Puppies are for Cuddling, not Testing: The Influence of Guilt Appeals on Attitude and Intention Towards Buying Cruelty-Free Products, and the Role of Source Credibility
Sanne Bakker (11010185) Master’s Thesis
Graduate School of Communication
Master’s Programme Communication Science
I. Bušljeta Banks
University of Amsterdam
Abstract
Emotional appeals have often been used by marketers to form or change attitudes and stimulate people’s behavioural intention. However, guilt has only thoroughly been studied in the public health domain. Also, existing studies find mixed results when it comes to the influence of different levels of guilt appeal on attitudinal and behavioural change in consumers. In this study, advertisements about animal cruelty coming from beauty brands are used. However, there is no distinct definition of the term cruelty-free, which makes it harder for the consumer to judge the source’s credibility. Therefore, an online experiment (N=167) is conducted on the basis of the following research question: “To what extent do guilt appeal advertisements influence people’s attitude toward buying cruelty-free products and intention to buy said products, and what role does source credibility play?”. However, since the manipulation of both guilt appeal and source credibility was not successful, no conclusions could be drawn.
Keywords: guilt appeal, source credibility, cruelty-free, animal testing, psychological reactance theory, theory of planned behaviour
Puppies are for Cuddling, not Testing: The Influence of Guilt Appeals on Attitude and Intention Towards Buying Cruelty-Free Products, and the Role of Source Credibility
Emotional appeals have often been used by marketers to form or change attitudes and stimulate people’s behavioural intention. However, some emotional appeals have been studied more often than others. Unlike emotions such as fear that have been studied thoroughly, guilt has mostly been studied in the context of the public health domain. (Wonneberger, 2018; Xu & Guo, 2018). Thus, knowledge is lacking when it comes to the effects of using guilt appeals in areas other than that of the public health domain.
In a time in which green advertising is becoming a more frequently used advertising strategy, it is not only highly relevant, but also of great importance to study the effects of using guilt appeal in advertisements in the green advertising domain. Green advertising entails explicitly or implicitly addressing the relationship between a product/service and the
environment, encouraging a green lifestyle, or showing your corporate responsibility towards the environment (Banerjee, Gulas, & Iyer, 1995; Jiménez & Yang, 2008). However, said
responsibility towards the environment is not always taken seriously.
A product category of which the product and its ingredients itself can contribute to a better environment, and in which green advertising is readily used, is the category of cosmetics. Because beauty products are often promoted to have a relation with natural ingredients and the environment, it therefore makes sense that beauty brands will advertise the environmentally friendly aspects of the brand and thus partake in green advertising.
Credible green advertising can affect consumer’s attitude and intention towards
purchasing green products favourably (Zhu, 2012). However, as a clear and legal definition of the ‘cruelty-free’ label is lacking, despite its importance in the concept of green advertising,
some brands promote that they are a cruelty-free brand, although many might beg to differ (Winders, 2006).
Within this discussion of green advertising and the role of source credibility, one aspect in particular can be discussed in relation to guilt appeals; animal testing. Brands like Lush, for example, promote that they are a cruelty-free brand. The fact that there is no uniform definition for when a brand may call itself cruelty-free means that all brands can advertise as such while in fact, they make use of animal testing. This makes it more difficult for consumers to judge the source’s credibility. Therefore, if inconsistency is noticed by consumers between a brand’s practices and its claims, some brands will be perceived as a less credible source than others (Metzger & Flanagin, 2013).
Therefore, this study serves to answer the following research question: “To what extent do guilt appeal advertisements influence people’s attitude toward buying cruelty-free products and intention to buy said products, and what role does source credibility play?”. This study may contribute to science in a way that it sheds light on a possible working mechanism behind guilt appeal usage in a new area (i.e. green advertising), also in combination with source credibility. Not only may this study provide new insights, the results of this study may also help
practitioners to make an informed decision on which advertising strategy to use for certain brands.
Theoretical Background
Guilt Appeals
In the mature conscience, guilt appeals are one of the most primary motivational factors, therefore they have the possibility to modify behaviour (Huhmann & Brotherton, 1997). Guilt
appeals have been defined as negative emotional appeals that can be triggered by means of advertising (Jiménez & Yang, 2008). Guilt itself is an internal emotional reaction that rests on the appraisal that people have done harm to others, animals, or the environment (Huhmann, & Brotherton, 1997; Jiménez & Yang, 2008; Lascu, 1991; Turner et al., 2018). There are three different kinds of guilt: reactive, anticipatory, and existential (Huhmann & Brotherton, 1997; Wonneberger, 2018). Whereas reactive and anticipatory guilt relate to a violation of one’s own standards, existential guilt is aroused when one feels more fortunate or even better off than others (Hibbert, Smith, Davies, & Ireland, 2007; Huhmann & Brotherton, 1997; Wonneberger, 2018). This study will focus on existential guilt. This is because the aroused guilt is not caused by the participant’s own doing, but rather somebody else’s doing which will cause the participant to feel sorry for and therefore more fortunate than others. People then tend to combat this feeling of guilt by, for instance, purchasing a product that will reduce (some of the) guilt. So, exposure to guilt appeal advertisements is likely to positively influence people’s intention towards buying cruelty-free products (Huhmann & Brotherton, 1997).
However, existing studies find mixed results when it comes to the influence of different levels of guilt appeal on attitudinal and behavioural change in consumers (Turner et al., 2018; Xu & Guo, 2018). Often, guilt appeals are found to have a curvilinear relationship with attitude and intention, which can be explained by psychological reactance theory (Brehm, 1966; Brehm & Brehm, 2013; Coulter & Pinto, 1995; Jiménez & Yang, 2008). This theory states that when a consumer’s attitudinal or behavioural freedom is threatened, he or she acts to regain this lost freedom, which increases the resistance towards persuasion (Brehm, 1966; Brehm & Brehm, 2013). So, guilt appeals of higher intensity may cause a threat to freedom more than those of lesser intensity would, and therefore the former may be less effective than the latter when it
comes to positively influencing attitudes and behavioural intention (Coulter & Pinto, 1995; Jiménez & Yang, 2008). In the same line, guilt appeals of moderate intensity induce more positive brand attitudes and are perceived as more persuasive than guilt appeals of higher intensity, however, few studies have investigated this relationship outside the public health domain (Turner et al., 2018; Xu & Guo, 2018). In conclusion, intense guilt appeals lead to stronger feelings of guilt, but are less persuasive compared to guilt appeals of moderate or low intensity (Coulter & Pinto, 1995; Jiménez & Yang, 2008; O’Keefe, 2000; Turner et al., 2018). Therefore, it is hypothesized that (see ‘Figure 1’):
H1: Exposure to animal cruelty-free advertisements low in guilt appeal will lead to a higher intention to buy cruelty-free products than said advertisements high in guilt appeal.
Furthermore, not only can guilt appeal advertisements influence attitudes and behavioural intention directly, they can also influence behavioural intention indirectly via attitude, as is stated in the theory of planned behaviour (Ajzen, 1991; Fishbein & Ajzen, 2011). According to this theory, attitude towards behaviour is a direct predictor of behavioural intention and indirect predictor of actual behaviour. In general, a more favourable attitude towards certain behaviour will lead to a higher intention to perform this behaviour. The study by Xu and Guo (2018) is one of few studies that have investigated this relationship in light of guilt appeal usage; nevertheless they found a positive relationship between feelings of guilt, attitude, and behaviour which is consistent with the theory of planned behaviour. Therefore, it is hypothesized that (see ‘Figure 1’):
H2: Attitude towards buying cruelty-free products will mediate the effect of guilt appeal usage on people’s intention to buy cruelty-free products.
The Role of Source Credibility
The effect proposed above of guilt appeal advertisements and attitude on buying cruelty-free products might depend on the perceived credibility of the source from which the message originates. Source credibility can, namely, serve as a peripheral cue that guides information processing and attitude change (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986; Sundar, 2008). When a source is perceived as highly credible, consumers are guided by this peripheral cue and form attitudes that are in line with the information given in the advertisement. Peripheral processing of information happens when the consumer has a lack of motivation and/or ability to scrutinize the information carefully (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). Because consumers are exposed to an abundance of
advertisements on a daily basis, especially on content-rich platforms like social media,
consumers are less likely to centrally process the information of the advertisement, and instead rely on the credibility of the source (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986; Sundar, 2008).
However, if consumers do process the information in the advertisement centrally, Heider’s (1958) balance theory states that consumers will disassociate themselves from
information and recommendations given by an irreputable/less credible source. This is because consumers see themselves in a positive light and agreeing with an irreputable/less credible source would lead to imbalance and is, therefore, less likely to happen than agreeing with a more credible source that does not cause this imbalance (Clee & Wicklund, 1980; Heider, 1958). Overall, higher perceived source credibility is expected to strengthen the effect of guilt appeal advertisements on attitude towards buying cruelty-free products, whereas lower perceived source
credibility is expected to weaken this effect. This is expected to be especially true for
advertisements low in guilt appeal as opposed to advertisements high in guilt appeal, as the latter is expected to be less persuasive because of a greater threat to freedom, as mentioned above. Therefore, it is hypothesized that (see ‘Figure 1’):
H3: Exposure to animal cruelty-free advertisements low in guilt appeal versus high in guilt appeal will A) lead to a more positive attitude towards buying cruelty-free products, but B) this effect will be stronger when perceived source credibility is high than when perceived source credibility is low.
Methods
Participants
In total, 191 participants agreed to participate in this study. Of these participants, 24 had to be excluded. They either did not give informed consent or did not answer all questions. Analyses were thus conducted using a final sample of 167 participants of which 24% was male
Guilt Appeal (low vs. high) Source Credibility (low vs. high) Attitude towards buying cruelty-free products
Intention to buy cruelty-free products
and 76% was female (there was no participant that answered ‘other:’). The mean age within this sample was 35.14 (SD=14.10).
All participants were recruited via the researcher’s social media profiles (i.e. Facebook and Instagram), and the social connections of the researcher were asked to share the post so more people could be reached. Thus, the sampling method that is used here is (convenience and) snowball sampling (Van Peet, Namesnik, & Hox, 2012). There were no exclusion/inclusion criteria for participation in this study.
Design and Procedure
This study made use of an online experiment, so causal relationships could possibly be detected (Boeije, ’t Hart, & Hox, 2009). To examine the hypothesized effects, a 2 (guilt appeal: low vs. high) x 2 (source credibility: low vs. high) full-factorial between-subjects design was used. This study thus comprises of 4 conditions (see ‘Table 1’).
Stimulus Material.
Four mock Facebook posts were created to serve as stimulus material. The posts varied on two components, guilt appeal level and perceived source credibility, and were kept as
identical as possible on all other design components. Firstly, to manipulate guilt appeal level, the
Table 1: Design of the Study
Source Credibility
Guilt Appeal High Low
High Condition 1 Condition 3 Low Condition 2 Condition 4
low guilt appeal advertisement portrayed a sad puppy in the picture with the caption ‘Puppies are for cuddling, not testing! Animal testing happens more than you think.’ The high guilt appeal advertisement varied from the low guilt appeal advertisement in that the puppy in the picture was placed behind bars (i.e. as if the puppy had been locked up, see ‘Appendix A’).
Secondly, source credibility was manipulated through varying the source of the post. To induce low source credibility, the post came from Maybelline, which is a brand that tests their products on animals. To induce high source credibility, the advertisement came from Lush, which is a brand that is well-known for not testing their products on animals. To make sure participants knew about the brand’s practices, a short description of the brand was given in advance of the stimulus material. For participants in the Maybelline-conditions, the following description was given: ‘Maybelline is a cosmetics brand that sells its beauty products
worldwide’. For participants in the Lush-conditions, the following description was given: ‘Lush is a cosmetics brand that sells its cruelty-free beauty products worldwide’.
Pretest.
In advance of this study, a pretest was done to see whether the stimulus material is perceived in the way the researcher intended, i.e. whether the photo of the caged puppy induced higher levels of guilt in the participants as compared to the photo of the puppy that was not in a cage. Also, the pretest examined whether the brand Lush is seen as a more credible source as opposed to Maybelline when it comes to the topic of animal-cruelty.
The pretest made use of a two-factor within-subjects design, which means that all participants were exposed to all manipulations. In total, 21 participants agreed to participate in this pretest of which 14.3% was male and 85.7% was female (there was no participant that answered ‘other:’). The mean age within this sample was 28.24 (SD=9.39). The participants were
recruited via convenience sampling. The participants of the pretest were excluded from participation in the main study.
After reading the general introduction to the pretest and giving informed consent, the participants were exposed to the different conditions in a random order to prevent possible sequence effects. With every exposure, the participants were asked to fill in questions about guilt arousal and source credibility. Then the participants were asked a couple of demographic
questions on both gender and age. In the end, the participants were thanked for their participation (see ‘Appendix B’). No incentive was provided.
To check if participants in the pretest perceived the guilt appeal stimuli as intended, a paired samples t-test was conducted with guilt appeal for both pictures as variables in pair one. The difference between the two groups was significant, t(20)=2.26, p=.035. This means that the puppy in the cage photo induced higher feelings of guilt in the participant (M=4.41, SD=1.45) compared to the puppy photo (M=3.75, SD=1.68). Therefore, the manipulation of guilt appeal was successful.
To check if participants in the pretest perceived the source credibility stimuli as intended, a paired samples t-test was conducted with source credibility for both brands as variables in pair one. The difference between the two groups was significant, t(20)=5.18, p<.001. This means that using Lush as the source of the social media post leads to a higher perceived source credibility (M=4.89, SD=1.37) compared to using Maybelline as the source of the social media post (M=2.79, SD=1.30). Therefore, the manipulation of the source was successful.
Main Study.
The online experiment started with a general introduction to the experiment and was followed by an informed consent form . When the participant did not give informed consent, he or she was brought to the end of the survey and thanked for participation. When the participant
did give informed consent, he or she was randomly assigned to one of the four conditions. The participant was then exposed to a short introductory text and a Facebook post from a profit organization about animal cruelty, suited to the condition he or she was assigned to.
After participants were exposed to the stimulus material, they were first asked to fill in the questions regarding attitude and intention. Attitude was measured using a 7-point semantic differential scale with the following five items: bad/good, negative/positive, useless/useful, unfavourable/favourable, and valueless/valuable (ɑ=96; Muralidharan & Sheehan, 2018). Intention was measured using an adjusted purchase intention scale to fit the intention suited for this study (e.g. ‘I will definitely buy the brand’ became ‘I will definitely buy cruelty-free products’; Maniu & Zaharie, 2014). This scale consists of three items and is measured on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from ‘1-Totally Disagree’ through ‘7-Totally Agree’ (ɑ=.88).
Subsequently, the participants were asked to fill in the questions about perceived guilt and perceived source credibility to check whether the manipulations were successful or not. Perceived guilt was measured using a four item (i.e. guilty, ashamed, repentant, remorseful) 7-point Likert scale that ranged from ‘1-None of this feeling’ through ‘7-A great deal of this feeling’ (ɑ=.91; Turner et al., 2018). Perceived source credibility was measured using a three item (i.e. believable, knowledgeable, trustworthy) 7-point Likert scale ranging from ‘1-Strongly disagree’ through ‘7-Strongly agree’ (ɑ=.92; Nekmat, Gower, Zhou, & Metzger, 2019).
Finally, the participants were asked to fill in demographic questions on both gender (i.e. ‘What is your gender?’ with the options ‘male’, ‘female’, ‘other:’) and age (i.e. ‘How old are you?’). In the end, the participants were thanked for their participation (see ‘Appendix C’). No incentive was provided.
Results
Randomization Checks
To check if participants’ gender was comparable across conditions that varied in guilt appeal intensity as well as in source credibility a Chi-square test was conducted. The test shows that out of the 41 participants in the high guilt appeal/high source credibility condition 29 (70.7%) were female and 12 (29.3%) were male. This percentage is not significantly different from the low guilt appeal/low source credibility condition (N=42) of whom 34 (81%) were female and 8 (19%) were male, as well as the other two conditions, χ2(3)=1.45, p=.693. This means that randomization of participants across conditions was successful in terms of
participants’ gender.
To check if participants’ age was comparable across conditions that varied in guilt appeal intensity as well as in source credibility, a one-way ANOVA was conducted. The test showed that participants’ mean age in the high guilt appeal/high source credibility condition (M=30.05, SD=11.07) was not significantly different from the low guilt appeal/low source credibility condition (M=36.81, SD=12.93), as well as the other two conditions, F(3,163)=2.53, p=.059. This means that randomization of participants across conditions was successful in terms of participants’ age.
Manipulation Checks
To check if participants perceived the guilt appeal conditions as intended, an independent samples t-test was conducted with manipulated guilt appeal (low versus high) as independent variable and perceived guilt appeal as dependent variable. The test showed that participants’ perceived guilt appeal in the high guilt appeal condition (M=4.66, SD=1.51) was not
significantly different from participants’ perceived guilt appeal in the low guilt appeal condition (M=4.37, SD=1.49), t(165)=-1.27, p=.207. This means that the puppy in the cage photo did not induce higher feelings of guilt in the participant compared to the puppy photo. Therefore, the manipulation of guilt appeal was not successful.
To check if participants perceived the source credibility conditions as intended, an independent samples t-test was conducted with manipulated source credibility (low versus high) as independent variable and perceived source credibility as dependent variable. The test showed that participants’ perceived source credibility in the high source credibility condition (M=4.74, SD=1.28) was not significantly different from participants’ perceived source credibility in the low source credibility condition (M=4.46, SD=1.46), t(165)=-1.31, p=.191. This means that using Lush as the source of the social media post did not lead to a higher perceived source credibility compared to using Maybelline as the source of the social media post. Therefore, the
manipulation of the source was not successful.
Testing Hypotheses
To test H1, a regression analysis was conducted with guilt appeal as independent variable and intention as dependent variable. The overall model appeared non-significant, F(1,165)=.10, p=.750, explaining .10% of the variance in intention to buy cruelty-free products (R²=.00). This means that guilt appeal has no effect on intention to buy cruelty-free products, b*=.03, t=.32, p=.750, 95% CI [-.40, .55]. Therefore, H1 is rejected, which was expected since the manipulation of guilt appeal was not successful.
To test the other hypotheses at once, PROCESS model 7 was used with manipulated guilt appeal as independent variable, intention to buy cruelty-free products as dependent variable,
attitude towards buying cruelty-free products as mediator, and source credibility as moderator (Hayes, 2013).
Firstly, to test H2, the indirect effect of guilt appeal, via attitude, on intention was analysed. The overall model with intention as outcome variable appeared significant, F(2,164)=47.75, p<.001, explaining 36.80% of the variance in intention to buy cruelty-free products (R²=.37). PROCESS showed that guilt appeal had no direct effect on intention to buy cruelty-free products, b=.18, t=.92, p=.357, 95% CI [-.20, .55]. However, the effect of attitude on intention to buy cruelty-free products, controlled for guilt appeal, appeared significant, b=.55, t=-9.76, p<.001, 95% CI [.44, .66]. This means that attitude has a significant, strong, and positive effect on intention to buy cruelty-free products, in that a more positive attitude towards buying cruelty-free products leads to a higher intention to buy said products. Next, the effect of guilt appeal on intention, controlled for attitude towards buying cruelty-free products, appeared non-significant, b=.18, t=-.92, p=.357, 95% CI [-.20, .55]. To conclude, the direct effect of guilt appeal on intention and the indirect effect of guilt appeal, via attitude, on intention did not differ as both were insignificant. Therefore, there is no mediation effect and that is why H2 is rejected. However, this was expected since the manipulation of guilt appeal was not successful.
Secondly, to test H3, the direct effects of guilt appeal, source credibility, and their interaction (‘guilt appeal x source credibility’) on attitude towards buying cruelty-free products was analysed. The overall model with attitude as outcome variable appeared non-significant, F(3,163)=.17, p=.917, explaining .31% of the variance in intention to buy cruelty-free products (R²=.00). Guilt appeal had no significant effect on attitude, controlled for source credibility and ‘guilt appeal x source credibility’, b=-.15, t=-.41, p=.685, 95% CI [-.89, .59]. Also, source credibility had no significant effect on attitude, controlled for guilt appeal and ‘guilt appeal x
source credibility’, b=-.01, t=-.03, p=.978, 95% CI [-.76, .74]. And, the interaction between guilt appeal and source credibility had no significant effect on attitude, controlling for guilt appeal and source credibility, b=-.06, t=-.11, p=.909, 95% CI [-1.11, .99]. This means that source credibility did not moderate the effect of guilt appeal on attitude towards buying cruelty-free products. Therefore, there is a) no direct effect of guilt appeal on attitude and b) no moderation effect, and that is why H3 is rejected. This was expected since the manipulation of both guilt appeal and source credibility was not successful.
Additionally, because the sample in the main study was skewed on gender and females are found to have a stronger reaction towards negative emotional appeals than males, gender was added as a covariate in the analyses (Noble, Pomering, & Johnson, 2014). However, no
difference was seen in the results.
Conclusion & Discussion
With this study an answer was sought with respect to the following research question: “What is the influence of guilt appeals on attitude and intention towards buying cruelty-free products, and what role does source credibility play?”. In total, 167 participants were exposed to one of the four mock Facebook posts varying in both guilt appeal intensity and source credibility. However, manipulation of these two factors was unsuccessful and therefore no (clear) conclusion can be drawn.
The results of this study showed that there was no direct or indirect effect (i.e. via
attitude) of guilt appeal on intention to buy cruelty-free products. However, the effect of attitude towards buying cruelty-free products and the intention to buy said products was significant in that a more positive attitude resulted in a higher intention to buy cruelty-free products. Also,
source credibility did not seem to moderate the effect of guilt appeal intensity on attitude towards buying cruelty-free products as all three paths in the moderation analysis were non-significant.
The results can be explained by the unsuccessful manipulation of guilt appeal intensity and source credibility. One explanation for why the manipulation of guilt appeal has not been successful is because the pictures used in the different conditions were quite similar. The same dog was used in both the low and high guilt appeal condition, only in the high guilt appeal condition bars were added so it seemed that the dog was locked up. However, the dog looked sad in all conditions and therefore it could be that the added bars made no difference in inducing higher feelings of guilt in the participant. Because the pretest was done within-subjects, as opposed to the main study which was done between-subjects, this problem with the stimulus material was not detected. Thus, participants in the pretest were exposed to all conditions and could therefore more easily spot the difference between the conditions, which probably affected the results of the pretest and explains the unsuccessful manipulation in the main study. For future studies it is advisable to have a between-subjects design when testing the stimulus material if the different conditions look much alike.
An explanation for why the manipulation of source credibility has not been successful is because it is not mentioned in the main study that Maybelline tests its beauty products on animals, while it is mentioned that Lush does not test its beauty products on animals. The mentioning of Lush being cruelty-free was done to manipulate source credibility in a way that Lush was associated with being a cruelty-free brand, however, the opposite was not done in the case of Maybelline as there was no mentioning about whether or not Maybelline tests its
name ‘Maybelline’ influenced perceived source credibility. This is because people perceive a source as more credible if they are familiar with the brand name (Metzger & Flanagin, 2013).
In short, to be able to draw conclusions about the effect of guilt appeal intensity on attitude and intention towards buying cruelty-free products and the role of source credibility, this study needs to be replicated with different stimuli. Only then researchers will gain more insight into the working mechanism behind guilt appeal usage in a new area and the nature of the relationship between guilt appeal and source credibility. Also, the results of such a replication study may help practitioners to make an informed decision on what advertising strategy to use for what brand.
References
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 50(2), 179-211.
Banerjee, S., Gulas, C. S., & Iyer, E. (1995). Shades of green: A multidimensional analysis of environmental advertising. Journal of Advertising, 24(2), 21-31.
Boeije, H., `t Hart, H., & Hox, J. (red.) (2009). Onderzoeksmethoden (9e druk). Amsterdam: Boom Onderwijs.
Brehm, J. W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance.
Brehm, S. S., & Brehm, J. W. (2013). Psychological reactance: A theory of freedom and control. Academic Press.
Clee, M. A., & Wicklund, R. A. (1980). Consumer behavior and psychological reactance. Journal of consumer research, 6(4), 389-405.
Journal of applied Psychology, 80(6), 697.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (2011). Predicting and changing behavior: The reasoned action approach. Psychology Press.
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: Methodology in the Social Sciences. Kindle Edition, 193.
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.
Hibbert, S., Smith, A., Davies, A., & Ireland, F. (2007). Guilt appeals: Persuasion knowledge and charitable giving. Psychology & Marketing, 24(8), 723-742.
Huhmann, B. A., & Brotherton, T. P. (1997). A content analysis of guilt appeals in popular magazine advertisements. Journal of Advertising, 26(2), 35-45.
Jiménez, M., & Yang, K. C. (2008). How guilt level affects green advertising effectiveness? Journal of creative communications, 3(3), 231-254.
Lascu, D. N. (1991). Consumer guilt: examining the potential of a new marketing construct. ACR North American Advances.
Maniu, A. I., & Zaharie, M. M. (2014). Advertising creativity–the right balance between surprise, medium and message relevance. Procedia Economics and Finance, 15, 1165- 1172.
Metzger, M. J., & Flanagin, A. J. (2013). Credibility and trust of information in online environments: The use of cognitive heuristics. Journal of Pragmatics, 59, 210-220. Muralidharan, S., & Sheehan, K. (2018). The role of guilt in influencing sustainable pro-
environmental behaviors among shoppers: Differences in response by gender to
messaging about England's plastic-bag levy. Journal of Advertising Research, 58(3), 349- 362.
Nekmat, E., Gower, K. K., Zhou, S., & Metzger, M. (2019). Connective-collective action on social media: Moderated mediation of cognitive elaboration and perceived source credibility on personalness of source. Communication Research, 46(1), 62-87.
Noble, G., Pomering, A., & W. Johnson, L. (2014). Gender and message appeal: Their influence in a pro-environmental social advertising context. Journal of social marketing, 4(1), 4-21. O’Keefe, D. J. (2000). Guilt and social influence. Annals of the International Communication
Association, 23(1), 67-101.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In Communication and persuasion (pp. 1-24). Springer, New York, NY.
Sundar, S. S. (2008). The MAIN model: A heuristic approach to understanding technology effects on credibility. Digital media, youth, and credibility, 73100.
Turner, M. M., Mabry-Flynn, A., Shen, H., Jiang, H., Boudewyns, V., & Payne, D. (2018). The effects of guilt-appeal intensity on persuasive and emotional outcomes: The moderating role of sponsor motive. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 30(2), 134-150. Van Peet, A. A. J., Namesnik, K., & Hox, J. J. (2012). Toegepaste statistiek: Inductieve
technieken. Groningen: Noordhoff Uitgevers B.V.
Winders, D. J. (2006). Combining reflexive law and false advertising law to standardize cruelty- free labeling of cosmetics. NYUL Rev., 81, 454.
Wonneberger, A. (2018). Environmentalism—a question of guilt? Testing a model of guilt arousal and effects for environmental campaigns. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 30(2), 168-186.
Xu, Z., & Guo, H. (2018). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of guilt on health-related attitudes and intentions. Health communication, 33(5), 519-525.
Zhu, B. (2012). The impact of green advertising on consumer purchase intention of
Appendix A: Stimulus Material
Condition 1: High Guilt Appeal Condition 3: Low Guilt Appeal and High Source Credibility and High Source Credibility
Condition 2: High Guilt Appeal Condition 4: Low Guilt Appeal and Low Source Credibility and Low Source Credibility
Appendix B: Pretest <general introduction to the experiment>
<informed consent>
<stimulus material (see Appendix A)>
Q1-4 is answered on a 7-point Liker scale ranging from (1) None of this feeling through (7) A great deal of this feeling.
To what extent did the photo make you feel: Q1 = Guilty
Q2 = Ashamed Q3 = Repentant Q4 = Remorseful
Q5-7 is answered on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from (1) Strongly disagree through (7) Strongly agree.
When it comes to cruelty-free products, I think this source is: Q5 = Believable
Q6 = Knowledgeable Q7 = Trustworthy
Appendix C: Questionnaire <general introduction to the experiment>
<informed consent>
<stimulus material (see Appendix A)>
Q1-5 = I think buying cruelty-free products is… (1) Negative – Positive (7)
(1) Bad – Good (7) (1) Valueless – Valuable (7) (1) Useless – Useful (7) (1) Unfavourable – Favourable (7)
Q6-8 is answered on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from (1) Totally disagree through (7) Totally agree.
Q6 = It is possible that I will buy cruelty-free products.
Q7 = If the opportunity occurs, I will probably buy cruelty-free products. Q8 = I will definitely buy cruelty-free products.
Q9-12 is answered on a 7-point Liker scale ranging from (1) None of this feeling through (7) A great deal of this feeling.
To what extent did the social media post make you feel: Q9 = Guilty
Q10 = Ashamed Q11 = Repentant Q12 = Remorseful
Q13-15 are answered on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from (1) Strongly disagree through (7) Strongly agree.
When it comes to cruelty-free products, I think the source of the social media post is: Q13 = Believable
Q14 = Knowledgeable Q15 = Trustworthy
Q16 = What is your gender? - Male
- Female - Other:…
Q17 = How old are you? ………..
