02
2019
08
The moderation effects of gender and acceptance of
homosexuality on the relationship of homosexual shock
advertising on brand image
Name: My Nguyen
Student number: 10170529
Thesis supervisor: Dr. J.M. Slevin
Master Thesis Corporate Communication
University of Amsterdam
Graduate School of Communication
Amsterdam, 11th of February 2019
Abstract
Marketers are trying to get the attention of the public by attempting to get out of the clutter of advertising. One way to get the attention of the consumers might be with shock advertising. Marketers are taking advantage of the LGBT discussions by advertising with shocking homosexual imagery. However, different opinions and reactions of heterosexuals arose from shock advertising with homosexual imagery, as they were both positive and negative. Due to this, it was not clear if this had a
negative or positive impact on the organizations' brand image.
The current experimental study investigated the relationship between homosexual shock advertising and brand image. In this experimental study, 182 participants filled in the questionnaire about acceptance of homosexuality and brand image. Moreover, acceptance of homosexuality and gender were tested as a moderator of the relationship of homosexual shock advertising on brand image.
Ambiguous results were found as homosexual shock advertising was predicted in lower brand image in the Process Macro analysis, but was not predicted in the ANOVA analysis. However, results showed that when marketers would consider homosexual shock advertising, gay male advertising is in favor of heterosexual women as this would lead to a higher brand image, rather than exposure to
heterosexual advertising. Nevertheless, other advertising strategies should be used for men, as any homosexual shock advertising did not lead to a higher brand image. Additionally, acceptance of homosexuality did not predict in a higher level of brand image, but rather in a lower level of brand image. However, it should be mentioned that images shown to participants, mostly students, were not perceived as shocking and influenced the results.
This research paper gave marketers more in depth about the effects of homosexual shock advertising on brand image. The learning points might help companies which target audience to aim on and which target audience must be avoided, to refrain from loss of brand image. Subsequently, this research adds important notes for further research for the relation of homosexual shock advertising on brand image.
Keywords: homosexual shock advertising, brand image, acceptance of
Introduction
Advertising is everywhere nowadays. Different kinds of advertising, through different kinds of media outlets are overthrowing people. These advertisements are not easily to avoid, as they can be seen at movie theaters, bathroom stalls, gas
stations, tram stops, social media or even at schools. People who live in urban parts of cities or city centers even saw or received 3,000 to 20,000 advertisements a day (Lee & Heere, 2018). The public seemed to find these advertisements obnoxious, did not even notice these advertisements anymore or were tired to look at these. Marketers were thus, challenged more than ever to attract the attention towards their brands, products and services by breaking through the clutter of advertising (Dahl, Frankenberger & Manchanda, 2003).
Organizations were losing out on sales and positive reputation whenever the advertisements were too common placed to be noticed. A way for marketers to break through this clutter of advertising was using or finding new advertising strategies (Dahlén & Edenius, 2007). One of those strategies was called shock advertising. This had been used to intentionally shock, surprise and insult the public (Gustafson & Yssel, 1994). And in addition to this, an attempt to purposely violate norms and values only to obtain attention from the public (Dahl, Frankenberger & Manchanda, 2003). Shock advertisements seemed to have a powerful effect on consumers as this led to different opinions and reactions of the public (Anderson, Knee, Ramos & Quash, 2018). The rise of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) discussions opened up opportunities for marketers to advertise with shocking homosexual imagery in order to attract attention of the public. However, it was still not clear what the consequences of shock advertisement held towards the companies' brand image.
A good example of this in the context of homosexual shock appeal was Suitsupply’s campaign, which was launched in the beginning of 2018 in the Netherlands and focused on homosexual men (Stove, 2018). Men dressed in suits sexually touched and kissed each other in out of home advertisements. These shock advertisements led to divergent opinions and criticism. The homosexual community was enthusiastic and praised Suitsupply for addressing acceptance of homosexuality in society and some of the heterosexual audience had similar reactions. However, other heterosexuals were disgusted and many others disapproved these companies for taking advantage of social or political issues (Sandıkcı, 2011). Consequently, this particular case caused many discussions between proponents and opponents of this campaign. It even led to commotions, angry stakeholders and vandalism. Within this case, mainly differences in attitudes towards the brand came from heterosexuals causing complications for Suitsupply to determine if it had a positive or negative effect on its brand image (Bachnik & Nowacki, 2018).
The relation between homosexual shock advertisements and brand image could be affected by different demographic effects. This case showed that there were still differences about the acceptance of homosexuality between heterosexuals, as a lower acceptance seemed to result in negative attitudes, and a higher acceptance to positive attitudes towards the brand and its campaign (Read, van Driel & Potter, 2018; Keuzekamp, 2011).
Also, different attitudes towards the brand after exposure of these
advertisements could be explained by gender differences. Read, van Driel and Potter (2018) stated that heterosexuals have different attitudes towards gay men than homosexuals themselves, but also heterosexual men and women did not share the same opinion. Further, in this particular case of Suitsupply, only gay male shock was
used to advertise. The possibility exists that different reactions might arise when different types of homosexual shock advertisements would be presented, this because of gender differences in attitudes towards different kinds of homosexuality (Caswell & Sackett-Fox, 2018).
This study's purposes are to investigate the relation between homosexual shock advertisements and brand image with acceptance of homosexuality and gender as moderators. Consequently, it is from importance that companies will know what the causes are of the effects of homosexual shock advertisements on its brand image after exposure to heterosexuals, before starting a similar homosexual shock
advertising campaign. Hence, the following research question was stated:
RQ: To what extent does homosexual shock advertising have an effect on brand image
for heterosexuals and do gender and the acceptance of homosexuality have influence on this effect?
Scientific relevance
From a scientific point of view, research on general shock advertising does not bring yet a clear answer about the possible consequences of homosexual shock
advertising on brand image. Previous research on shock advertising was mostly focused on the effectiveness of shock cues (Urwin & Venter, 2014; Dahl, et al., 2003). Additionally, critics and media scholars are still researching and debating about the content and effectiveness of shock advertising.
This research paper would contribute to the current knowledge by
investigating the effects of homosexual shock advertising on the company's brand image. It will look further at the relationship between homosexual shock advertising and gender as well as acceptance of homosexuality that might explain the effect on a company's brand image. This will be done through an experiment and self-report
method, a questionnaire. It will give deeper understanding of homosexual shock advertisement effects, but could also raise more questions that develop further research and the current debate about this topic.
Social relevance
The social relevance of this research project is to investigate how homosexual shock advertising may affect brand image and may help marketers develop a better understanding in using this type of shock advertisement.
Firstly, the effect of homosexual shock advertising on brand image will be investigated. Based on these results, marketers would then know if it would be in their advantage to advertise with these images. Consequently, more factors are taken into consideration. The type of gender, which moderates between different types of homosexual shock advertisements (lesbian or gay male) and brand image, could influence this relation differently. In this case, marketers would know which type of gender after exposure to a type of homosexual shock advertising, would influence the brand image positively or negatively. These results will ensure that marketers can specifically focus their campaign on a specific gender to gain or avoid loss of brand image.
Moreover, the variable acceptance of homosexuality might influence the effect of homosexual shock advertising on brand image. If results show that high acceptance leads to a better brand image after exposure, marketers can thus focus their campaigns on regions where acceptance of homosexuality is high to gain brand image or refrain from regions where acceptance is low to avoid loss of brand image.
Thus, having insights of gender and acceptance of homosexuality could give the company more certainty about the campaign’s effects. Companies would know how to aim at their target audience and, who they should avoid exposing its
campaign. In this way, marketers would understand the consequences of homosexual shock advertising towards a company’s brand image. Hence, marketers will know which company's goals could be more easily achieved and which potential harm and violence could be evaded.
Theoretical Framework Homosexual shock advertising
Before referring to homosexual shock advertising, a definition of shock advertising itself was needed. Dahl et al. (2003) defined that "the content of shock advertising attempts to surprise an audience by deliberately violating norms for societal values and personal ideals" and Belch and Belch (1998) formulated that shock advertising referred to evoking attention for a brand's name by shocking the audience. Dahl et al. (2013) deepened into shock advertisements and manifested these into seven types of shock appeals: (1) disgusting images, (2) sexual references, (3) profanity/obscenity, (4) vulgarity, (5) impropriety, (6) moral offensiveness and (7) religious taboos. This research paper aims specifically on (homosexual) sex shock advertising and entails the concepts of masturbation, sexual acts, sexually suggestive nudity or partial nudity. The main purpose of shock advertising is to draw attention to the brand, product or service. This attention would eventually grow, as caused by word of mouth (Subramanian, 2018).
Portrayals of homosexuality in advertising were firstly and mostly exposed through gay media outlets and were targeted at gay males and lesbians. However, the border between gay media outlets and mainstream media faded and more homosexual images in advertisements were to be seen in mainstream media outlets (Oakenfull & Greenlee, 2004). This was because of the LGBT movement and discussion that had found a way in marketers' strategies for advertising campaigns (Anderson et al.,
2018). This movement discussed and fought for the equal rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community, as these rights were still hard to find in modern society. Marketers responded to this discussion by showing homosexual imagery in mainstream advertising and claiming that their brands were on the pro-gay side (Oakenfull & Greenlee, 2004). And over the years, these homosexual advertisements in mainstream media contained more nudity and sexual imagery, making it more provocative and shocking than before (Oakenfull & Greenlee, 2004).
These advertisements could thus contain shocking homosexual content, which can be considered by the audience as disquieting or unnecessary explicit. This
perception is likely to increase whenever the content is not relevant to the product or services advertised (Sengupta & Dahl, 2008). However, it is still the question when homosexual advertisement is experienced as shock. The audience is less likely to perceive engagement and the brands' or companies' goals whenever the shock level within advertisement is too low. Not breaking through the clutter of advertisements, through norm violation could mean that audience will be left unimpressed and that the content of the ad will be ineffective. Another reason of ineffectiveness could be that the shock content of advertisements is omnipresent, making the advertisement reappear more and more and thus, not as shocking as it used to or should be (Lightfoot, Lilley & Kavanagh, 2006).
On the contrary, too much shock may be more effective in drawing attention, but it could also be more perceived as distasteful and disturbing (Parry, Jones, Stern & Robinson, 2013). By perceiving the shock advertisement as too disturbing or revolting, audiences could block or ignore these images for seeing them again, making the advertisement less effective. This can thus, result in less or little sales or even negative impressions towards the brand. People found the campaign of "United
colors of Benetton", where the company showed an ad of a man dying of AIDS or a soldier's clothes covered in blood, too shocking or offensive, which resulted in boycotting the brand (Hubbard, 1993). Moreover, the study of Andersson, Hedelin, Nilsson, and Welander (2004) showed that respondents who had been exposed to advertisements, which contained exorbitant violence and sex were having negative impressions towards the ad. Some of these respondents did not even know which product or service the brand was selling. Hence, in order to achieve the brands' or companies' goals it is valuable that advertisements have the appropriate amount of shock level in order to make the ads more effective for companies’ goals, such as a better brand image.
Brand image
Keller (1993) stated that human brains would hold memory through a set of nodes and links of different associations that were related to a brand. The information that was collected would eventually be stored in nodes that were linked to other nodes in the brain. These links could differ in associations of strength, which were
determined by the level of processing and involvement of exposed information towards the consumer. Based on this, Keller (1993) defined brand image as
"perceptions about a brand as reflected by the brand associations held in consumer memory".
Shock advertisements are known to cross boundaries and social norms and mostly will come to a surprise to the public. This could mean that the public may discuss about these shock advertisements, causing disquiet among the public. This type of disquiet could also be seen as a way of promoting the brand, since the public would notice the shock advertisements and would talk about them. In this way, marketers would reach their promoting goals, as the public would hold these
advertisements longer in their memory than non-shock advertisements (Huhmann & Mott-Stenerson, 2008).
Many firms and companies were reluctantly trying to identify themselves with gay imagery and other gay causes (Pounders & Mabry-Flynn, 2016). This, because firms may receive backlash from heterosexual consumers by advertising with homosexual imagery. Bhat, Leigh and Wardlow (1996) showed in their results that advertisements with homosexual imagery were rated less favorable by consumers than advertisements with heterosexual imagery. Oakenfull, McCarthy and Greenlee (2008) added to these findings, saying that heterosexuals had more positive attitudes towards the homosexual subculture, but added that heterosexuals had less positive attitudes towards homosexual advertisements and brand itself in comparison with heterosexual advertisements. However, Åkestam, Rosengren and Dahlen (2017) discussed this statement and showed in their findings that portrayals of homosexuality in advertising trigger people and would positively affect them socially. This would increase the consumer-perceived social connectedness and empathy towards
homosexuals, which affected the reputation of the brand positively as well. Refuting to this, Kongintr (2009) compared homosexual themed- and heterosexual themed advertisements and had taken different responses in consideration such as, beliefs, feelings and behavioral intentions. Results showed that participants responded positively towards the heterosexual advertisements, but responded negatively to homosexual advertisements. In addition to this, Oakenfull and Greenlee (2008) showed that sexual gay images in advertising may come with risks and may have negative repercussions from heterosexual consumers. Firstly, heterosexuals have different attitudes towards homosexuals than homosexuals themselves, which will reflect the attitudes towards sexual gay images in advertising and reputation of the
company negatively (Fasoli et al., 2018). Secondly, backlash from the heterosexual community may happen, because firms that used homosexual advertising may identify themselves with the gay community and not with the heterosexual
community (Oakenfull & Greenlee, 2004). Heterosexuals would then feel as if the brand would not fit their interests, in contrary to heterosexual advertisements (Read, van Driel & Potter, 2018).
However, homosexual shock advertising would contain more sexual acts than regular homosexual advertising itself. It might thus, have a stronger effect on
heterosexual consumers as it would lure the attention of consumers and would hold the images in their memories that they had seen from the advertisements even more (Dahl et al., 2013; Keller, 1993). Therefore the first hypothesis is stated:
H1: Exposure to homosexual shock advertisements will result in lower level of brand
image than exposure to heterosexual shock advertisements.
The role of gender
The perception towards brand image after exposure of homosexual shock advertisements may be influenced by demographic factors (Herek & Glunt, 1993). Taking a depth into gender may be of interest, because most media outlets could supply advertisers with specific targeting in terms of the consumers' gender. In addition, many products and services are particularly targeted to a specific gender. Hence, it is important to know how gender would influence the perception or attitudes of heterosexual consumers towards homosexuality and thus, towards the contents of homosexual advertisements and brand image.
Gay images that were used in gay advertising media outlets crossed over towards mainstream media outlets. However, mostly gay male images were used for advertisements and lesbian images were in minority. The Advocate, a leading gay
magazine in the United States of America, made a content analysis of homosexual advertisements and showed that only 3% of these advertisements contained lesbian images (Oakenfull & Greenlee, 2000). Marketers tended to target gay men
emphatically, because of the wage of gay men. Although, gay men earned less than heterosexual men, they would earn more than heterosexual women and even more than lesbians. This builds further on the reason why marketers use gay male images more than lesbian images in mainstream media nowadays.
Oakenfull and Greenlee (2000) also stated that this focus on gay male images in mainstream media, rather than lesbian images, had a significant effect on
heterosexual attitudes towards homosexuality and led to negative reactions. However, Tuten (2005) conducted a study where heterosexuals would be exposed to friendly and non-friendly gay advertisements. Findings showed that both men and women had neither positive nor negative reactions towards these cues of advertisements. These consumers did not necessarily hold negative attitudes towards the brand after
exposure of homosexual advertisements, but rather formed neutral responses towards the brand.
Despite of the latter research, Pounders and Mabry-Flynn (2016) found that disapproval and negative attitudes towards homosexual advertisements could be developed, because of less conformity with the gay male or lesbian community. Other research showed that mostly heterosexual men held more negative attitudes towards homosexuality than heterosexual women (Hicks & Lee, 2006; Oakenfull & Greenlee, 2004; Kite, 1984). In addition, Schope and Eliason (2000) stated that heterosexual women were less judgmental and more understanding towards homosexuals. This resulted in heterosexual women having more neutral attitudes towards homosexuals in general.
These differences between genders can be substantiated by gender role differences. Men’s role in society is emphasized through masculinity and embracing masculinity also meant rejecting other men that break the heterosexual norm (Herek, 1988). This belief is embraced by heterosexual men and would affect the social relations between heterosexual men and men from the gay community. As a result, homosexuals would not easily expose their sexual orientation to heterosexual men and thus, hostility between the two would remain (Weinberg & Rubin, 1972). Hence, men’s experiences with homosexuals would influence the attitudes towards
homosexuals more negatively than women's experiences with homosexuals (Herek, 1988). This is because, in contradiction to men, homosexuals would perceive heterosexual women as more considerate (Herek 2000; Read, van Driel & Potter, 2018). Lesbians and gay men were open to disclose their sexual preferences or were even more open to disclose their experiences with verbal and non-verbal violence in public towards heterosexual women (Huebner, Rebchook & Kegeles, 2004). This gave the opportunity for both homosexuals and heterosexual women, for more social interaction, empathy, bonding and mutual understanding with each other (Herek, 1988). It made heterosexual women, less judgmental and critical towards
homosexuals and eventually, towards homosexual advertisements and brand (Lippa, 2000; Herek 2000). The urge of homosexuals remaining hostile would reduce towards heterosexual women.
Moreover, heterosexual men seemed to have a more negative attitude towards gay men than towards lesbians (Oakenfull & Greenlee, 2004; Kite, 1984). The reason behind this was that lesbians might provide a sexual value towards heterosexual men. Sexual imagery of women was commonly seen in men’s magazines than gay male imagery. Lesbian imagery was perceived as sexual pleasing and homosexual imagery
was seen as non-masculine by men (Herek, 1988). There seemed to be a difference, as gay male images and lesbian images were underrepresented in female magazines (Winick, 1985). Hence, heterosexual men might seem to find lesbian imagery
sexually, it might not connote for heterosexual women towards gay male imagery and lesbian imagery. Thus, the following hypotheses were stated:
H2: Heterosexual men will hold a more negative attitude towards the brand image
when exposed to gay male shock advertisements than towards lesbian shock advertisements.
H3: Heterosexual women will not hold different attitudes towards the brand image
when exposed to gay male shock advertisements, nor when exposed to lesbian shock advertisements.
Acceptance of homosexuality
Bhat, Leigh and Wardlow (1996; 1998) showed in their studies that the acceptance of homosexuality explained a meaningful part of the attitude of the consumer towards homosexual advertisements and its effect on the company’s brand image. These studies investigated how heterosexuals reacted to portrayals of
homosexuals in print advertisements. The results showed that the consumer’s attitude towards homosexuality interacted with the advertisements’ images, which strongly affected the emotional response to the advertisements. It also indicated that the reactions, emotionally and attitudinal, towards homosexual advertisements were related towards their acceptance of homosexuality. Mainly, if a consumer were less tolerant towards homosexuality, there would be a stronger negative emotional and attitudinal reaction to the advertisements and brand. Hooten, Noeva and Hammonds (2009) added to this, by studying the consumer attitudes and responses to homosexual
advertisements and stated that brand perception would be negative when exposed to homosexual imagery.
Macdonalds and Games (1974) showed in their study that people who highly accepted homosexuality, were tended to support equality between sexes more than people with a lesser acceptance of homosexuality. People with a high acceptance were characterized as ‘open’ and ‘other-focused’, whereas people who had low acceptance were characterized as ‘self-focused’ and ‘cognitive rigidity’. People with high
acceptance might consider value differences as acceptable and had positive or neutral attitudes towards homosexuals. In contrast, people with lower acceptance were focused on traditional norms and values and might feel that homosexuals violated their conservative value system (Haddock, Zanna & Esses 1993).
Therefore, people who shared the same norms and values might perceive themselves part of an in-group and other people who did not share the same norms and values were considered an out-group (Fasoli et al., 2018). This could lead to negative consequences, as people who were from an out-group were treated more negatively than when being labeled as someone from an in-group. Thus, people who had a lower acceptance towards homosexuality might consider homosexuals members of an out-group (Fasoli et al., 2018). In extend, people with lower acceptance towards homosexuality would develop negative attitudes towards the advertisements and also the brand than people with a higher acceptance towards homosexuality after exposure of homosexual advertisements (Um, 2014). Thus, the fourth hypothesis was stated: H4: The relation between homosexual shock advertising and brand image becomes
more positive when moderated by acceptance of homosexuality.
Figure 1. Conceptual model with Homosexual shock advertising as independent
variable, Brand image as dependent variable and Gender and Acceptance of homosexuality as moderators.
Methodology Participants
Dutch participants were recruited directly by e-mail, social media and word of mouth and a total of 220 people participated. In this study, only attitudes of
heterosexuals were researched. Thus, only heterosexual individuals were recruited. Additionally, this study concerned only the differences between men and women. Hence, individuals who did not identify themselves with one of these two genders were filtered out. It was important to recruit an evenly amount of male and female participants as possible, because of gender differences in traits and social skills (Oakenfull & Greenlee, 2008). Further, because of the sexual images, only participants above eighteen years old were recruited.
Only the data of who completed the whole survey and experiment were included into the analysis (N = 182). Participants were almost evenly distributed across the 3 conditions: gay male N = 59, lesbian N = 59 and heterosexual N = 64. The sample consisted of more female participants (N = 95) than male participates (N
Gender H2 H3 Homosexual
shock advertising Brand image
H1
H4
Acceptance of homosexuality
= 87). Participants' ages ranged from 18 to 68, with an average of M = 27.1 (SD = 8.06). The age of the male participants ranged from 20 to 68, with an average of M = 28.5 (SD = 8.8) and the female participants’ ages ranged from 18 to 54, with an average of M = 25.8 (SD = 7.1). Participants also filled in their education level, which was MBO, HBO, WO Bachelor, WO Master or other: 78% of participants had a high education level versus other participants who had a low level education 22%. In addition, 84% of male participants had a high education level versus other male participants who had a low level education, 16%. And 72,6% of female participants had a high education level versus other female participants who had a low education level, 27,4%.
Design
This research project had an experimental design in order to investigate the effect of homosexual shock advertisements on brand image. An experimental design with online survey was conducted with a 3 (Homosexual shock advertising: 'gay male', 'lesbian and control condition: 'heterosexual') x 2 (Gender: 'male' and 'female') factorial between subjects design. Participants filled in an online survey about the
acceptance of homosexuality. Subsequently, participants were evenly randomly
assigned for one of the three conditions. After, more survey questions about brand
image were asked. This research project used homosexual shock advertisement as an
independent variable and brand image as dependent variable. As moderators, the
acceptance of homosexuality and gender were used in the current research project.
These might explain the relationship between homosexual shock advertising and
brand image.
Within this research project, participants were informed that they were going to take part in a research project about advertising in which they will look at images and fill in an online survey through Qualtrics. Before starting the procedure, participants were asked to read the consent form that stated that participating was completely voluntary and anonymous.
The consent form was displayed on the first page of the survey. It mentioned that some stimuli of this project might be considered as explicit material. Thus, only participants of age 18 and older were allowed to fill in the survey. Further,
participants were asked to complete a questionnaire that consisted of a section with sexual references and could agree to participate or quit by selecting an option. On the next survey page, participants were asked to fill in general questions about gender, age, sexual orientation and education. Subsequently, questions were asked about the participants’ acceptance of homosexuality.
After, participants were randomly assigned to one of the two experimental conditions ('gay male' or 'lesbian') or the control condition ('heterosexual') and were shown the images. Participants were informed that these images were advertised by a fictional company specialized in beachwear and accessories, named 'Choumonde'. Then, the level of shock of the images was measured with the Viewer Response Profile (Schlinger, 1979). Further, questions were asked about the fictional company's
brand image. Eventually, participants were thanked for participating, fully debriefed
and dismissed. The consent form, general questions and debriefing can be found in Appendix A.
Measuring instruments Brand image
In order for participants to answer questions about the fictional company's
brand image, participants had to look at the homosexual shock advertisement.
Detailed descriptions of the images can be found in the stimuli section. The used scale improved earlier scales about brand image (Chang & Chieng, 2006; Esch, Langer, Schmidt & Geus 2006; Faircloth, Capella & Alford, 2001; Ismail & Spinelli, 2012; Kim, Knight & Pelton, 2003; Lassar, Mittal & Sharma, 1995; Low & Lamb, 2000; Park & Rabolt, 2009) by adding more items to the new scale, causing the scale improving its validity. This questionnaire contained a total of 35 items and used a seven-points Likert-scale ranging from 1 – ‘strongly disagree’ to 7 – ‘strongly agree’ and consisted of five subscales with (1) mystery, (2) sensuality, (3) intimacy, (4) brand love, (5) brand respect (Cho, Fiore & Russell, 2015).
However, a risk was taken by shortening the questionnaire to thirteen items. This was done due to the length of the total survey and the fear of participants dropping the survey. Further, the published questionnaire was not available in Dutch for the targeted respondents, thus all items were translated two times by two students to reach the highest validation and can be found in the Appendix B. Consequently, these actions could have led to decreased validity and must be kept into account.
Additionally, due to shortening, a Principal component analysis was
conducted. The principal component analysis (PCA) showed that the variable brand
image consisted of thirteen items and formed a uni-dimensional scale: one component
had an eigenvalue above 1 (eigenvalue 8.28). Also, there was a point of inflexion after this component in the scree plot. All items correlated positively with the first
component. The item “I respect this brand" had the strongest association (factor loading was .94). Reliability of the scale was very good (α = .95). Therefore, it appeared that the scale measured the respondents' brand image of the company with
no subscales. The original variable response options showed that the higher the scores on the items indicated a higher the brand image. Thus: The higher the participants score on the questionnaire of brand image, the higher the participants' brand image.
Acceptance of homosexuality
An 11-item self-report questionnaire was used to measure the acceptance of
homosexuality and all items were translated in Dutch (Keuzenkamp, 2011). The
original version used a five-points Likert-scale ranging from 1 – ‘Strongly disagree’ to 7 – ‘strongly agree’ to measure the acceptance of homosexuality. This scale consisted of four subscales with (1) general acceptance of homosexuality, (2) acceptance of equal rights, (3) acceptance of homosexuality in public and (4) acceptance of homosexuality in the immediate vicinity.
For this questionnaire, a PCA was conducted for acceptance of homosexuality and consisted of eleven items. In contrary with the original scale, it formed a uni-dimensional scale with one component and with an eigenvalue above 1 (eigenvalue 5.32). A clear point of inflexion was seen after this component in the scree plot. All items correlated positively with the first component and item "I would find it a problem if my child get taught by a homosexual teacher" had the highest association (factor loading was .87). Reliability of the scale was good (α = .88). Thus, it seemed that the scale measured the respondents' acceptance of homosexuality with no
subscales. Looking to the original variable response options, it showed that the higher the scores on the items indicated a higher acceptance of homosexuality. All statements were included in the Appendix C.
Stimuli
All homosexual shock images represented ‘sexual references’ (Dahl et al., 2003). These presented a fictional fashion brand named 'Choumonde' specialized in
beachwear and accessories, such as summer essentials, bikinis, and sunglasses. To remove any preconceived ideas of brand names, a fictional brand was therefore, devised (Urwin & Venter, 2014). The images were shown in a similar style to affect the internal validity of the experiment as little as possible. Participants would see two pictures within the same group (gay male-, lesbian- or heterosexual shock
advertising). The first image would show a Caucasian couple sexually touching each other and the second image would show a dark couple intimately and sexually touching each other. All images of all conditions with detailed descriptions can be found in the Appendix D.
Thereafter, participants were asked questions regarding the level of shock that were adapted from the Viewer Response Profile (VRP), which is commonly used in advertising research (Schlinger, 1979). The VRP consisted of 32 items with five subscales with (1) entertainment, (2) confusion, (3) relevant news, (4) Brand Reinforcement and empathy and (5) Familiarity and Alienation with a total of 32 items. However, only the subscale familiarity and alienation, which could indicate the level of shock, was used and consisted of three items (see Appendix E). For these three items another PCA was conducted for the level of shock of the manipulation. It showed that these items, as expected, formed a uni-dimensional scale: one component had an eigenvalue above 1 (eigenvalue 1.68). The scree plot showed a clear point of inflection after this component. The item "This kind of ad has been done many times... It’s the same old thing" had the strongest association (factor loading was .89). Reliability of the scale was moderate (α = .6). Thus, the scale measured the
respondents' level of shock of the manipulation. Looking to the original variable response options, it showed that high scores on the items indicated a perception of
high shock. Therefore, a higher score on the items implied a higher respondent's level of shock of the manipulation.
Pre-test
A pre-test was executed before distributing the survey through Qualtrics. This was needed to prevent any inconsistencies within the survey. All variables and items needed within this thesis were included in this survey. The pre-test consisted of 10 participants and were randomly assigned to one of the three conditions. Thereafter, participants were given the opportunity to give feedback after the survey in person.
Small changes were made as some participants were confused about the fictional brand, since participants did not recognize it and since it did not exist in real life. Hence, descriptions were adjusted and was emphasized that a fictional brand was mentioned. There were no further remarks. Subsequently, the survey was clear and ready for distribution.
Results Stimuli check
To inspect if the stimuli were addressed as shocking an one-‐way analysis of variance (ANOVA) analysis was conducted to compare the means. This
analysis compared the three types of images that participants had seen. Of the 182 participants, 64 were in the heterosexual condition (M= 3.4, SD = .89), 59 in the lesbian condition (M= 3.26, SD = .78), and 59 in the gay male condition (M =
3.01, SD = .88). This meant that participants in any condition did not find the
images shocking. Interestingly, the heterosexual condition was rated more shocking than the gay male-‐ and lesbian condition. Further, the analysis showed that the assumption of equal variances was violated, Levene's F(2,179) = 7.40, p = .00. This was expected, as there should be no differences between the groups.
However, to be certain, a Welch test was conducted and showed no significant effect, Welch's F(2, 113) = 2.02, p = .19. Taken all together, this meant that the manipulation check did not succeed. Thus, all hypotheses should have been rejected beforehand, however it was chosen to carry on with the results. Hypothesis testing
The first three hypotheses were tested by using ANOVA analyses, however the fourth hypothesis was tested by a Regression analysis with Process Macro tool and made it possible to calculate the direct and moderation effect at once (Hayes, 2018). It had a confidence interval of 95% and the indirect effects were analyzed by using bootstrapping with 5000 bootstrap samples. Process Macro did allow moderator testing which suited this research. A conceptual diagram was used, as this was
Process model 1. Direct effect
The first hypothesis was about the direct effect of homosexual shock
advertising on brand image. It was expected that exposure to homosexual shock advertising would result in a lower level of brand image than exposure to heterosexual shock advertising. The precondition for ANOVA was met, the
assumptions of equal variances in the population had not been violated, Levene’s F (1, 180) = 2.97, p > .05. Participants who had not seen the homosexual shock
advertising had less positive brand image (M = 3.59, SD = 1.20), while those who had
seen the homosexual shock advertising had a more positive brand image (M = 4.03,
SD = 1.0). The ANOVA analysis showed a significant effect, F(1, 180) = 7.06, p <
.05, η² = .04. However, this significant effect applied to the opposite effect of the hypothesis; Exposure to homosexual shock advertising would result in a higher level
of brand image than exposure to heterosexual shock advertisement. Therefore, first hypothesis is rejected.
However, after conducting Regression analysis with Process Macro for the fourth hypothesis contradictory results came across. The main effect of the conditions had a negative significant effect, b* = 2.02, t(178)= 2.13, p < .05, 95% CI [3.89, -.15]. This would mean that the first hypothesis would be accepted. However, this significant effect is contradicting with the results of the ANOVA analysis for the first hypothesis, which was rejected earlier and rarely happens. A motivation can be found in the discussion chapter.
Moderating effects
The precondition for ANOVA was met, the assumptions of equal variances in the population had not been violated, Levene's F(1,56) = .03, p > .05. The second hypothesis stated that heterosexual men will hold a more negative attitude towards the brand image when exposed to gay male shock advertising than towards lesbian shock advertising. Results of the ANOVA showed that men who saw gay male shock advertising had a more positive brand image (M = 4.12, SD = 1.11) than men who saw lesbian shock advertising (M = 3.67, SD = 1.03). The ANOVA results showed a non-significant effect, F(2, 84) = 3.7, p = .25, η² = .03. Hence, the second hypothesis was rejected.
The third hypothesis stated that heterosexual women will not hold different attitudes towards the brand image when exposed to gay male shock advertising, nor when exposed to lesbian shock advertising. The precondition for ANOVA was met, the assumptions of equal variances had not been violated, Levene's F(1,58) = .95, p > .05. However, the means showed that there was a difference. This was not expected. Women who saw gay male shock advertising had a more positive brand image (M =
4.36, SD = .92) than women who saw lesbian shock advertising (M = 3.91, SD = 1.04). The analysis showed a significant effect, F(2,92) = 7.0, p < .05, η² = .13. Further, the Post Hoc Bonferroni test had a significant effect (Mdifference = -.91, p = .001) and showed that heterosexual women will hold a more positive attitude towards the brand image when exposed to gay male shock advertising than exposed to
heterosexual shock advertising. No significant differences between heterosexual women who were exposed to lesbian shock advertisements or gay male
advertisements, nor who were exposed to lesbian shock advertisements or
heterosexual shock advertising was established. Taken together, the third hypothesis was rejected.
The fourth hypothesis stated that the relation between homosexual shock
advertising and brand image becomes more positive when moderated by acceptance of homosexuality. The hypothesis included an interaction effect of acceptance of homosexuality between homosexual shock advertising and brand image. As stated
earlier, the main effect of the conditions had a negative significant effect, b* = -2.02,
t(178) = -2.13, p < .05, 95% CI [-3.89, -.15]. This contradicting result with the
ANOVA analysis conducted earlier, will be motivated in the discussion chapter. Further, the main effect of the moderator, the variable acceptance of
homosexuality, had a significant negative effect on brand image, b* = .60, t(178) = -2.29, p < .05, 95% CI [-1.11, -.08]. Moreover, the moderating effect showed a positive significant effect, b* = .42, t(178) = 2.63, p < .05, 95% CI [.11, .73]. The analysis showed that all levels of acceptance of homosexuality were considered high. Furthermore, it showed that the lower level of acceptance of homosexuality was not significant, Effect = .00, t(178) = .01, p = .99, 95% CI [-.46, .46], the medium level was positively significant, Effect = .50, t(178) = 3.0, p < .05, 95% CI [.17, .83] and
the higher level was positively significant, Effect = .92, t(178) = 3.74, p < .05, 95% CI [.43, 1.40]. However, these results showed that the effect went into the other
direction: the relation between homosexual shock advertising and brand image becomes more negative when moderated by acceptance of homosexuality. The fourth hypothesis could be partly accepted, as some moderating effects were significant. However, the fourth hypothesis was rejected.
Conclusion
Companies faced problems after showing homosexual shock advertising to
heterosexuals. Companies were not certain what effect would occur on their brand image after launching such campaigns. Thus, the purpose of the current study was to investigate how homosexual shock advertising may affect brand image. This was done with gender and acceptance of homosexuality as moderators of the relationship between homosexual shock advertising and brand image. This was researched by means of an experimental study with an online survey.
First, it was expected that heterosexual consumers would perceive the brand more negatively when they were exposed to homosexual imagery rather than to heterosexual imagery. Ambiguous results were found. The first ANOVA analysis revealed an opposite effect: homosexual shock advertising would result in a higher level of brand image than exposure to heterosexual shock advertisement. However, the Process Macro results revealed that exposure to homosexual shock advertising would result in a lower level of brand image. It might thus, not be of value for marketers to advertise with homosexual shock advertising when increasing their brand image positively. However, these contradicting results will be further explained in the discussion.
Second, it was expected that gender differences seemed to influence the relation between homosexual shock advertisements and brand image. Heterosexual men would perceive homosexual shock advertising less sexually than lesbian shock advertising and women would not hold different attitudes when exposed to these (Herek 2000; Read, van Driel & Potter, 2018). Results showed that female participants had a higher level of brand image when exposed to gay male shock advertising, rather than to heterosexual advertising. Thus, marketers that use
homosexual shock advertisements could consider gay male shock advertising for the female target audience, as it will positively influence the brand image. This could be, because gay males open up to heterosexual women more than lesbians. They could also talk about their negative encounters in real life with anti-gays, which could give gay males a safe and confident feeling near heterosexual women (Koon-Magnin & Schulze, 2019). Hence, it could be that heterosexual women rated brands more positively that showed gay male shock advertisements, causing promotion of gay male lifestyle and acceptance towards this lifestyle, than brands that showed
heterosexual shock advertisements. However, other types of advertisements should be considered to trigger men, as exposure of any homosexual shock advertisements would not result in a better brand image.
Third, it was expected that acceptance of homosexuality influenced the main relation between homosexual shock advertisements and brand image positively. However, results were contradicting with previous researches and showed an opposite effect: acceptance of homosexuality would influence the main relation between homosexual shock advertisements and brand image negatively.
This was in line with the studies of (Rim & Kim, 2016; Yang & Hsu, 2017) that illustrated that consumers with a high level of involvement in the matter of subject,
have a higher level of skepticism about the company's intentions of the advertising campaign. Participants would think that companies would not care about societal issues, but use these for gaining profits, brand image and reputation and would eventually lead to a negative attitude towards the ad and the brand (Bhat, Myers & Royne, 2018).This could mean that marketers should avoid the public with a moderate and high acceptance of homosexuality. However, the acceptance of homosexuality will be further explained in the discussion.
Moreover, the manipulation was not perceived shocking to the participants. Participants were mostly students. This could mean that marketers should bear in mind that this kind of homosexual shock images did not make an impression towards students. Marketers should thus, taken into account which audiences they would target with such advertisements or find other ways of advertising to get grip of students' attention in order to increase their brand image.
Discussion
As mentioned before, manipulation failed and all four hypotheses were rejected. However, the weaknesses of this study can be discussed. Firstly, the manipulation fail could be explained by different factors. Most participants were students recruited from the own environment, which meant that they have a high education. Hello, Scheepers and Sleegers (2006) stated that the higher educated people were, the more open-minded they were. Participants would thus, not quickly be surprised or be shocked when seeing something unusual. Consequently, all
participants were Dutch. Dutch tend to be more open-minded towards homosexuality than other nationalities, which made it possible that they did not find the images shocking at all (Licciardello, Castiglione, & Rampullo, 2011). In addition to this, Urwin and Venter (2014) stated that generation Y or students, would not easily be
shocked by shock advertising and would respond to these as obsolete. Exposure of shock advertisements to students would have little to no effect on them.
Further, recruited participants that were from the same environment may also have caused the insignificance of all hypotheses. Most participants were students from a young age and from the same environment. Consequently, these factors could explain the rare case of hypothesis 1. After conducting an ANOVA analysis, the hypothesis was rejected. However, the hypothesis was accepted after conducting a regression analysis with Process Macro. Results of the regression analysis with Process Macro, showed that all levels of acceptance of homosexuality (low, moderate and high) were all considered a high level. This could have been the reason why the hypothesis was both rejected and accepted. The acceptance of homosexuality was of great influence and could thus, be explained through little differences between participants. Individuals who had participated mostly came from Amsterdam. In this Dutch capital city, gay rights are embraced and celebrated each year with a gay pride event (Buijs, Duyvendak & Hekma, 2010) and thus, could explain that even the lowest level of acceptance towards homosexuals was very high under these
participants. Moreover, nearly all participants had a form of high education. Hello, Scheepers and Sleegers (2006) stated before, that individuals with high education were mostly open-minded, which made it coherent towards a higher level of
acceptance of homosexuality as well. Due to the reason that participants were mostly students, they would often share the same age or come from the same generation. This made it possible that this was the reason that they share the same values towards homosexuality (Lisdonk, Nencel, & Keuzenkamp, 2018). Possibly, when recruiting a bigger variety of participants, such as more variety in education, residence and age, the differences of acceptance of homosexuals and perception of shock between
participants would be greater and would result in a better representation of the Dutch population. This could mean that the manipulation check could have passed, the tested effects could have been significant and that it could have supported earlier
studies. Thus, the current sample of participants was purported to represent.
Additionally, the high acceptance of homosexuality could also be explained by answering the items of the variable acceptance of homosexuality with a Likert-scale. (Lishner, Cooter, & Zald, 2008) stated that participants did not require answering with an actual yes or no option in the questionnaires. It would not force the participant to take a stand on this subject. In contrary, it allowed the participants to respond in extend of agreement, making it easier to answer and making it easier to answer with a socially desirable response. Subsequently, it might not measure people's true attitude as people could refrain from choosing the highest or lowest option on the scale even if this choice is the most accurate with their attitude. This because of the negative
implications involved with extremists and must be considered as a weakness (Lishner, Cooter & Zald, 2008).
Moreover, the thesis was only concerning heterosexual participants who were exposed to homosexual advertisements. It should be mentioned that there could have been sexual orientation differences on the variable homosexual shock advertisements and brand image (Oakenfull, McCarthy, & Greenlee, 2008). Thus, a note should be made that this research is limited to heterosexual participants. Homosexual or bisexual participants could be recruited for further research to compare all sexual orientations with each other.
Marketers would now know the effect of gender on the relation of homosexual shock advertisements on brand image. However, more moderators could influence this main effect and should be taken into consideration. A recent study of Souza and
Cribari-Neto (2015) gave empirical evidence that religion and intelligence had an effect on how people would perceive homosexual imagery and homosexuals
themselves. This in turn, could influence the brand and reputation of a company. And other research showed that there were age related differences on the relation between homosexual advertisements and brand image (Orr, van Oudtshoorn & Kotzé, 2005; Åkestam, Rosengren & Dahlen, 2017).
Taken this together, it is important to take these discussion points and
limitations of above into account for future research, as these influenced the results. In this way, same mistakes can be avoided and external validity could be fostered.
References
Åkestam, N., Rosengren, S., & Dahlen, M. (2017). Think about it–can portrayals of homosexuality in advertising prime consumer-perceived social connectedness and empathy? European Journal of Marketing, 51(1), 82-98
Andersson, S., Hedelin, A., Nilsson, A., & Welander, C. (2004). Violent advertising in fashion marketing. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 8(1), 96-112.
Anderson, A. R., Knee, E., Ramos, W. D., & Quash, T. M. (2018). " We just treat everyone the same": LGBTQ Aquatic management strategies, barriers and implementation. International Journal of Aquatic Research and Education,
11(1), 2.
Bachnik, K., & Nowacki, R. (2018). How to build consumer trust: Socially responsible or controversial advertising. Sustainability, 10(7), 2173-2194. Belch, G.E. and Belch, M.A. (1998) Advertising and promotion: An integrated
marketing communications perspective (4th ed.), Boston McGraw-Hill,
Boston.
Bhat, S., Leigh, T. W., & Wardlow, D. L. (1996). The effect of homosexual imagery in advertising on attitude toward the ad. Journal of Homosexuality, 31(1-2), 161-176.
Bhat, S., Leigh, T. W., & Wardlow, D. L. (1998). The effect of consumer prejudices on ad processing: Heterosexual consumers’ responses to homosexual imagery in ads. Journal of Advertising, 27(4), 9-28.
Bhat, S., Myers, S., & Royne, M. (2018). Interracial Couples in Ads: Do Consumers' Gender and Racial Differences Affect Their Reactions? Journal of Current
Buijs, L., Duyvendak, J. W., & Hekma, G. (2010). Als ze maar van me afblijven: Een
onderzoek naar antihomoseksueel geweld in Amsterdam. Amsterdam, The
Netherlands: Amsterdam University Press.
Caswell, T., & Sackett-Fox, K. (2018). Gender-atypical personality or sexual behavior: What is disgusting about male homosexuality? The Journal of
Social Psychology, 158(5), 591-602.
Chang, P.-L., & Chieng, M.-H. (2006). Building consumer– brand relationship: A cross-cultural experiential view. Psychology & Marketing, 23, 927-959. Cho, E., Fiore, A. M., & Russell, D. W. (2015). Validation of a fashion brand image
scale capturing cognitive, sensory, and affective associations: Testing its role in an extended brand equity model. Psychology & Marketing, 32(1), 28-48. Dahl, D. W., Frankenberger, K. D., & Manchanda, R. V. (2003). Does it pay to
shock? Reactions to shocking and nonshocking advertising content among university students. Journal of Advertising Research, 43(3), 268-280. Dahlén, M., & Edenius, M. (2007). When is advertising advertising? Comparing
responses to non-traditional and traditional advertising media. Journal of
Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 29(1), 33-42.
Esch, F-R., Langer, T., Schmitt, B. H., & Geus, P. (2006). Are brands forever? How brand knowledge and relationships affect current and future purchases.
Journal of Product & Brand Management, 15, 98-105.
Faircloth, J. B., Capella, L. M., & Alford, B. L. (2001). The effect of brand attitude and brand image on brand equity. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice,
9, 61-75.
Fasoli, F., Cadinu, M., Galdi, A., Guizzo, S., Tassara, L., & Carnaghi. (2018). How do you self-categorize? Gender and sexual orientation self-categorization in
homosexual/heterosexual men and women. Personality and Individual
Differences, 123, 135-139.
Gustafson, B., & Yssel, J. (1994). Are advertisers practicing safe sex? Marketing
News, 28(6), 4-4.
Haddock, G., Zanna, M. P., & Esses, V. M. (1993). Assessing the structure of prejudicial attitudes: The case of attitudes toward homosexuals. Journal of
personality and social psychology, 65(6), 1105-1118.
Hello, E., Scheepers, P., & Sleegers, P. (2006). Why the more educated are less inclined to keep ethnic distance: An empirical test of four explanations. Ethnic
and Racial Studies, 29(5), 959-985.
Herek, G. (1988). Attitudes toward lesbians and gay men: A factor-analytic study. Journal of Homosexuality, 10(1-2), 39-51.
Herek, G. M. (2000). SexualPrejudice and Gender: Do Heterosexuals' Attitudes Toward Lesbians and Gay Men Differ? Journal of Social Issues, 56(2), 251-266.
Herek, G., & Glunt, E. (1993). Interpersonal contact and heterosexuals’ attitudes toward gay men: Results from a national survey. Journal of Sex
Research, 30(3), 239-244.
Hubbard, R. C. (1993). Shock advertising: the Benetton case. Studies in Popular
Culture, 16(1), 39-51.
Huebner, D. M., Rebchook, G. M., & Kegeles, S. M. (2004). Experiences of harassment, discrimination, and physical violence among young gay and bisexual men. American Journal of Public Health, 94(7), 1200-1203.
Huhmann, B. A., & Mott-Stenerson, B. (2008). Controversial advertisement executions and involvement in elaborative processing and comprehension.
Journal of Marketing Communications, 14(4), 293-313.
Hicks, G. R., & Lee, T. T. (2006). Public attitudes toward gays and lesbians: Trends and predictors. Journal of homosexuality, 51(2), 57-77.
Hooten, M. A., Noeva, K., & Hammonds, F. (2009). The effects of homosexual imagery in advertisements on brand perception and purchase intention. Social
Behavior and Personality: an international journal, 37(9), 1231-1238.
Ismail, A. R., & Spinelli, G. (2012). Effects of brand love, personality and image on word of mouth: The case of fashion brands among young consumers. Journal
of Fashion Marketing and Management, 16, 386-398.
Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity. Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 1-22.
Keuzenkamp, S. (2011). Acceptance of homosexuality in the Netherlands, 2011: international comparison, trends, and current situation. Netherlands Institute
for Social Research.
Kim, E. Y., Knight, D. K., & Pelton, L. E. (2009). Modeling brand equity of a U.S. apparel brand as perceived by generation Y consumers in the emerging Korean market. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 27, 247-258.
Kite, M. E. (1984). Sex differences in attitudes toward homosexuals: A meta-analytic review. Journal of homosexuality, 10(1-2), 69-81.
Kongintr, M. (2009). The Effects of Homosexual vs. Heterosexual Theme
Advertisement and Regulatory Focus on the Effectiveness of Advertisement. 成功大學國際經營管理研究所碩士班學位論文, 1-138.
Koon-Magnin, S., & Schulze, C. (2019). Providing and receiving sexual assault disclosures: Findings from a sexually diverse sample of young adults. Journal
of interpersonal violence, 34(2), 416-441.
Lassar, W., Mittal, B., & Sharma, A. (1995). Measuring customer-based brand equity.
Journal of Consumer Marketing, 12, 11-19.
Lee, S., & Heere, B. (2018). Exploring the relative effectiveness of emotional, rational, and combination advertising appeals on Sport Consumer behavior. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 27(2), 82-92.
Licciardello, O., Castiglione, C., & Rampullo, A. (2011). Intergroup contact, value system and the representation of homosexuality. Procedia-Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 30, 1467-1471.
Lightfoot, G., Lilley, S., & Kavanagh, D. (2006). The end of the shock of the new.
Journal of Creativity and Innovation Management, 15(2), 157-163.
Lisdonk, J., Nencel, L., & Keuzenkamp, S. (2018). Labeling Same-Sex Sexuality in a Tolerant Society That Values Normality: The Dutch Case. Journal of
homosexuality, 65(13), 1892-1915.
Lishner, D. A., Cooter, A. B., & Zald, D. H. (2008). Addressing measurement limitations in affective rating scales: Development of an empirical valence scale. Cognition and Emotion, 22(1), 180-192.
Lippa, R. A. (2000). Gender related traits in gay men, lesbian women, and heterosexual men and women: The virtual identity of homosexual
heterosexual diagnosticity and gender diagnosticity. Journal of Personality,
68(5), 899-926.
Low, G. S., & Lamb, C. W. (2000). The measurement and dimensionality of brand associations. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 9, 350-368.
MacDonald, Jr, A. P., & Games, R. G. (1976). Some characteristics of those who hold positive and negative attitudes toward homosexuals. Journal of
Homosexuality, 1(1), 9-27.
Oakenfull, G., & Greenlee, T. (2004). The three rules of crossing over from gay media to mainstream media advertising: Lesbians, lesbians, lesbians. Journal
of Business Research, 57(11), 1276-1285.
Oakenfull, G. K., McCarthy, M. S., & Greenlee, T. B. (2008). Targeting a minority without alienating the majority: Advertising to gays and lesbians in
mainstream media. Journal of Advertising Research, 48(2), 191-198. Orr, R. S., Van Oudtshoorn, G. V. R., & Kotzé, T. (2005). The perceptions of
consumers aged 18-30 of. Communicare: Journal for Communication
Sciences in Southern Africa, 24(1), 49-68.
Park, H-J., & Rabolt, N. J. (2009). Cultural value, consump- tion value, and global brand image: A cross-national study. Psychology & Marketing, 26, 714-735. Parry, S., Jones, R., Stern, P., & Robinson, M. (2013). ‘Shockvertising’: An
exploratory investigation into attitudinal variations and emotional reactions to shock advertising. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 12(2), 112-121.
Pounders, K., & Mabry-Flynn, A. (2016). Consumer response to gay and lesbian imagery: How product type and stereotypes affect consumers'
perceptions. Journal of Advertising Research, 56(4), 426-440.
Sandıkcı, Ö. (2011). Shock tactics in advertising and implications for
citizen-consumer. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 1(18), 42-50.
Schlinger, M. J. (1979). A profile of responses to commercials. Journal of Advertising
Schope, R. D., & Eliason, M. J. (2000). Thinking versus acting: Assessing the relationship between heterosexual attitudes and behaviors toward homosexuals. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 11(4), 69-92. Sengupta, J., & Dahl, D. W. (2008). Gender related reactions to gratuitous sex appeals in advertising. Journal of consumer psychology, 18(1), 62-78.
Souza, & Cribari-Neto. (2015). Intelligence, religiosity and homosexuality non-acceptance: Empirical evidence. Intelligence, 52, 63-70.
Stove H. (2018). Zo zet je net als Suitsupply een controversiële reclamecampagne op. Retrieved from https://www.deondernemer.nl/nieuwsbericht/173134/hoe-pakkenbedrijf-suitsupply-juiste-snaar-wist-te-raken
Tuten, T. L. (2005). The effect of gay-friendly and non-gay-friendly cues on brand attitudes: A comparison of heterosexual and gay/lesbian reactions. Journal of
Marketing Management, 21(3-4), 441-461.
Read, G. L., van Driel, I. I., & Potter, R. F. (2018). Same-Sex Couples in Advertisements: An Investigation of the Role of Implicit Attitudes on
Cognitive Processing and Evaluation. Journal of Advertising, 47(2), 182-197. Rim, H., & Kim, S. (2016). Dimensions of corporate social responsibility (CSR)
skepticism and their impacts on public evaluations toward CSR. Journal of
Public Relations Research, 28(5-6), 248-267.
Subramanian, K. R. (2018). Social media and the word of mouth publicity.
International Research Journal of Advanced Engineering and Science, 3(2),
95-100.
Um, N. H. (2014). Does gay-themed advertising haunt your brand? The impact of gay-themed advertising on young heterosexual consumers. International
Urwin, B., & Venter, M. (2014). Shock advertising: Not so shocking anymore. An investigation among Generation Y. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences,
5(21), 203-214.
Weinberg, B. C., & Rubin, S. G. (1972). Compressible corner flow. Journal of Fluid
Mechanics, 56(4), 753-774.
Winick, C. (1985). A content analysis of sexually explicit magazines sold in an adult bookstore. Journal of Sex Research, 21(2), 206-210.
Yang, C. M., & Hsu, T. F. (2017). Effects of skepticism about corporate social responsibility advertising on consumer attitude. Social Behavior and
Personality: an international journal, 45(3), 453-467.
Appendix A
Consent form, general questions and debriefing Consent form:
Beste,
met deze briefing wil ik je graag uitnodigen om mee te doen in een onderzoek onder de supervisie van de Graduate school van Communicatie, een onderdeel van de Universiteit van Amsterdam. Meedoen aan het onderzoek is vrijwillig. Als u mee wilt doen, dan vraag ik u om toestemming door hieronder op accepteren te klikken.
Het huidige onderzoek gaat over “shock advertenties”. Allereerst vraag ik u om een vragenlijst in te vullen. Dit betreft voornamelijk algemene vragen.
Vervolgens worden er afbeeldingen getoond die als onaangenaam kunnen worden ervaren. Hierover worden ook een aantal vragen gesteld. Het doel van dit onderzoek is om meer inzicht te creëren wat voor effect deze shock advertenties kunnen hebben op heteroseksuele participanten. Alles bij elkaar zal het onderzoek ongeveer 10 minuten duren.
1) Uw resultaten zullen als vertrouwelijk worden beschouwd en anoniem verwerkt worden.
2) U kan op elk moment tijdens het onderzoek stoppen als u dat wilt. Ook heeft u 24 uur na afronding van de vragenlijst de mogelijkheid om uw toestemming terug te trekken, zodat uw antwoorden of data niet meer worden gebruikt in het onderzoek.
3) Niet langer dan 5 maanden na de conclusie van het onderzoek, is er de mogelijkheid om het onderzoeksrapport in te zien dat de algemene resultaten toont van het onderzoek.
Heeft u klachten of commentaar over dit onderzoek of over de procedures van uw participatie in dit onderzoek, contacteer dan het Ethics Committee die de ASCoR representeert op het volgende adres: ASCoR Secretariaat, Ethics Committee, University of Amsterdam, Postbus 15793, 1001 NG Amsterdam; 020‐525 3680; ascor‐secr‐fmg@uva.nl.
Wilt u meer informatie over dit huidige onderzoek? Mail naar:
mn.guyen@uva.student.nl
Hopelijk heb ik u voldoende informatie verschaft. Ik wil ook bij voorbaat bedanken voor uw assistentie in dit onderzoek die zeer wordt gewaardeerd.
My Nguyen
Toestemming
Ik doe mee aan dit onderzoek naar shock advertenties. Ik begrijp dat ik een vragenlijst over shock advertenties in ga vullen en een paar afbeeldingen zal zien. Ook zal ik een aantal vragen van de onderzoeker beantwoorden. Ik kan altijd vragen om uitleg en als mij iets niet duidelijk is, kan ik het onderzoek altijd onderbreken. Het is mij duidelijk dat ik mij op elk moment terug kan trekken uit deze studie. Ik hoef dat dan niet uit te leggen. Ik stem in om hier aan mee te doen.
o Ik stem toe o Ik stem niet toe
General Questions:
Met welk geslacht identificeert u zich? o Man
