Transcript Global Marketing Strategy:Perceptual Mapping and Positioning

Understanding the Use of Highly
Attractive Models in Magazine
Advertising: What Causes
Negative Affect?
John B. Ford, Old Dominion University
Sonia Dickinson, Curtin University
Donna Gill, Curtin University
HAMS in Advertising: An Introduction
Attempts have been made to shed light on the negative effects
of using highly attractive models in advertising (e.g., Bower
2001, Bower and Landreth 2001).
Most of the research, however, has focused on the outcomes of
negative affect rather than the possible antecedents of negative
affect.
Negative outcomes have been shown to be:
Negative physiological effects (Dittma and Halliwell 2005),
Negative self perceptions (Martin and Gentry 1997),
Negative self concept (Bjerke and Polegato 2006), and
Negative advertising outcomes (Bower and Landreth 2001).
HAMS in Advertising: An Introduction
cont’d…
These findings all focused on the effects of negative affect
rather than the potential causes.
Given the centrality of negative affect to individual processing,
understanding the conditions which intensify negative affect is
vital for advertisers considering highly attractive models as
information sources.
Researchers have called for the need to study the following
possible drivers of negative affect:
Comparison behavior (Richins 1991),
Model characteristics (Bower 2001), and
Nature of the product and body part highlighted in the ad
(Bower and Landreth 2001).
HAMS in Advertising: An Introduction
cont’d…
In order to address these issues, this study will begin
by summarizing the factors felt to impact an
individual’s negative affect after exposure to a highly
attractive model message source as supported by the
literature.
Negative Affect
Affect is an emotion or experienced feeling (Tomkins 1962).
Affect refers to emotions, moods, feelings and drive (Batra and
Ray 1986), and it may include distress, fear anger, disgust, fear
and shame (Tomkins 1962).
Individuals experience differing levels of affect daily in their
environment, and these levels affect a range of individual
behaviors and cognitions (Jundt and Hinsz 2002, Schwarz
1998).
Consumer acceptance of advertising is mediated by affective
reactions of the message receiver and not just be the ad
content itself (Wright 1973).
Negative Affect cont’d…
Negative affect deals with unpleasant feelings and emotions,
and in this study, these feelings and emotions are generated by
exposures to highly attractive models in magazine ads.
Negative affect occurs here when a highly attractive model
(HAM) has the opposite effect on the audience than was
intended (Polonsky et al. 2001).
Negative affect has potentially important implications for
advertising effectiveness since message recipients would engage
in derogation of the highly attractive model featured in the ad
(Salovey and Rodin 1984) causing related advertising messages
to lose effectiveness (Bower 2001).
Study Antecedents – LiteratureBased Model
The literature suggests that the following variables
are antecedents of negative affect:
Comparison behavior between the viewer and the
model in the ad
Advertising skepticism (comprised of mistrust of
advertisers and disbelief of ad claims)
Beauty Type
Comparison Motive
Product Type
Comparison Behavior
Negative affect is a result of social jealousy stimulated by
comparison of the viewer of the ad to the HAMS used in the ad.
Richins (1991) found that more than 50% of female
respondents compared themselves to the models in the ads
when exposed to ads for clothing, personal care products, or
cosmetics.
Social comparison theory (Festinger 1954; Richins 1991, 1995;
Martin and Kennedy 1993) suggests that people have a drive to
evaluate their opinions, which in the absence of objective
means for comparison, can be satisfied by social comparison
with similar others (Festinger 1954).
The theory has been refined to note that comparisons may also
occur with dissimilar others such as reference groups (Hyman
1968) or social categories (Merton 1957).
Comparison Behavior cont’d…
Social comparison investigations largely relate to how
comparisons impact on social psychology issues such as self
esteem, self concept, general insecurity and body
dissatisfaction, there is a decided lack of investigation of the
effect of social comparisons on negative affect (Stice and Shaw
1994).
Certain types of self comparison may occur for different
reasons: 1) self evaluation, 2) self improvement, and 3) self
enhancement (Wood 1989, Martin and Gentry 1997).
Upward comparisons such as self evaluation may be considered
painful and unpleasant and can result in anger and resentment
when it is discovered that ‘similar others’ are better off than the
one comparing (Crosby 1976, Martin 1986).
Comparison Behavior cont’d…
In the context of advertising, given that models represent an
ideal (and perhaps unrealistic) image of beauty, the type of
comparison that generally occurs will be upward because the
models would normally be considered superior.
Therefore, in this research only self-evaluation and selfimprovement comparison motives will be considered as
downward comparisons (self-enhancement motives) will not
normally occur (Martin and Gentry 1994).
Self evaluation behavior is likely to result in negative affect as
the model is highly attractive and used as a direct point of
comparison.
Self improvement comparisons (Woods 1989) suggest that
the comparer faces their own inferiority but that this can be
inspirational when the person that is being compared to is seen
as a non-competitor or non-threatening.
Advertising Skepticism
In advertising, skepticism is defined as a feeling of distrust and
doubt evoked by stimuli that appear to be unrealistic,
exaggerated or phony (Batra and Ray 1986).
Obermiller and Pangenberg (1998) define advertising skepticism
as the tendency toward disbelief of ad claims, which is related
to the quality of accumulated consumer experiences.
The more consumers experience advertising deception and
exaggeration, the more skeptical they will become.
Skepticism is a negatively-valenced attitude learned through
interaction with a socialization agent, like parents, peers, or
mass media (Mangleburg and Bristol 1998.)
Advertising Skepticism cont’d…
Skepticism is considered a moderator of responses to
advertising (Wright 1973, Batra and Ray 1986) where audiences
with relatively high levels of skepticism towards advertising will
exhibit less positive responses to advertisements, and
consequently negative perceptions of the ad and potentially for
advertising as a whole.
Increased skepticism leads to negative attitudes towards
advertising, which results in consumers liking advertising less,
relying on advertising less, and therefore processing advertising
less (Carl et al. 2005).
To date research relating HAMS to advertising skepticism have
focused on such individual traits as self esteem and adolescent
skepticism (Boush et al. 1994).
Advertising Skepticism cont’d…
Martin and Gentry (1997) suggest that the reluctance of sixth
and seventh graders to accept a model’s beauty might be partly
due to their having developed a sophisticated level of
advertising skepticism.
Boush et al. (1994) suggest that adolescents can use their own
judgment to separate advertising truth from advertising hype.
The literature has shown that advertising skepticism is
comprised of two components, mistrust of advertisers and
disbelief of ad claims.
Drivers of Negative Affect
Beauty type was suggested to significantly affect
negative perceptions of the viewer by Bower (2001).
Beauty types that were suggested but not tested
included cute beauty, sexy beauty and classic beauty
(Englis et al. 1994).
Comparison motive was suggested to impact
negative affect but was not tested by Bower
(2001).
Product type was suggested to significantly affect
negative perceptions on the part of the viewer but
again not tested by Bower and Landreth (2001).
Figure 1
Negative Affect Model for Magazine Advertising
Using Highly Attractive Models
Literature-Based Model
Beauty T ype
Comparison
Behavior
Negative
Affect
M istrust of
Advertisers
Ad Skepticism
Disbelief of
Ad Claims
Comparison
M otive
Product
T ype
Exploratory Phase 1 – Qualitative
Confirmation of the Literature-Based Model
The second step in the study involved the qualitative
confirmation of a list of relevant antecedents of negative affect
that could be tested in structural equations modeling.
Following upon the initial review of the literature and the
qualitative development of the appropriate beauty type
treatments, a series of five focus groups were run with groups
of 8-10 females between the ages of 18 and 28 years and
stratified by a cross section of ethnic origins (Caucasian and
Asian).
Each group ran for 90 minutes, discussions were transcribed
and underlying themes were identified.
Focus Group Findings
From the qualitative research that was done, there
are a number of important findings:
Cute Beauty is considered desirable and attainable.
There appears to be heightened comparison behavior with
cute beauty because of the sense of realism that women feel
in viewing this beauty type.
Young women relate to cute beauty and aspire to this level.
They notice this type of beauty in ads and would actively
process the information contained in the advertisement.
Focus Group Findings cont’d…
From the qualitative research that was done, there
are a number of important findings:
Sexy Beauty is less desirable – but still desirable at certain
times.
Young women do not feel threatened by sexy beauty
because a magazine ad is not considered “real life.”
They want to look like this model if they go out to a night
club, but they are only limited in the attention they pay
because they do not see this as directly relating to them.
Some actually indicated that they did not aspire to look like
that at all.
Negative affect will be created when sexy beauty is seen and
perceived to be undesirable.
Focus Group Findings cont’d…
From the qualitative research that was done, there
are a number of important findings:
Classic Beauty is seen as very distant from the individual.
These types of models are noted to be attractive, but they
are not attainable, nor do young women want to obtain that
look now.
This is something that would apply 5 to 10 years from now.
These young women do not take much notice of these types
of women, and they are not jealous.
They do not relate at all to these women, and as a result,
there will be limited processing in this case.
Focus Group Findings cont’d…
From the qualitative research that was done, there
are a number of important findings:
Cute Models are deemed to be more trustworthy.
Classic Models are also seen as trustworthy.
Sexy Models are seen as less trustworthy – there was a
resulting disbelief of claims used along with sexy models.
Cute Beauty is associated with natural, genuine, fresh, real
– so they were less likely to be associated with disbelief of
ad claims or skepticism.
Focus Group Findings cont’d…
From the qualitative research that was done, there
are a number of important findings:
Advertising skepticism (mistrust of advertisers motives
and disbelief of ad claims) appears to be linked to both
beauty type and product type and the two subcomponents
should be considered as possibly separate and distinct.
The focus group research suggests that cute beauty is
believable for skin products (problem solving product) as
well as for an enhancing product (lip gloss).
Sexy beauty was believable for lip gloss (improvement
product).
Classic beauty was found to be believable for lip gloss
(improvement product) but not for skin care product
(problem solving product).
Focus Group Findings cont’d…
The focus group research suggested that the
following variables should be examined as
possible antecedents of negative affect:
Comparison behavior between the viewer
and the model in the ad
Advertising skepticism split into two
separate components for testing:
• 1) mistrust of advertisers motives and
• 2) disbelief of ad claims)
Focus Group Findings cont’d…
The focus group research suggested that the
following variables should be examined as
possible antecedents of negative affect:
An entirely new antecedent not suggested
by the literature:
• resistance towards the use of beauty products
Focus Group Findings cont’d…
The focus group research suggested that the
following variables should be examined as
possible moderators of negative affect:
Characteristics of the model shown in the
advertisement (Beauty Type)
Comparison motive (self evaluation vs. self
improvement).
Nature of the product (lip gloss – makeup –
improvement product vs. skin cleanser bar – skin
care products – problem solving products).
Ethnicity (Caucasian vs. Asian).
Figure 2
Negative Affect Model for Magazine Advertising
Using Highly Attractive Models
Focus Group-Based Model
Beauty T ype
T ype of
Product
Comparison
M otive
Ethnicity
Comparison
Behavior
M istrust of
Advertisers
Disbelief of
Claims
Resistance
to the Use of
Beauty Products
Negative
Affect
Research Hypotheses
H1: Level of Social Comparison will have a significant
positive impact upon negative advertising affect for
female viewers.
H2: Mistrust of Advertiser Motives will have a
significant positive impact upon negative advertising
affect for female viewers.
H3: Disbelief of Advertising Claims will have a
significant negative affect upon negative advertising
affect for female viewers.
H4: Resistance Towards the Use of Beauty Products
will have a significant positive impact upon negative
advertising affect for female viewers.
Research Hypotheses cont’d…
H1a: The impact of the Level of Social Comparison
upon negative advertising affect for female viewers
will vary by beauty type of the model used in the ad.
H2a: The impact of Mistrust of Advertiser Motives
upon negative advertising affect for female viewers
will vary by beauty type of the model used in the ad.
H3a: The impact of Disbelief of Advertising Claims
upon negative advertising affect for female viewers
will vary by beauty type of the model used in the ad.
H4a: The impact of Resistance Towards the Use of
Beauty Products upon negative advertising affect for
female viewers will vary by beauty type of the model
used in the ad.
Exploratory Phase 2 – Development of
Experimental Stimuli
The stimulus materials relate to the three moderators that were
suggested by the literature as important in the creation of
negative affect. The moderators and their various forms are
presented below:
Model characteristics (beauty type):
• Classic beauty
• Sexy beauty
• Cute beauty
Type of comparison motive:
• Self evaluation
• Self improvement
Type of product:
• Problem solving
• Improvement
Exploratory Phase 2 – Development of
Experimental Stimuli cont’d…
Print ads (for magazines) were chosen for the study as they
have the advantage of being easily manipulated for
experimental design and are cost effective for replication
(Arthur and Quester 2003).
100 highly attractive models were selected for testing purposes
from a variety of women’s fashion magazines targeted towards
females aged between 18-28.
The 100 images were narrowed down to 30 based on the
following criteria:
1) all ads were full page
2) the model’s face was a central visual element
3) the model was deemed to be highly attractive
4) the photograph could be easily manipulated to eliminate
product/brand copy for each ad and
5) the model’s could be paired with a cosmetic product.
Exploratory Phase 2 – Development of
Experimental Stimuli cont’d…
Ten images were selected to represent each of the three beauty
types.
Three pretests were carried out to select model and product
stimuli as well as to confirm the beauty types.
The pretests determined which of the 30 model images were
rated as highly attractive.
A variety of undergraduate students were identified and asked
to view model images and assess their beauty using three
seven-point Likert-type scales.
Respondents were then asked to categorize each model
according to cute/sexy/classic descriptors or “other beauty
type.”
Exploratory Phase 2 – Development of
Experimental Stimuli cont’d…
Descriptions of the beauty types that were utilized were
developed by Solomon et al. (1992):
Cute Beauty: “With casual attire, the model has a cute and
youthful appearance. She can also be outdoorsy, in a casual active
manner.”
Sexy Beauty: “The model is posed in a sexual way. Usually wears
sexy attire or tight fitting, revealing clothes.”
Classic Beauty: “Slightly older than average, elegant, feminine to
look at, fair skin and glamorous. Sophisticated look, she usually
wears soft, feminine but not heavily accessorized apparel.”
Exploratory Phase 2 – Development of
Experimental Stimuli cont’d…
Respondents were also asked to rate the likelihood of
comparing themselves with the model, based again on three
seven-point Likert-type scales.
Items for each construct were summed and repeated measures
analysis was used to select three models representing each
beauty type for the study.
In order to select two products (to represent a problem solving
and an enhancing type of product), respondents were asked to
categorize a list of products according to the provided
definitions for each type.
The product selected to represent a problem solving product
was a facial cleansing bar (94% agreement), and lip gloss was
chosen as an enhancing product (92% agreement).
Exploratory Phase 2 – Development of
Experimental Stimuli cont’d…
The next phase of experimental stimuli identification involved
the pre-testing regarding the verification of headline and body
copy.
Based on Martin and Gentry (1997), comparison motives were
manipulated through headline and body copy.
20 female undergraduate students were asked to view a
montage of images of highly attractive models and then were
asked whether they felt inspired or confronted by several
different headlines and body copy presented to them.
The pre-testing confirmed the headlines and copy shown on the
following slide:
Exploratory Phase 2 – Development of
Experimental Stimuli cont’d…
Your lips will shine with
Intense color and brilliance
after using Satin Colors gloss
lacquer.
Your lips will shine with
intense color and brilliance
after using Satin Colors
gloss lacquer.
Exploratory Phase 2 – Development of
Experimental Stimuli cont’d…
Twelve print ads were subsequently finalized by a graphic
designer and used as stimuli for the study.
Each of the beauty types had four executions.
As an example, the cute model was depicted with two
executions for each of the two product types (skin cleansing bar
and lip gloss) and two executions for the two comparison
motives (self evaluation and self improvement).
Finally pilot testing of all developed stimulus material and the
final questionnaire was conducted with 50 female
undergraduate students.
Minor wording refinements were made subsequent to the pretesting.
Experimental Design
The experimental design used was post-test with
control.
The overall design involved a 3 x 2 x 2 factorial
design with control (three beauty types; two
comparison motive types; two product types; and
control).
Respondents received either the treatment stimulus
with an associated questionnaire, or they received no
stimulus and a specially-designed control
questionnaire.
Individuals were randomly assigned to treatment
groups.
Data Collection
Female university students from Curtin University of Technology
in Perth, Australia were selected for data collection since Richins
(1991) and Freedman (1984) argued that they are appropriate
for this use since physical attractiveness is particularly important
to them. Respondents were primarily between 18 and 28 years
of age.
This is the first step in a broader study to undertake comparable
research in the US and in the UK.
Participants were not informed about the aims/objectives of the
study; however, they were told that their input in this general
study was important but that their responses would be kept in
the strictest confidence and kept anonymous.
Each of the respondents was randomly assigned to one
treatment cell and provided the ad treatment stimulus and a
self-administered survey instrument.
Data Collection cont’d…
Each respondent was allowed one minute to view the
stimulus and then to proceed to answer the
questions.
Female student participants were randomly assigned
to one of the twelve different stimuli or the control
group.
For each of the 13 stimuli possibilities, the goal was
to get approximately 90 participants.
The final sample size was 1066.
Construct Measures
There were a number of assumption checks utilized
in the research to show that the beauty type,
comparison motive and product type met the
proper criteria.
Level of Social Comparison – utilized a three-item
Likert-type scale developed and tested by Bower
(2001).
Mistrust of Advertising Motive and Disbelief of
Ad Claims utilized scales developed and tested by
Bousch et al. (1994) for JCR.
Construct Measures cont’d…
Resistance Towards the Use of Beauty
Products was adapted from a scale developed and
tested by Crossley (1992) which focused on
resistance towards health behaviors and health
promotions.
The scale was adapted through several qualitative
iterations for use in the advertising context using
highly attractive models and beauty products.
Finally, Negative Affect was measured using the
four-item scale developed by Folkman (1984) and
later replicated by Bower (2001).
Construct Measures cont’d…
The negative affect scale items involve the
following:
“I feel resentful when I encounter advertisements like this
one.”
“Ads such as this one sometimes make me feel anxious
about my appearance.”
“The advertisement has negatively influenced how I feel
about myself.”
“Advertisements like this one sometimes make me feel
frustrated.”
Structural Equations Modeling by Beauty Type
Path
Cute Beauty
Sexy Beauty
Classic Beauty
N=
311
290
284
.62**
.03
-.01
.19*
.65**
.10*
-.06
.32**
.39**
-.29**
-.12*
.29**
.39
.59
.29
176.0 (125)
1.41
.921
.903
.976
.970
.975
.036
233.5 (125)
1.86
.900
.873
.949
.937
.948
.055
328.0 (125)
2.62
.928
.912
.954
.944
.954
.076
Direct Effects
LSC→NA
MAM→NA
DAC→NA
RB→NA
Squared Correlations
NA
Model Fit
Χ2 (df)
Χ2 /df
NFI
RFI
IFI
TLI
CFI
RMSEA
Note: LSC= Level of Social Comparison; NA=Negative Affect; MAM=Mistrust of Advertising Motives; DAC=Disbelief of Ad Claims;
RB=Resistance Towards the Use of Beauty Products; * = p< .01; ** = p<.001.
Structural Equations Modeling - Beauty Type by Comparison
Motive
Cute
Beauty
Self
Eval
151
Cute
Beauty
Self
Improve
160
Sexy
Beauty
Self
Eval
148
Sexy
Beauty
Self
Improve
142
Classic
Beauty
Self
Eval
137
Classic
Beauty
Self
Improve
147
LSC→NA
MAM→NA
DAC→NA
RB→NA
.60**
.04
-.17*
.17*
.62**
.00
.14*
.02
.68**
.14*
-.12*
.38**
.63**
.04
-.01
.24**
.33**
.08
-.37**
-.15*
.46**
-.38**
-.11*
.59**
Squared
Correlations
NA
.39
.41
.61
.54
.35
.34
Path
N=
Direct Effects
Model Fit
Χ2 (df)
176.3 (125)
145.3
215.6 (125)
179.4
395.2 (125)
(125)
(125)
Χ2 /df
1.41
1.16
1.72
1.44
3.16
IFI
.950
.982
.920
.947
.890
TLI
.937
.978
.900
.934
.860
CFI
.949
.982
.918
.946
.883
RMSEA
.052
.032
.070
.056
.126
Note: LSC= Level of Social Comparison; NA=Negative Affect; MAM=Mistrust of Advertising Motives;
DAC=Disbelief of Ad Claims; RB=Resistance Towards the Use of Beauty Products; * = p< .01; ** = p<.001.
254.9 (125)
2.04
.945
.931
.944
.084
ANOVA Analyses - Beauty Type by Comparison
Motive by Product (problem solving – skin cleanser bar vs.
improvement – lip gloss)
Study Constructs
Level of Social
Comparison
Cute
BeautySelf
Eval
No
Difference
Cute
Beauty –
Self
Improve
P=.089
Higher for
Problem
Solving
Sexy
Beauty –
Self
Eval
No
Difference
Sexy
Beauty –
Self
Improve
No
Difference
Classic
Beauty –
Self
Eval
No
Difference
Classic
Beauty –
Self
Improve
P=.015
Higher
for
Improvement
Mistrust of
Advertising
Motives
No
Difference
No
Difference
No
Difference
No
Difference
No
Difference
No
Difference
Disbelief of Ad
Claims
No
Difference
No
Difference
No
Difference
No
Difference
No
Difference
P=.044
Higher
for
Problem
Solving
Resistance
towards the
Use of Beauty
Products
No
Difference
No
Difference
P=.042
Higher
for
Improvement
No
Difference
No
Difference
No
Difference
Negative
Affect
No
Difference
No
Difference
No
Difference
No
Difference
No
Difference
No
Difference
ANOVA Analyses - Beauty Type by Comparison
Motive by Ethnicity (Caucasian vs. Asian)
Study Constructs
Cute
BeautySelf Eval
Cute
Beauty –
Self Improv
Sexy
Beauty –
Self Eval
Sexy
Beauty
Self Improv
Classic
Beauty
Self Eval
Classic
Beauty
Self Improv
Level of Social
Comparison
No
Difference
P=.001
Higher for
Asian
P=.003
Higher
for
Caucasian
No
Difference
No
Difference
No
Difference
Mistrust of
Advertising
Motives
No
Difference
No
Difference
No
Difference
No
Difference
No
Difference
No
Difference
Disbelief of Ad
Claims
No
Difference
No
Difference
No
Difference
No
Difference
No
Difference
P=.001
Higher for
Asian
Resistance
towards the
Use of Beauty
Products
Negative
Affect
P=.025
Higher for
Caucasian
P=.028
Higher for
Caucasian
No
Difference
No
Difference
No
Difference
No
Difference
P=.010
Higher for
Caucasian
P=.074
Higher for
Caucasian
No
Difference
P=.075
Higher
For
Caucasian
No
Difference
No
Difference
Findings
The modeling was different for each of the
three beauty types.
For Cute Beauty:
Level of Social Comparison has a significant
positive impact upon Negative Affect
Level of Resistance Towards the Use of Beauty
Products has a significant positive impact upon
Negative Affect
Mistrust of Advertising Motives and Disbelief of Ad
Claims do not have a significant impact upon
Negative Affect
Findings cont’d…
For Sexy Beauty:
Level of Social Comparison has a significant
positive impact upon Negative Affect
Mistrust of Advertising Motives has a significant
positive impact upon Negative Affect
Level of Resistance Towards the Use of Beauty
Products has a significant positive impact upon
Negative Affect
Disbelief of Ad Claims does not have a significant
impact upon Negative Affect
Findings cont’d…
For Classic Beauty:
Level of Social Comparison has a significant
positive impact upon Negative Affect
Mistrust of Advertising Motives has a significant
negative impact upon Negative Affect
Disbelief of Ad Claims has a significant negative
impact upon Negative Affect
Level of Resistance Towards the Use of Beauty
Products has a significant positive impact upon
Negative Affect