Hedonically green: a study investigating how the green claims strength affects ad attitude and purchase intention when considering the moderating role of scepticism towards green
advertising for hedonic products.
Enrico Luppi
Student-ID: 10602348 Master’s Thesis
Graduate School of Communication Master’s program Communication Science
Supervisor: Dr. Paul Ketelaar
Abstract
This study investigated argument strength as a core element able to influence individuals’ green ad responses. A quasi experimental design involving 182 Italians examined how a moderate versus a strong environmental claim can affect individuals’ ad attitude and purchase intention, when considering a hedonic eco-sustainable perfume. Since scepticism towards green advertising could play an important role in the relationships between claim strength and ad responses, its moderating role was considered. Results indicated that strong and moderate claims worked equally well for ad attitude, while at the same time, neutral responses for purchase intention were generated. Additionally, scepticism towards green advertising did not appear to moderate the relationships between claim strength and the outcome variables ad attitude and purchase intention. Finally, gender showed to have an effect on ad attitude and purchase intention. Implications of the findings were discussed and directions for future research were outlined.
Hedonically green: a study investigating how the green claims strength affects ad attitude and purchase intention when considering the moderating role of scepticism
towards green advertising for hedonic products.
Nearly 90 per cent of European consumers believe that buying green products can make a difference for the environment, but only 26 per cent purchase them on a regular basis (European Commission, 2013). Additionally, 77 per cent of European consumers are willing to pay a premium price for green products, but when it comes to evaluate the information contained within the green ads, more than 50 per cent do not trust producers’ claims (European Commission, 2013). Better than words, numbers clearly enlightened facts, and from these, two main aspects can be assumed: on the one hand, people appeared to become environmentally conscious over the consequences goods can have for the environment, indicating the potential fertility and lucrativeness of the green market (Polonsky, 2011; Bleda & Valente, 2009; Zaman, Miliutenko & Nagapetan, 2010). On the other hand, in this same environmental scenario, there is a behavioural gap between attitude and buying-behaviour; people intend to buy green products but in the end they do not do it (Gupta & Ogden, 2009; Pickett-Backer & Ozaki, 2008).
The argument strength of an ad is an element of extreme importance with the ability to affect two key outcomes of any given marketed product: the attitude towards the ad and purchase intention (Spack et al., 2012; Maronick, & Andrews, 1999; Royne et al., 2012; Petty & Cacioppo, 1986; Elliott, 2013; Laroche, Bergeron & Barbaro-Forleo, 2001). The present thesis challenged the understanding of a strong claim by confronting it with a moderate claim. Weak claims were not included because they only marginally affected consumers (Spack et al., 2012; Raju, Unnava, & Montgomery, 2009), were more likely to increase scepticism (Carlson, Grove & Kangun, 1991), and hence practically inadequate for marketers
in the green industry (Do Paço, & Reis, 2012; Tucker et al., 2012; Chang, 2011; Albayrak, Aksoy & Caber, 2013).
Several authors have found common ground in believing scepticism to be one of the major factors affecting purchase intention and ad attitude (Maronick, & Andrews, 1999; Chang, 2011; Obermiller, Spangenberg & MacLachlan, 2005; Tucker et al., 2012; Fowler & Close, 2012; Richards, 2013; Albayrak, Aksoy & Caber, 2013). For years eco-sustainable advertisements promoted products deemed to possess illusory environmental characteristics, ultimately causing heavy symptoms of distrust in the individuals (Coddington, 1993; Do Paço, & Reis, 2012; Tucker et al., 2012; Nyilasy, Gangadharbatla, & Paladino, 2013; Fowler & Close, 2012). It can be argued that scepticism towards green advertising may be partially derived from general advertising scepticism (Matthes & Wonneberger, 2014), but, despite an undeniable influence of such general scepticism on green scepticism, these two constructs were proven to be distinct (Mohr, Eroǧlu & Ellen, 1998). In fact scepticism towards green advertising mainly took place in the 1990’s, specifically because of environmental claims (Crane, 2000).
If people do not trust green claims, the arguments embodied in them are the primordial roots in which scepticism towards green advertising takes place (Spack et al., 2012; Maronick, & Andrews, 1999; D’Souza & Taghian, 2005). Therefore, understanding how different levels of scepticism can moderate the effect of claim strength on individuals’ ad responses appears to be key to establish either the failure or the success of a green advertisement (Tucker et al, 2012; Do Paço, & Reis, 2012). (Xie & Kronrod, 2012;
Obermiller, Spangenberg & MacLachlan, 2005; Tucker et al, 2012; Do Paço, & Reis, 2012). In spite of many very recent green studies accounted for the scepticism-construct when considering environmental claims – as dependent variable or pre-condition – (Shrum, McCarty & Lowrey, 1995; Bickart & Ruth, 2012; Do Paço, & Reis, 2012; Richards, 2013;
Chang, 2011; Nyilasy, Gangadharbatla, & Paladino, 2013), only a very few scholars used it as a moderator (Xie & Kronrod, 2012; Shrum, McCarty & Lowrey, 1995). However, among these very few studies (Xie & Kronrod, 2012; Shrum, McCarty & Lowrey, 1995), general advertising scepticism was considered instead of properly investigating scepticism towards green advertising. Therefore, this study was the first employing scepticism towards green advertising as a moderator. This specific perspective allowed to focus on scepticism directed at the environmental-category, helping our understanding of how it moderated the
relationship between claim strength and ad attitude as well as purchase intention.
In contrast with previous research focusing on the effects of claim strength for non-hedonic (Spack et al., 2012) green goods (Tucker et al., 2012), this study took into account hedonic products. Specifically in Europe, hedonic green products have been exponentially growing within the green market (Euromonitor, 2012). Despite this, previous scholars did not research this valuable product-category and therefore it has only recently been scientifically addressed (Cervellon & Carey, 2011; Kong & Zhang, 2013). Generally, hedonic products are often pleasurable goods that fulfil our self-centred needs (Diefenbach & Hassenzahl, 2011). In these circumstances the fact that a given hedonic product is green can perfectly provide a valid reason for the purchase, both to individuals who actually care about the environment, but also to more status-seeking/identity-signalling people, who validate their ‘impure’ sense of environmental-altruism by purchasing the green product (Hartmann & Ibáñez, 2006; Alba & Williams, 2013; Cervellon & Carey, 2011; Griskevicius, Tybur, & Van den Bergh, 2010).
The following study aimed to gain knowledge about effective argument strength construction for a hedonic product in order to successfully influence ad attitude and purchase intention. This overcomes the lack in the literature which saw green studies focusing only on non-hedonic products (Kong & Zhang, 2013). Additionally, in order to better understand the mechanisms of scepticism towards green advertising within the environmental field, its
moderating role was examined in these relationships. Finally, this research provided marketers with practical knowledge on how to deal with argumentations strength when it comes to hedonic green products, as well as insights concerning individuals’ scepticism towards green advertising.
Theoretical Background Argument strength
The degree of a claim’s strength has proven to alter an individual’s perception of the advertisement (Areni & Lutz, 1988; Davis, 1994; Goldberg & Hartwick, 1990). The term ‘claim strength’ within the green field, is used by researchers to refer to a big umbrella of definitions, ranging from objectivity/subjectivity, to informational/poorly-informative ads until including claim specificity/vagueness (Alniacik, & Yilmaz, 2012; Tucket et al., 2012). Specifically, claim strength has been operationalised in several ways throughout research. On the one hand, some studies examined claim extremity (Manrai et al., 1997; Tan 2002;
Goldberg & Hartwick, 1990), manipulating only a single attribute within a claim (e.g. incrementing a percentage) without modifying any other portion of it. Manrai et al. (1997), for instance, manipulated the argument strength of a claim through its extremity, by only increasing or decreasing the pollution data of a car’s emissions. On the other hand, other researchers manipulated the strength of the argument more strictly, in accordance with the very first pioneers in science of claim strength, Petty, Cacioppo and Schumann, (1983). According to Petty, Cacioppo and Schumann, (1983) a strong argument would assert for instance “Made from 100% recycled paper without toxic bleaching. Greenleaf brand toilet tissue is made from 100% postconsumer recycled paper.” (Tucker et al., 2012, p.23), while a weak argument would assert “Protecting our planet and our future. Every Greenleaf product is made considering the balance between the needs of people and the needs of nature.” (Tucker et al., 2012, p.23). In these circumstances, claim strength did not only concern a
single attribute, but rather, it resulted in thorough change of the claim’s argumentation. Indeed, Tucker et al. (2012) who followed these directions more strictly, obtained more positive ad and brand responses when presenting participants with a less strong green claim compared to a strong green claim. However, as previously mentioned, the present thesis focused on relatively high degrees of strength, by specifically involving a comparison between strong and moderate claim. In fact, if overall green and non-green studies presented inconsistent results between strong and moderate claims, (Tucker et al., 2012; Davis, 1994; Zhang & Zinkhan, 2006; Manrai et al., 1997; Urala, Arvola, & Lähteenmäki, 2003; Kees, Burton & Tangari, 2010; Sung & Kim, 2010; Petty & Cacioppo, 1983; Goldberg & Hartwick, 1990), weak arguments appeared to have always marginally affected consumers (Spack et al., 2012; Raju, Unnava, & Montgomery, 2009; Tan, 2002; Carlson, Grove & Kangun, 1993; Do Paço, & Reis, 2012; Tucker et al., 2012; Chang, 2011), which led to discard this claim strength dimension.
Spack et al. (2012), found strong claims to be perceived as more credible compared to less strong claims, resulting therefore in more positive brand attitude towards a green
product, despite absent significant results for purchase intention in both strong and less strong instances. The same path of results was also found in even more recent green studies
involving claim strength (Von Borgstede, Andersson & Hansla, 2014). From a theoretical viewpoint, strong arguments resulted to be more persuasive, also regardless the degree of an individual’s product involvement (Petty & Cacioppo, 1983; Zhang & Zinkhan, 2006). This path of results is empirically shared by several studies in green advertising (Von Borgstede, Andersson & Hansla, 2014; Carlson, Grove & Kangun, 1993).
Figures, percentages, data but also comparisons are potential examples of strong claims features (Xie & Kronrod, 2012), leading to an increasing rational elaboration which characterises the typical processing of an ad for a non-hedonic product (Bucket et al., 1995;
Petty & Cacioppo, 1983). Now, if adding practical data could give credit to the legitimacy of strong claims, enabling the individual to engage in deep ad processing towards more
cognitive-based arguments (Petty & Cacioppo, 1983; Areni & Lutz, 1988), three main points can still be argued. Firstly, the benefit of strong claims is making very robust statements, which can enhance persuasion, but at the same time, it can also turn into a weakness (Darke & Ritchie, 2007). In fact, if the emphasis is set onto a series of declarations difficult to verify both pre and post product purchase, e.g. 100 per cent no chemical usage, it can heavily expose the claim to distrust phenomenon (Darke & Ritchie, 2007). As empirical findings showed, this initial advantage strong arguments had can increase the chance of losing grasp and persuasion on consumers (Manrai et al., 1997; Urala, Arvola, & Lähteenmäki, 2003; Chernev & Carpenter, 2001). Additionally, such an approach can easily increase the
likelihood of information overload and distrust compared to a moderate claim, in which this aspect is not as stressed (Lang, 2000; Chen, 2001; Xie & Kronrod, 2012; Carlson, Grove & Kangun, 1991; Bickart & Ruth, 2012; Tucker et al., 2012; Shah, & Oppenheimer, 2007). Secondly, if distrust is enabled for a green product, its green eco-sustainable characteristics are also disbelieved. This would put at risk the most valuable feature of a green product: ‘being green’ (Spack et al., 2012). Thirdly, rational-based implications, relevant for strong arguments, may be less ideal for hedonic products since they imply sense-oriented
elaboration (Bucket et al., 1995; Petty & Cacioppo, 1983), generating in turn negative ad responses (Shah, & Oppenheimer, 2007; Alter & Oppenheimer, 2006; Mader, 1973).
Moderate claims within the green context are the optimal solution to cope with all the aforementioned problems a strong claim may encounter for a hedonic product. In support of the use of moderate claims for green advertising, the assimilation contrast model (Sherif & Hovland, 1961) appeared to provide a first theoretical foundation to support such direction, especially within the green field (Manrai et al., 1997; Tucker et al., 2012; Chang, 2011;
Sherif & Hovland, 1961). This theoretical rationale stated that when a claim was incongruent with the mental representation of an individual – being either extremely strong or extremely weak – the information was more likely to be discarded due to the fact that it can potentially and easily fall out of the spectrum of a person’s acceptance (Manrai et al., 1997; Chang, 2011; Sherif & Hovland, 1961; Tykocinski, Higgins & Chaiken, 1994; Meyers-Levy & Sternthal, 1993). In fact, some studies proved empirically that very strong/precise claims did not automatically lead to an effective persuasive outcome, rather causing in quite the opposite (Urala, Arvola, & Lähteenmäki, 2003; Xie & Kronrod, 2012; Chernev & Carpenter, 2001; Chang, 2010; Tucker et al., 2012).
Further synergic theoretical support can be derived from the Limited capacity theory (Lang, 2000). The principle established that negative thoughts and evaluations were more likely to occur in circumstances of abundance of information. Human beings do have only limited capacities to process the information embedded in an ad. Therefore, more information triggers more fatigue to elaborate the advertising itself (Lang, 2000). Given the
aforementioned assumptions, milder claims can maintain greater plausibility and acceptance due to their more ‘temperate nature’, while enhancing their persuasive potential (Goldberg & Hartwick, 1990; Manrai et al., 1997; Aronson, Turner, & Carlsmith, 1963; Tucker et al., 2012). Specifically, the ad appeal established by the moderate claim can positively increase ad attitude and purchase intention (Phau, I., & Ong, 2007; Chan, 2004; Kim & Damhorst, 1998; Kees, Burton & Tangari, 2010; Sung & Kim, 2010; Laroche, Bergeron & Barbaro-Forleo, 2001).
Finally, moderate claims result to be more adequate for hedonistic products. This good-category does not involve any essential, life-depending, characteristics justifying its purchase per se (Diefenbach & Hassenzahl, 2011; Kivetz & Simonson, 2002; Xie & Kronrod, 2012). Here, the environmental-instance provides the perfect excuse for hedonic
consumption, for both environmentalist individuals, and people who may use the green-feature as a pretext, validating their self-indulgent action (Elliott, 2013; Pickett-Baker & Ozaki, 2008; Alba & Williams, 2013; Cervellon & Carey, 2011; Hartmann & Ibáñez, 2006; Griskevicius, Tybur, & Van den Bergh, 2010). In order to maximise the synergies given by emotions and the ‘greenness’ of the product, a moderate claim could again suggest the best compromise (Lim & Ang, 2008; Alba & Williams, 2013; Petersson McIntyre, 2013; Alba & Williams, 2013; Cervellon & Carey, 2011; Bucket et al., 2002). From an empirical
perspective, recent findings (Lim & Ang, 2008) confirmed more negative evaluations for hedonic advertising overstressing more cognitively-based argumentations. Additionally, compared to strong-cognitive reasoning, environmental-engagement was more effective when an emotional presentation was offered within the green context, especially for ad attitude and purchase intention, compared to strong-cognitive reasoning (Hartmann & Ibáñez, 2006; Pickett-Baker & Ozaki, 2008; Ferreira, Avila & De Faria, 2010; Chen, 2001; Chen & Chang, 2012). In other words, facilitating the ad processing by making it more undemanding – like moderate claims do – can easily meet the expectations of the individual, while avoiding the backlash caused by a potential information-overload, which could trigger scepticism (Ray & Batra, 1983; Shah, & Oppenheimer, 2007; Alter & Oppenheimer, 2006; Lang, 2000; Xie & Kronrod, 2012).
In sum, the present paragraph illustrated why argument strength is important for environmental products (Spack et al., 2012). In fact, a different degree of strength can affect also consumers’ perceptions of eco-sustainable products’ ‘greenness’. Such unique ecological aspect, which only green products have, can be greatly exploited via moderate claim (Spack et al., 2012). This is due to the fact that moderate claims appears to be the optimal approach because they do maintain relatively strong argumentations while avoiding distrustful-reactions by the audience (Manrai et al., 1997; Chang, 2011; Bickart & Ruth, 2012).
Considering the aforementioned assumptions and the previous paragraphs involving the argument strength, the following hypotheses were put forward:
Hypothesis1: For the hedonic product, a moderate argument claim will result in a more positive ad attitude compared to the strong argument claim.
Hypothesis2: For the hedonic product, a moderate argument claim will result in more positive purchase intention compared to the strong argument claim.
The moderating role of green scepticism
Scepticism towards green advertising did alter perceptions of an advertisement by decreasing ad responses, like its appeal and purchase intention (Mohr, Eroǧlu & Ellen, 1998; Xie & Kronrod, 2012; Obermiller, Spangenberg & MacLachlan, 2005; Chen & Chang, 2012). On the basis of the argument strength presented in an environmental claim, a consumer may be more or less prone to be suspicious by drawing his/her own conclusion after being exposed to the message (Friestad & Wright, 1995). When scepticism is activated, consumers tend to raise intellectual defences to act upon the persuasive-attempt of misleading them (Homer, 1995; Koslow, 2000; Kirmani, 1997; Darke & Ritchie, 2007; Xie & Kronrod, 2012). As a result, such generated scepticism can have serious negative consequences
affecting not only individuals’ responses towards the ad, but also towards the product and the brand (Bickart & Ruth, 2012).
The current thesis argued that, in a sceptical green advertising scenario in which scepticism appeared to be a main barrier to buying green products, the use of a moderate rather than a strong claim could be key to enable marketers to counteract against highly sceptical individuals (Darke & Ritchie, 2007). Empirical support can be derived from a study by Tan (2002), in which three claim-types (strong, moderate and weak) were confronted. The moderate claim compared to the remaining two (strong and weak) was found to positively affect ad responses, triggering lowest degrees of scepticism. Vice-versa, when using strong
claims, more negative ad responses and increased scepticism were generated. It can be argued that highly sceptical people responded more negatively to an informative strong ad, compared to a more moderate ad (Obermiller, Spangenberg & MacLachlan, 2005).
Further empirical support is provided by environmental advertising research
conducted by Xie and Kronrod (2012). Strong green claims (for two utilitarian products) did cause positive results only for low sceptical individuals, while highly sceptics appeared to prefer a more moderate and less informative ad. Overall, it can be said that since highly sceptical individuals distrusted the green ad information, providing them with ‘strong facts’ can only nourish their scepticism towards green advertising. On the contrary, less sceptical people, who actually did not display strong suspicious feelings towards environmental advertising, trusted strong arguments, and thus exhibited more positive responses (Xie & Kronrod, 2012). Following this rationale, the Signaling notion (Nelson, 1974; Ford, Smith & Swasy, 1990; Xie & Kronrod, 2012; Kirmani, 1997) can be of help in shedding theoretical support on how different degrees of scepticism towards green advertising can moderate individuals’ ad responses. Indeed, this theory clarified that marketers may tend to incessantly proof that the contents embedded in the ad were true. By doing so the advertising also
developed its claim strength. If, however, these details continuously provided a justification for this or that ad-content presented in the advertisement, highly sceptics may interpret such an attempt as a subtle manipulation intent, negatively reflecting on the ad’s evaluations (Koslow, 2000; Homer, 1995; Kirmani, 1997; Ford, Smith & Swasy, 1990; Xie & Kronrod, 2012). In addition, this process could then lead to a two major dangerous consequences for highly sceptics. Firstly, reading this aforementioned mechanism within a hedonic-frame, may enlarge the distrust-effect by perceiving a sense of incongruence between strong cognitive reasoning and the emotional nature of the product (Xie & Kronrod, 2012). Secondly, if the argumentations used to promote a green product are doubted, then the ‘greenness’ of the
product can also be threatened. As a final result, these assumptions suggested that if
scepticism towards green advertising is the problem, strong arguments can be very harmful for highly sceptical people. On the contrary, low sceptics may instead be more positively affected by ‘strong information’ (Hardesty, Carlson & Bearden, 2002; Obermiller & Spangenberg, 1998; Xie & Kronrod, 2012).
Opposing existent research in support of the negative influence of green scepticism, was provided in a study by Matthes and Wonneberger, (2014) assuming that scepticism towards green advertising was an overestimated phenomenon, moving towards a milder conception that such construct may play within the green field. These findings, presented however some limitations. First, an Austrian sample was not externally valid and
additionally, in Austria people tend to have a rooted green behaviour (Appel & Mara, 2013), resulting in a potential overall low degree of scepticism. Second, the authors questioned the participant’s degree of green scepticism via survey, without any manipulation or exposition of an advertisement, which suggested future confirmation of these findings, while explicitly requiring an experimental intervention. This research considered the scientific suggestions given in the study by Matthes and Wonneberger (2014) and through an experimentation intervention, aimed to clarify with firmer causality the role played by scepticism towards green advertising.
In conclusion, after taking into account these theoretical and empirical assumptions, the hypotheses were formulated (see also Figure 1).
Hypothesis 3: Scepticism will moderate the effect of claim strength on attitude towards the ad, so that highly sceptical individuals confronted with the moderate claim will show a more positive ad attitude compared to less sceptical individuals, whereas highly sceptical individuals confronted with the strong claim will show a more negative ad attitude compared to less sceptical individuals.
Hypothesis 4: Scepticism will moderate the effect of claim strength on purchase intention, so that highly sceptical individuals confronted with the moderate claim will display a more positive purchase intention compared to less sceptical individuals, whereas highly sceptical individuals confronted with the strong claim will display a more negative purchase intention compared to less sceptical individuals.
Figure 1: Conceptual Model. The figure illustrated the relationships considered in the study. Methods
Design and participants
In order to determine the assumed effect of argument strength on the outcome variables (attitude towards the ad and purchase intention), this study employed a between subjects quasi experimental design embedded in an online questionnaire. The experimental design allowed the researcher to systematically manipulate the contents of the ad into two versions: strong and moderate claim strength. This also permitted to record subject’s differing ad attitude, purchase intention and scepticism towards green advertising. Two pre-tests were carried out: one to guarantee the hedonic value of the product used in the ads, and the second to make sure people evaluated the claim as strong and moderate respectively.
Following Tucker et al. (2012) a snowball sample has been used in this study. Subjects were reached directly via email and social networks. Additionally, they were asked to potentially forward the questionnaire to other Italians with a good knowledge of English. This sampling strategy, as in the case of similar studies involving claim strength (Tucker et
al., 2012; Do Paço, & Reis, 2012) was used in order to reach a wider number of participants having a very few specific requirements (Italians and English knowledge). Additionally, focusing on a unique national homogenous sample allowed this study to avoid potential cultural differences (Manrai et al., 1997). The entire sample (N = 248) was composed of Italians having at least 18 years old. Among these, those individuals (N = 66) who did not complete the questionnaire were discarded. A final sample of 182 Italians (101 females [55%] and 81 males [45%]) were included in this research. These people (M Age = 25.38 SD =
5.21) were students (42%), workers (31%), students with a job (18%), unemployed (7%), and others (2%). The participants across the independent variable argument strength were in the moderate condition (53 females [60%] and 36 males [40%]) and in the strong condition (48 females [52%] and 45 males [48%]).
Materials
The systematically manipulated design of the two ads was realised through Photoshop and kept as simple as possible, to clearly credit ad effects to the actual manipulation, while ruling out potential external effects caused by decorative ad-features.
The product chosen for the claim was a perfume. The item’s choice was determined beforehand through a pre-test involving several products with the aim of selecting the good having the highest hedonic-value. Precisely, the perfume’s container selected for the experimentation was taken by an existing new-comer brand named ‘Gorilla Perfume’. For this reason, in order to avoid any potential interfering effects, the original name was
substituted with a fictional brand called ‘For’, while the package was extremely modified in size, colour, text and font making it unrecognizable. These precautions were specifically taken following previous literature (Ford, Smith & Swasy, 1990) to rule out the possibility of external effects caused by an existing brand.
In order to create credible claims, contents used within the ads were created ad-hoc on the basis of findings in green literature (Chen, 2001; Xie & Kronrod, 2012; Alniacik & Yilmaz, 2012; Carlson, Grove & Kangun, 1991) to both maintain the highest believability possible and following relevant green information. For these aspects, the green studies by Chen (2001) along with Alniacik and Yilmaz (2012) provided useful suggestions to create a realistic claim. Their empirical findings indicated that product and production-process information were the main focus on which green ads should be focused on to recreate a real claims. In addition, green perfume-related articles/studies and other general perfume
literature (Greenpeace España, 2005; Fah, Foon, & Osman, 2011; Petersson McIntyre, 2013) were also reviewed in order to match consumers’ expectations when facing a green perfume. Furthermore, while creating the claims, many efforts were made to maintain an equal number of words in both claims to make them comparable. Due to a need for stronger argumentations to have more extensive explanations, the strong claim resulted in a slightly higher number of words compared to the moderate claim. Overall, the strong claim had ninety-two words (see Figure 2) and the moderate claim had eighty-four words (see Figure 3). The argumentation strength was manipulated (in both moderate and strong claim), following Manrai et al. (1997) and Tucker et al.’s research (2012).
Measures
Attitude towards the advertisement. The scale to measure this dependent variable was selected and adapted by previous studies (Mitchell & Olson, 1981) since it was reliable in more than one study (Mitchell, 1986; McKay-Nesbitt et al., 2011; Gardner, 1985). The four-item 7 point scale included: ‘Good’/‘Bad’, ‘Like’/‘Dislike’, ‘Irritating’/‘Not Irritating’, ‘Interesting’/‘Uninteresting’. The items were then averaged to create the final variable. The reliability tests could then be conducted finding the scale to be reliable (α = .80).
Purchase intention. The scale to measure the second dependent variable was reliable in previous research (Yoon, Bolls, & Lang, 1998; Kong & Zhang, 2013), and therefore used in this study. Subjects were asked to answer the question: ‘If you were in the market for [product advertised], how likely is it that you would choose [advertised brand]?’ followed by three 7-bipolar adjectives, which were respectively: ‘likely’/‘unlikely’,
‘probable’/‘improbable’, and ‘possible’/‘impossible’. In order to avoid any misunderstanding with the English word ‘market’, this term has been substituted with the word ‘department store’. The scale resulted to be reliable (α = .93) and therefore the items were averaged.
Scepticism towards green advertising. Following the only study by Mohr, Eroǧlu and Ellen (1998) about scepticism involving green labels and advertisements, some
modifications were made to make scepticism towards green advertising perfectly suitable for this research. Some statements were indeed adjusted in order to concern only green
advertising, while excluding for example package-labels information, as other studies did (Matthes & Wonnerberger, 2014). Additionally, one item of the scale was reworded in order to be more easily understandable for non-English native speakers. In fact, the original text stated ‘Because environmental claims are exaggerated, consumers would be better off if such claims in advertising were eliminated’ and changed into ‘Because environmental claims are exaggerated, consumers would benefit if such claims in advertising were eliminated’. The final scale was composed of 4 items measured on a 7-point scale (1 = Strongly disagree to 7 = Strongly agree) as follows: ‘Most environmental claims are true’, ‘Most environmental claims in advertising tend to mislead rather than to inform consumers’ ‘I do not believe most environmental claims made in advertising’, ‘Because environmental claims are exaggerated, consumers would benefit if such claims in advertising were eliminated’. Since throughout these items, expressions such as ‘environmental claim’ and ‘environmental advertising’ were used, instructions at the very beginning of the measurement were provided explaining their
meaning. This was done in order to avoid potential misunderstanding of the subjects while answering the questions. Right before to accomplish the reliability test, two items were revers coded because of their negative verbal-framing. Once this was accomplished, the reliability test proved the scale to be reliable (α = .65), and all the items were averaged to create the final variable.
Demographic variables: in order to control for potential effects on the outcome variables, gender, age, level of education, standard of living and occupation were questioned.
Age of the respondents was measured with the question ‘What is your age in years?’, and gender with a dichotomous question ‘What is your gender?’ (Worldvaluessurvey.org, 2014). Given the possibility to gather participants with a student-status, in order to measure standard of living, instead of asking participants to indicate their level of income – more likely to fall only within the first income bracket – a more accurate measure was selected and adapted by previous studies (Piredeu.eu, 2014). The question was structured as follows ‘Taking everything into account, at about what level is your family’s standard of living, on a scale from 1 = ‘a poor family’ to 7 = ‘a rich family’? The word family refers to your
household/family (parents/partner), in case you are single and independent it refers to your own standard of living’. This ensured that all participants (students and non-students) could answer the question properly.
Level of education was measured using a scale from Worldvaluessurvey.org (2014) adapted by adding more specific levels (e.g. PhD) as accomplished in other studies
(Piredeu.eu, 2014). Furthermore, the occupation variable was adapted from
Worldvaluessurvey.org (2014) by combining the category ‘Employed’ and ‘Self-employed’ into ‘Self-employed / Employed’. Moreover, to monitor the English understanding of respondents, a one item 6-point scale adapted from MacIntyre, Noels, and Clément (1997) posed the question ‘Overall, based on your knowledge of English, how would you rate your
understanding of the questions presented in the current questionnaire?’, on a scale going from 1 = ‘Not able at all’ to 6 = ‘Fully able’. Additionally, final questions such as ‘In your opinion what is the aim of the study?’ and the nationality of the participants (Worldvaluessurvey.org, 2014) were also asked.
Procedure
In this research the first step consisted in realising and accomplishing the two pre-tests. After that, the questionnaire which allowed the experiment to take place had been created. This questionnaire was formulated in English and intended to last roughly nine minutes per subject. Questions were realised through Qualtrics and the data collection started on December 5th 2014 until January 5th 2015.
By opening the link, participants were redirected to the quasi experiment on Qualtrics. After signing the informed consent, participants were presented with the questions regarding their sceptical attitude toward green advertising. Consequently, participants were randomised and exposed to only one out of two conditions (either the moderate claim or the strong claim). In order to maintain participants’ attention to the stimulus, a verbal statement asking people to carefully read the claim was inserted in the instructions. Additionally, a timer lasting about 27 seconds was set with the purpose of driving subjects to focus on the entire claim, preventing a potential premature skipping of the stimulus.
After being exposed to the ad, participants answered the questions concerning the dependent variables ad attitude and purchase intention. Only afterwards the question regarding the manipulation check – claim strength – was posed and followed by socio-demographics. Moreover, a further question investigating whether the subjects were able to guess the aim of the research was consequently inserted. Finally, given that the sample was composed of Italians, participants’ understanding of the questionnaire was examined though an ad-hoc question. After two weeks from the end of the study (January 20th 2015), a debriefing email
including explanations and goals of the research was delivered to those subjects that had left their email contact in the questionnaire.
Pre-tests
A first pre-test (see Figure 4) was conducted in order to choose the most appropriate hedonic product to use in the experiment. Sometimes it can be hard to distinguish between the utilitarian side and the mere hedonic-side of a product (Alba & Williams, 2013). For example, although an expensive Lamborghini may be generally bought for a self-pleasure driving-reason, yet, its utilitarian-aspect – being able to move you from point A to point B – could also be considered. To choose a hedonic product perceived by individuals to be as primarily hedonic, a pre-test was conducted involving (N = 16) students (56% Dutch and 44% Italian) who were all directly contacted via Facebook message on November 19th 2014. After having completed the consent form, participants answered the pre-test questions, which was created through Word Office and intended to last five minutes in total.
Respondents (56% males, M Age = 26.04 SD = 2.67) were presented with eight
products, (toilet paper, non-disposable razor, hair gel, perfume, family car, washing machine, toothpaste), selected from the Rossiter, Percy and Donovan’s grid (1991). Participants rated each of them on a scale from 1 = ‘very utilitarian’ to 7 = ‘very hedonic’ (Stafford, Stafford & Day, 2002). As a result, perfume (M = 5.25 SD = 1.84) obtained the highest scores
concerning the hedonic-value of the product compared to the others, toilet paper (M = 1.50 SD = 1.03), non-disposable razor (M = 3.00 SD = 1.86), hair gel (M = 4.00 SD = 1.27), family car (M = 3.38 SD = 1.93), washing machine (M = 1.19 SD = 0.40), and toothpaste (M = 2.00 SD = 1.10). Therefore, a perfume was chosen as hedonic product in the study. This item was also recommended by very recent green studies (Kong & Zhang, 2013), yet already assessed as hedonic product in several other research (Ryu, Park & Feick, 2006; Micu & Chowdhury, 2010; Lee & Hyman, 2008; Hirschman & Holbrook, 1982).
A second pre-test (see Figure 5) ensured the two green claims were actually evaluated as, respectively, strong claim and moderate claim. All (N = 64) the participants in the
moderate condition (N = 33) and in the strong condition (N = 31) were approached at the canteen and restroom of the University of Amsterdam on November 24th 2014. Each participant for this convenient sample was approached individually at different times. Each subject was exposed to only one out of two claims (either moderate or strong) along with demographic variables. Once data gathering was accomplished, as first step, a potential presence of outliers was accounted by following an existing rule called ‘outlier labelling rule’ (Hoaglin & Iglewicz, 1987; Hoaglin, Iglewicz & Tukey, 1986; Tukey, 1977). Only several (N = 4) subjects within the moderate claim condition were detected to be outliers and therefore erased from the sample. The sample (N = 60) considered (M Age = 22.27 SD = 2.50) a
moderate condition (19 females [65%] and 10 males [35%]), and a strong condition (16 females [52%] and 15 males [48%]). The subjects were mainly Dutch (68%) students and other students from all over Europe. As expected, the test proved the two conditions to be significantly different in terms of claim strength t(58) = -.78, p = .03 (M Strong = 3.87 SD =
1.23) and (M Moderate = 3.66 SD = 0.90). Therefore the two claims were used in the final
experimentations. In conclusion, participants included in this pre-test did neither participate in the final study, nor in the prior pre-test.
Results Design checks
Since the sample was Italian, a descriptive statistic was conducted to ensure that participants understood the questionnaire properly. Subjects had a brilliant understanding of the questionnaire (M = 5.46 SD = 0.84). None of them selected the option ‘not able at all’ to understand the questionnaire, which did not lead to exclude any participant. Additionally, none of the subjects succeeded in guessing the real aim of this study.
In order for the manipulation to be successful, participants needed to significantly differ in perceiving the strong claim’ argumentation as stronger than the moderate claim’s argumentation. An independent sample t-test displayed marginally significant results. Participants in the strong claim condition rated the argumentation strength as stronger (M = 3.97, SD = 1.09) compared to participants in the moderate claim condition (M = 3.78, SD = 1.20); t(180) = -1.13, p = .063, CI [-.528, .143].
Descriptive statistics were performed to check whether socio-demographic variables were similar across conditions (strong, moderate). The analysis showed no significant
differences across conditions on the socio-demographic variables gender (χ2 (df = 1, N = 182) = 1.16, p = .281), age (t(180) = -.461, p = .078), level of education (χ2 (df = 7, N = 182) = 5.18, p = .638), occupation (χ2 (df = 5, N = 182) = 9.32, p = .097) and standard of living r = -.03, p = .670. Further analyses were conducted to check whether the socio-demographic variables had any influences on the dependent variables ad attitude and purchase intention. The results yielded non-significant influence of both age r = .04 p = .590 and standard of living r = .08 p = .251 on attitude toward the ad, but a significant effect of gender rpb = .22 p
= .003. Two One-way Anovas were conducted for the variables educational level and occupation. Results showed no significant influence of educational level (F (7,181) = 1.50 p =.168) and of occupation (F (5,181) = 1.82, p =.112) on ad attitude. A very similar path of results was also displayed for purchase intention where both age r = .06 p = .409 and standard of living r = -.01 p = .930 resulted to be not significant while gender resulted to have an influence also on purchase intention rpb = .19 p = .011. The two One-way Anovas showed no
significant influences neither of level of educationF (7,181) = 1.516 p = .165 nor of
occupation F (5,181) = .512 p = .840 on purchase intention. Since gender resulted to have an influence on both attitude toward the ad and purchase intention, it was included as a covariate in the main analyses.
To answer the hypotheses, as performed by previous studies (Xie & Kronrod, 2012), the variable scepticism towards green advertising was transformed through a median split procedure and recoded into a new variable having two levels of scepticism (high, low). However, right before of doing so, a descriptive statistic was run concerning scepticism towards green advertising (M = 3.95 SD = 0.71).
Main analyses
To firstly test H1 and H3 a two (moderate, strong) by two (high scepticism, low scepticism) analysis of covariance was conducted. Gender was set as a covariate given its significant influence on the dependent variable attitude toward the ad. Preliminary checks were conducted to ensure that there was no violation of the assumptions of normality, linearity, homogeneity of variance, homogeneity of regression slopes and reliable measurement of covariate.
H1 hypothesised the moderate argument claim to have a more positive ad attitude compared to the strong argument claim. Results did not display a significant main effect of argument strength (F (1, 177) = .08, p =.777) on ad attitude. This indicated that the presence of a strong or a moderate claim did not affect subjects’ attitude toward the ad differently. Therefore, H1 was rejected. However, descriptive statistics reported overall a high ad attitude in both moderate (M = 4.93 SD = 1.28) and strong (M = 4.94 SD = 1.17) conditions.
H3 hypothesised that green scepticism would have moderated the relation between argument strength and ad attitude, so that highly sceptical individuals presented with the moderate claim would have shown a more positive attitude towards the ad compared to less sceptical individuals, whereas highly sceptical individuals presented with the strong claim would have shown a more negative ad attitude compared to less sceptical individuals. Results showed no significant interaction effect between scepticism toward green advertising and argument strength on attitude toward the ad (F (1, 177) = .11, p = .743). This indicated that
high or low levels of scepticism towards green advertising in the moderate or strong claim condition did not affect participants’ attitude toward the ad differently. Therefore, H3 was rejected. Additionally, green scepticism did not show a significant main effect on ad attitude (F (1, 177) = 1.94, p =.165). Inversely, a main effect on attitude toward the ad was shown for gender (F (1, 177) = 7.55, p =.007 partial η2= .04). Specifically, descriptive statistics revealed females to have more positive ad attitude compared to males regardless whether the condition presented a moderate or a strong claim (M Females = 5.18 SD = 1.15, M Males = 4.64 SD = 1.26).
In order to secondly test H2 and H4, a further two (moderate, strong) by two (high, low scepticism) analysis of covariance was conducted. Gender was set as a covariate given its significant influence on the dependent variable purchase intention. Preliminary checks were conducted to ensure that there was no violation of the assumptions of normality, linearity, homogeneity of variance, homogeneity of regression slopes and reliable measurement of covariate.
H2 stated that a moderate argument would have shown a more positive purchase intention compared to the strong argument. Results did not display significant main effect of argument strength on participants’ purchase intention (F (1, 177) = .04, p = .846). This
indicated that the presence of a strong or a moderate claim did not affect subjects’ intention to purchase the product differently. Therefore, H2 was rejected. However, descriptive statistics reported a certain degree of respondents’ indecision on their intents to buy the products in both the moderate (M = 4.30 SD = 1.45) and strong (M = 4.20 SD = 1.60) claim conditions.
H4 stated that scepticism would have moderated the relation between argument strength and purchase intention, so that highly sceptical individuals presented with the moderate claim would have resulted in more positive purchase intention compared to less sceptical individuals, whereas highly sceptical individuals presented with the strong claim would have resulted in more negative purchase intention compared to less sceptical
individuals. Results displayed a non-significant interaction effect between green scepticism and argument strength on purchase intention (F (1, 177) = .02, p = .884). This indicated that scepticism towards green advertising did not moderate the relation between argument strength and purchase intention. Therefore, H4 was rejected. Additionally, green scepticism did not show a significant main effect on purchase intention (F (1, 177) = 1.32, p = .252). Differently, as reported for ad attitude, results showed a significant main effect of gender on purchase intention (F (1, 177) = 5.35, p = .022 partial η2= .03). Specifically, descriptive
statistics revealed females to have overall more positive purchase intention compared to males, regardless whether the condition presented a moderate or a strong claim (M Females =
4.51 SD = 1.51, M Males = 3.93 SD = 1.49).1
Discussion and Conclusion
The current study investigated the effects of a moderate versus a strong claim on attitude towards the ad and purchase intention for a hedonic green product. Additionally, the moderating role played by scepticism towards green advertising in these relations was examined, in order to observe how green scepticism could affect ad and purchase responses (Do Paço, & Reis, 2012; Richards, 2013; Tucker et al., 2012; Xie & Kronrod, 2012; Pickett-Backer & Ozaki, 2008; Chen & Chang, 2012). Results failed to show a significantly different impact of claim strength on ad attitude and purchase intention, while scepticism towards green advertising did not significantly moderate the aforementioned relationships. Only gender turned out to have a significant main effect on both outcome variables, although this result did not directly relate to the goal of this research.
Contrary to what assessed by previous studies (Tan, 2002; Manrai et al., 1997; Urala, Arvola, & Lähteenmäki, 2003; Tucker et al., 2012; Phau, I., & Ong, 2007; Chan, 2004; Kim & Damhorst, 1998; Kees, Burton & Tangari, 2010; Sung & Kim, 2010; Laroche, Bergeron & Barbaro-Forleo, 2001), the moderate claim did not produced more positive ad attitude and
purchase intention compared to the strong claim as expected. Specifically, these results were neither in line with the Limited Capacity theory (Lang, 2000), which by assuming the
individuals’ limited capacity to process ad information, predicted the moderate claim to elicit more positive ad attitude and purchase intention compared to the strong claim. The current outcomes appeared also to diverge from the assimilation contrast model (Manrai et al., 1997; Sherif & Hovland, 1961; Tykocinski, Higgins & Chaiken, 1994), which expected the
moderate claim to trigger more positive ad attitude and purchase intention, due to its higher chance to fall within an individual’s latitude of acceptance.
We do not have any straightforward explanations for these opposite effects.
However, what these results did display was a positive ad attitude on one side, and indecisive purchase intention on the other. In fact, by looking at the mean values of attitude towards the advertisement, participants appeared to provide very positive responses in both moderate and strong claim conditions. Whereas, when focusing on purchase intention, equally irresolute neutral responses on whether or not to buy the green hedonic product were displayed. These findings, confirmed a gap between pro-environmental attitude and green buying-behaviour (Gupta & Ogden, 2009; Pickett-Backer & Ozaki, 2008). Given these circumstances, it can perhaps be argued that claim strength has not been able to overcome such discrepancy. Therefore, although the use of either a strong or a moderate claim did result in positive attitude towards the ad overall, the difference in argumentation strength did not provide individuals enough reasons to purchase the green hedonic perfume.
Scepticism towards green advertising did not significantly moderate the relations between claim strength and both outcome variables. In fact, contrary to what supported from an empirical (Hardesty, Carlson & Bearden, 2002; Obermiller & Spangenberg, 1998; Xie & Kronrod, 2012) and theoretical viewpoint (Nelson, 1974; Nelson, 1974; Ford, Smith & Swasy, 1990; Lang, 2000; Xie & Kronrod), the moderate claim did not elicit better responses
for highly sceptical individuals and lower responses for less sceptical individuals, compared to the strong condition (Obermiller, Spangenberg & MacLachlan, 2005; Xie & Kronrod, 2012). Taken altogether, these results appeared to be in line with a more radical study of Matthes and Wonnerberger (2014) that stressed an overestimation of the green scepticism phenomenon among scholars. Certainly it can be argued that, in the current study, scepticism towards green advertising did not occupy a relevant role in the relations between claim strength and both outcome variables. However, to solidly confirm the results involving scepticism towards green advertising – also given the scarce literature available – more research should be conducted involving such construct (Matthes & Wonnerberger, 2014; Mohr, Eroǧlu & Ellen, 1998).
Gender and specifically females, turned out to have an unexpected main effect on both ad attitude and purchase intention, resulting in more positive ad responses compared to males. These results appeared to be in line with a tradition of previous green studies (Elliott, 2013; Shrum, McCarty & Lowrey, 1995; Vinz, 2009) which demonstrated different
attitudinal and behavioural approaches between males and females towards green products. Women in particular were found to be more attracted and willing to purchase green products compared to their male counterparts (Lee, 2009; Mostafa, 2007; Schwartz & Miller, 1991).
In conclusion, this study did find neither a differential effect between strong and moderate claim on ad attitude and purchase intention, nor a moderating effect played by green scepticism. However, the research had some noteworthy merits. In fact, it did
contribute to add more knowledge to the scarce literature concerning claim strength within a hedonic green scenario (Kong & Zhang, 2013; Cervellon & Carey, 2011). Moreover, the consideration of scepticism within an environmental perspective, while accounting for its moderating role, represented distinctive propositions of this research. Despite these important contributions, some limitations needed to be outlined, also representing opportunities for
future research. Firstly, this study did not account for a third non-green control condition. This could have isolated the mere effect of green cues. In fact, adding a third identical ad with a non-green claim, could have made clear whether positive ad attitude were actually attributable to claim strength or just to the mere ‘greenness’ of the product (Chen, 2010; Hartmann & Ibáñez, 2006; Tucker et al., 2012). Secondly, given the marginal significance displayed by the manipulation check, people across the two conditions may have responded likewise due to a very subtle differentiation of the claim strength. Following this logic, the underlying scientific mechanisms may not have had enough room to work out a significantly different effect between the conditions.
Thirdly, the use of a non-existing brand may have blurred the results. The choice of using a fictitious brand was made to encourage genuine responses by the audience. However, its non-familiarity may have induced positive ad attitude while having discouraged a definite purchase intention (Hardesty, Carlson & Bearden, 2002; Biswas & Blair, 1991; Sawyer, 1981; Tellis, 1991). Indeed, factors such as the novelty of the fictional brand (Jones, 1995; Gibson, 1996), together with the ‘greenness’ of the product (Leonidou et al., 2011; Chen, 2010), were proved to elicit positive ad attitude. On the contrary, a singular exposure to the fictional brand may have produced the neutral purchase behaviour (Sawyer, 1981; Tellis, 1991). In addition to this, a very personal product, such as perfume, may have required a pre-purchase trial (Kim & Morris, 2007), especially if the brand was unknown (Hardesty, Carlson & Bearden, 2002) – as in this case. Future research should therefore deepen the hedonic green scenario, by including an existing brand while extending the study to other hedonistic items (Kong & Zhang, 2013; Cervellon & Carey, 2011).
This study provided also some managerial implications. The general positive patterns displayed by the mean values for ad attitude and purchase intention, in both conditions, should be somewhat encouraging for the hedonic green market (Polonsky, 2011; Zaman,
Miliutenko, Nagapetan, 2010). Indeed, positive ad responses have always latent chances to translate into buying behaviour (Chan, 2004; Phau, I., & Ong, 2007; Kim & Damhorst, 1998). Therefore, interpreting the current results as discouraging would certainly not be the proper approach to retain. Moreover, the results acknowledged good news for those
marketers in need of understanding which claim strength can obtain more positive responses when considering a hedonic product. Here, the current empirical results displayed that both moderate and strong claims were good techniques to promote hedonic products within green advertising, especially when focusing on consumers’ attitude towards the ad.
References
Alba, J. W., & Williams, E. F. (2013). Pleasure principles: a review of research on hedonic consumption. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23(1), 2-18.
Albayrak, T., Aksoy, S., & Caber, M. (2013). The effect of environmental concern and scepticism on green purchase behaviour. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 31(1), 27-39.
Alniacik, U., & Yilmaz, C. (2012). The effectiveness of green advertising: influences of claim specificity, product’s environmental relevance and consumers’
pro-environmental orientation. The Amfiteatru Economic Journal, 14(31), 207-222. Alter, A., & Oppenheimer, D. (2006). Predicting short-term stock fluctuations by using
processing fluency. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 103(24), 9369-9372.
Appel, M., & Mara, M. (2013). The persuasive influence of a fictional character's trustworthiness. Journal of Communication, 63(5), 912-932.
Areni, C. S., & Lutz, R. J. (1988). The role of argument quality in the elaboration likelihood model. Advances in consumer research, 15(1), 197-203.
Aronson, E., Turner, J. A., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1963). Communicator credibility and communication discrepancy as determinants of opinion change. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(1), 31–36.
Bickart, B., & Ruth, J. (2012). Green eco-seals and advertising persuasion. Journal of Advertising, 41(4), 51-67.
Biswas, A., & Blair, E. (1991). Contextual effects of reference prices in retail Advertisements. Journal of Marketing, 55(7), 1-12.
Bleda, M., & Valente, M. (2009). Graded eco-labels: a demand-oriented approach to reduce pollution. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 76(4), 512-524.
Bucket, R., Anderson, E., Chaudhuri, A. & Ray, I. (2002). Emotion and reason in persuasion: applying the ARI model and the CASC scale. Journal of Business Research, 57(6), 647-656.
Bucket, R., Chaudhuri, A., Georgeson, M. & Kowta, S. (1995). Conceptualizing and
operationalizing affect, reason, and involvement in persuasion: the ARI model and the CASC Scale. Advances in Consumer Research, 22(1) 440-447.
Carlson, L., Grove, S. J., & Kangun, N. (1993). A content analysis of environmental
advertising claims: a matrix method approach. Journal of Advertising, 22(3), 27-39. Cervellon, M. C., & Carey, L. (2011). Consumers' perceptions of green: why and how
consumers use eco-fashion and green beauty products. Critical Studies in Fashion & Beauty, 2(1-2), 117-138.
Chan, R. Y. (2004). Consumer responses to environmental advertising in China. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 22(4), 427-437.
Chang, C. (2011). Feeling ambivalent about going green. Journal of Advertising, 40(4), 19-32.
Chen, C. (2001). Design for the environment: a quality-based model for green product development. Management Science, 47(2), 250–263.
Chen, Y. S. (2010). The drivers of green brand equity: green brand image, green satisfaction, and green trust. Journal of Business Ethics, 93(2), 307-319.
Chen, Y. S., & Chang, C. H. (2012). Enhance green purchase intentions: the roles of green perceived value, green perceived risk, and green trust. Management Decision, 50(3), 502-520.
Chernev, A., & Carpenter, G. (2001). The role of market efficiency intuitions in consumer choice: a case of compensatory inferences. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(3), 349-361.
Crane, A. (2000). Facing the backlash: green marketing and strategic reorientation in the 1990s. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 8(3), 277-296.
Coddington, W. (1993). Environmental marketing: positive strategies for reaching the green consumer. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Darke, P., & Ritchie, R. (2007). The defensive consumer: advertising deception, defensive processing, and distrust. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(1), 114-127.
Davis, J. J. (1994). Good ethics is good for business: ethical attributions and response to environmental advertising. Journal of Business Ethics, 13(11), 873-885.
Diefenbach, S., & Hassenzahl, M. (2011). The dilemma of the hedonic – appreciated, but hard to justify. Interacting With Computers, 23(5), 461-472.
Do Paço M. F., & Reis R. (2012). Factors affecting skepticism toward green advertising. Journal of Advertising, 41(4), 147-155.
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. Elliott, R. (2013). The taste for green: the possibilities and dynamics of status differentiation
through “green” consumption. Poetics, 41(3), 294-322.
Euromonitor. (2012). Green buying: an exploration of "green" consumer. Retrieved 1 November 2014, from http://blog.euromonitor.com/2012/03/quick-pulse-green-buying-an-exploration-of-green-consumer-trends.html
European Commission, (2013). Attitudes of Europeans towards building the single market for green products. Retrieved 23 October 2014, from
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-653_en.htm.
Fah, B. C. Y., Foon, Y. S., & Osman, S. (2011). An exploratory study of the relationships between advertising appeals, spending tendency, perceived social status and
materialism on perfume purchasing behavior. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 2(10), 202-208.
Ferreira, D. A., Avila, M. G., & De Faria, M. D. (2010). Corporate social responsibility and consumers' perception of price. Social Responsibility Journal, 6(2), 208-221.
Friestad, M., & Wright, P. (1995). Persuasion knowledge: lay people's and researchers' beliefs about the psychology of advertising. Journal of Consumer Research, 22(1), 62-74.
Ford, G., Smith, D., & Swasy, J. (1990). Consumer skepticism of advertising claims: testing hypotheses from economics of information. Journal of Consumer Research, 16(4), 433-441.
Fowler, A., & Close, A. (2012). It ain't easy being green. Journal of Advertising, 41(4), 119-132.
Gardner, M. P. (1985). Does attitude toward the ad affect brand attitude under a brand evaluation set?. Journal of Marketing Research, 22(2) 192-198.
Gibson, B. (1996). The masking account of attentional capture: a reply to Yantis and Jonides (1996). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and
Performance, 22(6), 1514-1520.
Greenpeace España. (2005). Greenpeace encuentra sustancias químicas peligrosas en perfumes. Retrieved 10 November 2014, from
http://www.greenpeace.org/espana/es/news/2010/November/informe-eau-de-t-xicos. Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J. M., & Van den Bergh, B. (2010). Going green to be seen: status,
reputation, and conspicuous conservation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(3), 392-404.
Goldberg, M. E., & Hartwick, J. (1990). The effects of advertiser reputation and extremity of advertising claim on advertising effectiveness. Journal of Consumer Research, 17(2), 172–179.
Gupta, S., & Ogden, D. (2009). To buy or not to buy? A social dilemma perspective on green buying. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 26(6), 376-391.
Hardesty, D., Carlson, J., & Bearden, W. (2002). Brand Familiarity and invoice price effects on consumer evaluations: the moderating role of skepticism toward
advertising. Journal of Advertising, 31(2), 1-15.
Hartmann, P., & Ibáñez, V. A. (2006). Green value added. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 24(7), 673-680.
Hirschman, E., & Holbrook, M. (1982). Hedonic consumption: emerging concepts, methods and propositions. Journal of Marketing, 46(3), 92-101.
Hoaglin, D., & Iglewicz, B. (1987). Fine-tuning some resistant rules for outlier labeling. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 82(4), 1147-1149.
Hoaglin, D., Iglewicz, B., & Tukey, J. (1986). Performance of some resistant rules for outlier labeling. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 81(396), 991-999.
Homer, P. (1995). Ad size as an indicator of perceived advertising costs and effort: the effects on memory and perceptions. Journal of Advertising, 24(4), 1-12.
Jones, J. P. (1990). Ad spending: maintaining market share. Harvard Business Review, 68(1), 38-42.
Kees, J., Burton, S., & Tangari, A. H. (2010). The impact of regulatory focus, temporal orientation, and fit on consumer responses to health-related advertising. Journal of Advertising, 39(1), 19-34.
Kim, H., & Damhorst, M. (1998). Environmental concern and apparel consumption. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 16(3), 126-133.
Kim, J., & Morris, J. D. (2007). The power of affective response and cognitive structure in product-trial attitude formation. Journal of Advertising, 36(1), 95-106.
Kirmani, A. (1997). Advertising repetition as a signal of quality: if it’s advertised so much, something must be wrong. Journal of Advertising, 26(3), 77-86.
Kivetz, R., & Simonson, I. (2002). Earning the right to indulge: effort as a determinant of customer preferences toward frequency program rewards. Journal of Marketing Research, 39(2), 155-170.
Kong, Y., & Zhang, A. (2013). Consumer response to green advertising: the influence of product involvement. Asian Journal of Communication, 23(4), 428-447.
Koslow, S. (2000). Can the truth hurt? How honest and persuasive advertising can unintentionally lead to increased consumer skepticism. Journal of consumer Affairs, 34(2), 245-267.
Lang, A. (2000). The limited capacity model of mediated message processing. Journal of communication, 50(1), 46-70.
Laroche, M., Bergeron, J., & Barbaro-Forleo, G. (2001). Targeting consumers who are willing to pay more for environmentally friendly products. Journal of consumer marketing, 18(6), 503-520.
Lee, D., & Hyman, M. (2008). Hedonic/functional congruity between stores and private label brands. The Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 16(3), 219-232.
Lee, K. (2009). Gender differences in Hong Kong adolescent consumers' green purchasing behavior. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 26(2), 87-96.
Leonidou, L. C., Leonidou, C. N., Palihawadana, D., & Hultman, M. (2011). Evaluating the green advertising practices of international firms: a trend analysis. International Marketing Review, 28(1), 6-33.
Lim, E., & Ang, S. (2008). Hedonic vs. utilitarian consumption: a cross-cultural perspective based on cultural conditioning. Journal of Business Research, 61(3), 225-232. MacIntyre, P. D., Noels, K. A., & Clément, R. (1997). Biases in self‐ratings of second
language proficiency: the role of language anxiety. Language learning, 47(2), 265-287.
Mader, Thomas F. (1973). On presence in rhetoric. College Composition and Communication, 24(5), 375-381.
Manrai, L., Manrai, A., Lascu, D., & Ryans, J. (1997). How green-claim strength and country disposition affect product evaluation and company image. Psychology and
Marketing, 14(5), 511-537.
Maronick, T. J., & Andrews, J. C. (1999). The role of qualifying language on consumer perceptions of environmental claims. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 33(2), 297-320. Matthes, J., & Wonneberger, A. (2014). The skeptical green consumer revisited: testing the
relationship between green consumerism and skepticism toward advertising. Journal of Advertising, 43(2), 115-127.
McKay-Nesbitt, J., Manchanda, R. V., Smith, M. C., & Huhmann, B. A. (2011). Effects of age, need for cognition, and affective intensity on advertising effectiveness. Journal of Business Research, 64(1), 12-17.
Meyers-Levy, J., & Sternthal, B. (1993). A two-factor explanation of assimilation and contrast effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(3), 359-368.
Micu, C., & Chowdhury, T. (2010). The effect of message's regulatory focus and product type on persuasion. The Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 18(2), 181-190. Mitchell, A. A. (1986). The effect of verbal and visual components of advertisements on
brand attitudes and attitude toward the advertisement. Journal of Consumer Research, 13(1), 12-24.
Mitchell, A., & Olson, J. (1981). Are product attribute beliefs the only mediator of
advertising effects on brand attitude?. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3), 318-332. 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.
Mostafa, M. (2007). Gender differences in Egyptian consumers? Green purchase behaviour: the effects of environmental knowledge, concern and attitude. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 31(3), 220-229.
Nelson, P. (1974). Advertising as information. Journal of Political Economy, 82(4), 729-754. Nyilasy, G., Gangadharbatla, H., & Paladino, A. (2013). Perceived greenwashing: the
interactive effects of green advertising and corporate environmental performance on consumer reactions. Journal of Business Ethics, 1(11), 1-15.
Obermiller, C., & Spangenberg, E. (1998). Development of a scale to measure consumer skepticism toward advertising. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 7(2), 159-186. Obermiller, C., Spangenberg, E., & MacLachlan, D. (2005). Ad skepticism: the consequences
of disbelief. Journal of Advertising, 34(3), 7-17.
Petersson McIntyre, M. (2013). Perfume packaging, seduction and gender. Culture Unbound: Journal Of Current Cultural Research, 5, 291-311.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Schumann, D. (1983). Central and peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness: the moderating role of involvement. Journal of consumer research, 10(2), 135-146.
