“What movie characters say about your car brand”: Can placement of super-and-anti-heroes in car advertisements affect brand personality?
Aswini N. Harinath Student ID: 12493716 ash.hrinath@student.uva.nl
Master’s Thesis
Master’s Programme Communication Science (Persuasive Track) Graduate School of Communication, University of Amsterdam
Thesis supervisor: Dr. J.G.B. Loman Date of completion: 24 June 2020
Abstract
Character merchandising in today’s world is a multi-billion-dollar practice which solely relies on associations of characters placed with the product. Popular in this process are superheroes who are widely used in advertisements of products across different categories. Ironically, anti-heroes even though as well-received as superheroes by movie fanatics and comic-book lovers, almost never gets into character merchandising strategies.
The research thus examines the difference in brand personality and associations of superhero and anti-hero characters with two experimental studies. Experiment 1 analyses the existing moral perceptions and personality associations of super-and-anti-hero characters. The results suggest that a superhero is perceived to be more moral and competent in their personality than an anti-hero. Experiment 2 examines if the personality traits of these characters can be transferred to an associated brand. Furthermore, the study investigates the brand associations created by the characters and if brand familiarity acts as a moderating factor in creating such associations. The findings indeed agree that the characters can transfer their personality traits to an associated brand. Additionally, both superheroes and anti-heroes create equally positive brand associations. However, no interaction effect of brand familiarity was found for brand associations or transfer of personality characteristics.
Keywords: superheroes, anti-heroes, brand association, brand personality, brand familiarity, experimental survey
“What movie characters say about your car brand”: Can placement of super-and-anti-heroes in car advertisements affect brand personality?
The commercial success of endorsements by association with famous movie characters has led to the multi-billion-dollar practice of character merchandising. Shapiro (1985) defines this popular strategy as “marketing of goods and services that embody or are connected to actual or fictional characters, whose association is likely to enhance their popularity and saleability".
The tremendous advantage of using the ‘reputation’ of the characters in advertising a brand is the ability of character associations to influence the consumer’s perception (Hobbs, 1980). The character's image is usually evoked in the marketing material through references to the character's name, appearance, sound or description in a manner that an association is created with the product and that reputation is potentially unlimited (Shapiro, 1985). This overwhelming reputation achieved by the product has often yielded an income far greater than the character itself (Elliot, 1997). Thus, brand associations can have an impact on the commercial value or a brand’s equity by contributing to the brand’s personality (O’Cass & Lim, 2002).
The concept of the current study is to explore the character merchandising associations for superhero and anti-hero characters. These characters are often adapted from comics and mostly run for decades, due to which they have garnered fan loyalty among different generations of movie-goers and comic-book lovers (Beaty, 2016). Moreover, speculative fiction movies often get into the charts of highest-grossing films worldwide (Watson, 2020) due to their guaranteed commercial appeal for its viewers (Hassler-Forest, 2011). Marketers have thus used the
popularity of these characters for a long time in advertising across various categories of products and services. From Spiderman on cereal packaging ("Kellogg's Slings Into Action With Spider-Man™: Far From Home Themed Food And Interactive Experiences", 2019), to starring Batman on PSA’s for the US Army to acknowledge the enforcing of safety rules in Afghanistan military
bases (Hodge, 2013), to using Wonder Woman and Storm in the ALCC Vodacom MFW campaign to spread awareness on breast cancer (Peters, 2014), the list goes on. But the spill-over effect of these characters is often only considered for morally positive personas, that is superheroes specifically (Balasubramanian, Karrh & Patwardhan, 2006). Anti-heroes are currently a trending sensation among the movie fanatics. Characters like Deadpool and Joker are highly popular among the viewers and their movies gained box office collection like any other superhero movies (Watson, 2020). But the image transfer effect of reputation and likeability towards anti-hero characters is highly understudied. This could be the reason why marketers have been using positive characters for advertising almost exclusively till date (Hsee, Yang, Zheng & Wang, 2015).
Against this background, the study on hand aims to understand the difference in ‘transfer effect’ caused by super-and-anti-hero characters. The objectives are investigated with two experimental surveys. Experiment 1 uses images of superhero and anti-hero characters to find how they are perceived differently in terms of morality and personality.
Experiment 2 acts as a succeeding stage to the primary experiment by exploring if these personality traits of the characters can be transferred through brand associations. The experiment exclusively focuses on character associations on car brands, using advertisements. This product category widely advertises through character merchandising but is often restricted to having only positive characters linked to them (Redondo, 2012).
Previous studies have found that consumers respond differently to advertisements of a familiar brand as compared to an unfamiliar brand (Campbell & Keller, 2003). However, research in character merchandising lacks attention towards brand familiarity as an antecedent towards forming brand personalities. Thus, the study also explores the moderating role of brand familiarity in the second experiment.
The research objectives of this study can serve multiple purposes. Character
merchandising is a highly under-rated subject among researchers. Additionally, no research could be found in this domain which concentrates on superheroes and anti-heroes specifically. The study thus aims to lessen the literature gap in character merchandising by understanding the viewer’s association of a brand with characteristics of super-and-anti-heroes. The study will also add to the literature of understanding anti-heroes which is relatively a newer concept with limited theoretical information. Considering the practical implications, marketers will have a better understanding of whether a superhero or an anti-hero is better to market their product, based on their personality. The study will also help marketers to know the effects of associations in terms of brand familiarity and how they can apply it into practice.
To summarise, the study aims to analyse and answer the following research questions: “Are anti-heroes and superheroes perceived differently in terms of morality and personality? Do these personality differences reflect on a brand when it is associated with these characters? Does brand familiarity play a moderating role in forming such associations?”
Theoretical Background Interpreting superheroes and anti-heroes
Superheroes, as we know from the time of comic books, are perceived as the perfect human beings with flawless character and enormous powers (Coogan, 2009). The extra-ordinary powers of superheroes are fascinating but the real appeal of these characters stems from their moral qualities rather than their talents (Rosenberg & Canzoneri, 2008). Previous research thus defines a superhero as a protagonist who does not have moral flaws (Raney, 2004).
The likeness towards these characters is also triggered by moral positivism, which can be explained by affective disposition theory. The theory states that the enjoyment of media characters
depends on the moral judgement of the persona (Raney, 2011). Moral justification of a character’s behaviour determines the valence and intensity of the dispositions and emotional side-taking held toward those characters (Zilmann, 2000). This moral factor also creates an expectation among the audience that heroes should be rewarded, and villains need to be punished (Macphail, 1960). Thus, based on the theory, it is expected that superheroes are judged positively by providing moral approval for their behaviour and motivation.
However, all superheroes do not qualify for the moral rightness in today’s cinematic world. The last century, especially from the mid-1940s through the 1970s, witnessed the development of genres like Film Noir, Westerns, Outlaw Biker Films, Cop Dramas, Mob Films and Sci-Fi Films. These new concepts had the common element of an "anti-hero", a heroic archetype of the antagonist who generally acts questionably and sometimes behaves immorally (Buck, 1986).
If affective disposition theory is applied to the reception of antiheroes, enjoyment of these characters becomes impossible. That is, the moral judgement of these protagonists’ motives and behaviours would be exceedingly negative because of their inappropriate actions (Matthews, 2019). But the popularity of antiheroes confirms that they are not disliked by the audience. Thus, affective disposition theory does not seem appropriate to explain the enjoyment of antihero characters.
One possibility for the enjoyment of anti-hero personas is that viewers extend the sense of what is morally acceptable to cover the immoral but well-intended actions of a liked hero (Raney, 2004). In other words, enjoyment comes from seeing a liked character prosper, and viewers interpret their actions as morally appropriate and rightly motivated, even when they break the norms that usually demands to be followed (Raney, Schmid, Niemann & Ellensohn, 2009). Moreover, audience is likely to identify anti-hero characters more than superheroes due to their human-like and non-perfect behaviour (Biswas, Biswas, & Das, 2006).
Thus, it is suspected that even though super-and-anti-heroes are identified with different moral judgements, it is not likely that anti-hero characters possess a negative disposition among the audience.
Hypothesis 1: Both superheroes and antiheroes are perceived as equally moral by the viewers.
Understanding super-and-anti-hero personalities
The difference in how superheroes and anti-heroes are portrayed also affects how consumers perceive their personalities. Aaker (1997) defines brand/product personality as ‘a set of human characteristics that can be associated with the brand/product’. Fictional characters being products of a writer’s creativity can also inherit such character associations.
Aaker (1997) also identified five dimensions of product personality namely sincerity, competence, excitement, sophistication, and ruggedness. A sincere product is considered to provide a positive experience, associate strongly with family and childhood memories, and have high moral and idealistic purposes. A product of competence is perceived to be of high quality and foster a good reputation. A product with an exciting personality helps consumers to build or express their identity. They have exhilarating aesthetics which make them compatible for thrilling experiences. A sophisticated product offers uniqueness, a sense of high class, exclusivity, and an aesthetic of elegant simplicity. A rugged product is seen contrary to a sophisticated brand with its outdoorsy and tough nature (Maehle, Otnes & Supphellen, 2011).
Figure 1: Brand personality scale (Aaker, 1997)
Implementing these dimensions into the speculative fictional realm, superheroes portraying a ‘quintessential hero’ are adored for their pro-social and selfless behaviour. These characters maintain a high moral code and use their mystical powers in combating “evil and injustice” (Coogan, 2009). Superheroes often own a secret identity other than their heroic codename, and both identities often own a good reputation for their best behaviour and a great sense of responsibility (Coogan, 2009). Their iconic costumes, extraordinary abilities and advanced powers give them an elegant and sophisticated personality (Coogan, 2009). Thus, it is likely that a superhero character will score more on sincerity, competence, and sophistication dimensions of brand personality.
In contrast, an anti-hero’s journey is often more exciting to the audience because we connect with and relate to these characters as they accurately reflect our flawed humanity (Cook, 2019). Not a traditional hero who is held back by the dominant social and legal norms, anti-heroes portray a tough persona with daring and spirited characteristics (Vaage, 2015). Thus, it is
likely that an anti-hero character will score more on excitement and ruggedness dimensions of brand personality.
Hypothesis 2: Superheroes are perceived to be more sincere, sophisticated, and competent whereas anti-heroes are perceived to be more exciting and rugged in their personalities.
Based on the concept of character merchandising, a brand placed with the character can also derive the personality traits of the associated hero. This effect can be explained by balance theory which states that viewers are inclined to achieve balance by aligning their feeling towards the brand with the character, forming a similar personality for both (Russell, Norman & Heckler, 2004). This alignment of personality can have a significant impact on creating a positive brand attitude and even on the consumer’s final decision to purchase the brand (Kim & Lee, 2008). The personality transfer from the character to a brand can also be explained by classical conditioning theory which states that an affect may be transferred from a well-liked stimulus to a relatively neutral stimulus when the stimuli are jointly presented (Baker, 1999). Thus, considering character merchandising, placing a brand with a popular character would likely lead viewers to consider their evaluation of the brand and align it to the personality of the associated character (Redker, Gibson & Zimmerman, 2013).
Hypothesis 3: When a brand is associated with a superhero or an anti-hero, the brand will be perceived with the same personality traits as of the character.
Brand associations with super-and-anti-hero characters
Previous research also shows that character merchandising is done with the goal of image transfer from the core brand to the adjacent brand (Smith, 2004). Such transfer of characteristics
from a stimulus to another occurs through brand associations, which are the mere thoughts that consumers hold for a given brand (Gordon, James & Yoshida, 2016).
Low and Lamb (2000) conceptualizes brand association with three constructs: brand image, brand attitude and perceived quality of the brand. Brand image is defined as ‘the reasoned or emotional perceptions consumers attach to specific brands’ (Dobni and Zinkhan,1990).
Considering it in the context of speculative fictions, superhero images are influenced by their pure motivations, extra-ordinary powers, and selfless zeal for justice (Lawrence & Jewett, 2002). The juxtaposition of superpower and fatal flaw (Rubin, 2006) make superheroes icons who help focus and express ideals, carry hopes and aspirations for the future while anchoring them to history (Campbell, 1956). But the image of an anti-hero character is quite different from the superhero. These heroes are often loved for their witty comebacks and being great mates for their close ones (Stace, 2016), making them more friendly and fun than a superhero. Thus, it is
suspected that even though different, both super-and-anti-heroes produce equally positive brand images through associations.
Considering brand attitude, Mitchell and Olson (1981) defines the phenomenon as consumers ‘overall evaluation of a brand as good or bad’. A study by Pauly (2007) supports the fact that attractiveness of the character can create positive attitude and promotional effects for a brand. This attractiveness is catalysed by the likeability towards the character which is influenced by the character’s personality (Callcott & Phillips, 1996). Raney (2006) argues that liking of media characters also varies to the extent a viewer judges the character’s behaviours as morally appropriate, with this judgment being dependent upon the viewer’s moral values. As we expect both superheroes and anti-heroes to be perceived as morally appropriate, both characters should possess a high likeability among its viewers. This will result in both the characters creating
favourable brand perceptions and evaluations, thus garnering a positive brand attitude (Garretson & Burton 2005).
The third factor affecting brand association is perceived quality which is ‘the tangible and intangible perception of consumers towards a product’ (Zeithaml, 1988). Aaker and Jacobson (1994) found that sales and loyalty towards a brand are dependent on the consumers’ perception of quality rather than the objective quality of the brand. The high reputation of super-and-anti- heroes can result in ‘novelty effect’ by improving the quality perceptions of the associated brand (Simonin & Ruth, 1998). The popularity of these characters can also enhance quality perceptions, especially if the associated brand is new or unfamiliar to the market (Saqib & Manchanda, 2008). Thus, we expect that both anti-heroes and superheroes act as a positive quality signal for the associated brand.
Hypothesis 4: Both superheroes and anti-heroes can create equally positive brand associations when a product is placed with them.
Brand familiarity and formation of associations & personality
Previous studies have found that awareness of a product, also known as brand familiarity (Knoll, Schramm, Schallhorn & Wynistorf, 2015) plays a major role in creating associations. Based on Haider’s (1946) balance theory, a consumer can form brand associations based on the character in order to maintain a balanced relationship between them (Chiu & Lin, 2011). But the association transfer usually happens from a familiar to less familiar object (Mackenzie, Lutz & Belch, 1986). This is because the more familiar a person is with a brand, the more developed are the knowledge structures about the brand (Kent & Allen, 1994), thus creating a possibility for pre-existing brand schemas (Lynch & Srull, 1982). But for an unfamiliar brand, the associated character can positively influence as the brand is mostly only evaluated by the attitude towards the character (Phillips &
Lee, 2005). Thus, it can be expected that the unfamiliar brand will tend to make stronger associations due to a stronger influence of the character in creating a brand schema.
Hypothesis 5: Viewers are more likely to create brand associations and derive a brand’s personality from the character for unfamiliar brands compared to familiar brands.
Methodology
The research comprised of two experimental studies. Experiment 1 focused on the pre-existing morality and personality dispositions of super-and-anti-heroes among the viewers. Experiment 2 explored three effects: 1. Transfer of personalities when a brand is placed with the characters, 2. Brand associations formed by the characters, and 3. Moderating role of brand familiarity in creating such associations.
Exemplars for the characters were decided based on existing character popularity. To represent a superhero, Superman was used as the character as it was ranked as most popular on various surveys (Haaland, 2020). Deadpool was marketed widely as an anti-hero by its
production house, Marvel Studios (Child, 2016). The choice of character was also supported by the research of Knoll et al (2015).
Experiment 1
The experiment aimed to understand if both superheroes and anti-heroes are perceived as moral, and to understand the personality traits by which the audience distinguishes these characters. Based on the theory, we expected that both characters would be perceived as equally moral by the consumers. We also presumed that Superman would be perceived as sincere, sophisticated, and competent whereas Deadpool would be perceived to have an exciting and rugged character.
Method
Participants and design
The sample for the study comprised of 68 participants. Four entrants were removed due to the inability to recognise the characters correctly, bringing down the final number of participants to 64 (N = 64).
67 percent of the final sample comprised of female participants. The mean age of the sample was 26.96 years (M = 26.96, SD = 8.86), with 52% of the respondents having a bachelor’s degree. The participants were selected by convenience sampling method where respondents who were willing to answer the questions took part in the survey which was hosted on an online community space called ‘Surveyswap’. The experimental design adhered to the regulations of University Ethics Committee and was approved by the thesis supervisor.
Assigned to one of the two conditions in a single-factor between-subjects design, participants were asked to evaluate the personality and morality of either a superhero or an anti-hero on a 7-point semantic differential scale.
Procedures and materials
The experiment was conducted in the form of a survey with the help of Qualtrics.
Participants were recruited for a period of 5 days. The participants were informed that the goal of the experiment was to understand their perceptions of certain speculative fictional characters. After agreeing to the informed consent, participants were first asked for general information such as age, gender, highest achieved educational degree, and nationality. Afterwards, a picture of either Superman or Deadpool was shown, which was evenly randomised by the software. Participants were then asked about their perceptions of moral qualities and personality
characteristics of the character they saw. Finally, the participants were thanked for participating and were informed of the purpose of the study.
Stimulus material: Respondents were displayed with the picture of either Superman from the movie ‘Man of Steel’, or Deadpool played by actor Ryan Reynolds. Both images were shown in PNG format with a pixel density of 72 dpi. As images of both characters with the same posture could not be found, pictures with regular hero postures were chosen (See appendix 1).
Moral positivity: The perception of moral positivity of the characters was measured with a 7-point Likert-scale developed by Aquino & Reed (2002). The 9-items used on the scale had a high reliability score of 0.8 (α = 0.80).
The semantic differential anchors were (based on the leading statement “To what extend would you rate the character on the following moral qualities”) caring, compassionate, fair, friendly, generous, helpful, hardworking, honest, and kind (see Appendix 1 for scale items).
Principal axis factor analyses were conducted individually for the scales of morality and personality. The factor analysis for the 9 items of morality showed a Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure above the minimum criterion of 0.5, KMO = 0.58. The Bartlett’s test of sphericity showed the correlation between the variables to be significantly different from zero, χ2(36) = 121.57, p < 0.01. The factor analysis indicated that three factors gave the most interpretable solution. The first factor had an eigenvalue of 3.78 and accounted for 41.97% of the variance in the data. Factor two had an eigenvalue of 1.76 and accounted for a further 19.57% of the variance. The eigenvalue for the third factor was 1.33, accounting for a further 14.74% of the total variance.
Character personality: Personality was measured using 15 previously approved items by Aaker (1997). The items were measured on a 7-point Likert-scale ranging from ‘Not at all likely’ to ‘Extremely likely’. The semantic differential anchors were (based on the leading statement “How would you define the character's personality to be”) honest, daring, reliable, upper-class, outdoorsy, spirited, intelligent, charming, tough, wholesome, imaginative, successful, cheerful, and updated (see Appendix 1 for scale items). The 15 items used for measurement of personality had a high reliability score of 0.82 (α = 0.82).
The factor analysis for the 15-items of personality showed a Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure above the minimum criterion of 0.5, KMO = 0.67. The Bartlett’s test of sphericity showed the correlation between the variables to be significantly different from zero, χ2(105) = 201.07, p < 0.01. The factor analysis indicated that four factors gave the most interpretable solution. The first factor had an eigenvalue of 7.68 and accounted for 51.22% of the variance in the data. Factor two had an eigenvalue of 1.62 and accounted for a further 10.82% of the variance. The eigenvalue for the third and fourth factor were 1.52 and 1.23 respectively, accounting for a total of further 18.37% of the total variance.
Manipulation check: Successful exposure of the character images were checked with following questions: (a) “Do you recognise this fictional character?” and (b) “Can you please name the character?” A 7-point Likert scale was also used to evaluate the statements: “To what extent do you consider this character as a superhero?” and “To what extent do you consider this character as an anti-hero?”
Results and discussion Descriptive statistics
Out of the total sample size of 64, 47% (n = 30) of the participants were shown the picture of Deadpool and 53% (n = 34) participants were shown the picture of Superman.
Randomization check: Chi-square tests for gender, χ2(2) = 1.80, p = 0.41, and educational background, χ2(3) = 3.16, p = 037 showed no significant differences between conditions for the control variables. An independent samples t-test also confirmed no significant difference for age, t(41) = 0.66; p = 0.25, 95% CI [-3.76, 7.45].
Manipulation check: Overall, all participants recognized the characters shown in the survey. An independent samples T-test proved significant difference between Superman and Deadpool being perceived as a superhero, t(41) = 6.31, p < 0.01, 95% CI [1.89, 3.66], and an anti-hero, t(41) = -6.11, p = 0.02, 95% CI [-5.40, -2.71]. Thus, Superman was mostly recognised as a superhero (M = 6.46, SD =0.98) than an anti-hero (M =1.22, SD = 1.83), whereas Deadpool was highly recognised as an anti-hero (M =5.14, SD =2.05) than a superhero (M =3.61, SD =1.72).
Main analyses
Moral positivity: An independent samples T-test was performed with the type of characters as independent variable and items of morality as dependent variable. Superman (M =5.88, SD = 1.07) on average was perceived to be more moral than Deadpool (M = 3.42, SD = 1.69). The mean difference of 2.46 was statistically significant, t(43) = 5.95, p = 0.046, 95% CI [1.63, 3.29]. Thus, H1 was rejected.
Table 1: Experiment 1 Sample Means and Standard Deviations by Morality Condition Descriptive Statistics
Morality items Superman (N = 34) Deadpool (N = 30)
M SD M SD Caring 6.13 .92 3.42 2.04 Compassionate 5.48 1.41 3.39 1.85 Fair 5.74 1.14 3.47 1.66 Friendly 5.30 1.66 4.47 1.87 Generous 5.17 2.12 3.33 2.27 Helpful 6.30 .97 3.72 1.81 Hardworking 5.87 1.57 4.00 2.11 Honest 6.00 1.28 3.23 1.92 Kind 6.04 1.19 3.41 1.97
Character personality: A one-way MANOVA was conducted to understand the difference in personality associated with the two characters. The Box’s Test of Equality of Covariance Matrices checked the assumption of homogeneity of covariance across the groups using p < .05 as a criterion. Box’s M (22.4) was not significant, p = 0.205, indicating that there were no significant differences between the covariance matrices. Therefore, the assumption was not violated, and Wilk’s Lambda was an appropriate test to use.
Following was the MANOVA using the Wilk’s Lambda test, Wilk’s Ʌ = .72, F(5, 35) = 2.71, p = 0.036, multivariate ƞ2 = .28. The Levene’s Test of Equality of Error Variances tested if the variances of each variable were equal across the groups. The assumption was met for all five dimensions with p > .05 for sincerity, excitement, competence, sophistication, and ruggedness. Following-up was a univariate ANOVAs which indicated that competence dimension was significantly different for superhero and anti-hero characters, F(1, 39) = 10.83, p = 0.002. Comparison of all other dimensions was insignificant. Thus, a superhero (M = 5.42, SD = 1.25)
was perceived to be more competent than an anti-hero (M = 3.98, SD = 1.55). Hence, H2 is partially supported.
Table 2: Experiment 1 one-way MANOVA between the type of character and personality dimensions Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Independent
Variable Dependent Variable Type III Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Superman vs Deadpool Sincerity 3.801 1 3.801 2.021 .163 Excitement .331 1 .331 .183 .671 Competence 20.904 1 20.904 10.832 .002 Sophistication 10.591 1 10.591 3.512 .068 Ruggedness 1.713 1 1.713 .602 .443 Conclusion
The aim of the experiment was to find the pre-existing moral disposition towards
superhero and anti-hero characters, and to identify the personality characteristics associated with these characters. In contrast to the expected result, Superman was perceived to be morally positive than Deadpool showing that consumers do not justify the morality of behaviour of the anti-hero. Superman was also perceived to be more competent than Deadpool. The items used to measure competency dimension (reliability, intelligence, and success) resonates with the moral qualities in which Superman scores higher than Deadpool. Caring, helpfulness, honesty and kindness adds up to the quality of a reliable hero character.
Experiment 2
The aim of the second experiment was to find if the personality associated with the superhero and anti-hero characters can be transferred to a car brand when placed with the character. Furthermore, the experiment investigated if both the characters could create equally
positive brand associations. Finally, the interacting role of brand familiarity in personality transfer and brand associations would be examined.
The study expected he car brand to be more competent when placed with a superhero than an anti-hero, as per the results of Experiment 1. The car brand was expected to show no
difference in brand association when placed with both the characters. Additionally, it was also expected that unfamiliar brand will resonate with the image transfer rather than a familiar brand.
Method
Participants and design
Overall, 170 respondents participated in the second experiment. 11 percent of the
respondents (n = 19) were excluded from the sample since they did not match the criteria for the study. Thus, the final sample was concluded with 151 participants (N = 151). The participants were reached through social media platforms like Facebook, Instagram, Reddit, and other communication channels. For that reason, a convenience sampling together with snowball
sampling was used to have a wider reach of respondents. The data was collected for a period of 3 weeks.
Out of 151 participants, 52.3 percent were male (n = 79), and the mean age was 27.66 years (M = 27.66, SD = 8.26). 37.1 percent of the respondents had obtained a master’s degree and 34.4% held a bachelor’s degree. A higher majority of the respondents were from India, USA, and the UK. Assigned to one of the four conditions in a 2 x 2 between-subjects factorial design, participants were asked to evaluate a brand in terms of its personality, association (with scales of brand attitude, brand image and perceived quality), and familiarity, from a car advertisement poster where the product was placed with either an anti-hero or a superhero.
Procedures and materials
The experiment comprised of a survey designed with the help of Qualtrics software, where respondents were asked to evaluate a brand in terms of its personality, familiarity, and different associations. The participants were informed that the goal of the experiment was to understand their perceptions of certain car brands. They were not informed about the idea behind the presence of character in order to eliminate anticipation effect and to be as close to a real-life situation as possible. It was also relevant not to tell respondents what the actual purpose of the experiment was, to terminate the experimenter demand effects, i.e. the bias stemming from participants inferring the purpose of an experiment (Mummolo & Peterson, 2019).
After deciding to participate in the online survey, respondents could click to a link
forwarding them to an online experiment on Qualtrics website. Afterwards, they were exposed to a text saying that this survey was part of a master thesis at University of Amsterdam. They were also assured that the participation was anonymous and voluntary for anyone of 18 years of age or above. After agreeing to the informed consent, participants were first asked for general
information such as age, gender, highest achieved educational degree, and nationality. Following was a short cover story which described that they will be shown a poster of a car brand, on which they were asked about their perceptions of the car brand’s associations and personality
characteristics. Finally, a manipulation check was conducted to understand the familiarity of the brand and the movie character. A suspicion probe was also added in order to find out if the participants had already contributed to the first experiment and to check if they recognised the deception in the study. Finally, the participants were thanked for participating and were informed of the purpose of the study.
Stimulus material: Along with manipulation of the independent variable ‘character type’ similar to experiment 1, ‘brand familiarity’ was also controlled in this study. The variable was manipulated by displaying a picture of BMW to represent a familiar brand, and Acura to represent an unfamiliar brand. Conditions were created with four posters: two BMW i8 posters featuring either Superman or Deadpool, and two Acura NSX roadster posters with either of the same characters. The particular car models were chosen due to their similarity in appearance and style. Both posters included the same superhero images that were used in Experiment 1. The posters were also made in similar design with black background and logos of the car brand to the upper left of the posters, and logos of the superhero to the upper right corners. The posters were shown with a pixel density of 72 dpi (see appendix 2).
Brand association: Brand association was measured with a scale used by Low & Lamb (2000) which measures the construct with three factors namely brand image, brand attitude and perceived quality.
For brand attitude, the semantic differential anchors were (based on the leading statement “I think the car brand is:”) good/bad, pleasant/unpleasant, and valuable/worthless. For brand image, the semantic differential anchors were (based on the leading statement “I think that the car brand in this advertisement is:”) friendly/unfriendly, modern/outdated, useful/not useful, highly performing/poorly performing, and fun/not fun. For perceived quality, the items were (based on the leading statement “Overall, I think that the advertised car brand is:”) superior/inferior, high quality/low quality, and excellent/poor (see Appendix 2 for scale items). The scale had high reliability with Cronbach’s Alpha, α = .897.
Principal axis factor analyses conducted for the 11-items of brand association showed a Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure above the minimum criterion of 0.5, KMO = 0.85. The Bartlett’s test of sphericity showed the correlation between the variables to be significantly different from
zero, χ 2(55) = 825.84, p < 0.01. The factor analysis indicated that two factors gave the most interpretable solution. The first factor had an eigenvalue of 5.58 and accounted for 50.77% of the variance in the data. The eigenvalue for the second factor was 1.36, accounting for a further 12.36% of the total variance.
Brand familiarity: Brand familiarity was measured with a question “Do you recognize the brand you see in the poster” to which the participants responded with a yes/no answer.
Brand personality: Brand personality was measured with the same scale containing the exact same items as Experiment 1.
Manipulation check: Successful poster exposure was checked with the following questions: (a) “Do you recognise the movie character that you saw in the ad poster?” (b) “Can you please name the movie character?” (c) “Do you recognise the car brand that you saw in the ad poster?” and (d) “Can you please name the car brand?”.
Results and discussion Descriptive statistics
Out of the total 151, 26 % (n = 39) of the participants were shown the poster of BMW featuring Superman, and 25% participants (n = 38) saw a poster of the car featuring Deadpool. In case of Acura, 25% participants (n = 38) were shown the poster with Superman, and 24%
Randomization check: Chi-square tests for gender, χ2(3) = 4.01, p = 0.26, and educational background, χ2(4) = 2.89, p = 0.58 showed no significant differences between conditions for the control variables. A two-way ANOVA with ‘type of character’ and ‘brand recognition’ as
independent variable confirmed no significant difference for age, F(1, 147) = 0.66, p = 0.47. Manipulation check: 6 percent of the initial sample (n = 11) did not recognise the movie character that they encountered in the advertisement poster. For a response to be valid,
participants needed to be totally unfamiliar with the brand Acura, thus eliminating an additional 2% respondents who recognised the brand (n = 4). To make sure that participants were not a part of the first experiment, the debriefing also raised the question “Did you take part in another pilot test for the same study?”. No respondents mentioned being a part of the other study.
Main analyses
Brand personality: The third hypothesis stated that superhero and anti-hero characters could transfer brand personalities to the associated brand. To test this, a two-way MANOVA was conducted with ‘type of character’ and ‘brand familiarity’ as dependent variables, and brand personality as dependent variable.
The Box’s Test of Equality of Covariance Matrices checked the assumption of
homogeneity of covariance across the groups using p < .05 as a criterion. Box’s M (89.18) was significant, p = 0.001, indicating that there were significant differences between the covariance matrices. Therefore, the assumption was violated. Pillai’s Trace was an appropriate test to use in this case as it is not highly linked to assumptions of normality of distribution of the data.
Following was the MANOVA using the Pillai’s Trace test, V = .049, F(5, 108) = 1.12, p = 0.353. The multivariate ANOVA indicated a similar result as Study 1 with competence dimension being significantly different for superhero and anti-hero characters, F(1, 112) = 3.92, p = 0.05. Thus, a car brand associated with the superhero (M = 4.80, SD = 1.61) was perceived to be more
competent than when associated with an anti-hero (M = 4.33, SD = 1.63). Thus, H3 was supported.
Table 3: Experiment 2 Means and Standard Deviations by Personality Condition Descriptive Statistics Brand personality items Recognition of car brand Superman (N = 77) Deadpool (N = 74) M SD M SD Sincerity Yes 3.37 1.62 3.89 1.24 No 3.89 2.13 3.27 1.43 Excitement Yes 4.74 1.41 5.19 1.14 No 4.32 1.79 4.54 1.46 Competence Yes 4.91 1.58 4.74 1.50 No 4.59 1.68 3.55 1.63 Sophistication Yes 5.43 1.04 4.99 1.49 No 4.90 1.81 4.50 1.59 Ruggedness Yes 3.98 1.62 4.53 1.77 No 4.05 1.75 3.97 1.37
Brand association: A two-way MANOVA was conducted to test the next hypothesis which stated that both super-and-anti-heroes could produce equally positive brand associations. Here, ‘brand association’ was the dependent variable whereas the independent variables remained the same.
The Box’s Test of Equality of Covariance Matrices checked the assumption of
homogeneity of covariance across the groups using p < .05 as a criterion. Box’s M (38.61) was significant, p = 0.006, indicating that there were significant differences between the covariance matrices. Therefore, the assumption was violated. Pillai’s Trace was an appropriate test to use in this case as it is not highly linked to assumptions of normality of distribution of the data.
The multivariate ANOVA indicated no significant difference between brand associations for superhero and anti-hero conditions, in terms of brand attitude, brand image and perceived quality. Thus, H4 was supported.
Table 4: Experiment 2 Means and Standard Deviations by Brand Association Condition Descriptive Statistics Brand association items Recognition of car brand Superman (N = 77) Deadpool (N = 74) M SD M SD
Brand image Yes 4.63 1.34 5.12 1.23
No 4.99 1.17 4.94 .81 Perceived quality Yes 5.32 1.43 5.62 1.36 No 5.30 1.64 5.30 1.19 Brand attitude Yes 5.46 1.41 5.88 .90 No 5.27 1.41 5.14 1.03
Interaction effect of brand familiarity: Both two-way MANOVAs did not produce any significant result when the interaction effect of car brand familiarity was considered. Thus, H5 was rejected.
Table 5: Experiment 2 two-way MANOVA with type of character & brand familiarity as independent variables and brand personality as dependent variable
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects Independent
Variable Dependent Variable
Type III Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Superman Vs Deadpool Sincerity .062 1 .062 .025 .875 Excitement 2.938 1 2.938 1.466 .229 Competence 9.777 1 9.777 3.920 .050 Sophistication 4.790 1 4.790 2.282 .134 Ruggedness 1.531 1 1.531 .557 .457 Recognition of the car brand
Sincerity .051 1 .051 .020 .887
Excitement 7.499 1 7.499 3.741 .056
Sophistication 6.818 1 6.818 3.248 .074 Ruggedness 1.505 1 1.505 .548 .461 Type of char-acter * Brand familiarity Sincerity 8.592 1 8.592 3.425 .067 Excitement .362 1 .362 .181 .672 Competence 4.896 1 4.896 1.963 .164 Sophistication .011 1 .011 .005 .942 Ruggedness 2.596 1 2.596 .945 .333
Table 6: Experiment 2 two-way MANOVA with type of character & brand familiarity as independent variables and brand association as dependent variable
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects Independ-ent Varia-ble Dependent Variable Type III Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Partial Eta Squared Superman Vs Deadpool Brand_image_mean 1.279 1 1.279 .887 .348 .008 Perceived_quality_mean .628 1 .628 .313 .577 .003 Brand_attitude_mean .547 1 .547 .375 .541 .003 Recogni-tion of the car brand Brand_image_mean .228 1 .228 .159 .691 .001 Perceived_quality_mean .770 1 .770 .384 .537 .003 Brand_attitude_mean 5.841 1 5.841 4.012 .048 .033 Type of character * Brand fa-miliarity Brand_image_mean 1.996 1 1.996 1.386 .242 .012 Perceived_quality_mean .665 1 .665 .332 .566 .003 Brand_attitude_mean 2.075 1 2.075 1.425 .235 .012 Conclusion
The aim of the second experiment was to examine whether the personality characteristics of super-and-anti-hero characters found from Experiment 1 could be transferred to a brand placed with them. Results demonstrate that a brand was perceived to be more competent when it was
placed with a superhero, showing that the personality characteristics can be transferred through character merchandising. As no other dimension had resulted in significant result, it was compelling to believe that the presence of the movie character has transferred this personality trait to the brand. Additionally, the difference in brand associations when a car brand is placed with these characters were also checked. The results did not account for any significant difference. Furthermore, no moderating role of brand familiarity was found, meaning that the transfer of brand personality from the associated character can take place for both familiar and unfamiliar brands.
General Discussion
The presented findings of the study answer the research questions “Are anti-heroes and superheroes perceived differently in terms of morality and personality? Do these personality differences reflect on a brand when it is associated with these characters? Does brand familiarity play a moderating role in forming such associations?”
The research was accomplished with two experimental studies. Experiment 1 found that superheroes are perceived to be more moral than anti-heroes. The survey also presents the finding that superheroes are perceived to be more competent than anti-heroes. Based on the results of experiment 1, a second experiment was conducted to understand the brand association effects of these characters. The experiment presents the result as follows: Superheroes and anti-heroes indeed can transfer their brand personality to an associated brand; both characters can create equally positive brand associations in terms of brand image, brand attitude and perceived quality; and brand familiarity does not play an interacting role in the transfer of personality characteristics or forming brand associations.
Findings of this research adds to the literature in several ways. Experiment 1 found Superman to be morally positive than Deadpool in contrast to what was expected. This effect can be explained by moral disengagement theory. Raney (2004) suggests that it is the storyline of anti-hero movies which produces a moral justification of their immoral behaviour. Antiheroes rather than being evaluated in a moral vacuum is compared with the antagonists, allowing his behaviour to meet minimal acceptable standards for viewers (Grizzard, Huang, Fitzgerald, Ahn & Chu, 2018). Without the schema, the anti-hero may have been judged for his real character by reducing the contrast effect, that is the cognitive bias which distorts our perception of something when we compare it to something else, by enhancing the differences between them (Knoll et.al, 2015). The experiment also gave insights into the fact that competency factor differentiates a superhero from an anti-hero. This result can be compared with the results of Grizzard et.al (2018) which shows a lack of difference in competence between a hero and a villain. Anti-heroes who display more similarity in characteristics to a villain than a hero differs in this dimension, making them quite different from a negative character.
Experiment 2 provides a contrary result on the moderating effect of brand familiarity compared to existing literature. Research in consumer psychology suggests that when consumers have less experience with a brand, they are likely to develop associations with the adjacent stimuli (Alba & Hutchinson, 1987). But the result of this study did not find any interaction effect of brand familiarity in the transfer of personality characteristics from the associated character. This contrasting result can be explained by elaborative likelihood model. During the survey, it is likely that participants have low motivation due to less involvement (Petty, Cacioppo &
Schumann 1983), low ability due to lack of domain specific knowledge (Alba & Hutchinson, 1987), and also less opportunity due to constrain in spending time (Moore, Hausknecht &
Thamodaran, 1986). These factors are vital for any attitude formation, and the lower levels of involvement might be the reason for insignificant results on interaction effect of brand familiarity. However, an interesting result beyond the scope of the hypotheses was found which was the recognition of car brand can result in better brand attitude than an unknown brand. This
significant difference in brand attitude could be due to the choice of exemplar used in the study. BMW as a brand is a pioneer in introducing intelligent technology which has made it widely successful and popular in the automobile industry.
The results of these experiments have multiple practical applications. The speculative fictional characters even being highly popular, faces significant criticism throughout its existence, even today by many considering them as simply childish. This study proves that these characters are not an ephemeral cultural phenomenon, but ones that has existed for decades and will likely endure well into the future. The findings of this study could thus help in diminishing the
‘childish’ image of fictional characters and highlight their importance in the marketing domain. The study also supports the marketers by providing a theoretical basis for understanding how these characters have a particularly strong potential to effect attitudinal change, especially in automotive marketing.
Based on the results, superhero characters can help marketeers promote their brand as highly competent. This insight can be incredibly useful for brands when introducing masterly features like automated driving and integrated digital services, with the possibility that character merchandising could outplay the scepticism of privacy issues and safety concerns of these features.
Considering the advertising implication of the non-interaction effect of brand familiarity, brands that are not extremely popular in the market can also take leverage of character
backed up by associations established through a relation of contiguity between the characters and the brand. For instance, when consumers encounter a brand integration between a well-known character and an unknown brand, they are inclined to assume that the unknown brand shares values and images with its partner (Besharat, 2010), making the brand as competent as the character.
Limitations and Future Research
The study was prone to some unavoidable limitations. One of the main limitations of this study is that it is confined to experimenting the hypotheses with only one specimen, for both brand familiarity and character representation. This can affect the external validity of the study, with an inability to generalize the results for every superhero and anti-hero characters as well as popular and unpopular car brands. Future research can consider parallel forms of the study with more specimen to strengthen the face validity of the findings of this research.
Another major limitation of this study is the lack of a control group. The study does not account for a condition of not having any hero characters in experiment 2, thus failing to understand the pre-existing disposition of the car brand (with absence of the character).
Furthermore, the experiment 1 has a smaller sample size than experiment 2 and includes many missing values. These can affect the instrumentation validity of the study with possibility of producing a different outcome. Future research can duplicate the study with a larger sample size and a control condition of ‘no heroes’ to reassure the validity of the current study.
Furthermore, this study did some assumptions. One of the assumptions was the perceived fit between the brand and the character, i.e. it is assumed that a consumer perceived the item associated to be consistent with the brand (Chung & Kim, 2014). This assumption was made because the brands selected must demonstrate a match when forming any proposed alliance
(James, 2005). If a weak level of perceived fit is perceived between the character and the brand, it could result in lower association and thus weaker transfer of personality characteristics. Future research could consider a pre-test to ensure that a higher degree of fit is established between the character and the brand.
The study is also confined to one consumer product category i.e; cars, which have a strict group of consumers and are specifically relevant to an age range and lifestyle. This could result in selection bias by creating systematic differences over conditions that can change observed results. The study can also be replicated with a specific set of audience, for instance, the study does not test the knowledge about cars within the respondents. A group of car enthusiasts might produce a different result to the study causing a varied interaction effect. Future studies could examine the influence of superhero and anti-hero characters on different range of products including fashion, daily consumer goods, electronics etc. Potential areas for future enquiry also concern advertising of non-product-categories such as services, public information etc.
References
Aaker, J. (1997). Dimensions of Brand Personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(3), 347– 356. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151897
Alba, J. W., & Hutchinson, J. W. (1987). Dimensions of consumer expertise. Journal of Consumer Research, 13(4), 411-454.
Aquino, K., & Reed II, A. (2002). The self-importance of moral identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(6), 1423.
Baker, W., E. (1999). When can affective conditioning and mere exposure directly influence brand choice? Journal of Advertising, 28, 31-46.
Balasubramanian, S. K., Karrh, J. A., & Patwardhan, H. (2006). Audience response to product placements: An integrative framework and future research agenda. Journal of
Advertising, 35(3), 115-141.
Beaty, B. (2016). Superhero fan service: Audience strategies in the contemporary interlinked Hollywood blockbuster. The Information Society, 32(5), 318-325.
Besharat, A. (2010). How co-branding versus brand extensions drive consumers' evaluations of new products: A brand equity approach. Industrial Marketing Management, 39(8), 1240-1249.
Biswas, D., Biswas, A., & Das, N. (2006). The differential effects of celebrity and expert
endorsements on consumer risk perceptions. The role of consumer knowledge, perceived congruency, and product technology orientation. Journal of Advertising, 35(2), 17-31. Bruner, G. C. 2013. Marketing scales Handbook: Multi-Item Measures for Consumer Insight
Research, 7. Fortworth, Texas: GCBII Productions.
Buck, D. C. (1986). Juan Salvo y Vela and the rise of the Comedia de Magia: The magician asanti-hero. Hispania, 69(2), 251–261. doi: 10.2307/341659
Campbell, D. T. (1956). Perception as substitute trial and error. Psychological Review, 63(5), 330. Campbell, M. C., & Keller, K. L. (2003). Brand familiarity and advertising repetition effects.
Journal of Consumer Research, 30(2), 292-304.
Callcott, M. F., & Phillips, B. J. (1996). Observations: Elves make good cookies: Creating likable spokes-character advertising. Journal of Advertising Research, 36(5), 73-73.
Child, B. (2016). Deadpool 2 v Lego Batman – the glorious future of superhero movies (no, really). Retrieved 26 June 2020, from
https://www.theguardian.com/film/filmblog/2016/feb/26/deadpool-2-lego-batman-future-superhero-movies-ryan-reynolds
Chiu, Y.-K & Lin, C.-Y. (2012). The influence of spokes-characters on consumer patronage intention. Asia Pacific Management Review. 17. 421-435. 10.6126/APMR.2012.17.4.05. Chung, H., & Kim, S. (2014). Effects of brand trust, perceived fit and consumer innovativeness
on fashion brand extension evaluation. Atlantic Marketing Journal, 3(1), 8. Coogan, P. (2009). The Definition of the Superhero. A comics studies reader, 77-93. Cook, E. F. (2019). Mythic Background (to Homer). pdf.
Dobni, D., & Zinkhan, G. M. (1990). In search of brand image: A foundation analysis. ACR North American Advances.
Elliott, J. C. (1997). Character merchandising in New Zealand: The validity of a distinction between 'real' and 'fictional' characters. University of Wellington.
Garretson, J. A., & Burton, S. (2005). The role of spokescharacters as advertisement and package cues in integrated marketing communications. Journal of Marketing, 69(4), 118-132. Gordon, B. S., James, J. D., & Yoshida, M. (2016). The development of brand association
measures in multiple product categories: New findings and implications for goods and service brands.
Grizzard, M., Huang, J., Fitzgerald, K., Ahn, C., & Chu, H. (2018). Sensing Heroes and Villains: Character-Schema and the Disposition Formation Process. Communication Research, 45(4), 479–501. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650217699934
Haaland, M. (2020). Americans reveal their favorite superhero. Retrieved 26 June 2020, from https://nypost.com/2020/03/11/americans-reveal-their-favorite-superhero/
Hassler-Forest, D. A. (2011). Superheroes and the Bush doctrine: narrative and politics in post-9/11 discourse (Doctoral dissertation, Universiteit van Amsterdam [Host]).
Heider, F. (1946). Attitudes and cognitive organization. Journal of Psychology, 21, 107–112. Hobbs, G. (1980). Passing Off and the Licensing of Merchandising Rights, European Intellectual
Property Review, 4-7.
Hodge, N. (2013). A Superheroic Caped Crusade to Keep Troops Safe in Afghanistan. Retrieved 14 June 2020, from
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324874204578441003214496888 Hsee, C. K., Yang, Y., Zheng, X., & Wang, H. (2015). Lay rationalism: Individual differences in
using reason versus feelings to guide decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 52(1), 134-146.
James, D. (2005). Guilty through association: brand association transfer to brand alliances. Journal of Consumer Marketing.
Kellogg's Slings Into Action With Spider-Man™: Far From Home Themed Food And Interactive Experiences. (2019). Retrieved 14 June 2020, from
http://newsroom.kelloggcompany.com/2019-06-25-Kelloggs-Slings-Into-Action-With-Spider-Man-TM-Far-From-Home-Themed-Food-And-Interactive-Experiences
Kent, R. J., & Allen, C. T. (1994). Competitive interference effects in consumer memory for advertising: the role of brand familiarity. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 97-105.
Kim, Jihyun & Lee, Hyun-Hwa. (2008). Consumer product search and purchase behaviour using various retail channels: The role of perceived retail usefulness. International Journal of Consumer Studies. 32. 619 - 627. 10.1111/j.1470-6431.2008.00689.x.
Knoll, J., Schramm, H., Schallhorn, C., & Wynistorf, S. (2015). Good guy vs. bad guy: The influence of parasocial interactions with media characters on brand placement effects. International Journal of Advertising, 34(5), 720-743.
Krugman, H., E. 1975. "What Makes Advertising Effective." Harvard Business Review 54 (March-April): 96-103.
Lawrence, J. S., & Jewett, R. (2002). The myth of the American superhero. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing.
Low, G. S., & Lamb, C. W. (2000). The measurement and dimensionality of brand associations. Journal of Product & Brand Management.
Lynch Jr, J. G., & Srull, T. K. (1982). Memory and attentional factors in consumer choice: Concepts and research methods. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 9(1), 18-37. MacKenzie, S. B., Lutz, R. J., & Belch, G. E. (1986). The role of attitude toward the ad as a
mediator of advertising effectiveness: A test of competing explanations. Journal of Marketing Research, 23(2), 130-143.
Macphail, J., R. (1960). Shakespearean Ethics. AKASHAVANI, 25(4), 39.
Maehle, N., Otnes, C., & Supphellen, M. (2011). Consumers' perceptions of the dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 10(5), 290-303.
Matthews, N. (2019). Detecting the boundaries of disposition bias on moral judgments of media characters’ behaviors using social judgment theory. Journal of Communication.
Mitchell, A. A., & Olson, J. C. (1981). Are product attribute beliefs the only mediator of advertising effects on brand attitude? Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3), 318– 332. https://doi.org/10.2307/3150973
Moore, D. L., Hausknecht, D., & Thamodaran, K. (1986). Time compression, response opportunity, and persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 13(1), 85-99.
Mummolo, J., & Peterson, E. (2019). Demand effects in survey experiments: An empirical assessment. American Political Science Review, 113(2), 517-529.
O’Cass, A., & Lim, K. (2002). The influence of brand associations on brand preference and purchase intention: An Asian perspective on brand associations. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 14(2), 41–71.
Pauly A., T., (2007). Perception of character men, and how this influences handbill acceptance: an exploratory study. Honours Degree Project - Hong Kong Baptist University, 1-55 Peters, L. (2014). Creative & Inspiring Breast Cancer Awareness Ads. Retrieved 14 June 2020,
from https://www.bustle.com/articles/42157-10-inspiring-breast-cancer-awareness-campaigns-for-breast-cancer-awareness-month
Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Schumann, D. (1983). Central and peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness: The moderating role of involvement. Journal of Consumer Research, 10(2), 135-146.
Phillips, B.J., Lee, W.N. (2005) Interactive animation: Exploring spokes-characters on the internet. Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 27(1), 1-17. Raney, A. A. (2004). Expanding disposition theory: Reconsidering character liking, moral
evaluations, and enjoyment. Communication Theory,14(4), 348–369. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2885.2004.tb00319.x
Raney, A. A. (2011). The role of morality in emotional reactions to and enjoyment of media entertainment. Journal of Media Psychology.
Raney, A. A., Schmid, H., Niemann, J., & Ellensohn, M. (2009, May). Testing affective disposition theory: A comparison of the enjoyment of hero and antihero narratives. In annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Chicago, IL.
Redker, C., Gibson, B., & Zimmerman, I. (2013). Liking of movie genre alters the effectiveness of background product placements. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 35(3), 249-255. Redondo, I. (2012). The effectiveness of casual advergames on adolescents' brand attitudes.
European Journal of Marketing.
Rice, D. H., Kelting, K., & Lutz, R. J. (2012). Multiple endorsers and multiple endorsements: The influence of message repetition, source congruence and involvement on brand attitudes. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(2), 249-259.
Rosenberg, R. S., & Canzoneri, J. (Eds.). (2008). The psychology of superheroes: An unauthorized exploration. BenBella Books.
Rubin, L. C. (Ed.). (2006). Using superheroes in counseling and play therapy. Springer Publishing Company.
Russell, Cristel A., Andtew T. Norman, and Susan E. Heckler (2004), "The consumption of television programming: development and validation of the connectedness scale," Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (2), 150-161.
Saqib, N., & Manchanda, R. V. (2008). Consumers' evaluations of co‐branded products: The licensing effect. Journal of Product & Brand Management.
Simonin, B. L., & Ruth, J. A. (1998). Is a company known by the company it keeps? Assessing the spillover effects of brand alliances on consumer brand attitudes. Journal of Marketing Research, 35(1), 30-42.
Smith, G. (2004). Brand image transfer through sponsorship: A consumer learning perspective. Journal of Marketing Management, 20(3-4), 457-474.
Stace, L. (2016). The Antihero In Storytelling - Slap Happy Larry. Retrieved 15 June 2020, from https://www.slaphappylarry.com/antiheroes-in-storytelling/
Vaage, M. B. (2015). The antihero in American television. Routledge.
Watson, A. (2020). Highest grossing film franchises and series worldwide 2020. Retrieved 26 June 2020, from https://www.statista.com/statistics/317408/highest-grossing-film-franchises-series/
Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: a means-end model and synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52(3), 2-22.
Zillmann, D. (2000). Mood management in the context of selective exposure theory. Annals of the International Communication Association, 23(1), 103-123.
Appendices
Appendix 1: Experiment 1 Survey Questions
Start of Block: DEMOGRAPHICS
What is your age? (Please enter in number, e.g. 20)
--- What is your gender?
o
Maleo
Femaleo
Non-binaryo
I'd rather not say--- What is your highest achieved educational level?
o
Less than high schoolo
High schoolo
Collegeo
Bachelor’s degreeo
Master's degreeo
Doctorate --- What is your nationality?End of Block: DEMOGRAPHICS
Start of Block: MANIPULATION CONDITION
Picture1 Picture2
Do you recognize this fictional character?
o
Yeso
No--- Can you name the character?
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
To what extend do you consider this charac-ter as a superhero?
0 - Not at all likely 7 - Extremely likely
---
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
To what extend do you consider this charac-ter as an anti-hero?
0 - Not at all likely 7 - Extremely likely
To what extend would you rate the character on the following moral qualities:
0 - Not at all 7 – Extremely 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Caring () Compassionate () Fair () Friendly () Generous () Helpful () Hardworking () Honest () Kind ()
--- Based on a scale of 0-7, how would you define the character's personality to be?
0 - Not at all 7 - Extremely 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Down-to-Earth () Honest () Daring () Reliable () Upper class () Outdoorsy () Spirited () Intelligent () Charming () Tough () Wholesome () Imaginative () Successful () Cheerful () Updated ()
Appendix 2: Experiment 2 survey questions
Start of Block: DEMOGRAPHICS
What is your age? (Please enter in number, e.g. 20)
--- What is your gender?
o
Maleo
Femaleo
Non-binaryo
I'd rather not say--- What is your highest achieved educational level?
o
Less than high schoolo
High schoolo
Collegeo
Bachelor’s degreeo
Master's degreeo
Doctorate --- What is your nationality?Start of Block: COVER STORY
This is a pilot test for a study to understand your perceptions of advertisements.
With this survey, we would like to know your perception of car brands. You will see an adver-tisement poster for a car brand followed by questions asking for your opinion about the brand you see.
End of Block: COVER STORY
Start of Block: POSTERS
poster1
poster3
End of Block: SUPERMAN-ACURAPOSTERS
Start of Block: QUESTIONS BLOCK
Based on a scale of 0-7, how would you define the car brand based on the listed qualities? 0 - Not at all 7 - Extremely 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Down-to-Earth Honest Wholesome Cheerful Upper class Outdoorsy Reliable Intelligent Charming Tough Successful Up-to-date
Daring
Spirited
Imaginative
--- I think that the car brand in this advertisement is:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Un-friendly
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Friendly Out-datedo
o
o
o
o
o
o
Modern Not usefulo
o
o
o
o
o
o
Useful Highly per-formingo
o
o
o
o
o
o
Poorly perform-ingFun
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Not fun--- Overall, I think that the advertised car brand is:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Inferior
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Supe-rior Low qualityo
o
o
o
o
o
o
High quality Excel-lento
o
o
o
o
o
o
Poor---
I think the car brand is:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Bad
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Good Un- pleas-anto
o
o
o
o
o
o
Pleas-ant Valua-bleo
o
o
o
o
o
o
Worth-less ---What do you think the goal of this questionnaire is?
---
Do you recognize the movie character that you saw in the ad poster?
o
Yeso
No---
Can you please name the movie character?
---
Do you recognize the car brand that you saw in the ad poster?
o
Yeso
No---
Can you please name the car brand?
---
Your individual views are critical for this study. Thus, it is important to make sure that your opin-ions are not influenced by any external factor.
---
Did you take part in another pilot test for the same study?
