Challenging gender stereotypes in advertising : which effects in consumers’minds ?

Master’s thesis

MSc. in Business Administration

Marketing Track

Challenging gender stereotypes in advertising : which effects

in consumers’minds ?

Thesis supervisor

Student

S

This document is written by Student Laura Aguillon who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.

I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it.

The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.

T

1.1.Changing social roles expectations 8

1.2 The influence of advertising 8

2. Problem definition 9

2.1 Problem statement 9

2.2. Sub-questions 11

3. Contribution 12

4. Structure of this paper 12

Chapter 2: Literature review 13

I. Gender roles, stereotypes and advertising in modern societies 13

1. Gender roles, the distinctions between men and women’s societal 13

expectations

1.1. Gender roles differences between societies: Hofstede’s view 13

1.2 Gender roles differences between genders 15

1.3 Gender roles differences on the individual level: individuals’ attitude 15

toward gender roles

1.3.1 Measuring individuals’ gender role orientation 16

2. Stereotypes and gender portrayals in advertisements 17

2.2 Gender stereotypes and society, a double influence 19

2.3 The evolution of gender stereotypes in advertising 21

3. The effect of gender depictions on advertising effectiveness 22

3.1 A support for gender stereotyping 22

3.2 Individual differences and the interaction of attitude toward social 23

roles

II. Brand associations, a foundation for brand equity 24

1. Brand associations, or what resides in consumers ‘minds 24

1.1 Definition 24

1.2. Types of associations 25

1.3 Associative network memory model 26

1.4 Associations’ strength, uniqueness and favorability 27

1.4.1 Strength 27

1.4.2 Favorability 28

1.4.3 Uniqueness 28

1.5 Generating and measuring brand associations 29

2. Brand equity, the value of a brand 31

2.1 Overview 31

2.2. Customer-Based Brand Equity (CBBE) 32

2.2.1 The Customer-Based Brand Equity (CBBE) resonance model 33

III. Formulation of hypotheses 35

1. Uniqueness of brand associations (H1a to H1c) 35

2. Favorability of brand associations (H2a to H2c) 36

3. Strength of brand associations (H3a to H3c) 36

Chapter 3: Research method 38

1. Participants 38

2. Manipulations 38

3. Measures 40

3.1 Brand associations 40

3.2 Social roles orientation. 41

4. Design 42 5. Procedure 43 Chapter 4: Results 44 1. Hypotheses 1a to 1c 44 2. Hypotheses 2a to 2c 46 3. Hypotheses 3a to 3c 48 4. Complementary Analyses 50 Chapter 6: Discussion 53

1. Discussion of the results 53

2. Theoretical implications 54

3. Managerial implications 55

4. Limitations and suggestions for future research 56

Chapter 7: Conclusion 58

References 60

Appendices I

Appendix 1: Advertisement A - Counter-stereotypical condition I

Appendix 2: Advertisement B- Counter-stereotypical condition II

Appendix 3: Advertisement C– Counter-stereotypical condition III

Appendix 5: Advertisement E- Stereotypical condition V

Appendix 6: Advertisement F- Stereotypical condition VI

Appendix 7: Advertisement G- Stereotypical condition VII

Appendix 8: Advertisement H- Stereotypical condition VIII

Appendix 9: Survey – Screenshots of a preview IX

A

More and more advertisers are trying to move away from stereotypical gender portrayals in advertisements, in order to match with changing gender roles. Individuals differ in their social role orientations, to the extent to which those orientations can be considered as gender-linked or gender-transcendent. Such changes in depictions in brands’ advertising might affect brand associations held in consumer’s memory. Brand associations’ strength, uniqueness and favorability are a requirement for building brand equity, building strong brands and ultimately creating value. This study looks at differences in uniqueness, strength and favorability levels between stereotypical and counter-stereotypical conditions, between gender-transcendent and gender-linked oriented individuals, and the interaction of condition and social roles orientation interaction with respect to those levels. Results do not show any significant effect regarding to the formulated hypotheses. However, it shows that men adopt significantly more gender-linked attitudes compared to women, and display more favorable and stronger brand associations in the counter-stereotypical condition, compared to women. This leads the way for new research and managerial challenges.

C

1: I

1. Background

1.1.Changing social roles expectations

In modern democratic societies, changing values narrow the gap between men and women, toward egalitarianism. As Wetzel et al. (2002) state, predominant values of advanced industrial societies accelerate people’s acceptance of women’s self-realization and equality with men. Since the rise of feminism in the late sixties and early seventies, centered on the broad themes of power and inequality, the volume of sex-roles and sex-differences research as increased significantly (Connell, 1987, p.33). However, very few of those studies also focus on men’s changing social roles. More recent societal movements support gender equality while awakening a collective conscience on both male and females’ roles expectations (i.e.: the movement HeForShe). Research is yet not following those rapid societal changes.

‘The act that one does, the act that one performs is, in a sense, an act that’s been going on before one arrived on the scene’ (Judith Butler, 1988). Gender norms are the results

of cultural conditioning. They show up in our everyday lives in more ways than we will ever realize, and dictate how we should perform femininity or masculinity. They influence from gestures, words, clothing, to every simple daily decisions. People conform to their own culture’s way of defining gender roles; however when one feels pressure to conform to specific behaviors or reject others, gender expectations alienate individuals.

1.2 The influence of advertising

Advertising is viewed as both a mirror and reflection of society. Pollay (1986) assumes that advertising deeply shapes the values of its target audience. Therefore, gender

society (Ganahl et al., 2003). On the other hand, Holbrook (1987) states that advertising reflects existing values within a society, gender roles portrayals in brand’s advertising therefore reflecting cultural attitudes towards gender.

Existing literature provides diverse views on portrayals of genders in advertising. One view considers that advertisements are slowly moving away from gender stereotypes (Allan and Coltrane, 1996; Wolin, 2003), particularly in Western societies (Furnham and Mak, 1999). But in general, authors, such as Courtney and Whipple (1985) agree that advertising still uses stereotypical gender roles. Others stress that genders are not only still being portrayed in a stereotypical way, but that those stereotypes are even becoming worse (Ferguson et al., 1990; Ganahl et al., 2003; Milner and Higgs, 2004). On the other hand, Hawkins and Coney (1976) adopt a rather pessimistic view on the depth and effects of gender portrayals in advertising, and stress marketers’ social responsibility to prevent gender stereotyping in advertising and its impact on society.

2. Problem definition 2.1 Problem statement

In June 2016, the multinational Unilever revealed a one-of-its kind initiative within the industry. It aims at breaking gender stereotypes in their advertising. Research conducted by the company over the past three years unveiled some alarming results, such as the fact that a significant amount of women don’t recognize themselves in the ads they see. The initiative goes beyond the usual perspective focusing on providing a more realistic portrayal of women, and also aims at eliminating male stereotypes. It highlights the fact that men portrayals in advertising are neglected, both in the professional and research field, as most literature (i.e.

Wortzel and Frisbie, 1974; Ducker and Tucker, 1977; Courtney and Whipple, 1985; Ford and Latour, 1996) and industry initiatives focus on women portrayals and stereotypes.

Countering gender stereotypes is more than just a societal responsibility. To be successful in making brands prosper, marketers need to know how to effectively portray contemporary masculinity and femininity. Gender stereotypes don’t have their place anymore in marketing activities.

Portrayals have direct effects on consumer behaviour, and those that do not fit recent societal changes lead to unfavorable reactions. For instance, Courtney and Whipple (1985) highlighted that for a female audience, ‘liberated’ female role depictions were generally more effective than traditional portrayals, in terms of perceived product quality, preferences for ads, attitudes toward the ad, purchase intention, credibility, and likability. They also highlight that progressive portrayals might be irritating for non-targeted members of the audience. This will result in negative attitudes toward the ad and toward the product and would likely lower purchase intentions.

Later, Kilbourne (1986) found out that both male and female respondents had higher cognitive, affective and behavioral intentions ratings of the advertisement portraying a woman as a professional compared to as a housewife. Ford and LaTour (1996) found out that high feminist consciousness lead to critical perceptions of female role portrayals. In turn, feminist consciousness was found to lead to critical perceptions of the company’s image, lower buying intentions and higher propensity to boycott products.

Thus, we can expect attitude toward gender role to affect consumer’s knowledge and responses.

Brand associations have powerful effects and are a foundation for creating brand equity (Aaker 1991, p.20). Consumer knowledge leads to consumer responses, and is based on consumer associations. (Keller, 1993). However, no study has researched the impact of gender portrayals on brand associations, whose strength, uniqueness and favorability are a prerequisite to building strong brands (Keller, 1993). As some brands start to break the stereotypical norm, this study aims at filling the gap concerning male and female stereotypical and counter-stereotypical portrayals in advertising and their effect on brand associations.

As stated previously, gender role orientation might have the potential to modify the evaluation of brand associations following exposure to gender portrayals. However, measures for gender role expectations are themselves biased and based on preconceived gender social expectations. Therefore, we will use a recent measure of social roles orientation, the Social Roles Questionnaire (Baber and Tucker, 2006). We will study social role orientation’s potential to modify the evaluation of brand associations’ strength, uniqueness and favorability separately and in conjunction with stereotypical and counter-stereotypical portrayals. This leads to the following research question:

To which extent does breaking genders stereotypes through advertising have an effect on brand associations’ strength, uniqueness and favorability? To which extent does social role orientation contribute to those relationships?

2.2. Sub-questions

To answer this research question and get a clear overview of this topic, several sub- questions need to be answered:

society at large?

- What are brand associations and why are they important for brands?

3. Contribution

The aim of this research is to shed light on the effects of rapid and recent changes in terms of social roles expectations and advertising practices; inducing differing roles expectations among individuals and differing degrees of gender stereotyping in portrayals. This would advance existing research by unveiling the impact of those changes on important features of brand associations. Existing research focuses on consumers ‘responses, but brand associations have not been studied in this context. However, they anchor brands in consumer’s mind on the long term. It is important for managers to understand those processes to adapt their strategies to the changing environment, and build strong brands.

4. Structure of this paper

In order to answer this research question, we will first have an overview of the existing literature regarding gender roles and gender stereotypes in advertising; and brand associations and brand equity. This part will help us answer the sub-questions we previously defined. Then, we will develop our research design, choice of data collection, analysis methods, and present the results of this research. Finally, we will discuss our findings and their implications for academia and managers.

C

2: L

I. Gender roles, stereotypes and advertising in modern societies

1. Gender roles, the distinctions between men and women societal expectations

Diverse sets of associations have been developed around the concepts of masculinity and femininity. Ridgeway (2001) described gender as an institutionalized system of social practices establishing males and females as socially different, and those differences organize inequality.

A role is performed, meaning that one learns how to adapt to a particular role, and behave depending on what is acceptable or not. Individuals behave in a gendered manner. A gender role is a set of culturally defined behavioral norms associated with males and with females, in a given social group or system (Connell, 1987, p. 165).

However, individuals also differ in the way they interpret those concepts, between and within societies. These leads to differences in the way people perceive, categorize and evaluate gender-related information (Schmitt et al., 1988) and therefore, in attitudes toward gender roles, also referred to as gender role orientations.

1.1. Gender roles differences between societies: Hofstede’s view

Gender roles vary significantly depending on societies and cultures. Hofstede (1983) distinguishes some major dimensions upon which societies differ. Among them, masculinity relates to the societal norms influencing the roles assigned to women and men, namely gender roles. Hofstede argues that the perception of gender role differentiation is an important element that can be used to compare cultures; and that gender roles are clearly distinct

(p. 312), He classifies the key differences between feminine and masculine societies. Focusing on gender roles, in feminine societies, socialization occurs toward non-traditional gender roles; characteristics are freely attributed to one either males or females; women describe themselves in their own terms and as more competitive than men do; and gender stereotypes are rooted in universal biological differences. Men are allowed to be gentle, feminine, and weak. Moreover, the gender culture gap is smaller, there are more equal jobs and education opportunities, a larger share of women in professional and technical jobs, and women’s liberation means that men and women should contribute equally both at home and at work. On the other hand, in masculine societies, socialization occurs toward traditional gender roles; men describes themselves as more competitive than women do; gender stereotypes are specific to countries; and women describe themselves in same terms as men. Women should be gentle and feminine, however nobody should be weak. Moreover, the gender culture gap is larger, there are less equal jobs and education opportunities; a smaller share of women in professional and technical jobs; and women’s liberation means that they should access to positions previously occupied only by men.

One point that is particularly relevant in the context of this study: Hofstede (2001, p.312) noted that in feminine societies, people have less confidence in advertising than in masculine societies.

Findings suggest that in a society with feminine values/culture, there tends to be less differences between women and men in the type of roles portrayed in advertising, whereas in a society where masculine values are dominant, there tends to be a large difference in the societal roles attached to women and men in advertising (Wiles et al. 1995; Milner and Collins, 2000). However, relating to Hostede’s dimension described previously, Odekerken - Schröder et al. (2002) found out that a country’s masculinity index is hardly related to the use

of gender stereotyping in printed advertising, potentially implying that other factors underlie the use of gender stereotyping.

1.2 Gender roles differences between genders

Individuals pass through a sequence of stages toward appropriate gender role identity to acquire gender-typed behaviors, but parental influences and childhood are considered as formative in terms of sexual differentiation between men and women (Friedman and Downey, 2014).

The selectivity hypothesis assumes that biological sex determines a person’s psychological gender identity, meaning that men are more agentic and independent in nature, favoring independence, self-benefit, and spend money to elevate their own status; while women are more communal and interdependent, more likely to spend money to benefit both the self and others, and focused on helping others (Meyers-Levy and Maheswaran, 1991). Thus, the traditional gender roles’ view includes a focus on nurturing, relationship maintenance, and attending to others’ concerns among women, and an emphasis on aggression, assertion, and self-orientation among men (Bem, 1981). Women and men are socialized into expected role behaviors associated with masculinity or femininity. This view is the foundation of all stereotypic advertising messages, which are based on the fact that biological sex distinguishes individuals’ societal expectations.

1.3 Gender roles differences on the individual level: individuals’ attitude toward gender roles

As seen previously, gender roles are traditionally divided into strictly feminine and masculine gender roles.

Attitudes towards gender roles are generally defined in the literature as the beliefs regarding the appropriate roles for men and women. Those roles are normative beliefs about what gender relations in society should be like, or the extent to which a person supports the norm of gender equality. Existing research tends to measure attitude toward gender roles depending on dichotomous categories, respectively opposing masculine and feminine characteristics. Particular social roles are attributed to men and women on the idea that they are best suited for it (Martin and Ruble, 2004). But these classifications of roles have diversified today.

Traditional attitudes highlight the contrast in power relations between men and women. On the other hand, a non-traditional path emphasizes egalitarianism. Gender egalitarianism was defined as the degree to which a society minimizes gender role differences; and therefore promotes gender equality (House et al. 2010). It reflects society’s beliefs about whether biological sex should determine roles in society; meaning that gender in egalitarian societies biological sex does not significantly determine those expectations (Emrich et al. 2004). For instance, in such societies, there are less work-related differences, and more women in positions of authority.

1.3.1 Measuring individuals’ gender role orientation

The Attitudes Toward Women Scale (Spence et al. 1973), the Sex Role Egalitarianism Scale (Beere et al. 1984), or the Modern Sexism Scale (Swim et al., 1995) are considered as reliable scales and are used regularly as measures of adults’ endorsement of traditional gender roles. The constructs of Ambivalent Sexism and Ambivalence Toward Men have also been used in recent studies to assess the degree to which people justify gender gaps. Ambivalent sexism relies on both hostile sexism (negative sentiment directed at women who do not conform to stereotyped gender roles) and benevolent sexism (paternalistic attitudes rewarding

and disempowering women who conform to stereotyped gender roles). Ambivalence towards men relies on both hostility toward men (resentment of men’s position of power on the social hierarchy and in romantic relationships) and benevolence toward men (belief that men need women to do domestic tasks because they can’t achieve it themselves) (Glick and Fiske, 1996, 1999).

Most studies measuring gender role orientation revealed that women have more egalitarian attitudes or are less sexist than men. Beere et al. (1984) argue that this is because women have more to gain from an egalitarian society and indeed from closing the gender gap.

The Social Roles Questionnaire developed by Baber and Tucker (2006) is an alternative and recent measure for assessing attitudes toward social roles. Results of tests for convergent and discriminant validity support the construct validity of the instrument, and both internal consistency and test–retest reliability were established. It offers a way to capture thinking about gender that transcends the socially predefined dichotomous categories. Therefore, the variables are not the usual binary ‘male versus female’ attitudes but gender linked and gender-transcendent attitudes.

2. Stereotypes and gender portrayals in advertisements 2.1 Characteristics of gender stereotypes

By definition, stereotypes are a set of concepts pertaining to a social category (Vinacke, 1957), and widely held beliefs about the characteristics and attributes associated with gender differences constitute gender stereotypes (Heilman, 1995). Ridgeway (2001) argues that widely shared gender stereotypes are the ‘genetic code’ of the gender system, since they constitute the cultural rules or schemas by which people perceive and endorse

advertising deviates from the objective of equality, the higher is the degree of stereotyping across the components of role behavior and occupational status (An and Kim, 2007).

But why are gender stereotypes still used massively? Gender is used to categorize individuals within a society. Marketers and advertisers tend to consider gender as a key segmentation variable in developing strategies and defining target groups (An and Kim, 2007; Milner and Collins 2000). It is used because it is an easy segmentation strategy. Gendered segments are identifiable, accessible, measurable, large and profitable (Darley and Smith, 1995).

As gender is used as a segmentation variable, this almost automatically implies the use of gender stereotypes, to provide cognitive shortcuts, both to marketers themselves when producing content and by consumers by receiving it and processing information. Categorizing gender in a set of pertaining concepts facilitates the assimilation of gender-related information, as it is largely simplified. Gender stereotypes serve as mental pictures for individuals when making judgments and assessments (Ashmore and Boca, 1979). Also, for instance, showing women as sex objects in advertisements is also used as a way to quickly grab viewers ‘attention (Ferguson et al., 1990).

Goffman (1976, p. 28-83) reviewed cases of gender portrayals in ads and distinguished the following types of stereotypes: relative size, or the tendency to depict men as taller and larger than women; the feminine touch, or tendency to show women caressing the surface of objects with their hands or fingers; function ranking, or the propensity to depict men in occupational active roles whereas women not; ritualization of subordination; family structuring, fathers being portrayed as physically distant from their families or as relating primarily to sons, while mothers are depicted as relating primarily to daughters; and licensed

withdrawal, depicting women more dependent on the protection and goodwill of others. Deaux and Lewis (1984) suggest that gender stereotypes have four different components, which are respectively: trait descriptors, physical characteristics, role behaviors and occupational status. Each component has a masculine and a feminine version, with masculine and feminine components significantly more strongly associated with males and females.

Bretl and Cantor, (1988) show that men are more often portrayed in career activities and more often shown outdoors than are women.

Women’s roles are limitedly defined as playing subordinate, unimportant, and supporting roles. In contrast, men are shown playing important, professional, and autonomous roles (Whipple and Courtney, 1985; Klassen et al., 1993). However, more recent studies show a slowly reversing trend. Fowler and Thomas (2015) found that there were changes in a five- year time frame. They found fewer men in the lead and some suggest that male characters are being portrayed to reflect society’s changing view of men and women’s roles. They found an increased in men portrayed as fathers. However, the research showed that these trends are small.

Most studies pay attention to portrayals of women. Some of them have studied the depiction of men and women together (Klassen et al., 1993; Zotos and Grau, 2016) or men roles only (Wolheter and Lammers, 1979; Kolbe and Albanese, 1996; Fowler and Thomas, 2015); but only represent a smaller part of the literature.

2.2 Gender stereotypes and society: a double influence

Grau and Zotos (2016), in their review of gender stereotypes research, distinguish between the ‘mirror’ and ‘mold’ arguments. Those views affirm that advertising is a reflection of society and a powerful force to shape it.

The mirror point of view states that advertising reflects values that already exist (Holbrook, 1987). Gender roles in advertising thus reflect cultural expectations towards gender. The mold argument, on the other hand, assumes that advertising is able to mold and shape the values of its target audience (Pollay 1986).

People integrate stereotypes presented by the media into their own system of values, ideas, and beliefs (Zotos and Tsichla, 2014). Gender roles in advertising create, shape, and reinforce gender-stereotypical beliefs and values in a society (Ganahl et al. 2003). Martin and Ruble (2004) indicate that gender stereotypes are gendered cues in children’s social worlds, and that they subsequently used them as a way to make sense of the social world around them, influencing the construction of their own gender identity.

Gender stereotypes become problematic when they lead to expectations and judgments that restrict opportunities for individuals. Stereotypes, as discussed previously, are oversimplified conceptions, and thus lead to incorrect evaluations, deviating from the reality. Ridgeway (2001) argues that the gender system is deeply linked to social hierarchy and leadership, as gender stereotypes contain status beliefs that associate greater status worthiness and competence with men than women. For instance, Lovdal (1989) found out that when women are endorsing products on television, the advertisements are generally backed by an authoritative male voice that provides men with the final word in these commercials, reinforcing the idea that they are more credible.

However, activating a stereotype leads people to behave in stereotype-consistent ways (Wheeler and Petty, 2001). Tosi and Einbender (1985), for instance, found out that when evaluations of job applicants are based on stereotypes, men are favored over women for jobs that men have traditionally done. Ridgeway (2001) also describes how gender status beliefs

create a network of restraining expectations being a major cause of the so-called ‘glass ceiling’. In an entrepreneurship context, Gupta and Turban (2012) found out that, under certain conditions, gender stereotypes could influence evaluations of male and female typed venture ideas, even when the ventures are similar in all other respects. On a political level, Dolan (2009) highlight that, for instance, voters who value honesty and ethics in government are more likely to vote for a woman running against a man, while people most concerned about foreign policy issues are more likely to support a man over a woman. Moreover, in 2010, Schneider et al. underline that assertive and powerful female whose characteristics and behaviors violate the societal expectations created by stereotypes might provoke criticism. As we could notice in 2016 with the United States’ Presidential Election and the case of Hillary Clinton, women seem to face a choice of being seen as likeable or as competent, but not as both. We can therefore expect gender stereotypes to have a direct effect not only on society and individuals as such, but on the economic, social and political fabric of nations.

Those are some of the reasons why it is necessary to reduce gender stereotyping and counter its negative effects; and why the recent past years have been a wake-up call for many companies, highlighting their responsibility in promoting gender equality through appropriate representations in advertising.

2.3 The evolution of gender stereotypes in advertising

Images of men and women in advertising have been heavily gender-typed, depicting stereotypical images of independent, active, assertive, work-oriented men versus dependent, passive, domestic women. Some changes in the direction of more equal representations of men and women in advertising have occurred over the last decades; however, gender-typed portrayals still predominate (Hawkins and Coney, 1976). Examining the existing literature,

we can notice that two opposing views exist in terms of the evolution of gender stereotypes in advertising.

Ganahl et al. (2003) have investigated US television commercials have compared their results with a previous content analysis by Bretl and Cantor (1988). They found that commercials perpetuate traditional stereotypes despite significant changes in women’s roles. Milner and Higgs (2004) have investigated gender stereotyping in Australian television advertisements and compared their results with two studies from the nineties and eighties. They conclude that portrayals of women in Australian advertising are becoming more stereotypical, and these depictions are becoming even more distant from the reality of occupational roles.

More optimistic studies consider that women gain substantial ground and break out of stereotyping. They suggest that role portrayals in commercials are more representative of contemporary women and gender equality (Sharits and Lammers, 1983; Furnham and Mak 1999;). Furnham and Mak (1999) stated that a decline has occurred in Europe; however not in Asia nor Africa. Wolin (2003) found both increasing and decreasing gender bias, but she noticed a general tendency towards decreasing stereotyping.

3. The effect of gender depictions on advertising effectiveness 3.1 A support for gender stereotyping

The classic approach argues that every divergence from the normative element of the stereotype runs the risk of being evaluated negatively (Fiske and Stevens, 1993; Schneider et al., 2010). For example, a survey by Eagly and Mladinic (1989) showed that women are perceived positively, mainly because of their interpersonal features. However, when they break the tradition by stepping into what are considered as men’s areas, this effect vanishes.

Several studies demonstrated that even though participants often said that they did not prefer stereotypical depictions of men and women in advertising, their reactions to advertisements and commercial spokespersons, and their purchase intentions and behaviors were more favorable in response to gender-stereotyped than to nontraditional advertisements (Wortzel and Frisbie, 1974, Ducker and Tucker, 1977; Courtney and Whipple, 1985)

Therefore, advertising research partly provides advertisers with a justification for continuing to rely on gender-stereotyped portrayals of men and women.

3.2 Individual differences and the interaction of attitude toward gender roles

People differ in the way they interpret gender stereotypes. Consequently, this affects consumer responses to advertisements.

In 2003, Morrison and Shaffer studied how gender role portrayals in advertising were likely to be received by individuals with varying gender role orientations. They proposed ‘gender role congruence’ model that hypothesize that people will view advertisements matching with their own gender-role orientations as more effective. Traditional participants (masculine men; feminine women) responded more favorably to traditional (i.e., gender- stereotyped) than to nontraditional advertisements, whereas nontraditional participants (androgynous individuals; feminine men; masculine women) reacted somewhat more favorably to the nontraditional advertisements.

Garst and Bodenhausen (1997) posited portrayals of men influence the gender role attitudes that they express after exposure to the images. Men who had initially been less traditional espoused more traditional attitudes than any other group after exposure to traditionally masculine models. These findings suggest that nontraditional men's gender role attitudes may be rather unstable and susceptible to advertising influence.

Finally, previous research reports that consumers who are more aware of stereotyped role portrayals develop less favorable attitudes towards firms or products associated with stereotyped role portrayals (Lysonski & Pollay, 1990). Ford and LaTour (1996) found out that high feminist consciousness lead to critical perceptions of female role portrayals. In turn, feminist consciousness was found to lead to critical perceptions of the company’s image, lower buying intentions and higher propensity to boycott products.

However, despite those different approaches studying consumers’ responses to gender roles portrayals, no study on the effect of gender stereotypes on brand associations has been found. However, they are a fundamental component of brand’s success. We will study the importance on brand associations for building strong brands in the following part of this chapter.

II. Brand associations, a foundation for brand equity

1. Brand associations, or what resides in consumers ‘minds 1.1 Definition

Brand associations have been defined as thoughts, feelings, perceptions, images, experiences, beliefs, and attitudes related to a brand, as well as anything linked to a brand in consumer’s memory (Boivin, 1986; Aaker 1991 p.109; Keller, 2008). They come in all forms and reflect characteristics of products or aspects independent of the product itself. Krishnan (1996) argued that associations could be used as a general term to represent a link between two nodes, in the consumer's mind. Keller’s (1993) placed associations as the central piece of brand image, and defined brand image as the perceptions about a brand as reflected by the

brand associations held in consumer memory. Brand image is therefore referred to as a set of associations (Aaker, 1991, p.109). Brand associations are created, sustained and enhanced by every experience and encounter a consumer has with the brand (Batey, 2008, p.4). For instance, consumers may associate ‘imaginative’, ‘childhood’ and ‘entertaining’ with the brand Disney. Aaker (1991, p.110) states that associations create meaning for consumers.

1.2 Types of associations

Different views have emerged concerning the classification of brand associations. Aaker (1991, p.133-129) categorized brand associations into eleven types, which are respectively: product attributes, intangibles, customer benefits, relative price, use/application, user/customer, celebrity/person, life-style/personality, product class, competitors and country/geographic area.

However, following Aaker’s categorization, Biel (1992) argued that brand associations could result from corporate image, product image and user image. Each of these three images can be divided into two types of association, being: perception of utilitarian and functional attributes, and soft or emotional attributes.

Another categorization, suggested by Farquhar and Herr (1993, p. 263) suggests that the types of brand associations include product category, usage situation, product attribute, and customer benefits, and various summary evaluations. On the other hand, for Keller (1993), brand associations can be classified into three major categories: attributes, benefits, and attitudes. Attributes are objective descriptive features that characterize a product or service. They can be categorized into product-related attributes, and non-product-related attributes such as price, user and usage imagery, or brand personality. Benefits are the subjective personal values consumers attach to product or service attributes. They can be

distinguished functional, experiential, and symbolic benefits. Brand attitudes are defined as consumers' overall evaluations of a brand.

Keller (2003) differentiates primary associations (brand elements, also called brand identities), which are intended and uniquely associated with the brand (brand name, brand logo, symbol, character, packaging, slogan); and secondary associations, which are unintended (company, country of origin, distribution channel, brands, endorser, event). Those last ones originate from sources of secondary knowledge: places, things, people and other brands. When the associative networks are connected, meaning that there is a fit between them, association transfer occurs.

1.3 Associative network memory model

Brand associative networks have been defined based on memory structure research. Associative network theory introduces the notion of associative memory. This theory assumes that consumers create associative pathways in their minds, resulting in networks of connections, or multiple links of brand nodes in consumers’ memory. The associative network of knowledge for a brand is the image of this brand as stored in the long-term memory, also defined as a subcomponent of memory that is permanent. Brand image studies have widely accepted this theory (i.e. Krishnan, 1996). Nodes are stored information connected by links. A spreading activation process occurs when retrieving information stored in memory. When the amount of activation at a node exceeds a certain level, the information contained in this node is recalled. Therefore, spreading activation from node to node leads to retrieval in memory. Those different links vary in strength. When a node is activated, the nodes most strongly linked with this node are more likely to be activated. The strength of activation between nodes determines the spread of activation and the retrieval on information in memory (Henderson et al, 1998).

Based on this model, Keller (1993) defines brand associations as meaningful memory nodes in a memory network. According him, brand knowledge is central to this definition of brand equity. In his view, particular, the favorability, strength, and uniqueness of brand associations play a critical role in determining the differential response.

1.4 Associations’ strength, favorability and uniqueness

As seen previously, brand image is made up of different types of brand associations, defined differently in the literature, and which can vary in their features, more particularly according to their favorability, strength, and uniqueness. Strength, favorability and uniqueness of associations provide a reason to believe to consumers and are a successful foundation for brand positioning, by determining brand’s meaning.

1.4.1 Strength

To assess the significance of an association, meaning its contribution to brand equity, those associations have to be strong, meaning that they come up easily to mind and are strongly linked to the brand node. This relates to how easily linked nodes are activated. Till, Baack and Waterman (2011) defined association strength as the intensity of the connection between the association and the brand node; the stronger the association, the more accessible the association will be via activation. . Aaker (1991, p.109) indicates that a link to a brand will be stronger when it is based on many experiences or exposures to communications, rather than a few.

1.4.2 Favorability

Moreover, they have to be favorable. Each association has a direction, referring to whether an association is understood as positive or negative for the brand. It is also referred to as valence of associations. Till, Baack and Waterman (2011) defined favorability of associations as the degree to which the association is perceived as a positive or negative feature for the brand. It is quite difficult for brands to create real positive associations. It is relevant to note that the direction of an association can differ between individuals. Krishnan (1996) give a stronger importance to valence of associations than to other characteristics, claiming that the criteria to build a strong brand is to consistently achieve positive net associations.

1.4.3 Uniqueness

Finally, those associations have to be unique, meaning that they should not be part of competitors’ associative networks, or that they are not shared with competitors. Till, Baack and Waterman (2011) defined association uniqueness as the degree to which the association is perceived as a distinct and as a different brand feature within the product category. It is relevant to note that most associations are common between brands. Therefore, ideally, a brand with high levels of brand equity will have strong and favorable associations overall and some of these will be unique on some aspects which are important to the consumer. Thus, brand associations are a source of differentiation. However, we can bring up questions about the concept of uniqueness, since Romanuik et al. (2007) challenged the concept of brand differentiation. They argue that the importance of perceived and valued differentiation is overlooked and that distinctiveness should be at the center of brand strategy - where a brand builds unique associations that simply make it more easily identifiable.

1.5 Generating and measuring brand associations

As shown previously, brand image refers to a set of associations.

Cian (2011) reviewed the most important tools to measure brand image. Among them, the MET Laddering technique merges the Laddering technique with the Means-End Theory (Gutman, 1982; Reynolds and Gutman, 1988). It focuses on the linkages between the brand attributes, or means, the consequences derived from them, and the consumer personal values reached (the ends). By asking them a series of questions (‘why…?’), it takes the interviewees from sharing a concrete level of attributes to an abstract level of values.

The Zaltman Metaphor Elicitation Technique (ZMET) (Zaltman and Coulter, 1995) aims at exploring the mental models that drive consumer thinking and also investigates unconscious associations. Participants collect a handful of images representing their thoughts and feelings about a particular topic. Each participant is interviewed for up to two hours, using his or her images as a jumping-off point for discussion. Then, researchers analyze those metaphors. In her review of Zaltman and Zaltman (2008) book, Covington (2012) indicates that they focus on seven deep metaphors believed to be the key of understanding consumer’s minds and uncovering their deepest desires and needs, both conscious and unconscious.

Olson and Muderrisoglu (1978) defined free elicitation as a procedure in which respondents are free to say anything and everything that comes to mind when presented with a cue. Free association technique is considered as the most popular method for exploring brand knowledge, and is a widely used method used for eliciting associations (Keller, 1993; Krishnan, 1996, Chen 2001). This task requires participants to produce the first word that comes to mind related to a presented cue. For instance, Chen (2001) uses free association in his research, and he asks subjects to write down whatever comes to mind when they think about a certain brand. This method focuses on the retrieval of easily accessible and recordable

verbal associations from associative/semantic memory. Free association tasks focus on retrieving conscious brand knowledge via declarative and explicit memory, while however not giving insights into deeper, implicit brand knowledge, and missing out on its potential (Batey, 2008, p.137).

The strategic brand association map methodology developed by Till, Baack and Waterman (2011) provide a comprehensive view of the market’s associations for brands, and provides a visual representation of the characteristics of those associations. It consists in determining the competitive set, generating free associations, measuring the response latency and strength of association, the uniqueness, relevance and favorability measures, and constructing brand maps.

Chen (2001) developed a measurement scale to measure the effect of brand associations on customer-based brand equity. He identified two types of brand association and examined the relationship between their characteristics and brand equity. One type of association is product association including functional attribute association and non- functional attribute association. The other is organizational association (corporate ability association and corporate social responsibility association). He found out that the number of total associations had a significant relationship with brand equity, but only the number of brand association had a significant relationship with brand equity.

Associations drive consumers ‘choice by helping them to process and retrieve information. They differentiate and position the brand compared to competitors, create attitudes and feelings and ultimately a reason-to-buy. Brand extensions success also relies on brand associations (Aaker, p.110).

They are one of the most significant constituent parts of brand equity and despite different definitions of brand equity being found in the literature, brand associations have been are recognized as a central aspect of brand equity (Keller, 1993).

2. Brand equity, the value of a brand 2.1 Overview

The value of brands as intangible assets is getting more and more acknowledged. Therefore, increased importance has been attributed to understanding how to build, measure and manage brand equity (Keller, 1993). Brand equity became a central concept in marketing and has been defined in different ways over the last decades. A broad definition of brand equity is the marketing effects uniquely attributable to the brand (Keller, 1993). Aaker (1991, p.15) expresses a widely used definition of brand equity: a set of assets and commitments linked to a brand's name and symbols that adds to (or subtracts from) the value provided by a product or service to a firm and/or that firm's customers.

Two different approaches can however be distinguished within the existing literature, one adopting a financial point of view, and one adopting a customer-centered approach.

The first one links brand equity to an accounting motivation and performance measures, such as profit and market performance, and stock performance. Farquhar (1989) defined brand equity as a power that a brand may have achieved in a market because of its name, sign and logo. In 1992, Aaker noted that ultimately, brand equity is a source of competitive advantage which allows prices premium, improve the efficiency of marketing programs, increases margins and customer satisfaction and loyalty levels, and intensifies the resistance to competition. For Keller (2001), a strong brand with great equity result in greater customer loyalty and less vulnerability to competitive marketing actions or marketing crises,

larger margins, more favorable customer responses to price decrease and increase, greater trade or intermediary cooperation and support, increased marketing communication effectiveness, and also licensing and brand extensions opportunities. Keller (2008) defined brand equity as the value of a brand in the marketplace.

Marketers face more and more pressure to deliver accountability of their expenditures. In that perspective, importance is given to the financial view of customer equity; but the relationships between marketing actions and business performance are still blurry. However, we can argue that the financial motivation to study brand equity is not highly relevant, as it neglects to study the formation process of this concept. Brand equity ultimately resides in consumer’s minds, and the financial view doesn’t provide useful insights for development and implementation of more effective marketing strategies. It lacks focus on how to create long- term value for brands.

On the other hand, the second view is measured in terms of consumers’ perceptions of the brand, and emphasizes consumer knowledge and consumer associations as fundamental building blocks of brand image (Aaker 2009; Keller 1993). Aaker (1991, p.19-21) conceptualizes brand equity into five different constructs, which are namely brand loyalty, brand awareness, perceived quality, a set of associations, and other proprietary brand assets. Keller’s (1993) definition of brand equity however, is based on consumer knowledge.

2.2. Customer-Based Brand Equity (CBBE)

As seen previously, it has been recognized that practitioners and managers need to carefully manage brand associations in order to influence consumer attitudes. Brand equity has increasingly been defined in customer-based contexts. Keller (1993) defined customer- based brand equity as the differential effect of brand knowledge on consumer response to the

marketing of that brand. Brand knowledge is defined in terms of brand awareness, which is consists in brand recall and brand recognition; and brand image, which is measured on the uniqueness, strength and favorability of associations in consumers’ minds. He also underlines the fact that congruence among brand associations determines the cohesiveness of brand image and that they should share meaning.

Keller’s definition of customer-based brand equity highlights that the creation of brand value resides in the minds of consumers. Brand equity is built on consumer knowledge created in consumers mind by the brand’s marketing communications program.

In this view, it is essential for brand managers to understand and manage the set of associations around their brands.

2.2.1 The Customer-Based Brand Equity (CBBE) resonance model

Keller (2001) has built a model to understand the foundations of brand equity. The CBBE resonance model emphasizes the importance to understand brand structures. It shows how marketing communications can create intense and active loyalty and consumer relationship and ultimately affect brand equity. It highlights the different steps to achieve in order to reach the higher level of the pyramid and create brand equity.

The bottom of the pyramid relies on salience, which can also be defined as deep and broad brand awareness. Performance and imagery form the second level of the pyramid and are related to brand associations. Strong, favorable and unique associations allow to achieve the next step of the pyramid, which are judgments and feelings (attitudes). Judgments are consumer’s opinions about the brand (quality, credibility, consideration, superiority); and feelings are consumers’ emotional reactions to the brand (warmth, fun, excitement, security, social approval). Positive and accessible reactions then lead to the top layer of the pyramid: resonance. Resonance focuses on relationship and the level of personal identification and is

synonym of loyalty, attachment to the brand, sense of community and active engagement (Keller, 2001).

Therefore, in order to build CBBE, four steps need to be achieved (Keller, 2001). First, establishing the proper brand identity, then creating appropriate brand meaning, eliciting the right brand responses and forge the appropriate relationship with customers.

To conclude, brand associations are the foundation for building strong brands. Their strength, uniqueness and favorability are considered as a criterion for brand value. However, they are largely influenced by the brand’s marketing communications activities, therefore by advertising. Gender role portrayals have a role to play on those variables, and there is a research gap to fill.

III. Formulation of hypotheses

As mentioned previously, in our modern societies, both male and female social roles are changing and boundaries become blurred, closer to the objective of gender equality. Gender portrayals in advertisements affect consumers’ responses; and so does social roles orientation. Gender-transcendent role orientation denies the traditional binary distinction between male and female social expectations, whereas gender-linked role orientation distinguishes strongly between typical male versus female social expectations (Baber and Tucker, 2006). Brand associations are the foundation for brand equity and formed in consumers’ mind mainly through marketing communication activities. It is expected that counter-stereotypical portrayals in ads will result in more unique, favorable, and stronger brand associations, compared to stereotypical portrayals. Also, it is assumed that gender- transcendent oriented individuals will display more unique, favorable, and stronger brand associations, when exposed to counter-stereotypical ads, in comparison with gender-linked oriented individuals. Therefore, the following nine hypotheses were investigated:

1. Uniqueness of brand associations (H1a to H1c)

H1a: Independently of social roles orientation, counter-stereotypical portrayals in ads

will lead to more unique brand associations, in comparison with stereotypical portrayals.

H1b: Independently of condition, social roles orientation will have an effect on

uniqueness levels of brand associations.

H1c: A significant interaction between condition and social roles orientation,

regarding uniqueness levels, will be observed, with gender-transcendent oriented individuals reporting more unique brand associations in counter-stereotypical portrayals, in comparison with gender-linked oriented individuals. In contrast, gender-linked oriented individuals will

display more unique brand associations in stereotypical portrayals, compared to gender- transcendent oriented individuals.

2. Favorability of brand associations (H2a to H2c)

H2a: Independently of social roles orientation, counter-stereotypical portrayals in ads

will lead to more favorable brand associations, in comparison with stereotypical portrayals.

H2b: Independently of condition, social roles orientation will have an effect on

favorability levels of brand associations.

H2c: A significant interaction between condition and social roles orientation,

regarding favorability levels, will be observed, with gender-transcendent oriented individuals reporting more favorable brand associations in counter-stereotypical portrayals, in comparison with gender-linked oriented individuals. In contrast, gender-linked oriented individuals will display more favorable brand associations in stereotypical portrayals, compared to gender- transcendent oriented individuals.

3. Strength of brand associations (H3a to H3c)

H3a: Independently of social roles orientation, counter-stereotypical portrayals in ads

will lead to stronger brand associations, in comparison with stereotypical portrayals.

H3b: Independently of condition, social roles orientation will have an effect on

strength levels of brand associations.

H3c: A significant interaction between condition and social roles orientation,

regarding strength levels, will be observed, with gender-transcendent oriented individuals reporting stronger brand associations in counter-stereotypical portrayals, in comparison with gender-linked oriented individuals. In contrast, gender-linked oriented individuals will display

stronger brand associations in stereotypical portrayals, compared to gender-transcendent oriented individuals. 4. Conceptual Model Uniqueness of brand associations Favorability of brand associations Strength of brand associations

Gender portrayals in ads

• Stereotypical

• Counter-stereotypical

Social roles orientation

• Gender-transcendent • Gender-linked

C

3: R

M

1. Participants

For the requirements of this study, a non-probability convenience sample of 214 participants (58% women) was collected via posting on social media pages and groups (Facebook & Twitter) and direct contact. The majority of participants were between 18 and 24 years old (39%), followed by those aged 25-34 years (36%). Regarding participants’ educational level, 46% were holders of a Master’s degree and 34% had earned a Bachelor’s degree. Lastly, the sample population was mainly composed of Dutch (34%), French (25%), and Spanish (14%) individuals.

2. Manipulations

The representations of gender were manipulated by changing the way the models are represented and the task they are executing. Two experimental conditions were created, one in which the model is represented in a stereotypical way and one in which he or she is represented in a counter-stereotypical way. In other words, the first experimental condition depicted the model as performing a role pertaining to his/her gender and deviating from the objective of equality (high degree of stereotyping), while the second experimental condition represented a model breaking this stereotypical view (low degree of stereotyping). The advertisements created can be found in Appendices 1 to 8.

The brand Nivea was chosen, as it is a renowned brand, resulting in a high degree of brand awareness. The same product (i.e. ‘Nivea Stress Protect 48h Deodorant’) and slogan (i.e. ‘For every challenging moment’) was used for each ad and condition. Therefore, the situations in which the models were portrayed remained the same: daily little challenges.

To formulate these ads, the findings previously discussed were taken into consideration (Goffman, 1976, p.28-83; Courtney and Whipple, 1985; Bretl and Cantor, 1988; Klassen et al. 1993). According to the literature, female stereotypes typically portray women as young, attractive, caring, and nurturing. Furthermore, they are primarily depicted in communal situations (e.g., taking care of the house or of children), during which they take care of little girls/daughters. On the other hand, male stereotypes highlight men’s authoritative and charismatic side, mainly in business/work environments. If they are portrayed among kids, they typically spend time with young boys.

The stereotypical condition included ads with two visuals showing male models and two visuals showing female models. Female stereotypical portrayals involved a young housewife taking care of a household and a young mother shopping at the supermarket, while taking care of kids. Male stereotypical portrayals included a man in a business situation (leading a meeting), wearing a business outfit, looking confident, and talking to a woman as his subordinate, and a businessman reading a paper with a serious and authoritative facial expression.

The counter-stereotypical condition included two visuals showing male models and two visuals showing female models. Female counter-stereotypical portrayals involved a middle-aged businesswoman in a meeting room, looking confident and authoritative, and a young basketball player in a sports hall, looking assertive and slightly aggressive. Male counter-stereotypical portrayals included a man taking care of a sick little girl, at home, with a caring expression, and a man holding and comforting a crying baby, in a kitchen environment.

Manipulation checks. A pre-test study was conducted to ensure that Nivea was a

with the brand Nivea’ and answers were provided on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly

agree; 7 = Strongly disagree). Participants were also exposed to different advertisements, and

were asked to rank the perceived degree of gender stereotyping (0% = Low; 100% = High), in order to assess if they perceived the stereotypical and counter-stereotypical ads as so or not.

3. Measures

3.1 Brand associations

Before all, participants were reminded of the brand Nivea thanks to a short description and its logo. Subsequently, they were asked to generate a free set of associations. Allowing respondents to generate their own set of brand associations does not restrict responses to pre- selected associations that might not be relevant or true to certain respondents. It enables them to express their exact thoughts and thus provide more accurate responses. However, it can be argued that free associations do not allow the elicitation of deep thoughts that Zaltman Elicitation Technique could for instance uncover.

The associations were asked before exposing participants to the conditions. In that way, participants were prevented from linking Nivea only to the product presented on the ads (deodorant) and be influenced by this specifically implemented campaign. The aim was to explore how the existing associations would be influenced by new campaigns with different degrees of gender stereotyping.

After the exposure of participants to one of the two conditions, the following features of brand associations were assessed:

Uniqueness of brand associations. Uniqueness of brand associations was measured by

asking participants to indicate the extent of perceived uniqueness for each association (i.e. the distinction of Nivea from other brands). Responses were given on a 7-point scale, ranging

from 1 (Strongly agree) to 7 (Strongly disagree). Scores were reverse-scored, so that higher values corresponded to higher levels of uniqueness of brand associations.

Favorability of brand associations. Favorability of brand associations was assessed by

asking participants to indicate the extent of perceived positivity for each association. Responses were given on a 7-point scale, ranging from 1 (Extremely positive) to 7 (Extremely

negative). Scores were reverse-scored, so that higher values corresponded to higher levels of

positivity of brand associations.

Strength of brand associations. Strength of brand associations was measured by

asking participants to indicate the importance of each association. Responses were given on a 7-point scale, ranging from 1 (A great deal) to 7 (None at all). Scores were reverse-scored, so that higher values corresponded to higher levels of strength of brand associations.

3.2 Social roles orientation

Social roles orientation was measured using the Social Roles Questionnaire (SRQ), developed by Baber and Tucker (2006). As discussed previsouly, the SRQ represents a new way of measuring gender role attitudes, which eliminates the typical binary view of roles between sexes (i.e. masculine versus feminine roles). Contrary to previous instruments, SRQ captures the diversity in people’s thinking about social roles for both men and women and identifies attitudes transcending the usual binary categories. Thus, the term ‘social roles’ instead of ‘gender roles’ is employed. SRQ has been also identified as a reliable and valid instrument. In particular, research has provided supporting evidence for its convergent and discriminant validity, as well as for its internal consistency and test–retest reliability. The principal components of the questionnaire were used and respondents were presented with the

following 13 items (α = .87): ‘People can be both aggressive and nurturing regardless of

sex’; ‘People should be treated the same regardless of their sex’; ‘The freedom that children are given should be determined by their age and maturity level and not by their sex’; ‘Tasks around the house should not be assigned by sex’; ‘We should stop thinking about whether people are male or female and focus on other characteristics’; ‘A father’s major responsibility is to provide financially for his children’; ‘Men are more sexual than women’;

‘Some types of work are just not appropriate for women’; ‘Mothers should make most

decisions about how children are brought up’; ‘Mothers should work only if necessary’;

‘Girls should be protected and watched over more than boys’; ‘Only some types of work are

appropriate for both men and women’; and ‘For many important jobs, it is better to choose men instead of women’. Respondents were asked to indicate their level of agreement with the

above statements on a scale from 0% (Strongly disagree) to 100% (Strongly agree). Scores for the first five items were reversed-scored, so that higher values consistently reflected higher levels of traditionalism.

Demographic data about participants’ gender, age, education, and ethnicity were also collected.

4. Design

In order to investigate the formulated hypotheses, a quasi-experimental between- subjects design was adopted. Each participant was randomly presented with one of the two experimental conditions, namely stereotypical (n = 56) and counter-stereotypical condition (n = 48). Subsequently, participants, based on their responses in the SRQ, were divided into groups, namely gender-transcendent (bottom quartile, n = 52) and gender-linked (top quartile,

n = 52) oriented individuals. A 2 X 2 [Condition (stereotypical vs counter-stereotypical) X Social Roles

effect of condition and social roles orientation on uniqueness (hypotheses 1a to 1c), favorability (hypotheses 2a to 2c), and strength of brand associations (hypotheses 3a to 3c), was investigated.

5. Procedure

The survey was administrated online via Qualtrics. Participants were informed about the purpose of the study, the confidentiality of their data, as well as their anonymity. No incentives or rewards were offered to the participants.