires were excluded from the samplebecause of incomplete responses, lack ofprior knowledge, and those respondents’occupation that has a direct correlation withtempe producers. Thus, 445 sample (n1 =125; n2 = 320) remained for the final analy-sis, which constitute a 86,91 percent usableresponse rate. In brief, most respondentshold senior high school education level(32.9%); aged between 30-39 years (49.5%);monthly expenditure ranges between750.000 and 1.900.00 (52.3%); housewives(40,4%); with more than 4 family membersliving in the same house (46,7%); andMoslems (98,2%).

T1

where: TT 1T 2

T2

= producer’s protest= 25 - 27 July 2012= 9 - 11 September 2013

Second dataFirst data

Figure 3Timeline of the Data Collection

Figure 3 shows that the protests oftempe producers occurred twice, i.e. in 25 to27 July 2012 and 9 to 11 September 2013.The target of both protests of tempeproducers is the government. The factortriggering the protests at T1 was theincreased price of soybean, the raw materialto make tempe, due to draught in MidwestAmerica. The factor triggering the protestsat T2 was the increased price of soybean dueto the deflated exchange rate of Rupiah toUS Dollar. The root causes of the protests atT1 and T2 are similar: (1) failures of the

government to be self-reliant in soybeanprovision so that the government barely hasno control over the price; and (2) inabilitiesof the government to control soybeansupply at national level (Hendarto, 2014).

MeasuresA structured questionnaire was deve-

loped. The questionnaires consisted of threemain parts. The first part consisted of filterquestions. This part briefly presents theprotests and asks the respondents if theyknow about the protests. If they reply “no”,


then the respondents were required to stopanswering the questionnaires. The secondpart asks about consumers’ perceivedmotives of collective incentives of tempeproducers joining the protests, empathytowards tempe producers joining theprotests, attitude towards tempe producersjoining the protests, and purchase intentiontowards products of tempe producersjoining the protests. The third part containsthe profile of the respondents. This partcontains another group of filter questionsasking about the respondents’ occupation. Ifthe respondents’ occupation is related totempe producers, the data obtained areexcluded from the analysis.

Consumers’ perceived motives ofcollective incentives is a process with whichconsumers understand other people (tempeproducers) joining the protests, whetherthese tempe producers joining the protestshave collective objectives or selective object-ives. The scale for this variable is based onthe results of the content analysis of theprotest-related reports in printed media.The data retrieved from national printedmedia related to the first protest (23 July to30 July 2012) were collected and analyzed.Results of the analysis showed that theprotest was resulted from: (1) failures of thegovernment in maintaining soybean self-sufficiency; and (2) inabilities of the govern-ment in controlling the national soybeansupply. Therefore, 2 items of measurementwere developed using a bipolar scale. Themeasurement was made by asking consu-mers’ opinion about producers’ motives injoining the protest (influenced by the inte-rest of soybean importers – wishing thegovernment to have soybean self-suffici-ency) and (failure in affording the increasedprice of soybean – wishing the governmentto have a better policy to control thenationnal supply of soybean).

Another scale was developed based onmodification of the measurement items usedin previous studies. Since the scale was inEnglish, to ensure accurate translation, weperformed back translation. We asked a

language expert from State University ofYogyakarta to translate the items fromEnglish to Indonesian. The resulted Indo-nesian version was then back translated intoEnglish by another language expert fromthe Center of Asian Pacific Studies GadjahMada University. Further modificationswere made as needed.

The scale for attitude towards tempeproducers joining the protests was modifiedfrom the study conducted by Homer (1995):useless-useful; negative-positive; dislike-like. The scale for empathy towards tempeproducers joining the protests and purchaseintention used 5-point Likert’s scale (1=strongly disagree; 5= strongly agree). Thescale for empathy towards tempe producerswas modified from Bagozzi and Moore(1994). Three types of scales were used: (1)feeling as if the respondents experience theproblems that these tempe producers dealwith (2) sharing the same feeling as whattempe producers feel; and (3) tendency toarouse internal desire/wish to providesupport. Purchase intention towards theproducts of tempe producers joining theprotests was modified from Lee et al. (2008)and Hendarto (2009). Two types of scaleswere used: if the price and quality aresimilar (between the products of tempeproducers joining the protests and thosewho did not join the protests), then I am (1)willing to consider the products of tempeproducers joining the protests (2) willing topurchase the products of tempe producersjoining the protests.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONResults

The data analysis was conducted inthree phases. Phase 1 analyzed the measure-ment (i.e., the Social Desirability Response,validity, and reliability) including assessingthe perceived motive of collective incentiveof tempe producers joining the protests,attitude towards tempe producers joiningthe protests, and purchase intention to-wards the products of tempe producersjoining the protests. Phase 2 estimated the


structural relation of the construct proposedin Fig. 2 for a total sample of 445 (n = 445).Phase 3 estimated the structural relation ofthe construct proposed in Fig. 2 by separa-ting the sample group before the secondprotest (n1 = 120) and the sample groupafter the second protest (n2 = 325).

Measurement AnalysisThe field test aims at examining the

question items (wording, time required andthe instruction), the social desirabilityresponse (SDR), and the construct (validityand reliability). The pretest was conductedwith 3 local residents in a face-to-facesetting. The results of the pretest confirmedthe adequacy of the measure item (i.e.,wording, response time, and instruction).SDR is a tendency of individuals to avoid/refuse undesirable action/ behaviour (Zerbeand Paulhus, 1987). In other words, thisSDR is usually viewed as one’s tendency tobring in oneself to something that otherpeople like, although it conflicts with his/her true feeling (Tyson, 1992). Sensitivetopics such as sex or taboo topics such assuicide are likely to be responded norma-tively (Bailey, 1994) because respondentsrefuse or feel ashamed of either discussingor disliking the topic of thestudy and areafraid of the negative consequence of theiranswers.

Some strategies can be employed toovercome SDR. First, Crowne and Marlowein Jo, Nelson and Kiecker (1997) developeda scale to measure the general tendency inrespondents’ answers. This scale consistedof 33 general question items frequently notrelated to the research topic so that they donot measure sensitivity of a construct. Otherlimitations are suggested by Podskoff andOrgan (1986). They demonstrate that thisscale may reduce the validity of themeasurement scale and thus it is ineffectivein controlling SDR. Middleton and Jones(2000) also add that there are differences inthe reliability of this scale when used forcross-cultural respondents, where reliabilityof this scale will significantly be lower when

used for respondents of eastern culture thanthose of western culture. Second, BernardPhillips in Bailey (1994) proposed otherstrategies: (1) question items that requireacknowledgment from respondents concer-ning the behavior not complying with socialnorms are arranged in such a way as if thatthe respondents have answered the ques-tions; (2) question items do not mentionconsensus to social norms; (3) questionitems do not mention that certain behavior,that is not in compliance with social norms,is a violation but reveals that the behavioris extensively practiced; (4) using/selectinga euphemistic language style for thosequestion items; and (5) the questions thatrequire respondents to criticize some peopleor groups (negative) should allow therespondents to say complimentary com-ments (positive), so that they feel conve-nient for having expressed fair and politecomments. Third, Junaedi (2006) comparedanswers to direct questions and answers toindirect questions. Direct questions requirerespondents to answer about what theythink while indirect questions requirerespondents to answer about what “otherpeople” think/do in relation to a particularissue (Jo et al., 1997).

Based on those strategies, we comparedanswers to direct questions and answers toindirect questions. After obtaining all theanswers (n = 25), the initial step wasexamining the data normality. Because thedata is not normally distributed, non-para-metric testing was performed. Results of theWilcoxon Signed Ranks Test suggest thatthere is no significant differences betweenanswers to direct questions and answers toindirect questions. This implies that ques-tion items that will be used in the study willnot result in normative answers.

After the SDR, the validity and relia-bility were then tested. Direct questionswere used. Why? Fisher (1993) explains thatalthough indirect questions are proven to bemore effective in controlling SDR bias (asreflected in a higher score of undesirablesocial behaviour between direct questions


Table 1Results of the Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test (n= 25)

Construct Item Z Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)

CollectiveInsentives

Motive

CI_01 – CI_01 -0,957a 0,339CI_02 – CI_02 -1,421a 0,155

EmphatyE_01 – E_01 -1,732b 0,083E_02 – E_02 0,000c 1,000E_03 – E_03 0,000c 1,000

AttitudeA_01 – A_01 -1,382b 0,167A_07 – A_02 -1,552b 0,121A_08 – A_03 -1,063b 0,288

PurchaseIntention

PI_01 – PI_01 -0,302b 0,763PI_02 – PI_02 -0,832b 0,405

a Based on positive ranks.b The sum of negative ranks equals the sum of positive ranks.c Based on negative ranks.d Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test

and indirect questions), problems are foundin terms of the validity. Indirect questionstend to measure what other people maythink or do instead of what they themselvesactually think. This has resulted in a validitypro- blem for indirect questions (i.e., face,nomo- logical, and operational; McGrathand Brinberg in Jo, 2000). To deal with theaforementioned problem, the present studyused direct questions to ensure the testingof validity and reliability.

To test the validity, this study employsExploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) usingprincipal component extraction with vari-max rotation, as recommended by Churchill(1979). Gudono (2011) informs that EFA isused when a theory or hypothesis concer-ning the number of factors (constructs) andwhich variables related a priori to a parti-cular factor have not been identified. There-fore researchers are “free” in data explora-tion. Accordingly, the exploratory analysisis more suitable for theoretical establish-ment. In addition, the relation betweenlatent variables and observed variables isnot previously specified; the number oflatent variables is not determined before theanalysis; all latent variables are assumed to

have influenced all observed variables; anderror measurement must not be correlated(Wijanto, 2008).

Results of EFA (n = 75) tested usingSPSS 13.1 indicate a satisfactory model fit. InEFA, convergent validity is evaluated by thesignificance and magnitude of the loadingfactors. The magnitude of the loadingfactors ranges from 0.72 to 0.92 and thevalue of Average Variance Extracted (AVE)is higher than 0.5. This finding is in linewith that of Fornell and Larcker (1981), whorequire the discriminant and convergentvalidities to have: (1) a significant loadingfactor that is higher than 0.7 and eachindicator of a latent variable is differentfrom the indicators of another latent varia-ble. This is shown by a loading score that ishigher than the construct score; and (2) thevalue of AVE (Average Variance Extracted)that is above 0.5. After testing the discrimi-nant and convergent validities, the internalconsistency was examined using an alphacoefficient. Results of the reliability testingin this study range from 0.62 to 0.92.Nunnaly and Bernstein (1994) indicate thatfor exploratory work, reliability of 0.6 isadequate.


The Structural Model for the Total SampleThe structural model in Fig. 2 was

tested using AMOS 4.01. The Model showeda good overall fit (χ2 = 48.83; RMSEA = 0.03;GFI = 0.98; AGFI = 0.96; and CFI = 0.99).Because the model showed satisfactory fit,the coefficient of structural estimation wasemployed to evaluate the hypotheses. TheSEM results for the total sample after andbefore the second protest are presented inTable 2.

As hypothesized in H1, consumers’perceived motives of collective incentive oftempe producers joining the protests positi-vely and significantly influence attitudetowards tempe producers joining the pro-tests (γ = 0.32, t = 4.39). In H2, consumers’empathy towards tempe producers joiningthe protests positively and significantlyinfluence attitude towards tempe producersjoining the protests (γ = 0.32, t = 4.56).Likewise, in H3, attitude towards tempeproducers joining the protests positivelyand significantly influence purchase intent-ion (γ = 0.31, t = 4.24).

The Structural Model for the Total SampleAfter and Before the Second Protest

After testing the structural model forthe total sample, each sample group wastested. The analysis showed that both afterand before the second protest, the results

are satisfactorily fit. For the sample after thesecond protest occurred, χ2 = 65.47; RMSEA= 0.06; GFI = 0.96; AGFI = 0.94; and CFI =0.96); while for the sample after the secondprotest occurred (χ2 = 25.58; RMSEA = 0.00;GFI = 0.96; AGFI = 0.93; and CFI = 1.00).

DiscussionThe theory of attribution has been

widely used in marketing studies. However,this theory contains some limitations aswell. Using the context of protests of tempeproducers, this study aims at minimizingthe limitations by integrating the attributiontheory with collective action theories, pro-social theories, and expectancy value theo-ries in explaining and predicting the beha-vior of product consumers and individu-als/groups that joined the protests.Our results indicated that the proposedmodel is supported by the obtained data,both the data retrieved from the totalsample and from the sample before andafter the second protest. Integration of theattribution theory with the collective actiontheory and the prosocial theory may reducethe limitation of neglecting motivation inattribution process.

Fig. 4 shows that when consumersknow the protests of tempe producers, theywill seek answers for the antecedents of theprotests based on the underlying motives.

Table 2Results of the Structural Equation Model for the Total Sample and the Number of Sample

Before and After the Second Protest

Structural path Total sample(n = 425)

Before SecondProtest (n = 120)

After SecondProtest (n = 325)

Estimate* t-value Estimate* t-value Estimate* t-

valueAttitude Collective

Incentives Motive 0.32 (4.39) 0.29 (2.32) 0.36 (3.58)

Attitude Empathy 0.32 (4.56) 0.37 (2.58) 0.29 (3.60)Purchase Intention

Attitude 0.31 (4.24) 0.35 (2.66) 0.30 (3.32)* Parameter estimates are standardized


Perceived motives of doingsomething

Perceived antecedents ofone’s behavior Evaluation

Collective Incentives

Situational AttributionPerceiving that one’s actionis due to situational/circumtance.

Plus-One’s action isperceived useful for a greatnumber of people.

Selective Incentives

Dispositional AttributionPerceiving that one’s actionderives from such stablecharacteristics aspersonality.

Minus-One’s action isperceived useless for a greatnumber of people.

Figure 4Integration of the Attribution Theory with the Collective Action Theory

If consumers perceive that the ante-cedents of the protests derive from externalfactors (beyond one’s own will), thencollective incentive motives as the ante-cedent of the protests will be selected byconsumers. On the contrary, if consumersperceive that the antecedents of the protestsderive from internal factors (“inherentcharacters of the individuals or groups”),then selective incentive motives as theantecedent of the protests will be selectedby these consumers.

In the context of the protests of tempeproducers, integration of the attributiontheory with the prosocial theory can explainemotional reactions of the respondents.Perceptions that the antecedents of theprotests are beyond one’s own control willresult in the feeling of empathy so thatwillingness to help is high. The hypothesisderived from the integration of the attri-bution theory and the prosocial theory (H1b)showed that the higher the consumers’empathy to tempe producers joining theprotests the more positive the attitudetowards these tempe producers who joinedthe protests and vice versa.

This results support the study conduc-ted by Regan and Totten (1975) whichmention that in conditions where we haveempathy towards other people, we tend toconclude that the behaviour of other peopleis similar as the behaviour of the person

who observes it. These also support theresults obtained from studies conducted byDeitz et al. (1982); Deitz et al. (1984); Lambertand Raichle (2000); Sakalli-Ugurlu et al.(2007) that empathy towards rape victimswill result in positive attitude towards thevictims. Meanwhile, as studied by Batson etal. (1997) for the stigmatized group (i.e.,patients of AIDS, the homeless, andcriminals convicted for murder), positiveempathy will similarly result in positiveattitude towards the stigmatized groupmembers.

Even, positive empathy towards astigmatized group member will be generali-zed to all members of the group. In a visualform, the resulted integration can bedescribed as follows: Fig. 5 shows that whenconsumers perceive that the root cause of aprotest is one’s or group’ needs that areuncontrol- lable then empathy will arise. Onthe contrary, if the consumers perceive thatthe root cause of a protest is one’s orgroup’s needs that can be controlled, it willresult in dislike and irritation (the oppositeof empathy).

These feelings of empathy and non-empathy will result in willingness to help ateither a low or high extent. Integration ofthe attribution theory with the expectancy-value theory can reduce the limitation aboutthe confounding of attribution processesand attributional processes.


Perceived antecedents ofone’s need

Emotional reaction topeople in need Willingness to help

UncontrollableBeyond one’s own control.

Empathy High – One deserves help

Can be controlledSomething that can becontrolled by someone.

Non empathy/ irritated Low- One deserves no help

Figure 5Integration of the Attribution Theory with the Prosocial Theory

When attitude towards an object leadsto likeness (resulting from attributionprocesses), consumers will consider andpurchase the product of the object. It impliesthat the more positive the consumers’attitude towards tempe producers joining

the protests the higher the consumers’intention to consider and to purchase theproducts of those tempe producers joiningthe protests and vice versa. In a visual form,the integration can be described as follows:

Attitude towards an object (someone/group)

Behavioural (purchasing) intention(subject’ responses to an object)

PositivePsychological tendency expressed byevaluating a particular entity that leads tolikeness.

High - willing to consider and purchasethe products.

NegativePsychological tendency expressed byevaluating a particular entity that leads todisfavor.

Low - unwilling to consider andpurchase the products.

Figure 6Integration of the Attribution Theory with the Expectancy-Value Theory

Fig. 6 shows that when result of theattribution process suggests that consumershave positive attitude (psychological ten-dency expressed by evaluating a particularentity that leads to likeness) the resultingattributional process is high (willing toconsider and purchase the products ofproducers joining the protests). On thecontrary, if result of the attribution processof the consumers leads to disfavor to aparticular entity, the attributional processwill result in unwillingness to consider orpurchase the products of producers joining

the protests (low purchase intention).Why is consumers’ purchasing inten-

tion high when consumers have positiveattitude and why is it low when they shownegative attitude? This has something to dowith consumers’ expectancy value. Theexpectancy-value theory postulates that thebehavior of individuals is the function of thevalue expected from particular behavior.The higher the probability that particularbehavior has a specific result and the higherthe individuals’ evaluation to the result,then the higher the probability that someone


will behave that way. In the context of theprotests of tempe producers, the probabilitythat after the protests tempe producers willproduce tempe as usual and that consumerswill be able to get tempe at equal or higherquality will be considered by consumers as“something more favorable” than theprobability that consumers will switch toother products or producers.

CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURERESEARCH

The objectives of this study are: (1)reducing limitations of the attribution theo-ry by integrating the theory with thecollective action theory, the prosocial theo-ry, and the expectancy-value theory toexplain and predict consumers’ behavior toindividuals (groups) joining the protests;and (2) verifying those limitations in thecontext of the protests of tempe producersoccurring at 2 different time periods. Forthose reasons, a model was then proposedto reduce and verify the limitations of theattribution theory.

Our results indicated that the proposedmodel is supported by the obtained data,both the data retrieved from the totalsample and from the sample before andafter the second protest. Integration of theattribution theory with the collective actiontheory and the prosocial theory may reducethe limitation of neglecting motivation inattribution process.

This study is subject to several limita-tions. First, the study cannot specificallyreduce other attribution biases (i.e., lack of aholistic view of attribution, blurring differ-ences between causal attribution and traitattribution, misplacing attribution as entirecognition). For cultural bias and in-groupbias, Choi et al. (1999) mention that thepeople with East Asian culture are moresensitive to situational factors. Therefore,when considering the existing socialcontext, they do not have to assume thatother people’s behavior (tempe producersjoining the protests) is related to internalattribution. In collective culture, respon-

dents have a lower tendency to spontan-eously interpret particular behavior asreflection of internal trait (Newman, 1993).For in-group bias, Takwin (2009) mentionsthat we tend to prefer our own groupmembers than members of other groups.Although the study does not specificallyfocus on cultural and in-group bias, the SDRtest at the initial stage is expected to reducethe bias. Second, measurement of thevariable of perceived motives of collectiveincentives of producers joining the protestsis different from one protest to anotherprotest. Because our study is specific to theprotests of tempe producers, future studyshould develop measure instruments thatcan be used to assess other major constructsof a protest. Third, because of the lack ofsample frame from the respondents, thisstudy employed a non-probability samplingtechnique. Using this sampling techniquewill enable generalizability of these researchfindings as long as it is performed cauti-ously. Forth, in this study, the respondentswere taken from areas situated around thecenters of tempe production, where therespondents are customers of those tempeproducers. With some modification, futurestudies may be conducted among respon-dents who purchase tempe from the marketor who purchase tempe indirectly from theproducers.

AcknowledgementsWe gratefully acknowledge the com-

ments made by Aneka Prawesti Suka fromInstitute of Social Studies, Anna Susila-ningtyas from the Center for Culture andPopular Media Research., Lukas RumbokoWibowo from Charles Sturt University., M.Safiq, V. Rahmadi Pramomo, and ShinePintor Siolemba Patiro from Faculty ofEconomics and Business, Gadjah MadaUniversity., and I Made Widnyana fromBalai Penelitian Teknologi Hasil HutanBukan Kayu Mataram, as well as theanonymous reviewers for their commentson this article. An earlier version of thispaper was presented on “The Doctoral


Colloquium and Conference 2014, at Facultyof Economics and Business, Gadjah MadaUniversity, Jogjakarta.

REFERENCESBagozzi, R. P., and D. J. Moore. 1994. Public

Service Advertisements: Emotions andEmpathy Guide Prosocial Behavior.Journal of Marketing 58: 56-70.

Bailey, K. D. 1994. Methods of Social Research.4th ed. the Free Press. New York.

Baron, R. A., and D. Byrne. 2005. PsikologiSosial. 10th ed. Translated by: Djuwita,R., Parman, M. M., Yasmina, D., and L.P. Lunanta. Penerbit Erlangga. Jakarta.

Batson, C. D., M. P. Polycarpou., E.Harmon-Jones., H. J. Imhoff., E. C.Mitchener., L. L. Bednar., T. R. Klein.,and L. Highberger. 1997. Empathy andAttitudes: Can Feeling for a Member ofa Stigmatized Group Improve FeelingsToward the Group? Journal of Persona-lity and Social Psychology 72(1): 105-118.

Bendapudi, N., and R. P. Leone. 2003.Psychological Implications of CustomerParticipation in Co-Production. Journalof Marketing 67: 14-28.

Bickman, L., and M. Kamzan. 1973. TheEffect of Race and Need on Helping.Journal of Social Psychology 89: 37-77.

Bierhoff, H. 1989. Person Perception andAttribution. Springer-Verlagm. Berlin.

Bitner, M.J. 1990. Evaluating Critical ServiceEncounters: the Effects of PhysicalSurrounding and Employee Responses.Journal of Marketing 54: 69-82.

Bitner, M .J., B. H. Booms., and L. A. Mohr.1994. Critical Service Encounters: theEmployee’s Viewpoint. Journal ofMarketing 58: 95-106.

Choi, I., R. E. Nisbett., and A. Norenzayan.1999. Causal Attribution Across Cul-ture: Variation and Universality.Psychological Bulletin 125(1): 47–63.

Churchill, G. 1979. A Paradigm for Deve-loping Better Measures of MarketingConstructs. Journal of Marketing Research16: 64-73.

Coleman, J. S. 2010. Foundations of SocialTheory. Nusa Media. Bandung.

DeCarlo, T. E. 2005. The Effects of SalesMessage and Suspicion of UlteriorMotives on Salesperson Evaluation.Journal of Consumer Psychology 15(3):238-249.

DeCarlo, T. E., and T. W. Leigh. 1996.Impact of Salesperson Attraction onSales Managers’ Attributions and Feed-back. Journal of Marketing 60: 47-66.

Deitz, S. R., K. T. Blackwell., P. C. Daley.,and B. J. Bentley. 1982. Measurement ofEmpathy toward Rape Victims andRapists. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 43: 372–384.

Deitz, S. R., M. Littman., and B. J. Bentley.1984. Attribution of Responsibility forRape: The Influence of Observer Empa-thy, Victim Resistance, and VictimAttractiveness. Sex Roles 10: 261–280.

Dixon, A. L., R. L. Spiro., and M. Jamil. 2001.Successful and Unsuccessful Sales Calls:Measuring Salesperson Attributionsand Behavioral Intentions. Journal ofMarketing 65: 64-78.

Dovidio, J. F., M. ten Vergert., T. C. Stewart.,S.L. Gaertner., J. D. Johnson., V. M.Esses., B. M. Riek., and A. R. Pearson.2004. Perspective and Prejudice: Ante-cedents and Mediating Mechanisms.Personality and Social sychology Bulletin30(12): 1537-1549.

Fang, E., K. R. Evans., and T. D. Landry.2005. Control Systems’ Effect on Attri-butional Processes and Sales Outcomes:A Cybernetic Information-ProcessingPerspective. Journal of the Academy ofMarketing Science 33(4): 553-574.

Finlay, K., and W. G. Stephan. 2000.Improving Intergroup Relations: theEffects of Empathy on Racial Attitudes.Journal of Applied Social Psychology 30(8):1720-1737.

Fisher, R. J. 1993. Social Desirability Biasand the Validity of Indirect Questio-ning. Journal of Consumer Research 20:303-315.


Fornell, C., and D. F. Larcker. 1981.Evaluating Structural Equation Modelwith Unobservable and MeasurementError. Journal of Marketing Research 18:39 - 50.

Furse, D. H., D. W. Stewart., and D. L.Rados. 1981. Effects of Foot-in-the-Door, Cash Incentives, and Followupson Survey Response. Journal of Market-ing Research 18: 473-478.

Golden, L. L. and M. I. Alpert. 1987.Comparative Analysis of the RelativeEffectiveness of One-and Two-SidedCommunication for Contrasting Pro-duct. Journal of Advertising 16(1): 18-24.

Gudono. 2011. Analisis Data Multivariat.Badan Penerbit Fakultas EkonomiUGM. Yogyakarta.

Harvey, J. H., and G. Weary. 1984. CurrentIssues in Attribution Theory andResearch. Annual Review of Psychology35: 427-459.

Hendarto, K. A. 2014. Persepsi Konsumenterhadap Pengrajin Tahu-Tempe yangMelakukan Protes: Pendekatan dariTeori Atribusi, Tindakan Kolektif, Pro-sosial dan Nilai Pengharapan. Disertasi.Fakultas Ekonomika dan Bisnis UGM.Yogyakarta.

Hendarto, K. A. 2009. The Implementationof Corporate Social Responsibility(CSR) in Central Java Eartquake: APreliminary Study on Consumer Belief,Attitude, and Purchase Intention.Gadjah Mada International Journal ofBusiness 11(3): 409-441.

Hendarto, K. A., B. S. Dharmmesta., B. M.Purwanto., and M. M. M. Moeliono.2013. The Protest of Tofu-TempeProducers: A Content Analysis of PrintMedia. Jurnal Teknologi Manajemen 12(1):40-55.

Homer, P.M. 1995. Ad Size as an Indicatorof Perceived Advertising Costs andEffort: The Effects on Memory andPerceptions. Journal of Advertising 14(4):1-12.

Jo, M. 2000. Controlling Social-DiserabilityBias via Methods Factors of Direct and

Indirect Questioning in StructuralEquation Models. Psychology andMarketing 17(2): 137-148.

Jo, M., J.E. Nelson., and P. Kiecker. 1997. AModel for Controlling Social Desira-bility Bias by Direct and IndirectQuestioning. Marketing Letters 8(4): 429-437.

Johnson, M. S. 2006. A Bibliometric Reviewof the Contribution of AttributionTheory to Sales Management. Journal ofPersonal Selling and Sales Management26(2): 181-195.

Junaedi, S. 2006. Pengaruh Orientasi Nilai,Afek dan Pengetahuan Ekologikal padaKomitmen Pembelian Produk yangBerwawasan Lingkungan: Studi Peri-laku Konsumen Pangan Organik.Disertasi. Sekolah Pascasarjana UGM.Yogyakarta.

Kim, C., S. Kim., S. Im., and C. Shin. 2003.The Effect of Attitude and Perceptionon Consumer Complaint Intentions.Journal of Consumer Marketing 20(4): 352-371.

Klandermans, B. 1997. The Social Psychologyof Protest. Blackwell Publisher. NewYork.

Laczniak, R. N., T. E. DeCarlo., S. N. Ramas-wami. 2001. Consumers’ Responses toNegative Word-of-Mouth Communi-cation: An Attribution Theory Perspec-tive. Journal of Consumer Psychology11(1): 57-73.

Lee, H., T. Park., H.K. Moon., Y. Yang., andC. Kim. 2008. Corporate Philantropy,Attitude toward Corporations, andPurchase Intention: A South KoreaStudy. Journal of Business Ethics, DOI10.1016/j.busres.2008.08.007.

Manalu, D. 2009. Gerakan Sosial danPerubahan Kebijakan Publik: Studi KasusGerakan Perlawanan Masyarakat Batak vsPT Inti Indorayon Utama di SumateraUtara. Gadjah Mada University Press.Yogyakarta.

Mashoedi, S. F. 2009. Tingkah Laku Me-nolong, In Sarwono, S. W dan E. A.


Meinarno. (Eds.), Psikologi Sosial. page.121-144. Salemba Humanika. Jakarta.

Maxham III, J. G., and R. G. Netemeyer.2002. A Longitudinal Study of Com-plaining Customers’ Evaluations ofMultiple Service Failures and RecoveryEfforts. Journal of Marketing 66: 57-71.

Mayer, K. J., and R. T. Sparrowe. 2013.Integrating Theory in AMJ Articles.Academy of Management Journal 56(4):917-922.

Middleton, K., and J. L. Jones. 2000. SociallyDesirable Response Sets: the Impact ofCountry Culture. Psychology andMarketing 17(2): 149-163.

Miller, S. R. M. D. 2010. Attitudes towardIndividuals with Disabilities: DoesEmphaty Explain the Difference inScores between Men and Women?Annals of Behavioral Science and MedicalEducation 16(1): 3-6.

Morales, A. C. 2005. Giving Firms an “E” forEffort: Consumer Responses to High-Rffort Firms. Journal of Consumer Re-search 31(4): 806-812.

Newman, L. S. 1993. How IndividualistInterpret Behavior: Idiocentrism andSpontaneous Trait Inference. SocialCognition 11(1): 243-269.

Nunnali, J. C., and I. H. Bernstein. 1994.Psychometric Theory. 3rd ed. McGrawHill Inc. New York.

Podsakoff, P. M., and D. W. Organ. 1986.Self-Reports in Organizational Re-search: Problems and Prospects. Journalof Management 12(4): 531-544.

Prabhu, J., and D. W. Stewart. 2001.Signaling Strategies in CompetitiveInteraction: Building Reputations andHiding the Truth. Journal of MarketingResearch 38: 62- 72.

Raghubir, P., and K. Corfman. 1999. WhenDo Price Promotion Affect PretrialBrand Evaluations? Journal of MarketingResearch 36: 211- 222.

Regan, D. T., and J. Totten. 1975. Empathyand Attribution: Turning Observersinto Actors. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology 32(1): 850-856.

Rifon, N. J., S. M. Choi., C. S. Trimble., andH. Li. 2004. Congruence Effects inSponshorship. Journal of Advertising33(1): 29-42.

Sakalli-Ugurlu, N., Z. S. Yalcin., and P.Glick. 2007. Ambivalent Sexism, Beliefin a Just World, and Empathy asPredictors of Turkish Students’ Atti-tudes Toward Rape Victims. Sex Roles57: 889–895.

Scammon, D., and L. Kennard. 1983.Improving Health Care Strategy Plan-ning Through the Assessment ofPerceptions of Consumers, Providers,and Administrators. Journal of HealthCare Marketing 3: 9-17.

Singh, J., and R. E. Wilkes. 1996. WhenConsumers Complain: A Path Analysisof the Key Antecedents of ConsumerComplaint Response Estimate. Journal ofthe Academy of Marketing Science 24(4):350-365.

Sparkman, Jr, R. M., and W. B. Locander.1980. Attribution Theory and Aver-tising Effectiveness. Journal of ConsumerResearch 7: 219-224.

Stephan, W. G., and K. Finlay. 1999. TheRole of Empathy in Improving Inter-group Relations. Journal of Social Issue55(4): 729-743.

Stern, B. B. 1994. Classical and VignetteTelevision Advertising Dramas: Struc-tural Models, Formal Analysis, andConsumer Effects. Journal of ConsumerResearch 20: 601-615.

Takwin, B. 2009. Persepsi Sosial Mengenalidan Mengerti Orang Lain. In Sarwono,S.W and E.A. Meinarno. (Eds.). PsikologiSosial: 21-49. Salemba Humanika.Jakarta.

Taylor, S. 1994. Waiting for Service: theRelationship between Delays andEvaluations of Service. Journal ofMarketing 58: 56-69.

Taylor, S. E., L. A. Peplau., and D. O. Sears.2009. Social Psychology. 12th ed. PrenticeHall. Upper Saddle River.

Teas, R. K., and J .C. McElroy. 1986. CausalAttribution and Expectancy Estimates:


A Framework for Understanding theDynamics of Sales force Motivation.Journal of Marketing 50: 75-86.

Tsiros, M., V. Mittal., and W. T. Ross Jr.2004. The Role of Attributions in Cus-tomer Satisfaction: A Reexamination.Journal of Consumer Research 31(2): 476-483.

Tyson, T. 1992. Does Believing that Every-one Else is Less Ethical Have an Impacton Work Behavior? Journal of BusinessEthics 11: 707-717.

Vescio, T. K., G. B. Sechrist., and M. P.Paolucci. 2003. Perspective Taking and

Prejudice Reduction. European Journal ofSocial Psychology 33(4): 455-472.

Wang, Y. J. 2008. The Aplication of Attri-bution Theories in Marketing Research:A Critique. Review of Business Research8(3): 174-180.

Wijanto, S. H. 2008. Structural EquationModeling dengahn Lisrel 8.8: Konsep danTutorial. Graha Ilmu. Yogyakarta.

Zerbe, W. J., and D. L. Paulhus. 1987.Socially Desirable Responding inOrganizational Behavior: A Reconcep-tion. Academy of Management Review12(2): 250-264.

attitude and purchase intention towards tempe …

Documents