Green Advertising
Jelle van Wijhe (10589368) Master's Thesis
Graduate School of Communication
Master's Programme Communication Science: Persuasive Communication Advisor: Dr. Barbara Schouten
Abstract
Advertising environmentally friendly products' 'green-ness' as a main selling point is often met with scrutiny from the audience. Despite increasing research in the sector, no study has yet examined the efficacy of message-sidedness in the green marketing context. Respondents between the ages of 20 and 35 years old participated in a 1x2 between-subjects, survey based experiment to assess the
comparative impact of message sidedness on attitude towards the advertisement, skepticism towards the advertisement and perceived credibility of ad claims, with ecological concern observed as a moderating variable. Results indicate that two-sided messages may reduce skepticism towards green advertisements, especially amongst audiences who are highly ecologically concerned. Differences in levels of skepticism towards advertisement between one-sided message and two-sided messages groups were consistent for audiences with low and high ecological concern. No significant differences between one-sided messages and two-sided messages could be established with regard to attitude towards the advertisement or perceived credibility of ad claims.
Introduction
As concern for sustainability and the environment increasingly become an everyday concept, many companies are expanding into green product lines. Between 2004 and 2009 the amount of new products marketed with environmental claims grew from 100 to 1,5001. High-profile companies such as H&M and Adidas seek to carve out a space in this market with 'green' clothing lines and a 'green' shoe model, respectively, suggesting that there is a substantial appeal for brands engaging in sustainable practices. Some companies are entirely devoted to creating green consumer goods. This comes as no surprise in an economy where it is estimated that 50 per cent of global consumers are willing to pay higher prices for products that are sustainable and socially responsible2.
1 http://www.worldwatch.org/advertising-spending-continues-gradual-rebound
http://www.sustainablebrands.com/news_and_views/behavior_change/50-global-consumers-willing-pay-more-socially-The relationship between marketers and their consumer base in this emerging sustainable products market seems, however, to be experiencing some growing pains. The appeal of sustainability-based marketing led to an increase of deceptive claims in advertising. In 2012 the U.S. Federal Trade Commission issued an updated Green Guides3 which contains strict guidelines for environmental claims and attempts to stem the use of vague advertising claims such as 'eco-friendly'. This
development indicates a desire by the public to be approached with honest, credible advertising when it comes to products and brands that claim to be 'green'. Customers that are willing to pay more for sustainable products no doubt feel cheated and deceived when advertising claims are found to be false. The question raised therefore, is what advertisers and product managers can do to to avoid any of the known difficulties in communicating with an audience which approaches their claims with a degree of deductive skepticism.
Among the obstacles facing advertisers when it comes to green products is, coincidentally, their target audience. It has been shown that companies which are perceived by customers to put more emphasis on profits than sustainability subject themselves to closer scrutiny over, and scepticism about, their green products (D'Souza, Taghian, Lamb, & Peretiatkos, 2006). Researchers have also indicated that among those most skeptical about green advertising claims are consumers who are most highly concerned with sustainability and the environment (do Paço & Reis, 2012). Skepticism, in turn, decreases the intention to purchase green products (Albayrak, Caber, Moutinho, & Herstein, 2011). From the practitioners' camp, the conventional wisdom appears to be that “credibility is the foundation of effective green marketing” (Ottman, Stafford, & Hartman, 2010). Marketers have a pressing need to develop strategies that present products such a way as to avoid what appears to be an inherent backfire-mechanism in the highlighting of sustainable qualities of a product. This will benefit both practitioners and society, so that consumers can feel secure in trusting the important green information.
responsible-products
This research proposes one particular strategy that may be effective in that regard; two-sided messages. Generally, advertisers promote their products with exclusively positive communication. Two-sided messages – messages in which the advertiser volunteers some negative information about the product in question – have been shown, among other effects, to be very effective at enhancing customer's perceived credibility of the advertiser (Kamins & Marks, 1987). Through subject to
examination with regard to the involvement-level of products, celebrity endorsements (Kamins, Brand, Hoeke, & Moe, 1989), and electronic word-of-mouth (Cheung, Luo, Sia, & Chen, 2009), two-sided messages have not been studied in the context of green advertising specifically. The present research will attempt to supplement the existing knowledge base about the ways in which two-sided messages function in different communications contexts, and what other factors impact the expected effects.
Through survey-based research this study will examine the effects of two-sided messages when used to promote 'green' products. It will explore the relationship between two-sided messages and perceived credibility and the way this relationship is impacted by consumer skepticism towards green advertising claims. Finally, it will also examine the overall impact on brand attitude towards products that are advertised as 'green' with a two-sided message approach. The present research thus puts forth the following research question:
RQ 1: Is a two-sided message approach capable of overcoming the shortcomings related to credibility and consumer skepticism entangled in green advertising?
The research proposed here has both practical and scientific implications if the expected results are found. Advertisers and product managers will see reason to leverage the audience-friendly powers of two-sided messaging to reduce potential negativity towards advertisement of green products. The results should put advertisers and their audience on a more equal plane, so that communication from
the former directed at the latter will be less muddled by de facto misgivings about the intentions behind the claims made. The scientific implications of the present research may open a whole new area of research in regard to two-sided messages and their contextually-dependent effects. Further, the results would establish a moderating influence within the green advertising context specifically – ecological concern could be established as an audience-factor which holds influence over the relationship between message-sidedness and its outcomes.
Theoretical Framework
Green Advertising
Green advertising refers to strategies adopted by companies that emphasize their commitment to environmentally sustainable and ecologically responsible practices. 'Green claims' are communicated within advertisements, on product labels, and by other means. Green claims serve to connect the brand or product to concern for the environment than to persuade, and are capable of affecting positive consumer responses, especially amongst audiences that are highly ecologically concerned (Kim, Forney, & Arnold, 1997). Similarly, consumers have been shown to respond more positively to green claims made by “green brands” than for non-green products (Phau & Ong, 2007). The use of the term 'green claims' serves to specify a concept that is representative of green advertising as a whole. Green claims can be defined as a statement “regarding the impact of one or more of its brand attributes on the natural environment” (Scammon & Mayer, 1995).
The presence of green claims in advertisements and their effect on consumers' responses is often mixed and not straightforward. It has been shown that a reliance on certain empty descriptors such as “recycled” or “sustainable” can have a negative effect on consumer attitudes (Annonziato, 2001; Davis, 1993). In turn it has been found that green claims which appeal to activism rather than
simply 'stating' the green-ness of the product are more positively received by consumers (Damhorst, 1999). This effect can possibly be attributed to consumers' perception of themselves as being able to help solve environmental problems (Roberts, 1996). Consumer's prior perceptions of a company's environmental concern also positively affect their evaluation of the advertisement and the advertised product when green claims are made (Davis, 1994).
A green advertising strategy ought to be very aware of its de facto position relative to consumer perceptions. Its credibility is inherently low and is prone to being received with high levels of
skepticism and negative evaluations (Albayrak et al., 2011; D'Souza et al., 2006; do Paço & Reis, 2012). The present research suggests that two-sided messages might provide an opportunity to overcome some of the shortcomings inherent in making 'green claims'.
Two-sided messages
Advertising is, at its core, an exercise in persuasion through promotion. Logic therefore dictates that a persuasive messages should highlight only the attractive qualities of a product, and none that stand as arguments against it. In order to sell a house one photographs its beautiful façade, not the dilapidated shed in the back garden. A somewhat counterintuitive strategy exists, however, in two-sided message approaches.
Two-sided messages are persuasive communications that disclose some negative information alongside the positive, promotional content. Two-sided messages can be defined as message which present “the arguments in favour of a proposition but also considers the opposing arguments.” (Allen, 1991). It is an attractive prospect to promoters in that it offer the ability to pre-emptively make
available information about the product which may be perceived as negative before this information is found out and shared by consumers. It also provides some amount of control over what negative information specifically is released. Furthermore, it provides an opportunity for advertisers to anticipate
counter-arguments by their audience towards the claims they make, so that it is possible to refute these counter-arguments before they induce skepticism in the audience.
Two sided messages have been shown to have a positive effect on persuasion, including positive effects on perceived novelty of the ad, enhanced credibility, reduction of negative cognitive responses, enhanced brand attitude and purchase intentions (Eisend, 2006). In their encompassing work, Crowley and Hoyer (1994) provide an explanation for the mechanisms of the two-sided message approach. According to Attribution Theory (Jones & Davis, 1965), claims in advertisements will be attributed either to an advertiser's intention to sell a product or to the product being advertised. The voluntary disclosure of negative information in a two-sided message leads the receiver to conclude that the advertiser is being truthful, by virtue of the fact that it seems illogical to assume that negative
information would be made up. The result is a reduction of cognitive responses and positive effects on source credibility (Kamins et al., 1989), leading to positive attitudes towards the advertiser and
subsequently the brand (Eisend, 2006). Further, these affective routes to positive evaluations are able to enhance consumers' attitudes towards the advertisement itself (Eisend, 2007).
The two-sided message is not without its caveats and parameters, however. Logically, the amount of negative information disclosed has an upper limit before it starts to work against the persuasive aims of the advertisement and spurs undesirable communication outcomes (Crowley & Hoyer, 1994). Product price also plays a role in the effectiveness of two-sided messages such that these are shown to produce significantly better outcomes at lower price ranges (Lang, Lee, & Zwick, 1999). Outcomes futhermore depend on disclosure uniqueness – which dictates how voluntary the disclosure of negative information is perceived by the consumer (Eisend, 2010). It has been suggested that to avoid the aforementioned negativity ceiling effect, negative information disclosed should be of low to moderate importance (Crowley & Hoyer, 1994). Yet information disclosure that is too trivial will be perceived as dishonest (Stayman, Hoyer, & Leon, 1987). These parameters to effectiveness must
necessarily be taken into account when crafting communications utilizing two-sided messages, and the materials used in the present research are crafted with respect to these theoretical constraints.
The use of two-sided messages should provide an avenue by which advertisers can position their brands or products favourably by increasing attitudes towards the advertisement. At its simplest, the concept of an attitude is defined as “a predisposition to respond favourably or unfavourably” (Lutz, 1985) to an advertisement in any given exposure scenario. As previously mentioned, Attribution Theory provides a model for the path by which message sidedness indirectly affects consumer attitudes towards an advertisement. The model states that two-sided messages can enhance source credibility, which in turn enhances attitude towards the advertiser and ultimately leads to increased positive attitude towards the ad. In his meta-analytic study, Eisend (2007) tested the assumptions made by the model and found that the model was well supported by the data compared to other models of a similar effect. Therefore, the present research proposes that attitude towards the advertisement is an affective response in consumers that can potentially be enhanced or decreased through utilizing message sidedness in green advertising efforts.
In regard to attitude towards the advertisement, the present research posits the following hypothesis:
H1: Two-sided message will have a more positive effect on attitude towards the ad than one-sided messages.
Skepticism and Credibility
In their study, do Paço and Reis (2012) showed that skepticism towards green claims is highest amongst consumers who are also highly ecologically concerned. Herein lies a paradox, as presumably the conscientious green advertiser wants to make honest claims to a receptive target audience who are ecologically concerned. Yet the very consumers they would target are the ones who will be the most
skeptical of the claims.
Skepticism is a relatively new and certainly sparsely studied concept in the marketing literature. The concept was first disentangled from cynicism as a contextually relevant disbelief, rather than one that endures (Mohr, Eroglu & Ellen, 1998). Skepticism towards advertising has been defined as “the tendency toward disbelief of advertising claims” (Obermiller & Spangenberg, 1998). This definition helps to narrow down the concept of skepticism to a specific message-oriented context.
Credibility is a construct that is somewhat related to skepticism. In the past, credibility has been simply defined as the “believability” of information (Fogg & Tseng, 1999). This definition stems from Information Science and was proposed with regard to the credibility of information, sources and messages on the web (Wathan & Burkell, 2002). It should prove useful here, as information on the internet and within green advertising alike are subject to scrutiny by their audiences (Gray-Lee, Scammon, & Mayer, 1993; Eastin, 2001). The internet is a vessel for vast amounts of unregulated information, and a perception of a lack of regulation leads audiences to question the credibility of the information they find (Eastin, 2001). The need and demand for regulations in green advertising (as mentioned above) hint at a similar situation in this context – perceived lack of regulation leads consumers to question the credibility of the information with which they are presented. Further, researchers have established that perceptions of information credibility are arrived at in similar ways across media, including web and traditional mass media (Fogg et al., 2000).
One dimension of credibility that has been specifically examined is message credibility.
Message credibility stands apart from source and medium credibility as an independent layer on which credibility of information can be judged. Within the context of the Elaboration Likelihood Model (Petty and Cacioppo, 1986), credibility judgements are seen to be one of the essential early stages determining the ultimate persuasiveness of information. Flanagin and Metzger (2007) showed that there were variations in message credibility across different genres of websites. In a context more closely related
to the present research, Kim and Damhorst (1999) found that perceptions of message credibility differed in environmentally-focused advertising. More specifically, their research established significant differences between levels of perceived credibility of various environmental claims.
Therefore, there is reason to believe that message credibility can be affected by the context and content within which information is encountered by consumers.
Consumers confronted with green advertising claims process those claims and arrive at an evaluation. Due to fears of deceptive marketing, “eco-hype”, and other confounding factors consumers are often skeptical towards green claims. Advertisements, especially television ads, are very likely to be perceived as dishonest or not credible by consumers (Mittal, 1994). Green advertisements are
especially prone to misleading audiences (Gray-Lee et al., 1993). Qualitative research has shown that there exists a persistent distrust of marketing which leads consumers to dismiss associations between 'green' products and their environmental claims (Moore, 1993). This presents an important problem, as green claims must be true to be of any benefit, but may be perceived as deceptive or false simply by virtue of being green claims. Both the skepticism towards the information and by extension the
perceived credibility of that information may be negatively affected by these constraints, but these may be alleviated by the use of two-sided messages. In their study, Phau and Ong (2007) found that when consumers are confronted with green advertisements that are recognized as such, there is a significant relationship between positive attitudes towards the advertisement and heightened perceptions of credibility of the environmental claims made. Their study reinforced earlier findings by Kim and Damhorst's research mentioned above (1999). As mentioned earlier, the present research proposes that two-sided message will affect more positive attitudes towards the advertisement than one-sided
messages. Therefore, the present research puts forth the following hypotheses with regard to skepticism towards ad claims and perceived credibility of ad claims:
advertisement than one-sided messages.
H3: Two-sided message will decrease skepticism towards the ad more strongly than one-sided messages.
Ecological Concern
Ecological concern (or environmental concern) can be defined as an “attitude toward environmentally relevant behavior” (Fransson & Gärling, 1999). Green advertising specifically attempts to appeal to the ecological concern of consumers in order to communicate a certain value in the product that sets it apart from other products. However, recent research has shown that the very people that green advertising presumably targets – those that are ecologically concerned – are the same people who are most skeptical and distrusting of green advertising and do not find it convincing
(D'Souza & Taghian, 2005; do Paço & Reis, 2012).
Ecological concern has been disentangled from actual conservation behaviour as an independent this attitudinal construct, which can act independently as an indicator of skepticism towards green advertising (do Paço & Reis, 2012). The relevant research found no significant
relationship between actual conservation behaviour and skepticism towards green advertisement, while a significant relationship between ecological concern and skepticism towards the advertisement was found. This suggests that consumers that are highly ecologically concerned make inferences about the honesty and credibility of the green advertiser – and scrutinize claims more closely than those who are less ecologically concerned – regardless of whether their actual conservation behaviour reflects their attitudes towards the environment. The present research proposes that ecological concern will moderate the effects of two-sided messages on credibility and skepticism towards the advertisement, such that the hypothesized positive effects of the former on the latter will be somewhat diminished when consumers are highly ecologically concerned:
H4: Ecological concern will moderate the relationship between two-sided messages and credibility of the advertisement, such that the effects are diminished for those consumers that are highly ecologically concerned.
H5: Ecological concern will moderate the relationship between two-sided message and
skepticism, such that the effects are diminished for those consumers who are highly ecologically concerned.
The hypotheses are illustrated in the model seen in Fig. 1.
Methods Sample
The research employed a convenience sample that made use of convenience sampling, by distributing the questionnaire through social media and encouraging further sharing of the survey amongst respondents. The sampling is therefore only semi-random, but is chosen for the capability of
Message Sidedness
Attitude towards the advertisement
Skepticism towards advertisement
Perceived credibility of claims
Ecological Concern
H4 + H5 H3 -H1 + H2 +Figure 1 - Proposed Theoretical Model
obtaining a larger sample size in a shorter amount of time. This sampling method allowed for a broad demographic scope, in terms of age, gender, and educational background, which provided valuable control variables. However, some selection was retroactively applied to keep the population within the ages of 20 and 35, as it has been shown that there is a negative relationship between age and ecological concern, where older people are less concerned with the environment than younger ones (Buttel, 1979). It is also presumed that people younger than 20 years old have not been independent long enough or in a financial position to prefer green products over standard ones. Therefore, selection in the sample also discounted respondents younger than 20 years of age. Final composition of the sample (N = 77)
included 44.2% males (n = 34) and 55.8% female (n = 43) participants.
Study Design
This research employed a 1x2 quasi-experimental between-subjects design, with two levels of the independent variable message-sidedness (one-sided message versus two-sided message).
Respondents to one of the two conditions by the survey software used to distribute the experiment. No pre-exposure measurements were taken, all measurement taken were post-experimental exposure.
Materials
Three sample advertisements were constructed showing different product types: one advertised a new brand of bin-liners, another a pair of shoes, and another a brand of coffee. All were constructed so as to make it clear that these were 'green' product, in the manner of the final material. Respondents (N = 15) in the pretest were asked to view the advertisements and evaluate them for relevance,
believability, how professional they seemed, attractiveness, how often respondents buy the product in question, and credibility of the advertisement (see Appendix A for pretest survey). These scores were then averaged per scale across respondents, resulting in one average score for each measurement.
Pretest results showed that advertisements pertaining to bin liners were found to be most believable and credible by respondents (see Fig. 1 in Appendix B). Additionally, respondents were asked to give feedback on the quality of the advertisements. Overall, feedback suggested increased professionalism of the advertisements, which was attempted by utilizing a different typeface and colour scheme for the advertisement that more closely resembled advertisements of actual brands of the same product and market category.
On the basis of this information two advertisement were constructed for a fictional brand of “green” bin liners. A fictional brand was used to avoid prior experience or affect towards brands to influence outcomes, or complicate measurement of effects of the experimental condition. The advertisements were identical in physical appearance and differed only in the text that promoted the product. The advertisement contained a photo of the shoes in a wooded area, being overgrown with moss. Some typical “green” advertising cues were used in the advertisement, such as green lettering and a three-arrows 'recycling' symbol used for the logo. The promotional text on the control
advertisement read “Better for the environment, biodegradable, 65% recycled plastic”. The two-sided message on the experimental advertisement read “Better for the environment, biodegradable, 65% recycled plastic” with the additional negative information “Working towards environmentally friendly production and transportation.” The advertisements are included the survey shown in Appendix C.
Measures
Demographics – Demographic measurements were made by asking the respondents for information about their age, gender, level of education, and income.
One questions asked to respondents to indicate the frequency of with which they estimate buying green products. Answer options ranged from daily, to once per week/month/six months, rarely, never, or unsure. Another question asked respondents to indicate on a 7-point Likert type scale (1 = Strongly disagree, 7 = Strongly agree) whether they prefer to buy green products over standard products when possible.
Lastly, ad likeability was added as a control measure. This scale asked the respondents to rate on 7-point semantic differentials the degree to which they found the advertisement Good/Bad, Pleasant/Unpleasant, Likeable/Unlikeable, Enjoyable/Not Enjoyable. This scale was employed and validated (α = 0.94) in previous research (Krishnamurthy & Sivaraman, 2002)
Attitude towards the ad – This variable was measured by a six item construct consisting of 7-point Likert-type scales. Questions asked respondents to what degree they agreed with statements such as “The advertisement gave me a positive impression”, “I found the advertisement interesting”, and “I found the advertisement attractive”. The scale was adapted from earlier research (De Pelsmacker, Geuens, & Anckaert, 2002) where it had been previously validated and found to be reliable (α = 0.94).
Skepticism towards environmental claims – This variable was measured by four items on 7-point Likert-type scales. Questions asked “Most environmental claims made on package labels or in
advertising are true.”, “Because environmental claims are exaggerated, consumers would be better off if such claims on package labels or in advertising were eliminated.”, “Most environmental claims on package labels or in advertising are intended to mislead rather than inform consumers.”, “I do not believe most environmental claims made on package labels or in advertising.”. Answer options ranged from; 1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree. The scale was adapted from previous research (Mohr et al., 1998) which found the scale to be unidimensional and reliable (α = .79).
Credibility of Advertisement – Credibility of the advertisement was measured with a four-item on 7-point semantic differential scales. Questions asked respondents to indicate how biased/unbiased, believable/unbelievable, effective/ineffective, and convincing/unconvincing they found the claims in the advertisement to be. This scale was adapted from previous research (Mackenzie & Lutz, 1989) which had found to be reliable the scale when an index was constructed from these items (α = .76)
Ecological Concern – This variable was measured by a fifteen-item construct with 7-point Likert-type answer scales. Example questions include “Humans have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their needs.”, “Humans are severely abusing the environment.”, “The balance of nature is strong enough to cope with the impacts of modern industrial nations.”, and “If things continue on their present course, we will soon experience a major ecological catastrophe.”. The scale is known as the New Ecological Paradigm Scale, and was developed by Dunlap and Van Liere (1978). It was
subsequently further changed and adapted more recently (Dunlap, Van Liere, Mertig, & Jones, 2000). These researchers found their scale to be unidimensional and reliable (α = .83). The same scale was used in recent research on skepticism towards green advertising by do Paço and Reis (2012).
The full survey used is available in Appendix C.
Data Analyses
The present study employed Principal Component Analysis in order to validate
unidimensionality of the scales used, followed by Cronbach's Alpha to establish reliability. A median split was performed on the variable ecological concern to transform it into a binary variable with two groups (low ecological concern and high ecological concern). Independent samples T-tests and
Chi-square analyses were then employed to check manipulation success, randomization success, and to establish covariation between independent, control, and dependent variables. Hypotheses were tested using one-way analyses of covariance for the hypotheses which included one independent variable in order to control for alternative explanations, and two-factor analysis of covariance was employed for the moderator analysis.
Results Sample
The experiment was conducted with voluntary participants (N = 92) from various nationalities residing in Western Europe and North America, between the ages of 19 and 61. Participants younger than 20 years old and older than 35 were excluded for reasons mentioned in the previous section of this article. Participants ultimately selected for the study ranged in age between 20 and 35 years old (N = 77), the average respondent age being 26 years old (M = 26.4, SD = 4.23). The sample consisted of 55.8% female (n = 43) participants and 44.2% male (n = 34) participants. Respondents were highly educated overall, with 84.4% having attained at least a Bachelor's degree.
Scale Construction
The scales used to measure the various dependent variables were checked for unidimensionality using principal component analysis (PCA).
Likeability of the ad: All items in the scale for likeability of the ad loaded highly onto one factor and the scale explained 80.73% of the variance of the variable (EV = 3.23; R2 = .87). The scale was found to be reliable (α = .92). Deleting items would not increase the reliability of the scale.
Attitude towards the Ad: Items on the scale attitude towards the ad loaded highly onto two factors (EV = 3.60, R2 = .60; EV = 1.08; R2 = .18). With the exception of the item that measured the perceived exaggeration of the advertisement, all items loaded highest onto the first factor. The reliability of the scale was α = .86, but reliability analysis revealed that the Cronbach's alpha score could be raised to α = .90 if the exaggeration item were deleted. As the scale was previously validated, it was decided to retain the scale in its entirety.
Credibility of the advertisement claims: Items which comprised the scale for credibility of the advertisement claims loaded highly onto one factor (EV = 2.80; R2 = .70) which explained 70% of the variance. The scale was found to be reliable at α = .89.
Skepticism towards the Ad: The items for the scale measuring skepticism towards the ad loaded highly onto one factor (EV = 2.36; R2 = .59), explaining 59% of the variance. Reliability analysis revealed that the scale was reliable at α = .76. Analysis revealed that removing the item that measured perceived exaggeration of the claims in the advertisement would increase the reliability of the scale, but only by .004 (α = .764), therefore it was decided that retaining scale in its entirety was sound,
especially because the scale had been validated in previous research.
Ecological concern: The items for the scale measuring level of concern for the environment amongst participants loaded highly and positively onto one factor (EV = 2.80, R2 = .70) accounting for 70% of the variance. The scale was found to be very reliable at α = .85. Analysis showed that removal of the item measuring perception of self-impact on the environment (“My actions have an impact on the environment”) would increase the reliability of the scale, but only by a trivial amount (α = .856). Within the context of the present research perception of self-impact on the environment was judged to
be an important dimension of concern for the environment, and since the scale was validated in previous research, it was decided to retain the scale in its entirety.
Manipulation Check
Two independent-samples t-test were performed to assess the efficacy of the experimental manipulation of the advertisement. Two dependent variables were concerned; whether the information in the advertisement was perceived to be exclusively positive, or whether the information was
perceived to be both positive and negative.
For the item stating that there was exclusively positive information, respondents who saw the one-sided advertisement rated lower (M = 3.35, SD = 1.25) than those who saw the two-sided
advertisement (M = 3.77, SD = 0.87). This difference is not significant, t(-1.64) = -.42, p = .106, 95% CI [-0.98, 0.09]. For the item stating that there was both positive and negative information, respondents who saw the one-sided advertisement rated slightly lower (M = 2.71, SD = 1.06) than those who saw the two-sided advertisement (M = 2.77, SD = 1.02). This difference was similarly not significant, t(-0.26) = -0.06, p = .797, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.42]. Respondents who saw the one-sided advertisement did not perceive it to have contained exclusively positive information significantly more frequently than respondents who saw the two-sided advertisement judged the two-sided advertisement to have contained both positive and negative information. The manipulation was therefore not successful.
Control Variables
Checking for alternative explanation revealed that there were significant associations of the variables age, education, and green-product preference with some of the dependent variables.
There was a significant, moderate positive association between age of the respondent and their perceived credibility of the claims in the advertisement, r = .47 , p = .010. There were no other
significant associations between age and other dependent measures. Therefore, age was controlled for in subsequent analyses of the hypothesis in regard to its effect on perceived credibility of claims.
There was a significant, positive weak association between the level of education of respondents and their skepticism towards green claims r = .28 , p = .013. There were no other significant associations between level of education and other dependent measures. In subsequent analyses of the hypotheses, education was controlled when analyzing the effect of the experimental condition on skepticism towards green claims.
There were significant associations between respondent's preferences for buying green products over standard products when possible and perceived credibility of advertisement claims, and attitude towards the advertisement. The association with perceived credibility of the advertisement was strong and positive, r = .54 , p = .003. The association with attitude towards the advertisement was moderate and positive, r = .33 , p = .003. Therefore, preference for buying green products was used as a control variable in subsequent analyses of the hypotheses.
No significant associations were found between the control variable frequency of buying green products and the dependent measures. It is therefore concluded that any effects found in the analyses of the hypotheses will not be attributable to this factor.
Randomization Check
Independent samples t-tests and chi-square analyses were performed on the background variables age, gender, level of education, green-product preference, and green-buying frequency. No significant differences were revealed in the background factors between the two randomized groups, therefore, the randomization has been successful.
Two-sided messages and Attitude towards the Ad
The relationship between message sidedness and attitude towards the ad (H1) was tested in an ANCOVA. Respondents who saw the one-sided advertisement held marginally more positive attitudes towards the ad (M = 4.14, SD = 1.28) than those who saw the two-sided advertisement (M = 4.13, SD = 1.20), but the difference was non-significant F(1, 74) = 0.02, p = .889. There was also a significant, weak positive covariation effect of product preference on attitude towards the ad, F(1, 74) = 9.29, p = . 003. Levene's test for assumption of equal variance was not violated, Levene's F(1, 75) = 0.02, p = . 887. For this reason h1 must be rejected and the null hypothesis is retained. The results are summarized in Tables 1 and 2.
Two-sided messages and perceived credibility
The relationship between message-sidedness and perceived credibility (H2) was tested in an ANCOVA. Respondents who were exposed to the one-sided advertisement perceived it as slightly more credible (M = 4.38, SD = 0.76) than those exposed to the two-sided advertisement (M = 4.23, SD =
Table 1 – Attitude towards the advertisement
Mean Standard Deviation N
One-Sided Message 4.14 1.28 34
Two-Sided Message 4.13 1.20 43
Total 4.13 1.23 77
Table 2 – Results of one-way analysis of covariance
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F p
Message Sidedness 0.03 1 0.03 0.02 .889 0.00 Error 101.77 74 1.38 Total 1430.61 77 Covariates: - Product Preference 12.78 1 12.78 9.29 .003 0.11 η2
0.79), but the difference was non-significant F(1, 73) = 0.38, p = .540. There was a significant, weak positive covariation effect of product preference on perceived credibility, F(1, 73) = 10.65, p = .002. It should be noted that in this analysis equal variance in the population could not be assumed as Levene's F(3, 73) = 2.81, p = 0.45. Therefore, H2 must be rejected and the null hypothesis retained. The results are summarized in Tables 3 and 4.
Two-sided messages and skepticism towards the ad
The relationship between message sidedness and skepticism towards the advertisement (H3) was analyzed using ANCOVA. Respondents who were exposed to the two-sided advertisement reported lower levels of skepticism (M = 3.56, SD = 1.13) than those who were exposed to the one-sided advertisement (M = 4.06, SD = 1.08). However, the result was not statistically significant, (Mdifference = -0.50, p = .077), η2 = .04. There was a significant, positive and very weak covariation effect between level of education and skepticism towards the advertisement, F(1, 74) = 5.69, p = .020. In this analysis equal variance in the population could be assumed as Levene's F(3, 73) = 0.42, p = .737. Hence, H3 could not be confirmed. Results are summarized in Tables 5 and 6.
Table 4 – Results of one-way analysis of variance (N = 77)
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F p
Message Sidedness 0.20 1 0.20 0.38 .540 0.01 Error 38.90 73 0.53 Total 1466.31 77 Covariates: - Age 0.04 1 0.04 0.07 .795 0.00 - Product Preference 5.67 1 5.67 10.65 .002 0.13 η2
Table 3 – Perceived Credibility
Mean Std. Deviation N
One-Sided Message 4.38 0.76 34
Two-Sided Message 4.23 0.79 43
Moderating effect of Ecological Concern on Skepticism towards the ad and ad claim credibility The analysis included an examination of the comparative effect of message-sidedness on skepticism towards the advertisement when ecological concern is considered as a moderator. In the group that was exposed to the one-sided advertisement, a difference in skepticism towards the advertisement was observed between those with low ecological concern (M = 3.74, SD = 1.07) and high ecological concern (M = 4.42, SD = 1.02). Those with low ecological concern (M = 3.53, SD = 1.21) were still less skeptical towards the ad than those with high ecological concern (M = 3.59, SD = 1.05). The main effect of message sidedness on skepticism towards the advertisement in this more robust model now shows a significant, very weak positive effect, F(1,70) = 4.10, Mdifference = -0.50, p = . 047, η2 = .06. Therefore, those who saw the two-sided advertisement were less skeptical towards it than those who saw the one-sided advertisement.
The results show a non-significant, very weak, positive interaction effect between message sidedness and ecological concern F on skepticism toward the ad (1, 70) = 3.12, p = 0.82. There was a
Table 5 – Skepticism towards claims.
Mean Standard Deviation N
One-Sided Message 4.06 1.08 34
Two-Sided Message 3.56 1.13 43
Total 3.78 1.13 77
Table 6 – Results of one-way analysis of variance (N = 77).
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F p
Message Sidedness 3.72 1.00 3.72 3.22 .077 0.04 Error 85.42 74.00 1.15 Total 1196.50 77.00 Covariates: - Level of Education 6.57 1.00 6.57 5.69 .020 0.07 η2
significant, positive, very weak covariation effect between age and skepticism towards the
advertisement, F(1, 70) = 4.62, p = .035, as well as a significant, positive and very weak covariation effect between level of education and skepticism towards the advertisement, F(1, 70) = 7.34, p = .008. On the basis of these non-significant results, however, H4 cannot be fully accepted and the null
hypothesis must be retained.
No significant interaction effect between message sidedness and ecological concern was revealed for credibility of ad claims, nor is there any substantial difference in the main effect of
message sidedness on perceived credibility of ad claims and the moderator model of message sidedness and ecological concern on perceived credibility. There was a significant, positive and weak covariation effect between product preference and perceived credibility of ad claims, F(1, 70) = 11.52, p = 001. Therefore, H5 could not be supported and the null hypothesis was retained. The results are summarized in Table 7.
Table 7 - Results of two-factor analysis of covariance (N = 77)
Dependent Variable Sum of Squares df Mean Square F p
Message sidedness Credibility 0.21 1 0.21 0.38 .537 0.01
Skepticism 4.44 1 4.44 4.10 .047 0.06
Ecological concern Credibility 0.56 1 0.56 1.03 .313 0.01
Skepticism 0.44 1 0.44 0.41 .525 0.01 Credibility 0.28 1 0.28 0.52 .473 0.01 Skepticism 3.39 1 3.39 3.12 .082 0.04 Error Credibility 37.97 70 0.54 Skepticism 75.95 70 1.08 Total Credibility 1,466.31 77 Skepticism 1,196.50 77 Covariates: - Age Credibility 0.01 1 0.01 0.02 .876 0.00 Skepticism 5.01 1 5.01 4.62 .035 0.06
- Level of Education Credibility 0.04 1 0.04 0.07 .792 0.00
Skepticism 7.97 1 7.97 7.34 .008 0.09
- Product Preference Credibility 6.25 1 6.25 11.52 .001 0.14
Skepticism 0.51 1 0.51 0.47 .496 0.01
η2
Message sidedness * Ecological concern
Conclusions
The central purpose of the present research was to assess the efficacy of two-sided messaging in green advertising as a way to overcome some of the inherent obstacles of green advertising. Green advertising has been known to be perceived as particularly misleading by its audiences and thus to produce counterproductive outcomes amongst the very population groups it attempts to target (Annonziato, 2001; Davis, 1993; Grey-Lee et al., 1993). Among these problems is an inherent skepticism towards 'green' claims made in advertising and a lack of credibility of the advertisers and advertisements (do Paço & Reis, 2012). Based on the results, it cannot necessarily be concluded that two-sided messaging is an effective strategy to this end. All but one of the hypotheses proposed in the present research were rejected as they could not be empirically supported, and the remaining
hypothesis' validity is dubious due to a failed experimental manipulation. However, some results do tend toward the expected outcomes, hinting that the lack of significant findings might be more a methodological issue than a theoretical one.
H1 stated that two-sided messages would lead to a more positive attitude towards the advertisement as compared to one-sided messages. However, respondents in the two-sided
advertisement group held marginally less positive attitudes towards the ad than those in the one-sided advertisement group. Though results were statistically non-significant, they are also the inverse of the expected outcome. Therefore, the present research was not able to support earlier findings cited by Eisend (2006) showing that two-sided messages can positively influence attitude towards the advertisement.
H2 proposed that the perceived credibility of claims made in a green advertisement might be enhanced by the use of two-sided messaging as compared to one-sided messaging. The results were similar to those of attitude towards the advertisement. That is, the respondents who were exposed to the one-sided message perceived the claims in the advertisement to be slightly more credible on average
than those who were exposed to the two-sided message.. This, again, is counter to the proposed outcome. Earlier research has argued on the basis of empirical findings that credibility could be enhanced through two-sided messaging (Cheung et al., 2009; Kamins & Assael, 1987), but this prediction could not be supported in the present research.
H3 proposed that two-sided messages would more positively influence respondents' skepticism towards green product advertisement compared to one-sided messages. Results indicated that
respondents who were exposed to the two-sided advertisement held lower levels of skepticism towards the advertisement than those in the one-sided message group. Though not statistically significant in the originally proposed hypotheses, the results are promising in when considering the more robust model which takes into account age as a control variable. This result comes closer to addressing the issue proposed by do Paço and Reis (2012) who found that skepticism is especially high amongst consumers being addressed by green advertising.
The same researchers found that skepticism towards green advertisements is particularly prevalent amongst consumers with high levels of ecological concern, which H4 and H5 attempted to address. In these last hypotheses it was proposed that the relationship between message-sidedness and subsequent skepticism towards, and perceived credibility of, a green advertisement would be
moderated by ecological concern. Results for credibility were not found to be significant. However, the results for skepticism were promising, showing a nearly significant moderation effect of ecological concern, where those with high ecological concern were more skeptical towards the claims made in the advertisement than those with low ecological concern. The mean score of skepticism in the high
ecological concern group was also found to be slightly higher than the main effect measure of message-sidedness on skepticism, lending slight support to the proposed hypothesis that ecological concern will positively predict levels of skepticism, even through message-sidedness differences.
somewhat intertwined in this case. Due to the failure of the experimental manipulation and the subsequent non-significant results, it seems clear that the faults in the present research are
methodological in nature. It is presumed that the negative statements which comprised the two-sided aspect of the messaging in the materials were not sufficiently negative to be so perceived by the respondents. This issue arose from a theory-based decision to avoid excessive negativity in two-sided messaging as this would detract from the overall positive attitudinal impressions of an advertisement (Crowley & Hoyer, 1994). It seems, however, that this is a fine line to tread and thus some difficulty in finding the right balance between the many contributing factors was encountered. As earlier research has suggested, the product type and cost, disclosure uniqueness, level of negativity and importance of disclosed information can all contribute to the effectiveness of a two-sided message (Eisend, 2010; Lang et al., 1999; Stayman et. al., 1987). Future research ought explore where exactly this balance lies in the green advertising context by examining the impact of two-sided messaging valance on the overall impression of an advertisement for a green product in an experimental setting. Differences between green advertising and non-green advertisement in this regard may need to be explored and established.
Another limitation of the present research is that it focused on message sidedness within the context of green advertising. Although illuminating in so far as there exists little to no prior research of this nature, it provides no basis for comparison with non-green advertising. The gap in knowledge regarding message-sidedness could be bridged by future comparative research which seeks to highlight the specific differences in the relationship of message-sidedness to attitude, skepticism and perceptions of credibility in green versus non-green advertising. Future research should seek to elicit specific differences in effects of message-sidedness within green advertising as compared explicitly to 'normal' advertising.
number of cases, it was more difficult to establish differences between groups and rather more likely that similarities would collapse toward each other, obfuscating small differences that may have been present in the sample population. Future research ought to replicate the present research with the aforementioned amendments, as well as utilizing a larger population sample, in order to discern whether the proposed theoretical model is indeed flawed or the methodology and materials were insufficiently realized.
The failed manipulation notwithstanding, elements of the present research have both scientific as well as commercial implications. The findings examined here add to the base of knowledge
regarding message-sidedness in general, and the effects of two-sided messaging in particular. It appears that the attempted manipulation itself would stand as a contribution to the knowledge base concerning the appropriate level of negativity, importance, and novelty of negative information volunteered in a two-sided message – a warning that shying away from statements that are too negative can lead to creating statements that are not distinctly negative enough.
Further, the present research attempted to contribute to the field by examining the effects of message-sidedness within the context of green-advertising – this specific context, to the knowledge of the researchers, had not been previously employed to study message-sidedness. Whether the
contributions made here reveal more about green advertising or message-sidedness remains to be seen. As previously mentioned more strictly comparative research will need to take place in order to
establish whether any results observed in this research are in their magnitude unique to the green advertising context. What will be somewhat clearer to the scientific community is that message-sidedness effects on consumers' skepticism can still be found in the green advertising context.
The commercial implications of this research imply that there is some potential for brands which concern themselves with green products to address some of their target populations' inherent biases against their advertising efforts. Green advertisements are often met with skepticism and
credibility perception concerns (D'Souza et al., 2006). This is in some cases due to the a high degree of reliance on trust of the brand on the part of the consumer to believe the truthfulness of the claims made, as is evidenced by the fact that consumers tend to look to their prior perception of a company's
environmental concern to help form their evaluation of green advertisements and products (Davis, 1993). This phenomenon is especially common amongst the very population groups that green advertising primarily attempts to target – namely, those who hold high levels of concern for the environment. At the very least, brands looking to decrease the amount of skepticism with which their advertisements are approached by their audience may look at two-sided messaging strategies with some optimism. Moreover, it is clear from the research presented here that brand managers can expect that if they specifically target groups in the population with high degrees of concern for the environment – as opposed to an appeal to a general sense of duty to “go green” – they can expect that their audience will be more scrutinizing towards their messaging. However, a two-sided strategy will, if at all, likely deliver comparable positive results in either scenario.
References
Albayrak, T., Caber, M., Moutinho, L., & Herstein, R. (2011). The influence of skepticism on green purchase behavior. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 2(13), 189-197. Allen, M. (1991). Meta-analysis comparing the persuasiveness of one-sided and two-sided messages.
Western Journal of Speech and Communication, 55(4), 390-404. Annonziato, L. (2001). “Eco synthetic?”, Contract, 2(4), 30-32.
Buttel, F. H. (1979). Age and environmental concern: A multivariate analysis. Youth & Society, 10(3), 237-256.
Cheung, M. Y., Luo, C., Sia, C. L., & Chen, H. (2009). Credibility of electronic word-of-mouth: informational and normative determinants of on-line consumer recommendations. International
Journal of Electronic Commerce, 13(4), 9-38.
D'Souza, C., Taghian, M., Lamb, P., & Peretiatkos, R. (2006). Green products and corporate strategy: an empirical investigation. Society and Business Review, 1(2), 144-157.
D’Souza, C., & Taghian, M. (2005). Green advertising effects on attitude and choice of advertising themes. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 17(3), 51-66.
Davis, J. J. (1993). Strategies for environmental advertising. Journal of Consumer marketing, 10(2), 19-36.
Davis, J. J. (1994). Consumer response to corporate environmental advertising. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 11(2), 25-37.
De Pelsmacker, P., Geuens, M., & Anckaert, P. (2002). Media context and advertising effectiveness: The role of context appreciation and context/ad similarity. Journal of Advertising, 31(2), 49-61. do Paço, A. M. F., & Reis, R. (2012). Factors affecting skepticism toward green advertising. Journal of
Advertising, 41(4), 147-155.
Dunlap, R. E., & Van Liere, K. D. (1978). The “new environmental paradigm”. The Journal of Environmental Education, 9(4), 10-19.
Dunlap, R. E., Van Liere, K. D., Mertig, A. G., & Jones, R. E. (2000). New trends in measuring
environmental attitudes: measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: a revised NEP scale. Journal of social issues, 56(3), 425-442.
Eastin, M. S. (2001). Credibility assessments of online health information: The effects of source expertise and knowledge of content. Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication, 6(4), 0-0. Eisend, M. (2006). Two-sided advertising: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Research in
Marketing, 23(2), 187-198.
Eisend, M. (2007). Understanding two‐sided persuasion: An empirical assessment of theoretical approaches. Psychology & Marketing, 24(7), 615-640.
Eisend, M. (2010). Explaining the joint effect of source credibility and negativity of information in two‐sided messages. Psychology & Marketing, 27(11), 1032-1049.
Flanagin, A. J., & Metzger, M. J. (2007). The role of site features, user attributes, and information verification behaviors on the perceived credibility of web-based information. New Media & Society, 9(2), 319-342.
Fogg, B. J., & Tseng, H. (1999, May). The elements of computer credibility. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 80-87). ACM.
Fogg, B. J., Marshall, J., Osipovich, A., Varma, C., Laraki, O., Fang, N., ... & Treinen, M. (2000,). Elements that affect web credibility: Early results from a self-report study. In CHI'00 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems (pp. 287-288). ACM.
Fransson, N., & Gärling, T. (1999). Environmental concern: Conceptual definitions, measurement methods, and research findings. Journal of environmental psychology, 19(4), 369-382. Hardesty, David M., Jay P. Carlson, and William O. Bearden (2002), “Brand Familiarity and Invoice
Price Effects on Consumer Evaluations: The Moderating Role of Skepticism Toward Advertising,” JA, 31(2), 1-15.
Jones, E. E., & Davis, K. E. (1965). From acts to dispositions the attribution process in person perception. Advances in experimental social psychology, 2, 219-266.
Kamins, M. A., & Assael, H. (1987). Two-sided versus one-sided appeals: A cognitive perspective on argumentation, source derogation, and the effect of disconfirming trial on belief change. Journal of marketing Research, 21(1) 29-39.
Kamins, M. A., & Marks, L. J. (1987). Advertising puffery: the impact of using two-sided claims on product attitude and purchase intention. Journal of Advertising, 16(4), 6-15.
Kamins, M. A., Brand, M. J., Hoeke, S. A., & Moe, J. C. (1989). Two-sided versus one-sided celebrity endorsements: the impact on advertising effectiveness and credibility. Journal of Advertising,
18(2), 4-10.
Kim, Y. K., Forney, J., & Arnold, E. (1997). Environmental messages in fashion advertisements: impact on consumer responses. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 15(3), 147-154.
Kim, H. S., & Damhorst, M. L. (1999). Environmental attitude and commitment in relation to ad message credibility. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 3(1), 18-30.
Krishnamurthy, P., & Sivaraman, A. (2002). Counterfactual thinking and advertising responses. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(4), 650-658.
Lang, B., Lee, C., & Zwick, R. (1999). Message sidedness at the brand and product form levels: overcoming the shortcoming of two-sided messages. Advances in Consumer Research 26, 485-490.
Lutz, R. J. (1985). Affective and cognitive antecedents of attitude toward the ad: A conceptual
framework. In L. Alwitt & A. Mitchell (Eds.) Psychological processes and advertising effects, (45-63). Hillsdale: NJ.
MacKenzie, S. B., & Lutz, R. J. (1989). An empirical examination of the structural antecedents of attitude toward the ad in an advertising pretesting context. The Journal of Marketing, 53(2), 48-65.
Mittal, B. (1994). Public assessment of TV advertising: Faint praise and harsh criticism. Journal of Advertising Research, 34(1), 35-53.
Mohr, L. A., Eroǧlu, D., & Ellen, P. S. (1998). The development and testing of a measure of skepticism toward environmental claims in marketers' communications. Journal of consumer affairs, 32(1), 30-55.
Moore, K. J. (1993). Emerging themes in environmental consumer behavior. Proceedings of the 1993 Marketing and Public Policy Conference, ed. Mary Jane Sheffet, East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University, 109-122.
Obermiller, C., & Spangenberg, E. R. (1998). Development of a scale to measure consumer skepticism toward advertising. Journal of consumer psychology, 7(2), 159-186.
Phau, I., & Ong, D. (2007). An investigation of the effects of environmental claims in promotional messages for clothing brands. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 25(7), 772-788.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in experimental social psychology, 19, 123-205.
Roberts, J. A. (1996). Green consumers in the 1990s: profile and implications for advertising. Journal of Business Research, 36(3), 217-231.
Scammon, D. L., & Mayer, R. N. (1995). Agency review of environmental marketing claims: case-by-case decomposition of the issues. Journal of Advertising, 24(2), 33-43.
Stayman, D., Hoyer, W. D., & Leon, R. (1987). Attribute importance in discounting product features in advertising. In American Marketing Association, Summer Educators’ Conference, Toronto. Wathen, C. N., & Burkell, J. (2002). Believe it or not: Factors influencing credibility on the Web.
Please take a look at the following advertisement:
Please answer the following questions:
1 (Not at all) 2 3 (Neutral) 4 5 (Very)
How relevant is this product to you? How believable is the advertisement? How professional is the advertisement? How attractive is the advertisement? How often do you buy this type of product? How credible are the claims made?
Please answer the following questions:
1 (Not at all) 2 3 (Neutral) 4 5 (Very)
How relevant is this product to you? How believable is the advertisement? How professional is the advertisement? How attractive is the advertisement? How often do you buy this type of product? How credible are the claims made?
Please answer the following questions:
1 (Not at all) 2 3 (Neutral) 4 5 (Very)
How relevant is this product to you? How believable is the advertisement? How professional is the advertisement? How attractive is the advertisement? How often do you buy this type of product? How credible are the claims made?
example, ideas for improving quality, attractiveness, etc.):
Appendix B: Pretest Results
Relevance Believability Professional Attractive Buy Frequency Credibility
Shoe Ad 3.3 3.4 2.2 2.7 3.0 3.1
Coffee Ad 4.2 3.3 2.9 2.4 4.0 3.0
Bin-Liner Ad 4.1 4.0 3.3 2.7 3.7 3.7
Dear Sir or Madam,I would like to invite you to participate in a research study to be conducted under the auspices of the Graduate School of Communication, a part of the University of Amsterdam.The title of the study for which I am requesting your cooperation is ‘Greener bags for your brown bins’. In the online survey, you will be shown an advertisement for a new type of bin liner. You will also be asked some questions about your opinions on the advertisement and some supplementary
information.The goal of this research is to help a new bin liner brand with their marketing efforts.The study will take about 10 minutes. By participating you will be eligible for a drawing between all participants for a chance to win a €20 gift-card for bol.com (or the relevant Amazon.com for those not residing in the Netherlands).As this research is being carried out under the responsibility of the ASCoR, University of Amsterdam, we 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) 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 24 hours after participating to withdraw your permission to allow your answers or data to be used in the research.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.For more information about the research and the invitation to participate, you are welcome to contact Jelle van Wijhe (jelle.vanwijhe@student.uva.nl) at any time.Should you have any complaints or comments about the course of the research and the procedures it involves as a consequence of your participation in this research, you can contact the designated member of the Ethics Committee representing ASCoR, at the following address: ASCoR Secretariat, Ethics Committee, University of Amsterdam, Postbus 15793, 1001 NG Amsterdam; 020‐525 3680; ascor‐secr‐fmg@uva.nl.Any complaints or comments will be treated in the strictest confidence.We hope that we have provided you with sufficient information. We would like to take this opportunity to thank you in advance for your assistance with this research, which we greatly appreciate.Kind regards and thank you for you participation!Jelle van Wijhe
select to agree or not agree to the terms of the research outlined herein. If you do not agree, the survey will terminate and we respect your decision to decline participation and thank you for your time.Informed consent form for research "Introduction of new bin liner brand".I hereby declare that I have been informed in a clear manner about the nature and method of the research, as described in the introduction for this study.I agree, fully and voluntarily, to participate in this research study. With this, I retain the right to withdraw my consent, without having to give a reason for doing so. I am aware that I may halt my participation in the experiment at any time.If my research results are used in scientific publications or are made public in another way, this will be done such a way that my anonymity is completely safeguarded. My personal data will not be passed on to third parties without my express permission.If I wish to receive more information about the research, either now or in future, I can contact Jelle van Wijhe
(jelle.vanwijhe@student.uva.nl). Should I have any complaints about this research, I can contact the designated member of the Ethics Committee representing the ASCoR, at the following address: ASCoR secretariat, Ethics Committee, University of Amsterdam, Postbus 15793, 1001 NG Amsterdam; 020‐ 525 3680; ascor‐secr‐fmg@uva.nl. I understand the text presented above, and I agree to participate in the research
study.
I do not agree to participate in this research study.
1. Please indicate your age in years: 2. Please indicate your gender:
Male
Female
3. Please indicate the highest level of education you've completed:
Primary school only
Secondary school (VMBO)
Secondary school (MAVO/HAVO)
Secondary School (VWO)
Secondary school (non-Dutch)
Post-Secondary (MBO)
Post- secondary (HBO)
University degree (Bachelor's)
University degree (Master's)
University degree (PhD)
most fitting answer.
Daily
At least once per week
At least once per month
At least once every 6 months
Rarely
Never
Not sure / Don't know
5. Please indicate to what extent you agree with the following statement:"I prefer to buy green products over standard products when possible."
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Somewhat Disagree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Somewhat Agree
Agree
Strongly Agree
Thank you for filling out the survey this far. At this point, you will be shown an advertisement for a brand of bin liners. Please examine the advertisement carefully, and continue once you feel that you have viewed it thoroughly. Once you proceed, you will be asked to respond to a few questions regarding the advertisement.
6. The advertisement contained only positive information.
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Agree
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
8. Please tick the circles which best reflect your opinion (tick 1 circle per row).I found the ad to be: Good Bad Pleasant Unple asant Likeable Unlike able Enjoyable Not Enjoy able
9. Please tick the circles which best reflect your opinion (tick 1 circle per row).While looking at this advertisement:
Strongly Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Strongly Agree I got a positive impression. I found that it appealed to me. I found it interesting. I found it credible I found it exaggerated. I found it attractive
found the environmental claims in this advertisement to be: Biased Unbiase d Believable Unbelie vable Convincing Unconvi ncing Effective Ineffecti ve
11. Please indicate to what extent you agree with the following four statements:1) Most environmental claims made on package labels or in advertising are true.
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Somewhat Disagree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Somewhat Agree
Agree
Strongly Agree
12. Environmental claims are exaggerated, therefore consumers would be better off if such claims on package labels or in advertising were eliminated.
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Somewhat Disagree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Somewhat Agree
Agree
Strongly Agree
13. Most environmental claims on package labels or in advertising are intended to mislead rather than inform consumers.
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Somewhat Disagree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Somewhat Agree
Agree
