‘Don’t buy this product’:
A study examining the effects of reverse psychology advertising on consumers’ attitudinal responses, behavioral intentions, and brand recall.
Master’s Thesis
Graduate School of Communication
Master’s Programme Communication Science
Supervisor: mw. Dr. M. L. Fransen
Date of Completion: 29/06/2018
Tico Billekens
1 Abstract
In the current media-saturated environment, the public has become more resistant towards traditional advertising. This has paved the way for non-traditional forms of advertising to enter the frame. Reverse psychology advertising, a relatively new form of non-traditional advertising, has proven to be successful in practice, with campaigns of various brands generating positive responses from their consumers. Despite the real-life evidence of its apparent effectiveness, no scientific research had been conducted to test its effectiveness in an experimental setting. To explain why reverse psychology advertising would be more effective, three mediators were introduced: perceived threat to freedom, perceived creativity, and amount of attention. Reverse psychology ads were expected to reduce perceptions of threatened freedom, leading to more favorable attitudinal responses (ad and brand attitude) and behavioral intentions (purchase intentions). Additionally, reverse psychology ads were expected to be perceived as more creative in terms of divergence, overall creativity and humor, subsequently leading to more favorable attitudinal responses and behavioral intentions. Lastly, reverse psychology ads were expected to elicit more attention from the consumer, resulting in better brand recall. Results of an online experiment (N = 141) showed that reverse psychology advertising enhanced purchase intentions, but not ad and brand attitude. The effects of advertising type on the outcome variables were explained by perceived creativity, but not by perceived threat to freedom. Additionally, the results show that reverse psychology ads elicit more attention, which in turn leads to better recall. Since this study is among the first to test the effectiveness of reverse psychology advertising in an experimental setting, a considerable gap in the literature is filled.
Keywords: Reverse psychology advertising, non-traditional advertising, perceived
2 Introduction
Recently, the British army designed a campaign targeting generation Z (aged 16-24) that employed an unusual marketing strategy. Ads with stark typography appearing on billboards and in bus stalls around the country communicated a simple message that stated, “Don’t Join The Army”. The ad also lists other things one should not do, like “Don’t Learn New Skills”, “Don’t Make A Change”, and “Don’t Become A Better You” (Swift, 2016). What the ad aimed to do was peek the recipient’s curiosity. By communicating a message that seems to contradict the army’s true position (i.e., join the army), people are probably surprised, which motivates them to process the ad further. This might result in them thinking further about what the army stands for and what it can do for those who join it. More importantly, it is also supposed to be apparent that the message is ironic. The true goal of the ad is that recipients realize that they actually will be able to do and become all those things if they were to join the army. If one indeed joins the army after seeing this ad, one actually goes against the advocated behavior in the message (i.e., “Don’t join the army”), but still acts in a way that is desired by in this case the British army. This strategy has come to be known in the literature as ‘Reverse Psychology Marketing’ (RPM) (Sinha & Foscht, 2007). Reverse psychology is a technique involving the advocacy of a belief of behavior that is opposite to the one desired (Knowles & Linn, 2004), with the expectation that this approach will encourage the subject of the persuasion to do what is actually desired: the opposite of what is suggested. The British army encourages people not to join the army, while its true desire is that people do. RPM is defined as a form of non-traditional advertising because the brands and companies that use it diverge from the concepts and norms of traditional marketing (Sinha & Foscht, 2007).
While traditional marketing techniques have reduced in their effectiveness in the last two decades (Darke & Ritchie, 2007; Elliott & Speck, 1998; Rust & Oliver, 1994; Speck & Elliott, 1997), non-traditional advertising strategies like RPM are becoming more successful.
3 Due to an oversaturation of commercial messages (i.e., over 3000 a day) in daily life, consumers are becoming increasingly worn-out, confused, and avoidant of traditional advertising (Jurca & Madlberger, 2015; Speck & Elliott, 1997). Consumer fatigue due to ad clutter is thus causing people to be resistant towards advertising. Resistance, as Knowles and Linn (2004) propose, is a motivational state of mind that people hold, their goal being to reduce attitudinal or behavioral change, or to retain one’s current attitude.
Innovative (i.e., non-traditional) marketing approaches seem to be effective in cutting through the ad clutter, attracting consumer attention, and resonating with the media-saturated public that is increasingly unmoved by traditional advertising tactics (Sinha & Foscht, 2016). Non-traditional advertising, like RPM, can thus be effective in neutralizing this consumer resistance (Dahlén, 2005). Resistance-neutralizing strategies attempt to persuade by decreasing avoidance forces, which entail forces that move the persuasion target away from the goal - the change advocated by the persuasion agent. Reverse psychology decreases avoidance forces by manipulatively using the consumer’s resistance (i.e., ‘Don’t join the army’) to promote the desired goal (i.e., joining the army).
This study expects that there are three processes that could explain why reverse psychology advertising is resistance-neutralizing, and therefore a more effective form of advertising than traditional advertising. The first process that could explain the effects of reverse psychology advertising is that of psychological reactance (Brehm, 1966). Traditional advertisements are often ineffective due to their tendency to communicate messages in an assertive and forceful tone (i.e., “Buy this”, “Call now”), and this has been shown to lead to negative consumer responses (Zemack-Rugar, Moore, & Fitzsimons, 2017). Consumers often perceive such messages as a threat to their decisional freedom, which leads to negative responses towards the ad (Rosenberg & Siegel, 2017). Since the most defining characteristic of reverse psychology messages is that they communicate paradoxical messages (i.e., “Don’t
4 buy”) (Sinha & Foscht, 2016), this study expects that these advertisements are perceived as less of a threat to the consumer’s decisional freedom (i.e., induce less reactance). Therefore, reverse psychology ads are expected to successfully neutralize resistance by decreasing perceptions of threatened freedom.
A second process that is expected to explain the effects of reverse psychology advertising is perceived creativity. Reverse psychology advertisements are often perceived as innovative and diverging from the concepts and norms of traditional advertising (Sinha & Foscht, 2016), and it is therefore expected that they will be perceived as more creative, making them more persuasive than traditional ads.
The third process that might explain the effects of reverse psychology advertising is the amount of attention paid to the ad. As the British army example showcases, reverse psychology ads aim to pique the consumer’s interest, which could prompt them to process the ad further. Since reverse psychology ads are expected to draw the consumer’s attention, it is expected to be an underlying process that might explain their effectiveness..
The indicators of advertising effectiveness for this study will be attitudinal responses (i.e., ad and brand attitudes), behavioral intentions (i.e., purchase intentions), and brand recall. Several studies have shown positive effects of perceived creativity (Dahlén 2005; Smith, MacKenzie, Yang, Bucholz, & Darley, 2007) on attitudinal responses and intentions. Decreases in perceptions of threatened freedom have been shown to lead to less reactance, subsequently leading to positive attitudes and intentions (Zemack-Rugar, Moore, & Fitzsimons, 2017). Better processing of the ad has been shown to lead to better brand recall (Pieters, Warlop, & Wedel, 2002).
Although the reverse psychology strategy has been successfully used by brand marketeers and other communication specialists (Sinha & Foscht, 2007; 2016), no research, experimental or correlational, has been conducted as of yet in the academic field of consumer
5 research. This study will be among the first to do so, and will therefore fill a considerable opening in the literature. As no general theory or effects can be deduced from the existing literature, this study will be carried out using an exploratory design that examines the abovementioned mediators. The aim of this study is to find out whether reverse psychology advertising is an effective form of advertising, and whether it is more effective than traditional advertising. Furthermore, this study will attempt to find out whether one or more of the proposed mediators can account for this effect. To test this, the following research question has been formulated:
RQ: Does reverse psychology advertising, as compared to traditional advertising, lead to more favorable attitudinal responses, behavioral intentions, and better brand recall? And can these effects be explained by perceived threat to freedom, perceived creativity, and amount of attention?
Theoretical Framework
Main effects
In this theoretical framework, the mediators that were proposed in the introduction will be explained within the context of reverse psychology advertising. In addition, scientific proof will be given of their positive effects on the four outcome variables.
As addressed earlier, because of a profound lack of experimental or correlational research, no main effect of reverse psychology advertising on consumer attitudinal responses, behavioral intentions, or recall can be deduced from the literature. Nevertheless, studies indicate that reverse psychology strategies have proven to be an effective form of marketing and advertising in practice (Sinha & Foscht, 2007; 2016). With regards to this minimal research that showcases the apparent effectiveness of reverse psychology tactics through practical
6 applications (Sinha & Foscht, 2007; 2016), an additional research question has been formulated for this research:
RQ1: What are the effects of reverse psychology ads, as compared to traditional ads, on consumers’ attitudinal responses, behavioral intentions, and brand recall?
Underlying processes explaining the effectiveness of reverse psychology advertising Perceived threat to freedom
The introduction suggested that one process that might explain the effects of reverse psychology advertising are perceptions of threatened freedom. When consumers perceive their decisional freedom to be threatened, they often become reactant towards the source of influence.
Brehm’s (1966) theory of psychological reactance posits that persuasive messages may arouse a feeling of threat towards a loss of autonomy and decisional freedom. People may for example encounter an advertisement that tries to persuade them to buy something, a product or service. Research shows that people have an innate need for self-determination and a preference to perceive themselves as being in charge of their own decisions and behavior (Deci & Ryan, 2000). So when confronted with a threat to their sense of freedom and self-determination, they will attempt to restore it. One way of restoring this freedom is by behaving in a way that actively contrasts the behavior advocated by the influence agent (i.e., boomerang effect, Clee & Wicklund, 1980). The targeted consumer, becoming reactant after processing the advertisement, behaves in an opposite manner to the advocated behavior, meaning he/she does not buy the product. So, fundamentally, reactance theory is a motivational theory, which traces resistance to the human need to maintain perceived freedoms (Brehm, 1966).
Meta-analytic research shows that reactance arousal is affected by message features (Rosenberg & Siegel, 2017). Several studies found that controlling (e.g., “must,” or “should”)
7 messages induce more reactance, compared to autonomy-supportive (e.g., “perhaps” or “possibly”) messages (Miller, Lane, Deatrick, Young, & Potts, 2007). Zemack-Rugar and colleagues (2017) found that assertive ads are ineffective due to reactance. Assertive ad language directs (i.e., steers) the consumer to enact specific behaviors (e.g., “Buy this product now!”). For the consumer this creates the impression that refusal is not an option (Dillard & Shen, 2005; Kronrod, Grin stein, & Wathieu, 2012a, 2012b). This in turn creates pressure for the consumer to comply. Due to the fact that reactance is a motivational state, consumers thus tend to disregard these assertive ads, backlash against them, and evaluate the communication negatively (Fitzsimons & Lehmann, 2004; Kronrod et al., 2012a; Miller, Lane, Deatrick, Young, & Potts, 2007).
Zemack-Rugar and colleagues (2017) found proof that assertive ads increase reactance, leading to negative consumer responses (i.e., ad and brand attitudes) and behavioral intentions (i.e., purchase intentions). Contrary to traditional ads, reverse psychology messages are defined by the characteristic that they communicate a paradoxical message that advocates behavior opposite of what is expected (i.e., “Don’t buy this”) (Sinha & Foscht, 2016). These messages might therefore be perceived as less assertive and forceful, which, in accordance with the findings of Zemack-Rugar and colleagues (2017), will leave the consumer with less of a perceived sense of pressure to comply. This is expected to in turn lead to more positive ad and brand attitudes, and higher purchase intentions. Additionally, reverse psychology ads, being communicated in a less forceful way, might be perceived by the recipient as leaving them with a sense of freedom to choose for themselves whether they buy a product or not. Therefore, this study theorizes that reverse psychology ads will be perceived by consumers as less threatening to their decisional freedom, which can successfully neutralize resistance (i.e., reactance), subsequently leading to more favorable responses and intentions. The following hypothesis has been formulated to test this:
8 H1: A brand ad that communicates a reverse psychology message, as opposed to a traditional ad message, will be perceived as less of a threat to the recipient’s freedom, resulting in more favorable attitudinal responses and behavioral intentions.
Perceived creativity
The introduction suggested that perceptions of creativity could explain the effects of reverse psychology advertising, and that this perceived creativity could be one process that could explain why this type of advertising is more effective than traditional advertising. Perceived creativity will in this research be measured by three separate related dimensions – perceived divergence, perceived overall creativity and perceived humor.
Leo Burnett defined advertising creativity as “the art of establishing new and meaningful relationships between previously unrelated things in a manner that is relevant, believable, and in good taste, but which somehow presents the product in a fresh new light” (El-Murad & West, 2004, p. 190). This ‘fresh new light’ Burnett refers to seems to be a common descriptor across all definitions of creativity – a divergence from the norm, accompanied by a sense of uniqueness or originality (Ang & Low, 2000). In recent literature, divergence is put forward as the leading characteristic by which creative ads are defined – they need to contain elements that are novel, different, or unusual in some way (Smith & Yang, 2004; Smith, MacKenzie, Yang, Bucholz, & Darley, 2007; Till & Baack, 2005). Because of this, when novel ads are viewed, people often find them unexpected and surprising (Alden, Mukherjee, & Hoyer, 2000). Stoltzman (1991) suggests that this unexpectedness is due to a perceived inconsistency with other ads of the same product category or schema. This inconsistency, which is described in the literature as schema incongruity (Schmidt & Hitchon, 1999), leads consumer to look for and create new links between brand and ad, which can lead to perceptions of novelty (i.e., divergence).
9 creative they need to be perceived as unexpected (i.e., surprising) and novel by the consumer. Research shows that novel and unexpected ads (i.e., divergent ads) generate more positive ad attitudes, brand attitudes and purchase intentions (Ang & Low, 2000; Ang, Lee, & Leong, 2007; Dahlén, 2005). As reverse psychology ads are expected to be perceived as more divergent and novel than traditional ads, this study will operationalize perceptions of divergence as the first indicator of creativity.
Apart from the conceptualization of creativity as divergence, Smith and colleagues (2007) argue that it is imperative to understand how consumers judge creativity. Perceptions of creativity are in the eye of the beholder, meaning that a consumer’s interest in an ad is dependent on his/her individual perception of it, and prior experiences with advertising (Smith et al., 2007). Judgements about creativity can be derived by measuring consumers’ perceptions of an ad’s overall creativity (Smith et al., 2007).
Evidence for the positive effects of perceived advertising creativity is abundant, with Smith and colleagues’ (2007) study showing that perceptions of creativity have positive effects on consumer responses and intentions. Further research shows positive effects of perceived creativity in advertising on ad likability, ad attitudes, brand attitudes and purchase intentions (Ang, Leong, Lee, & Lou, 2014; Dahlén, 2005; Dahlén, & Edenius, 2007; Dahlén, Granlund, & Grenros, 2009; Kover, Goldberg, & James, 1995; Stone, Besser, & Lewis, 2000).
Scientific and real-life evidence shows that reverse psychology ads are often perceived as creative by consumers (Sinha & Foscht, 2007; 2016). It is for this study thus expected that a reverse psychology advertisement will be perceived as creativity in the consumer, which is in turn expected to lead to more positive consumer attitudinal responses and behavioral intentions. Perceived overall creativity will therefore be operationalized as the second indicator for perceived creativity in this study.
10 they are also expected to be perceived as humorous by the consumer. As addressed before, reverse psychology ads communicate contrasting, paradoxical messages that are supposed to be understood as ironical or satirical (Sinha & Foscht, 2007; 2016). Perceptions of humor are expected to play an important part in understanding these messages, through which the effectiveness of the ad could be explained. According to incongruity-resolution theory (Speck, 1991), joke-processing is a special form of information processing and textual interpretation. Jokes do not correspond with existing schemas in the consumer’s mind, prompting them to try to create a new schema that corresponds with the incongruous one (i.e., the perceived joke). If correspondence is achieved, and the joke is thus understood, this results in feelings of joy and playful confusion (Speck, 1991).
For reverse psychology messages, this could mean that when consumers ‘get’ the joke in the message, they perceive it to be humorous. Perceptions of humor have been shown to elicit positive consumer attitudinal responses and behavioral intentions (Eisend, 2009; Zhang & Zinkhan, 1996). In addition, a recent study by Rauwers, Van Noort, and Dahlén, (2017) showed that non-traditional (i.e., creative) advertising is perceived as more humorous than traditional advertising, which elicits more favorable ad attitudes, brand attitudes, and purchase intentions. Because of this evidence, perceptions of humor will be operationalized as the third indicator of perceived creativity in this study. Looking at the current evidence, this study expects that reverse psychology ads are perceived as more humorous, compared to traditional ads, which in turn leads to more positive attitudinal responses and behavioral intentions.
In conclusion, this study theorizes that reverse psychology advertisements will be perceived as more divergent, more overall creative, and more humorous, with these three dimension forming one unidimensional construct (namely, perceived creativity). Higher perceptions of creativity will in turn lead to more favorable consumer attitudinal responses and
11 behavioral intentions. The following hypothesis has been formulated in order to test these effects:
H2: A brand ad that communicates a reverse psychology message, as opposed to a traditional ad message, will be perceived as more creative, resulting in more favorable attitudinal responses and behavioral intentions.
Attention to the ad
The introduction addressed that the amount of attention paid to the ad could account for the effects of reverse psychology advertising. Specifically, it was theorized that reverse psychology ads stand out more in the ad clutter due to them being perceived as unusual (Sinha & Foscht, 2016).
These perceptions of unusualness (i.e., divergence) in non-traditional ads actively contrast with traditional ads, making them stand out more, and in turn increasing the amount of attention allocated towards them (Smith & Yang, 2004). According to MacInnis and Jaworski (1989), attention pertains to the level of focus that is given to an ad. As reverse psychology strategies communicate paradoxical messages that advocate behavior or change that is opposite of what the average consumer expects, they actively contrast with common, traditional ads. These contrasting messages pique the attention and interest of the consumer, and this in turn makes them want to investigate further (Sinha & Foscht, 2016). This is due to the basic human need for closure (Smith & Yang, 2004). The literature shows evidence for the positive effects of creative advertising elements on consumer attention, and subsequently brand recall (Ang et al., 2007; Goldenberg, Mazursky, & Solomon, 1999; Pick, Sweeney, & Clay, 1991; Till & Baack, 2005). Hence, it can be concluded that both the contrast effect created by the divergent ads (i.e., reverse psychology ads), along with the consumer’s need for closure lead to more allocated attention towards the ad. This will in turn lead to better recall of the
12 advertised brand.
Looking at the current scientific evidence, this study expects reverse psychology ads to create a contrast effect with traditional ads due to divergent elements in the ad’s execution. This contrast effect will lead people to allocate more attention to the ad, which in turn will lead to better brand recall. The following hypothesis has been formulated to test this:
H3: A brand ad that communicates a reverse psychology message, as opposed to a traditional ad message, will lead to more careful ad processing in terms of attention, which will subsequently lead to better recall of the advertised brand.
Figure 1. Conceptual model
Method
Design and sample
To test the hypotheses, an online true experiment was conducted with a one-factor (namely, advertising type: reverse psychology ad vs. traditional ad) between-subjects design that examined brand attitude, ad attitude, purchase intentions, and brand recall. Participants were
13 recruited using convenience online sampling via Facebook and email, using the snowball sampling technique. One hundred and forty-one people (N = 141) agreed to participate in the study. Participants’ age ranged from 18 to 67 (M = 27.87, SD = 8.23). 50.4% of the participants were female and 49.6% were male. 70% of the participants were Dutch. Most participants’ highest level of education was, according to the Dutch education system, University (65.2%), followed by University of Applied Sciences (24.1%). Analyses were conducted to identify participants who had no variation in their answers (i.e., straight-liners), but none were found. Therefore, analyses were conducted over the full sample of 141 participants.
Procedure
Starting the experiment, all participants were informed about the structure of the experiment, meaning the order of questions and that they would be exposed to an advertisement. After this information, all participants were presented with a consent form asking them to confirm their willful participation in the experiment. If consent was given, participants answered questions regarding demographics. After these questions, participants were informed that they would be exposed to the ad. The participants were requested to carefully study the ad, and were told to take as much time as they needed or wanted. Participants were randomly assigned to either the traditional or reverse psychology ad condition. Next, participants filled in scales that measured attitude towards the ad, attitude towards the brand, and purchase intentions. In addition, an open question was posed to the participants that asked whether they could recall the brand that was advertised (Charmin). Participants then filled in scales that measured the mediators a) perceived threat to freedom, b) attention, c) perceived humor, d) perceived divergence and e) perceived overall creativity. Lastly, once again the question was posed that asked whether the ad they just saw was meant to persuade. The last page of the questionnaire presented an acknowledgement of appreciation for the participant’s participation and debriefed them on the aim of the research.
14
Advertising type
Two advertisements were created as stimuli for the purpose of this study. The advertised brand was an existing American brand of toilet paper called Charmin. This brand was chosen because of the expectation that the largest part of the sample would be Dutch, and the participants would therefore not be familiar with the brand or have prior attitudes. Brand familiarity was tested as a control variable. The brand name, slogan font, background colors, and toilet paper roll image are constant over both conditions. Only the images of the brand mascots (two bears) and the content of the slogan were different over the two conditions. One ad communicated a traditional advertising message, while the other communicated a reverse psychology message.
Reverse psychology ad. The most defining characteristic of a reverse psychology ad is
that it communicates a paradoxical message that advocates behavior or change that is opposite of what the consumer expects of a brand. To this end, a poster was created that communicated the following message: “What could you possibly need this ultra soft & strong toilet paper for?!”, followed by “Go ahead, don’t buy it”, and ending with “You can always use the leaves on the bushes outside”. It starts with a rhetorical question, since everyone needs toilet paper. Then follows the paradoxical message (i.e., “Don’t buy it”), and it ends with a playful line that recommends an alternative that is less than favorable. In addition to these slogans, the ad displays a mother bear and her child. The young bear has his behind turned towards the recipient, holding a bush of leaves in his hand and a look of obliviousness on his face. The mother bear looks at the young one with the same look on her face (Appendix A, figure 1).
Traditional ad. The traditional advertisement, in contrast with the reverse psychology
one, communicates a similar message, but more simple and more assertive. The ad communicates the following message: “Ultra soft & strong”, followed by “Go out and buy it now!”, and ending with “Why use anything else?”. The message only emphasizes functional benefits of the product, and is much more forceful in the advocation of the desired behavior
15 (i.e., “Go and buy it!”). It ends with a message that is aimed to leave consumers with the feeling that they have no other choice (Appendix A, figure 2).
Before the experiment, a pretest was conducted among sixteen people to find out whether the message in the reverse psychology ad (being framed as a ‘Don’t buy’ message) was still perceived as being aimed to persuade them to buy toilet paper. Reverse psychology, although a non-traditional form of advertising, is still a strategy that is used to persuade (i.e., by decreasing resistance) (Knowles & Linn, 2004). Therefore, it is imperative that people perceive the ad as a persuasive attempt. If people do not perceive the message to be paradoxical, they could truly enact the advocated behavior, which in this case means they do not buy the toilet paper. This is not the desired effect of (reverse psychology) advertising.
All sixteen participants (56,3% male, 75% university educated, Mage = 26,75)
understood that the advertisement was meant to persuade them to buy the toilet paper. It was concluded that this was enough evidence for the persuasive intent of the ad, and therefore the research could continue.
Mediators
Perceived threat to freedom. Taken from the study by Dillard and Shen (2005), perceived threat
to freedom was measured by four items on a seven-point Likert scale. Participants indicated the extent to which they disagreed/agreed that the message “threatened my freedom to choose.”, “tried to make a decision for me.”, “tried to manipulate me.”, and “tried to pressure me.” Reliability for the scale was good (α = .87, M = 3.54, SD = 1.49). The higher the score on this scale, the higher the perceived threat to freedom.
Perceived creativity. The mediator perceived creativity was operationalized by
measuring three separate dimensions – perceived divergence, perceived overall creativity, and perceived humor.
16 seven-point Likert scale adopted from the research by Smith and colleagues (2007). In addition, one item that measured perceptions of surprise was taken from a study by Dahlen and Edenius (2007). This was done because it was expected that perceptions of divergence and surprise would measure the same latent construct. Participants indicated the extent to which they disagreed/agreed that the ad “was different”, “was uncommon”, “was unusual”, and “was surprising”. A principal component analysis with varimax rotation showed that these four items form a one-dimensional scale: only one component is given with an eigenvalue larger than 1 (EV = 3.56), which explains 89.10% of the variance in four items. Reliability for the scale was good (α = .96, M = 4.46, SD = 1.70). The higher the score on this scale, the more divergent the ad is perceived to be.
Perceived overall creativity. Perceptions of creativity were measured by adopting a
four-item seven-point Likert scale from the work by Smith and colleagues (2007). Participants indicated the extent to which they disagreed/agreed with the following statements: “In general, the ad was very creative.”, “The ad should win an award for creativity.”, and “The ad was not very inventive and displayed little creativity in its design. (R)”. In addition, participants rated on a 20-point slider scale the ad’s overall creativity. After reverse coding item 3 and recoding item 4 (i.e., creativity rating into seven-point Likert scale) the reliability of the scale increased (α = .89, M = 3.28, SD = 1.47). The higher the score on this scale, the higher perceptions of overall creativity are.
Perceived humor. Perceived humor was measured by three items on a seven-point
Likert scale taken from a study by Smith, Chen and Yang (2008). People indicated the extent to what extent they disagreed/agreed that the ad “was humorous.”, “was entertaining.”, and “made me laugh.” Reliability of the scale is good (α = .92, M = 3.97, SD = 1.73). The higher the score on this scale, the more humorous the ad is perceived to be.
17 Likert scale that was taken from the work by Smith and colleagues (2007). Participants indicated the extent to which they disagreed/agreed with the following statements: “The ad demanded my attention”, “I examined the main elements of the ad very carefully.”, “I tried to carefully evaluate the brand information provided.”, and “I spent considerable time analysing the ad's message.” After taking out item 1, reliability of the scale is good (α = .86, M = 4.61,
SD = 1.46). The higher the score on this scale, the more attention is paid to the ad. Dependent measures
Attitudinal variables. Two attitudinal variables were measured in this research: ad and brand
attitude. Both ad and brand attitude were measured by four items on a five-point bipolar scale taken from the study of Smith and colleagues (2007). Participants indicated how “bad/good”, “unpleasant/pleasant”, “unfavorable/favorable”, and “not likable/likable” they evaluated the ad to be. Reliability for both ad attitude (α = .93, M = 3.17, SD = 1.13) and brand attitude (α = .95, M = 3.22, SD = 1.02) was good. A higher score on this scale means a greater likability of the ad and brand.
Behavioral variable. Participants’ purchase intentions were measured by three items
on a five-point bipolar item scale taken from the study by Smith and colleagues (2007). Participants indicated how “unlikely/likely”, “improbable/probable”, and
“impossible/possible” it was that they would purchase the advertised brand. Reliability of the scale is good (α = .91, M = 2.87, SD = 1.19). A higher score on this scale means a higher intention to purchase Charmin toilet paper.
Brand recall. Recall of the brand name was measured through an open question.
Participants had to fill in the brand name. The variable was recoded into a dichotomous variable. Those that did recall the brand name or came really close were coded as ‘1’, while those that did not recall the brand name were coded as ‘0’.
18 participants familiarity with the brand could possible account for effects on the outcome variables. Brand familiarity was measured on a three item bipolar scale taken from a study by Spry, Bettina, and Cornwell (2011). Participants indicated whether they were “not
familiar/familiar”, “did not recognize/did recognize”, and “had not heard of before/had heard of before”. Reliability of the scale is good (α = .99, M = 1.70, SD = 1.62). A higher score on this scale means a higher familiarity with the brand (Charmin).
Results
Randomization check
To check whether participants in the two experimental conditions differed from each other on age, gender, education level, and brand familiarity, chi-square tests and t-tests were run in SPSS. Chi-square tests showed that there was an equal distribution across conditions for the level of education, Χ2(4, N = 141)= 1.083, p = 0.897, and gender, Χ2(1, N = 141)= .855, p = .355. Independent samples t-tests indicated that participants’ age, t(139) = -1.33, p = .186, 95%
CI [-4.57, .90], and familiarity with the brand, t(139) = -.282, p = .778, 95% CI [-.62, .46], did
not significantly differ between the two groups. Hence, as the two experimental groups did not differ significantly from each other on the control variables, no control variables were taken into account.
Main analyses
To test whether reverse psychology advertising leads to more favorable attitudinal responses and behavioral intentions than traditional advertising, a MANOVA was conducted with ad attitude, brand attitude, and purchase intentions as dependent variables and advertising type (i.e., reverse psychology vs. traditional) as the independent variable. Additionally, in order to find out whether advertising type can predict brand recall, a logistic regression was conducted. The MANOVA yielded a significant overall effect (F (3, 136) = 2.67, p = .050; Wilk's Λ =
19 0.944, partial η2 = .06.). The model furthermore showed a significant effect for purchase intentions, F (1, 138) = 5.89, p = .017 partial η2 = .04, but no significant effects were found for ad attitude, F (1, 138) = .41, p = .521 partial η2 = .00, and brand attitude, F (1, 138) = .41, p = .268, partial η2 = .01 (See Appendix B, table 1 for means and standard deviations).
In addition, a logistic regression was conducted to ascertain the effect of type of advertising on the likelihood that participants can recall the brand’s name. The logistic regression model was statistically insignificant, Χ2(1, N = 141)= .001, p = .971. The model correctly classified 59.6% of cases, but explained 00.0% (Nagelkerke R2) of the variance in
brand recall.
Exposure to reverse psychology ads leads to higher intentions to purchase Charmin toilet paper, compared to the traditional ads, but do not lead to higher ad and brand attitudes, nor can they successfully determine the likelihood that the brand’s name will be recalled.
Mediation effects
To test the predictions that evaluative mediators perceived threat to freedom, perceived divergence, perceived creativity, and perceived humor mediate the relationship between advertising type and consumers’ attitudinal responses and behavioral intentions, mediation models (Hayes’ model 4) were estimated (Hayes, 2013) for each dependent variable. The mediators were tested in multiple mediation models with the mediators operating in parallel. Three models were run in total, for each of the dependent variables (i.e., ad attitude, brand attitude, and purchase intentions). For all models, 10.000 bootstrap samples were used with biased corrected confidence intervals of 95%. Since the dependent variable brand recall is a dichotomous variable, two logistic regressions and one linear regression will be conducted in order to test hypothesis 3.
Initially, to get the average scores on each mediator for each type of advertising, a MANOVA was conducted with the mediators perceived threat to freedom, perceived
20 divergence, perceived creativity, perceived humor, and amount of attention as the dependent variables, and advertising type (i.e., reverse psychology vs. traditional) as the independent variable. The means and standard deviations are reflected in Appendix B, table 2.
Perceived threat to freedom
Hypothesis 1 states that reverse psychology advertising will be perceived as less of a threat to the recipient’s freedom (PTTF), compared to a traditional ad, and that this will lead to more favorable attitudinal responses and behavioral intentions. There was a significant, direct effect of advertising type on purchase intentions, but no significant, direct effects on brand attitude and ad attitude (See Appendix B, table 1 for means and standard deviations). Results of the models indicate that the reverse psychology advertisement is actually perceived as more of a threat to the participants freedom, compared to a traditional ad (b = .22, t(139) = .88, p = .379) (See Appendix B, table 2. for means and standard deviations). The model further shows that there is a negative, significant relationship between PTTF and ad attitude (b = .14, t(135) = -3.36, p = .001), an insignificant positive relationship between PTTF and brand attitude (b = .02, t(134) = .36, p = .718), and an insignificant negative relationship between PTTF and purchase intentions (b = -.10, t(138) = -1.50, p = .136). The results indicate no significant mediation effects of PTTF on ad attitude (indirect = -.05, boot SE= .07, 95% BCI [-.19, .07]), brand attitude (indirect = -.01, boot SE = .02, 95% BCI [-.07, .03]), and purchase intentions (indirect = -.02, boot SE = .04, 95% BCI [-.11, .03]). These results show that reverse psychology ads are not perceived as less of a threat to freedom, and this did not lead to more favorable attitudes and intentions. Hypothesis 1 is therefore rejected.
Perceived creativity
As addressed in the theoretical framework, perceived creativity was measured by three indicators – perceived divergence, perceived overall creativity, and perceived humor. There
21 was a significant, direct effect of advertising type on purchase intentions, but no significant, direct effects on brand attitude and ad attitude (See Appendix B, table 1 for means and standard deviations).
Perceived divergence. The first indicator of creativity for this research is perceived
divergence. The PROCESS models indicate the reverse psychology advertisement is perceived as more divergent than the traditional advertisement (b = 2.45, t(139) = 12.38, p < .001) (See Appendix B, table 2 for means and standard deviations). Higher perceptions of divergence subsequently lead to less favorable ad attitudes (b = -.18, t(135) = -3.11, p = .002), brand attitudes (b = -.23, t(134) = -3.28, p = .001), and purchase intentions (b = -.21, t(135) = -2.87,
p = .005). The results further indicate significant mediation effects of perceived divergence on
ad attitude (indirect = .45, boot SE = .17, 95% BCI [.79, .12]), brand attitude (indirect = -.55, boot SE = .18, 95% BCI [-.92, -.22]), and purchase intentions (indirect = -.52, boot SE = .18, 95% BCI [-.89, -.17]).
Perceived overall creativity. The PROCESS models indicate that the reverse
psychology advertisement is perceived as more overall creative than the traditional advertisement (b = 1.50, t(139) = 7.05, p < .001) (See Appendix B, table 2 for means and standard deviations). Increased perceptions of overall creativity subsequently led to more favorable ad attitudes (b = .37, t(135) = 5.35, p < .001), brand attitudes (b = .02, t(134) = .36,
p = .007), and purchase intentions (b = .30, t(135) = 3.46, p = .001). Results further indicate
significant mediation effects of perceived creativity on ad attitude (indirect = .56, boot SE = .13, 95% BCI [.32, .84]), brand attitude (indirect = .33, boot SE = .15, 95% BCI [.07, .64]), and purchase intentions (indirect = .45, boot SE = .15, 95% BCI [.19, .77]).
Perceived humor. The PROCESS models indicate that a reverse psychology
advertisement is perceived as more creative than a traditional advertisement (b = 1.60, t(139) = 6.18, p < .001) (See Appendix B, table 2. for means and standard deviations). Increased
22 perceptions of humor subsequently led to more favorable ad attitudes (b = .33, t(135) = 5.82, p < .001), brand attitudes (b = .29, t(134) = 4.30, p < .001), and purchase intentions (b = .36,
t(135) = 5.06, p < .001). Results further indicate significant mediation effects of perceived
humor on ad attitude (indirect = .52, boot SE = .14, 95% BCI [.29, .82]), brand attitude (indirect = .46, boot SE = .15, 95% BCI [.19, .78]), and purchase intentions (indirect = .57, boot SE = .14, 95% BCI [.31, .86]).
The analyses show that reverse psychology ads are perceived as more divergent, more overall creative, and more humorous than traditional ads. Increased perceptions of overall creativity and humor subsequently lead to more favorable attitudinal responses and behavioral intentions. However, increased perceptions of divergence did not lead to more favorable, but rather less favorable attitudinal responses and behavioral intentions. Based on these results, hypothesis 2 is partly accepted.
Amount of attention
To test whether reverse psychology advertisements attract more attention than a traditional advertisement, which subsequently leads to better brand recall, as proposed in hypothesis 3, regression models were run in SPSS. A simple linear regression tested whether advertising type predicts attention (path a). Two logistic regressions were conducted that tested whether advertising type predicts recall (path c’), and whether attention predicts recall (path b). Main analyses showed that advertising type could not directly ascertain the likelihood that the brand’s name would be recalled.
The analysis shows that the linear regression model with amount of attention as the dependent variable and advertising type as the independent variable is significant, F(1,139) = 5.60, p = .019, R2 = .04. Type of advertising, b* = .20, t(139) = 2.37, p = .019, 95% CI [.10,
1.06], has a significant, moderately strong association with amount of attention paid to the ad. The amount of attention paid to the ad increases with .58 for people exposed to the reverse
23 psychology ad. These results indicate that amount of attention paid to the ad can be predicted by type of advertisement.
In addition, a logistic regression was conducted to ascertain the effect of amount of attention paid to the ad on the likelihood that participants can recall the brand’s name. The logistic regression model was statistically significant, Χ2(1, N = 141)= 23.81, p < .001. The model correctly classified 70.9% of cases, and explained 21.0% (Nagelkerke R2) of the
variance in brand recall. When attention to the ad increases, b* = 1.87, t(1) = 19.62, p < .001, 95% CI [1.42, 2.46], this leads to .62 more recall of the advertised brand. These results indicate that type of advertisement successfully predicts attention. Amount of attention, in turn, seems to successfully determine the likelihood that the brand is recalled. Based on these results, hypothesis 3 is accepted.
Discussion and conclusion
The aim of this study was to fill two considerable gaps in the literature. Since the effectiveness of reverse psychology in advertising had not been empirically tested before, this research was one of the first to do so. Moreover, this study aimed to examine the underlying processes (i.e., perceived threat to freedom (PTF), perceived creativity, and amount of attention) that account for the effects of advertising type on attitudinal responses and behavioral intentions. The online experiment showed that RP advertising, compared to traditional advertising, leads to more favorable purchase intentions.
To explain the effectiveness of reverse psychology advertising, five mediators were considered. Three of these, perceived divergence, perceived creativity and perceived humor (i.e., indicators of perceived creativity), elicited more positive advertising effects when consumers were exposed to a reverse psychology advertising. In line with expectations, reverse psychology advertisements were perceived as more divergent, more overall creative, and more
24 humorous than traditional advertisements. Perceptions of overall creativity and humor subsequently led to more favorable attitudinal responses and behavioral intentions. However, against expectations, perceptions of divergence did not lead to more favorable, but rather less favorable attitudinal responses and behavioral intentions. These results contradict results from other scientific research (Smith et al., 2007; Smith & Yang, 2004). A possible explanation for these results is that although the reverse psychology ad was perceived as more unusual, uncommon, and different, this was not seen as something positive by the consumer. Smith and colleagues’ (2007) work proposes that perceptions of creativity are determined by an interaction between perceived ad divergence and perceived ad relevance. As perceived relevance was not measured in this research, this could account for the negative association between divergence and the outcome variables.
Furthermore, since mediation effects were found for all three creativity mediators, it can be concluded that the relationship between advertising type and the outcome variables can be better understood when perceived divergence, perceived overall creativity, and perceived humor are taken into account. In addition, results also show that reverse psychology ads elicit more elaborate processing in terms of attention than traditional ads. Amount of attention paid to the ad did determine how well the advertised brand’s name (Charmin) was recalled. This means the relationship between advertising type and brand recall can be better understood when amount of attention is taken into account. However, no effect was found for perceived threat to freedom. Reverse psychology advertisements were not perceived as more of a threat to the participants’ decisional freedom than traditional ads. Since there was no effect of advertising type on the mediator, no mediation effects could be concluded. This means that it is not possible to confirm that relationship between advertising type and the outcome variables can be better understood when PTF is taken into account.
25 first to examine the effectiveness of reverse psychology advertising, and contributes to the literature by indicating if and why reverse psychology advertising is more effective than traditional advertising. The results of this study demonstrate that consumers’ behavioral intentions are positively affected by reverse psychology advertisements. More specifically, when an ad communicates a reverse psychology message, consumers are more inclined to buy the advertised brand. Furthermore, two processes (perceived creativity and amount of attention) explained why reverse psychology advertising is more effective than traditional advertising. Reverse psychology ads are perceived as more creative in terms of divergence, overall creativity, and humor, which leads to more positive consumer responses and intentions. Additionally, reverse psychology ads elicit more attention from the consumer, leading to more elaborate processing and subsequently better brand recall.
Against expectations, no effect was found for ad attitude and brand attitude. A possible expectation for these findings is that the message that was communicated by the ad was focused on buying behavior (i.e., “Don’t buy” vs. “Buy”). The goal of the ad is that people are persuaded to buy toilet paper, and, looking at the results of this study, it was successful in achieving that goal. The insignificant effects on ad and brand attitudes could also be related to the way the advertisement was executed. It was made using photoshop, not by professionals, and it was quite basic in its design. Studies show that ad attitudes are positively related to the execution elements of an ad, while brand attitudes are positively related with brand elements of an ad (Smith & Yang, 2004). As both execution elements and brand elements were not the focus of the created advertisement, this could also account for the insignificant effects on ad and brand attitudes.
Since this area of research is completely novel, future research could focus on a myriad of theories and processes that could explain reverse psychology advertising effectiveness. As the results show, reverse psychology ads do not seem to be perceived as less threatening to
26 people. The results show that although there is a negative relationship between PTF and the outcome variables, this relationship could not be explained by the type of ad. This means that this study cannot conclude that reverse psychology ads are successful in decreasing resistance towards advertising. Future research could focus more distinctively on the resistance-neutralizing aspects of reverse psychology messages, and test it on larger samples. Additionally, with regards to the main analyses., larger samples could find significant effects on ad and brand attitudes. A limitation of this study is that it conducted an online experiment in which people looked at the ad on their phones and laptop screens. Future research could test the effects of RP advertising versus traditional advertising in a real life setting, and examine whether they actually do stand out more among the ad clutter. Looking at the insignificant effects on ad and brand attitudes, future research should examine the effects of RP ads that are more focused on execution and brand elements. If the goal of a company is to create brand awareness or liking, focusing on these elements will likely generate more favorable brand and ad attitudes. Lastly, this study found that reverse psychology ads lead to more careful processing, which in turn facilitated brand recall. As studies have shown that repetition of an ad can have positive effects on brand attitude and recall (Matthes, Schemer, & Wirth, 2007), future research could test whether frequent exposure to reverse psychology ads leads to more positive outcomes in terms of responses, intentions, and recall.
This study give further proof that reverse psychology ads are a more effective form of advertising when companies aim to sell their products. When implementing campaigns, marketeers and advertisers should focus on making their ads divergent and humorous, and designing them in such a way that they stand out among the clutter.
27 Literature list
Alden, D. L., Mukherjee, A., & Hoyer, W. D. (2000). The effects of incongruity, surprise and positive moderators on perceived humor in television advertising. Journal of
Advertising, 29(2), 1-15.
Ang, S. H., Lee, Y. H., & Leong, S. M. (2007), The ad creativity cube: Conceptualization and initial validation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 35 (2),220–232. Ang, S. H. & Low, S. Y. M. (2000). Exploring the dimensions of ad creativity. Psychology &
Marketing, 17(10), 835-854.
Brehm, J. W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. New York: Academic Press. Clee, M. A., & Wicklund, R. A. (1980). Consumer behavior and psychological reactance.
Journal of Consumer Research, 6(4), 389-405.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227-268. Dahlén, M. (2005). The medium as a contextual cue: Effects of creative media choice.
Journal of Advertising, 34(3), 89-98.
Dahlén, M., & Edenius, M. (2007). When is advertising advertising? Comparing responses to non-traditional and traditional advertising media. Journal of Current Issues &
Research in Advertising, 29(1), 33-42.
Dahlén, M., Granlung, A., & Grenros, M. (2009). Journal of Consumer Marketing, 26(3), 155-163.
Darke, P. R., & Ritchie, R. J. B. (2007). The defensive consumer: Advertising deception, defensive processing, and distrust. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(1), 114-127. Dillard, J. P., & Shen, L. (2005). On the nature of reactance and its role in persuasive health
28 Eisend, M. (2009). A meta-analysis of humor in advertising. Journal of Academic Market
Science, 37, 191-203.
El-Murad, J., D. C. West. 2004. The definition and measurement of creativity: What do we know? Journal of Advertising Research, 44(2), 188–201.
Fitzsimons, G. J., & Lehmann, D. R. (2004). Reactance to recommendations: When unsolicited advice yields contrary responses. Marketing Science, 23(1), 82–94.
Goldenberg, J,, Mazursky, D., & Solomon, S. (1999). The Fundamental Templates of Quality Ads. Marketing Science, 18(3), 333–351.
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process
analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Jurca, M. A., & Madlberger, M. (2015). Ambient advertising characteristics and schema incongruity as drivers of advertising effectiveness. Journal of Marketing
Communications, 21(1), 48-64.
Knowles, E. & Linn, J.A. (2004). Approach-avoidance model of persuasion: Alpha and omega strategies for change. In E. S. Knowles & J.A. Linn (Eds.), Resistance and
Persuasion (pp. 117-148). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Publishers.
Knowles, E. & Linn, J.A. (2004). The importance of resistance to persuasion. In E. S. Knowles & J.A. Linn (Eds.), Resistance and Persuasion (pp. 117-148). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Knowles, E. S., & Riner, D. D. (2007). Omega approaches to persuasion: Overcoming resistance. In A. R. Pratkanis (Ed.), Frontiers of social psychology. The science of
social influence: Advances and future progress (pp. 83-114). New York, NY, US:
Psychology Press.
29 integrating classification for advertising. Journal of Advertising Research, 35, 29-40. Kronrod, A., Grinstein, A., & Wathieu, L. (2012a). Go green! Should environmental
messages be so assertive? Journal of Marketing, 76(1), 95–102.
Kronrod, A., Grinstein, A., & Wathieu, L. (2012b). Enjoy! Hedonic consumption and compliance with assertive messages. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(1), 51–61. MacInnis, D.J. & Jaworski, B.J. (1989). Information Processing from Advertisements:
Toward an Integrative Framework, Journal of Marketing, 53, 1–23.
Matthes, J., Schemer, C., & Wirth, W. (2007). More than meets the eye. International
Journal of Advertising, 26(4), 477-503.
Miller, C. H., Lane, L. T., Deatrick, L. M., Young, A. M., & Potts, K. A. (2007).
Psychological reactance and promotional health messages: The effects of controlling language, lexical concreteness, and the restoration of freedom. Human
Communication Research, 33, 219–240.
Peracchio, L. A., & Meyers-Levy, J. (1994). How ambiguous cropped objects in ad photos can affect product evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(1), 190-204. Pick, D. F., Sweeney, J. & Clay, J. A. (1991). Creative Advertising and the Von Restorff
Effect. Psychological Reports, 69(3), 923–926.
Pieters, R., Warlop, L., & Wedel, M. (2002). Breaking through the clutter: Benefits of advertisement originality and familiarity for brand attention and memory.
Management Science, 48(6), 765-781.
Rauwers, F., & Van Noort, G., & Dahlén, M. (2017). The impact and underlying processes of creative media advertising: A field experiment. Manuscript submitted for publication. Rosenberg, B. D., & Siegel, J. T. (2017). A 50-year review of psychological reactance theory:
Do not read this article. Motivation Science, 1-20.
30 71-77.
Schmidt, T. L., & Hitchon, J. C. (1999). When advertising and public relations converge: an application of schema theory to the persuasive impact of alignment ads. Journalism &
Mass Communication Quarterly, 76(3), 433-455.
Sinha, I., & Foscht, T. (2007) Reverse psychology marketing: The death of traditional
marketing and the rise of the new “pull” game. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Sinha, I., & Foscht, T. (2007) Reverse psychology tactics in contemporary marketing. The
Marketing Review, 16(3), 343-353.
Smith, R. E., Chen, J., & Yang, X. (2008). The impact of advertising creativity on the hierarchy of effects. Journal of Advertising, 37(4), 47-62.
Smith, R. E., MacKenzie, S. B., Yang, X., Buchholz, L. M., & Darley, W. K. (2007). Modeling the determinants and effects of creativity in advertising. Marketing
Science, 26(6), 819-833.
Smith, R. E., & Yang, X. (2004). Towards a general theory of creativity in advertising: Examining the role of divergence. Marketing Theory, 4(1/2), 31-58.
, P. S. (1991). The humorous message taxonomy: A framework for the study of humorous ads. Original Research and Theoretical Contributions, 1-44.
Speck, P. S., & Elliot, M. T. (1998). Consumer perceptions of advertising clutter and its impact across various media. Journal of Advertising Research, 38(1), 29-41. Speck, P. S., & Elliot, M. T. (1997). Predictors of advertising avoidance in print and
broadcast media. Journal of Advertising, 26(3), 61-76.
Spry, A., Pappu, R., & Cornwell, T. B. (2011). Celebrity endorsement, brand credibility and brand equity. European Journal of Marketing, 45(6), 882-909.
Stoltman, J. J. (1991). Advertising effectiveness: The role of advertising schemas. In T. L. Childers et al. (Eds.), Marketing Theory and Applications (pp. 317–318). Chicago, IL:
31 American Marketing Association.
Stone, G., Besser, D., & Lewis, L. E. (2000). Recall, liking, and creativity in TV commercials: A new approach. Journal of Advertising Research, 40(3), 7-16. Swift, J. (2016, January 19). Army goes after generation Z with reversed psychology.
Retrieved from https://www.campaignlive.co.uk/article/army-goes-generation- z-reversepsychology/1379826.
Till, B. D., & Baack, D. W. (2005). Recall and persuasion: Does creative advertising matter?
Journal of Advertising, 34(3), 47-57.
Yang, X. & Smith, R. E. (2009). Beyond attention effects: Modeling the persuasive and emotional effects of advertising creativity. Marketing Science, 28(5), 935-949. Zemack-Rugar, Y., Moore, S. G., & Fitzsimons, G. J. (2017). Just do it! Why committed
consumers react negatively to assertive ads. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 27, 287–301.
32 Appendix A - Stimuli
Figure 1. Reverse psychology ad.
33 Appendix B - Tables
Table 1. Average scores on attitudinal and behavioral outcomes for each type of advertising.
Dependent variable Advertising type Reverse Psychology Traditional
Ad attitude 3.23 (1.29) 3.11 (.98)
Brand attitude 3.31 (1.14) 3.13 (.88)
Purchase intentions 3.11 (1.31)* 2.63 (1.04)*
Notes. Mean with standard deviation between brackets. Significance levels are indicated with
p < .05*.
Table 2. Average scores on mediators for each type of advertising.
Dependent variable Advertising type Reverse Psychology Traditional Perceived threat to freedom 3.65 (1.59) 3.43 (1.39) Perceived divergence 5.72 (.83)*** 3.26 (1.43)*** Perceived creativity 4.05 (1.43)*** 2.55 (1.08)***
Perceived humor 4.79 (1.69)*** 3.19 (1.36)***
Attention 4.90 (1.36)* 4.33 (1.51)*
Notes. Mean with standard deviation between brackets. Significance levels are indicated with
34 Appendix C – Survey
1. Introduction
Dear participant,
Thank you for participating in this survey. I’m really happy you decided to help me conduct this research for my Master thesis at the Department of Communication at the University of Amsterdam. Feel free to share my questionnaire with friends and family, that is much appreciated!
Firstly, you will be asked some questions regarding demographics. Afterwards, you will see an advertisement for a brand of toilet paper. Finally, some questions regarding the advertisement will be asked. Your responses and the reports of the data will be anonymous. Please take note that there are no wrong or right answers. Answer the questions according to your feelings. The survey will take about 5 minutes of your time. Should you have any questions, comments, or complaints, please do not hesitate to contact me (ticobillekens@gmail.com).
Kind regards, Tico Billekens
35 2. Consent form
Before continuing, please read the following consent:
As this research is being carried out under the responsibility of the ASCoR, University of Amsterdam, I can guarantee that: 1) Your anonymity will be safeguarded, and that your personal information will not be passed on to third parties under any conditions unless you first give your express permission for this. 2) Participating in the research will not entail your being subjected to any appreciable risk or discomfort, the researchers will not
deliberately mislead you, and you will not be exposed to any explicitly offensive material. 3) Participating in the research will not entail your being subjected to any
appreciable risk or discomfort, the researchers will not deliberately mislead you, and you will not be exposed to any explicitly offensive material. 4) No later than five months after the conclusion of the research, we will be able to provide you with a research report that explains the general results of the research. 5) You can refuse to participate in the research or cut short your participation without having
to give a reason for doing so. You also have up to seven days after participating to withdraw your permission to allow your answers or data to be used in the research.
If I have any complaints about this research, I can contact the designated member of the Ethics Committee of the Department of Communication: ASCoR secretariat, Ethics
Committee, University of Amsterdam,Nieuwe Achtergracht 166, 1018 WV Amsterdam 020-52 53 680; ascor-secr-fmg@uva.nl
o
I understand and agree to participate36 3. Demographics
What is your gender?
o
Maleo
Femaleo
OtherWhat is your age? (e.g. 26)
________________________________________________________________
What is your highest current education?
o
No Educationo
Primary Schoolo
High Schoolo
MBOo
University of Applied Sciences (HBO)o
University (WO)o
Other, namely ________________________________________________ Which country are you from?37 4. Stimuli
The advertisement will be shown to you now. Please take your time when viewing it. Take as long as you want or need. You will not be able to see the ad again after you click 'next'.
38 5. Dependent (and control) variables
Please write down in the text entry below the name of the brand of toilet paper that was advertised.
________________________________________________________________
Please indicate how familiar you are with the brand of toilet paper shown in this advertisement. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not familiar
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Familiar Do not recogniseo
o
o
o
o
o
o
Do recognise Have not heard of beforeo
o
o
o
o
o
o
Have heard of before39 What is your overall evaluation of this advertisement?
1 2 3 4 5
Bad
o
o
o
o
o
GoodUnpleasant
o
o
o
o
o
PleasantUnfavorable
o
o
o
o
o
FavorableNot Likable
o
o
o
o
o
LikableWhat is your overall evaluation of this brand (Charmin)?
1 2 3 4 5
Bad
o
o
o
o
o
GoodUnpleasant
o
o
o
o
o
PleasantUnfavorable
o
o
o
o
o
Favorable40 What is the probability that you will purchase the advertised brand (Charmin) in the future?
1 2 3 4 5
Unlikely
o
o
o
o
o
LikelyImprobable
o
o
o
o
o
ProbableImpossible
o
o
o
o
o
Possible6. Perceived threat to freedom
Please indicate to what extent you disagree/agree with the following statements.
The message threatened my freedom to choose.
o
Strongly disagreeo
Disagreeo
Somewhat disagreeo
Neither agree nor disagreeo
Somewhat agreeo
Agree41 The message tried to make a decision for me.
o
Strongly disagreeo
Disagreeo
Somewhat disagreeo
Neither agree nor disagreeo
Somewhat agreeo
Agreeo
Strongly agreeThe message tried to manipulate me.
o
Strongly disagreeo
Disagreeo
Somewhat disagreeo
Neither agree nor disagreeo
Somewhat agreeo
Agree42 The message tried to pressure me.
o
Strongly disagreeo
Disagreeo
Somewhat disagreeo
Neither agree nor disagreeo
Somewhat agreeo
Agreeo
Strongly agree 7. Amount of attentionThe ad demanded my attention.
o
Strongly disagreeo
Disagreeo
Somewhat disagreeo
Neither agree nor disagreeo
Somewhat agreeo
Agree43 I examined the main elements of the ad very carefully.
o
Strongly disagreeo
Disagreeo
Somewhat disagreeo
Neither agree nor disagreeo
Somewhat agreeo
Agreeo
Strongly agreeI tried to carefully evaluate the brand information provided.
