Effects of physical attractiveness on purchase intention.
Roxana-Cristina Panaite 10602399
Master’s Thesis Persuasive Communication
Word count: 6944
Supervisor: Prof. S.J.H.M van den Putte
Amsterdam January 30,.2015
My research explores the effects of attractive models, compared to unattractive models on purchase intention. Results show that attractiveness matters and attractive models in commercials lead to higher rates of purchase intention. I also examine the moderation effect of ad attitude and brand attitude. Ad attitude doesn’t moderate the relationship between attractiveness and purchase intention. However, brand attitude moderates this relationship; unfortunately the effect doesn’t have the directionality I was expecting.
Introduction
Attractiveness refers to physical beauty characteristics such as thinness (Bower & Landerth, 2001) or to a beautiful figure (Richins, 1991). Hence, an attractive person is someone who has a pleasant appearance, especially a feature or quality that many people like. Marketers advertise their products usually through attractive models, in the hopes of increasing the rates of purchase intention.
Since the beginning of advertising, the use of highly attractive models has been popular, even though support for their effectiveness is somewhat mixed. On the one hand, some researchers found a positive effect of attractive models on ad attitude and stronger purchase intention (Baker &Churchill, 1977; Petroshius & Crocker, 1989). On the other hand, other researchers didn’t find a significant effect of attractive models on purchase intention (Bower & Landerth, 2001; Caballero, Lumpkin & Madden, 1989). In the hopes of clarifying some of the previous mixed findings, before carrying out my study, I followed the implications advised by previous researchers (Caballero et. al., 1989).
Attractiveness remains a popular topic in advertising and marketing studies as marketers have shown a great interest in understanding their customers’ decisions. To better understand this, previous researchers have explored the importance of self-esteem as a mediator between attractiveness and purchase intention or attitudes (Berscheid & Reis, 1998,
Richins, 1991). Other researchers have analyzed the importance of gender and race (Petroshius & Crocker, 1989). But, to my knowledge no one has analyzed yet the moderation effect of ad attitude and brand attitude. In my study I will analyze the moderating effect of ad attitude on the relationship between attractiveness and purchase intention; in order to see whether a positive ad attitude enhances purchase intention or not. In addition, I will also look at the moderation effect that brand attitude has on the relationship between attractiveness and purchase intention. It is important to see what effect brand attitude has on the main relationship because a positive brand attitude can also increase purchase intention (Shimp, 1981). Therefore, the main aim of my research is to investigate to what extent attractive models in commercials compared to unattractive models influence people’s purchase intention. I will also examine how this relationship is moderated by ad attitude and brand attitude.
My research has some practical implications too. First of all, the results of this study will offer great insight into consumers’ decision making. My research will mostly be helpful for marketers and advertisers. The advertisers’ assumption is that somehow highly attractive models will lead to a greater purchase intention. However, this assumption is made based on advertiser’s feelings rather than on empirical evidence. My study will shed some light in this field. Based on the results of my research, advertisers will know to what extent attractiveness works in enhancing purchase intention. Secondly, this research would also aid company’s owners to make a choice when deciding who they would like to promote their products in terms of physical appearance and which models are more effective. As the advertisement used in this study is for body lotion, the results of this study will be helpful mostly for cosmetic companies, but to some extent they can also be related to other products used to enhance beauty (such as clothing or sport lessons).
Theory
Attractiveness: attractive versus unattractive models in commercials
Nowadays, most advertisements portray attractive people. In order to see the importance of attractiveness in commercials, people should watch television or look at print and online ads. The appearances of highly attractive models in commercials are both unrealistic and idealized. Richins (1991, p. 71) called these models “haunting images of perfection” and he emphasized that usually in advertising models were too attractive and especially female models were unrealistically thin. Normally attractive models have a moderate weight, height and facial beauty, thus they are more representative of a “real” woman (Bower & Landreth, 2001). Sometimes, though very rarely, models that are not perceived as attractive are used in commercials. These models are most of the time overweight or they have physical flaws that are perceived as unattractive.
Erdogan (1999) argues that consumers tend to form positive stereotypes about attractive people and he supports this through the source attractiveness model. Based on this theory it is argued that physically attractive communicators are more successful at changing beliefs and eventually generating purchase intention, compared to their unattractive counterparts. The source attractiveness model contends that the effectiveness of a message depends on three characteristics, amongst which the likability for the endorser. Likeability refers to the affection for the model as a result of his or hers physical appearance. Based on the source attractiveness model, the likability of the model would make the message of the advertisement more effective and people would eventually end up purchasing more.
One of the reasons marketers use attractive models to advertise their products is due to the fact that attractive people have an advantage in social interaction. Previous research showed that attractive models tend to be associated with better lives and a positive life
outcome such as successful careers or better marriages (Benoy, 1982) and they do not encounter problems that normal people do (Dion, Berscheid & Walster, 1972). Normal and overweight people were perceived as regular people to whom positive life outcomes were not attributed. Physically attractive individuals were perceived as more interesting, modest, sociable, talented, kind, responsive outgoing and to be of a better character than individuals of lesser attractiveness (Dion, et. al., 1972; Miller, 1970). Previous research showed that people were more favorably inclined toward the needs of those individuals they know and like (Cialdini, 1994; Cialdini & Sagarin, 2001; McGuire, 1985). According to Cialdini and Sagarin (2001), people were more willing to comply with a request an individual they find to be attractive. Their theory is also supported by an unpublished manuscript which has at its core a study from 1974 for the Canadian Federal elections which found out that attractive candidates received more than two and half votes than unattractive candidates (Efran & Patterson, 1976 cited in Cialdini & Sagarin, 2001). This is in accordance with the assumption that attractive people are perceived as being better than their unattractive counterparts. Equally impressive results from a different study showed that physical appearance plays a main role in judgments made of prisoners: attractive defendants were beneficents of the “beauty is good” stereotype. They were viewed more favorably than the unattractive defendants with respect to peripheral personal attributes and they were favored by the mock jurors with respects to the verdict rendered (Moore, 1990).
When viewed in light of such powerful examples, it is not surprising that marketers use attractive models to promote their brands, products and services. According to all the studies cited above, attractive people are perceived as having better lives.
The influence of attractiveness on purchase intention
Purchase intentions are an individual’s conscious plan to make an effort to purchase a brand (Spears & Singh, 2004). Previous research has been carried out to measure the influence that attractiveness has on purchase intention, however results have been mixed (Baker & Churchill, 1977; Bower & Landerth, 2001; Caballero, et. al., 1989; Petroshius & Crocker, 1989). The inconsistent findings could be a result of the chosen products. When measuring how attractiveness increased the purchase intention for beer or tissues, results revealed that physical attractiveness of the model influenced purchase intention of the beer. Strangely, the same study revealed that the less attractive model increased sales for facial tissues (Caballero & Solomon, 1984). To measure the effect that attractiveness has on purchase intention, it would be better to use products that may somewhat increase the level of attractiveness when used, such as cosmetics. In the aforementioned case, both beer and tissues weren’t products used to increase attractiveness, which could be the cause of authors’ findings.
Recent research took into account the match between products and models, showing that a match between model’s attractiveness and product type influences advertising effectiveness (Bower & Landreth, 2001). It has been demonstrated that highly attractive models are a good fit for products that enhance attractiveness, while normally attractive models are a good fit for problem- solving products. It was important to convince customers that the model in the advertisement possessed some physical characteristics that improved her appearance only after using the advertised product. Therefore, customers would think the product was responsible for the improvement and they would be more willing to purchase it (Kamins, 1990; Lynch & Schuler, 1994).
Physically attractive people used in commercials are more successful in changing beliefs (Baker & Churchill (1977). People do tend to use physical attractiveness in helping them to decide whether to purchase or not a certain product. Research has showed that attractive people in commercials generate purchase intention (Kahle & Homer, 1985; Petroshius & Crocker, 1989). Specifically, an advertisement containing a physically attractive model resulted in respondents expressing a greater willingness to purchase the product compared to an advertisement containing a physically unattractive model.
Overall, it appears that, at least in some cases, the attractiveness of a model is an influential variable in consumers’ purchase intentions behavior. Although these findings are of value, additional work is needed to obtain a useful set of applicable guidelines for marketers. Consequently, the following hypothesis is offered:
H1. Attractive models in commercials compared to unattractive models lead to higher rate of purchase intention.
Effects of ad attitude on the relationship between attractiveness and purchase intention
Ad attitude refers to consumers’ evaluations of the advertisement or commercial. MacKenzie, Lutz, and Belch (1986, p 130) defined ad attitude as the "predisposition to respond in a favorable or unfavorable manner to a particular advertising stimulus during a particular exposure situation". The idea that consumers may have affective reactions to commercial stimuli is hardly novel (Batra &Ray, 1986; Petroshius & Crocker, 1989; Shimp, 1981;). This is due to the evidence that attitude toward the ad acts as a mediator of advertising effectiveness, namely purchase intention (Edell, & Burke, 1984).
Consumers’ beliefs and evaluations are influenced by processing an advertisement or ad campaign (Shimp, 1981). Shimp (1981) also argued that the choice of whether to purchase or not the product was contingent on how favorable both the ad and brand attitude were. His
results showed that participants’ attitudes toward the experimental ads were a main determinant of their purchase intentions. Advertisements influenced consumers’ beliefs and evaluations and a positive ad attitude increased the probability of trial or repeat purchase. Moreover, ad attitude helped consumers decide between two brands, thus attitude toward the ad had a direct effect on purchase intention (Biehal, Stephens & Curio, 1992).
In addition, previous studies revealed a direct effect between attractiveness and subjects’ attitude toward the ad (Petroshius & Crocker, 1989). Specifically, customers showed a more positive attitude toward the ad when the advertisement contained a physically attractive model compared to the advertisement containing a physically unattractive model, (Petroshius & Crocker, 1989; Baker & Churchill 1977). Overall, these studies supported the assumption that using attractive models in commercials, compared to using unattractive models, led to a positive ad attitude. Based on these findings, it can be concluded that physically attractive models influenced people’s evaluation of the advertisement’s esthetic qualities.
Giving the results of the previous studies which revealed a main effect between purchase intention and ad attitude (Biehal, et. al., 1992; Shimp, 1981) and a main effect between attractiveness and ad attitude (Petroshius & Crocker, 1989; Baker & Churchill 1977), I expect that ad attitude will influence the relationship between attractiveness and purchase intention. To my knowledge, the moderation effect of ad attitude on the relationship between attractiveness and purchase intention has not been analyzed yet. However, I think that when people look better at the ad and they are more positive toward it, attractiveness will have a stronger effect on purchase intention. I also believe that no matter how attractive and pleasant a model was, if the customer had a negative ad attitude then it is most likely that he wouldn’t purchase the product. In this case, if the customer would have liked the ad, he would
probably have had purchase the product without having second thoughts. Therefore, I hypothesize that:
H2. Ad attitude moderates the relationship between attractiveness and purchase intention: a positive ad attitude strengthens the effect of attractiveness on purchase intention, while a negative ad attitude weakens the effect of attractiveness on purchase intention.
Effects of brand attitude on the relationship between attractiveness and purchase intention
Attitudes are evaluative in nature and they are centered toward an object in this case brand. To my knowledge, the moderation effect that brand attitude has on the relationship between attractiveness and purchase intention has not been yet investigated by previous researchers. However enough literature has been written about brand attitude. Mitchell and Olson (2000) describe brand attitude as an individual’s internal evaluation of an object such as a branded product. They argue that brand attitude is considered to be relatively stable and an enduring predisposition to behave. Consequently, brand attitude should be a useful predictor of consumers’ behavior toward a product. More specifically, attitude toward the brand influences purchase intention.
Attitude toward the brand and purchase intention were two main constructs within the marketing literature and they have been routinely used by advertising scholars and practitioners (Mitchel & Olson, 2000; Spears & Singh, 2004). Even if they were very popular topics within the marketing literature, to my knowledge, these variables have not yet been measured in relation to attractiveness. However, the relationship between brand attitude and purchase intention has been analyzed. Results showed that having a positive attitude toward a brand made it more likely for people to purchase the advertised product (Mitchell & Olson, 2000).
In a thorough analysis of the role of ad attitude, MacKenzie et. al.(1986) also examined brand attitude and they exemplified the fact that brand attitude was an independent determinant of purchase intention. The authors reported that there was a relationship between brand attitude and purchase intention, specifically, the latter variable increased when people had a positive attitude toward the brand.
Overall, previous research showed that a positive attitude toward the brand increases purchase intention. To my knowledge the relationship between attractiveness and brand attitude has not yet been analyzed. However, taking into account the relationship between brand attitude and purchase intention, I expect that there is a possibility that brand attitude would affect the relationship between attractiveness and purchase intention. Given the previous findings and the variables I am using, I expect that brand attitude will moderate the relationship between attractiveness and purchase intention. I believe that if people have a positive attitude toward the brand and they like it, then attractiveness’ influence on purchase intention will be even higher. For instance, I think that when a person sees an ad for a brand he likes and an attractive model endorses the brand it’s more likely that the person will purchase the product, compared to the same ad, but with an unattractive model endorsing the brand.
H3. Brand attitude moderates the relationship between attractiveness and purchase intention: a positive brand attitude strengthens the effect of attractiveness on purchase intention, while a negative brand attitude weakens the effect of attractiveness on purchase intention.
Method
Design and Participants
A one factor experimental, between-subjects design involving attractive versus unattractive models in ads was used to test the advertising effectiveness of attractiveness on
purchase intention. A total of 106 participants (68,9% female) volunteered to partake in this study, their age ranged from 18 to 32. Overall, participants had higher education: 36 out of 100 were en-rolled in a Bachelor program, 42 were en-rolled in a Mater program and 5 were following a PhD. The remaining was either in high school or didn’t follow school at the moment of the experiment. Participants were recruited via convenience sampling due to limitations of time and resources (Mage = 22,54, SD = 3,35).
Among the criteria for selecting participants, good command of the English language was the most important. Both the ads and the survey questions were in English and I did not want low English proficiency to affect the results of my study. Moreover, minors were not included in the sample as I needed parental consent which would have taken extra time.
Pretest
Prior to conducting the experiment to test hypotheses, a pretest was conducted to determine the perceived physical attractiveness of models and therefore to select the model stimuli. The purpose of the pretest (n= 12) was to select the most and the least attractive models as perceived by other people. I selected nine model photographs from popular women’s magazine and from various photo shootings on the basis of subjective criteria of which photos might represented each model’s level of attractiveness. Models with different body shapes and body weight, with beautiful figures and professionally styled hair and make-up were chosen as they had to be a good fit for a body lotion advertisement. The use of photographs with non-celebrity models was consistent with previous studies (Petroshius & Crocker, 1989) and eliminated the potential confounding of gestures, body movement that might have resulted when using a video. Potential subjects from the student community were approached and asked if they would like to participate in a marketing research study. Participants were instructed to rate model’s attractiveness on a scale one to seven, with seven
representing the most attractive. They did not receive any information about the subsequent use of the ratings or photographs.
Procedure
Participants received a link via e-mail, which was sent to them between November 29th and December 3rd 2014. Moreover, the link to the experiment was shared on my personal Facebook page and on several Facebook groups. Participants were asked to perform this task before 7th of December. They were able to access the experiment through clicking on the link. A kind reminder was sent to them on 2nd of December.
The experiment was designed in Qualtrics. The opening page thanked participants for taking part in this study. In order to avoid demand artifacts, as a cover story, participants were told that this study is about reactions to specific kinds of advertising. In addition, participants’ consent was asked for. They were informed that their anonymity was assured and no third party would access their data without their approval and that they could pull out from the study up to 24 hours after completing the survey. Finally, they were asked to carefully read the instructions, pay full attention to the advertisement in order to answer questions that would follow. Participants were randomly divided into one of the two conditions by Qualtrics: attractive or unattractive models. In both conditions, participants saw an ad for a body lotion, which was advertised by either an attractive or by an unattractive model. After exposure to either condition, each respondent was asked to complete a series of questions that were used to formulate the different measures of this study. Then, participants had to enter their demographic information (age, gender and education).Once all questions were completed, respondents were debriefed and thanked for their participation.
Stimulus Materials
The stimuli for this experiment consisted of two visual print advertisements for a body lotion brand, namely Alba Botanica. In order to eliminate any confounding, of the prior brand or ad attitude, the brands and ads had to be unknown to participants. First of all, Alba Botanica, wasn’t a well-known brand internationally. This was important because if the brand was more popular, more respondents could have had strong preconceived attitudes that may not be influenced by the models in the advertisements at all. I designed the ads and they were exactly the same, with the sole exception of the model (see appendix 1).
It is important to consider the specific product involved when drawing conclusions as to model’s effects’ on purchase intention. The main reason body lotion was chosen is its utility: it enhanced attractiveness and gave users’ confidence. Previous studies showed that there must be a match-up between the product chosen and models (Erdogan, 1999). Body lotions in general were consumed by many different types of people across the world; therefore, the product could be potentially interesting to a wider audience.
The advertisement for the attractive condition showed a dark hair girl in a black dress, who was perceived as the most attractive in the pretest. She had a beautiful figure and a fit body. The price and the slogan, plus the image with the body lotion bottle were also present in the ad. The price was 4.99$ and the brand slogan was “It’s really my body lotion that gives me
confidence”. The same was valid for the other condition, the only difference being the
model’s perceived attractiveness. In this condition the model has also dark hair and she wore a grey and pink dress with a golden belt. Both models had their make-up and hair professionally done, so they fitted well in an advertisement. The reason these two models were chosen is because during the pretest they were perceived to be the most and the least attractive models.
Measurements
This study examined the effectiveness of attractiveness (attractive models vs. unattractive models) on purchase intention and how this relationship could be moderated by ad attitude and brand attitude. Information on the respondent’s age, gender, education and weight and height (to calculate body mass index) were also collected to be used for further analysis. Previously proven scales were used to operationalize all the measures.
Attractiveness
Attractiveness was measured on a seven point semantic differential scale with 1 as the lowest
and 7 as the highest. The scale was adapted from Ohanian’s scale for attractiveness (1990). Participants were asked whether they thought the model was unattractive/ attractive, ugly/
beautiful and not sexy/ sexy. (M= 4.77, SD= 1.77, α = .92).
Purchase intention
Purchase intention was measured on a seven-point semantic differential scale with 1 as the
lowest and 7 the highest as in MacKenzie, et. al., (1986). Participants were asked whether after watching the advertisement they were unlikely/ likely, whether there was improbable/
probable and impossible/ possible to purchase the advertised product. (M =2.77, SD =1.71, α=
.90).
Brand attitude
Brand attitude was measured by asking participants to report their feelings about the brand
they saw. The scale ranged between 1 to 7 with 1 as lowest and 7 the highest, for each one of five sets of bipolar adjectives. As in Spears and Singh (2004), participants were asked how they felt about the advertisement in terms of unappealing/appealing, unfavorable/favorable,
unlikeable/likeable, bad/good, boring/interesting and unpleasant/pleasant (M = 3.71, SD =
Ad attitude
Ad attitude was measured on a seven-point semantic differential scale with 1 as the lowest
and 7 the highest. Because I measured attitudes, I used the same scale as for brand attitude. (M = 3.57, SD = 1.69, α = .95).
Demographics
Participants were asked to fill in their age in an open question. Participant's gender was obtained with a question including two options (male or female) and assigned the values 0 for male and 1 for female. Education was measured through a close ended-question including the following variants: high school, bachelor, master, PhD and other. In addition, the weight and the height of the participants were obtained through an open question.
Results
Manipulation check
Although the models’ attractiveness was pretested to ensure that the most and the least attractive models were used, participants in this study also evaluated the models’ attractiveness. The main goal was to see if my study’s findings were the results of my manipulation and not the cause of any other variables. A t-test was performed and the results showed that the manipulation was successful (t (104) = -5.40, p < .001).
Design check
Before proceeding to the hypothesis testing, a Spearman’s correlation coefficient was conducted to examine whether there was a relationship between gender and purchase intention. The test yield that there was no significant correlation between the dependent variable purchase intention and the control variable gender (r = .10, p = .286). A Pearson’s correlation coefficient was conducted to examine whether there was a correlation between age
and purchase intention. The test yield a significant correlation between the dependent variable
purchase intention and the control variable age, (r = -.38, p < .001); meaning that younger
people were more likely to buy the product compared to older people. Therefore in the final analysis age will be controlled for.
Randomization check
A t-test was conducted to examine whether both groups had the same distribution of gender and if in each group participants had similar ages .The t-test showed that there were no significant results for age (t(104)= -1.13, p = .287, 95% CI [-2.05, .55]) or for gender t(104)= .33, p = .502, 95% CI [- 1.49, .21]).
Hypotheses testing
Hypothesis 1 stated that attractive models in commercials compared to unattractive models lead to a higher rate of purchase intention. The factorial ANOVA analysis showed that there was a significant main effect of attractiveness on purchase intention (F (1,106) = 5.58, p = .020, M unattractive = 3.96 , SD = 1.66; M attractive = 5.62, SD = 1.47; η2 = .15) . Specifically, results showed that attractive models in commercials compared to their unattractive counter parts led to higher rates of purchase intention. Therefore the first hypothesis was supported.
Hypothesis 2 predicted that ad attitude moderates the relationship between attractiveness and purchase intention: a positive ad attitude strengthened the effect of attractiveness on purchase intention, while a negative ad attitude weakened the effect of attractiveness on purchase intention. The factorial ANOVA analysis showed that there was no significant moderation effect between ad attitude and attractiveness (F (2, 106) = .40, p =
.666, η2 = .02). Against my expectations, ad attitude did not moderate the relationship between attractiveness and purchase intention.
Hypothesis 3 predicted that brand attitude moderates the relationship between attractiveness and purchase intention: a positive brand attitude strengthened the effect of attractiveness on purchase intention, while a negative brand attitude weakened the effect of attractiveness on purchase intention. Factorial ANOVA analysis showed that there was a significant moderation effect between brand attitude and attractiveness (F (2, 106) = 4.48, p =.014, η2 = .04). However, after running the plot to see the direction of the effect, my results showed that when brand attitude was positive, attractiveness had a negative effect on purchase intention and when brand attitude was negative, attractiveness had a slightly positive effect on purchase intention.
Table 1. Results of the factorial ANOVA analyses
df F η² p Attractiveness 1 3.19 .15 .077 Brand_attitude 1 4.92 .07 .029 Ad_attitude Ad_attitude*attractivenes 1 2 12,62 .40 .02 .00 .001 .666 Brand_attitude*attractiveness 2 4.48 .04 .014 Error 96
Figure 1- plot that shows the directionality of the effect that brand attitude has on the
relationship between attractiveness and purchase intention.
Conclusion and Discussion Conclusion
The primary aim of this study is to examine the effectiveness of attractiveness (attractive vs. unattractive models in commercials) on purchase intention. Furthermore, for a better understanding of this relationship, the moderation effect that ad attitude and brand attitude have on the relationship between attractiveness and purchase intention has been analysed. The results are, generally, though not completely, consistent with the initial hypotheses. The research shows that attractive models are more effective in leading to higher rates of purchase intention. That is, consumers are influenced by physical characteristics of
the models. This should be considered only in the case of my research, as different variables may interfere with the results. Opposed to my expectations, the second hypothesis has been rejected as my findings do not reveal a moderation effect of ad attitude on the main relationship. However, I prove that brand attitude moderates the relationship between attractiveness and purchase intention; hence my third hypothesis is confirmed. Opposed to my expectations, my results reveal that a positive brand attitude weakens the effect of attractiveness on purchase intention, while a negative brand attitude slightly increase the effect of attractiveness on purchase intention.
Theoretical arguments and empirical evidence were presented in order to answer the research questions. Both theory and my results support the claim that attractive models are more successful in convincing people to purchase the advertised product, compared to their unattractive counterparts.
Discussion
Effects of attractiveness on purchase intention
My findings show that attractiveness influences purchase intention. With low involvement products, such as body lotions, people only spend a few seconds on the advertisement and they move on (Runyon, 1984). In the time they see the ad, they only notice very few characteristics and among the information that has impact on them is the name of the product and the visual impression of the model (Kahle, 1984; Kahle & Homer, 1985). Thus, people have higher intentions to purchase the product when the advertisement is paired with an attractive model.
The role of ad attitude on the relationship between attractiveness and purchase intention
Hypothesis 2 stating that ad attitude moderates the relationship between attractiveness and purchase intention is rejected.This may have happened as a result of various reasons, out
of which the most important is participants’ perception toward the advertisement or the product in the advertisement. From the small size sample of men that participated in this study I observe that they do not usually use body lotion. Body lotion is a product mostly used by women and this could have affected the results. As men do not usually use body lotion, they are not interested in an advertisement that promotes body lotion. When a person is not interested in the product, that person isn’t interested in purchasing it either. I assume that after seeing the ad, men feel they aren’t the target group of the study as they don’t feel the urge to purchase the product. There is no point in purchasing a product that isn’t going to be used. This, results in a low interest manifested toward the ad, which possibly have had influenced my results. Future researchers can take both men and women’s interest’ into consideration and find a product that concerns both sexes.
On the other hand, there is a possibility that men in the attractive model condition have paid more attention to the ad because of the attractive model. Therefore, due to the physical characteristics of the model, they may have had a highly positive attitude towards the ad. If this happened the moderation effect could have been affected as women didn’t see the model in the same way. In this situation gender can be controlled for or used as a moderation variable.
Another reason can be the graphic design of the advertisement or the chosen color scheme. Usually ads for cosmetics are very colorful including a large range of bright colors and various writing fonts. For my ad, I used mostly purple and green with a combination of different shades of blue. The ad matched the majority of cosmetics ads, however it was bright and maybe participants’ focus was on the colors. This way, they lost their focus for the ad itself and what I meant to advertise. The color scheme combined with the brightness of a computer may have affected participant’s power to focus on the information presented with the ad. If people are mostly looking at colors and not at the model or the product in
advertisement, they may not have had a clear attitude toward the ad. For further research, I recommend the realization of an advertisement with a minimalist design. I think the usage of colors such as grey, beige, black and white is better in order to serve the purpose of this study. Also, it is possible that ad attitude is not significant because people did not like the design of the ad. The ad was designed to offer all the necessary information for a possible customer, however as people are different they may expect to see different things in an ad. If people don’t like the graphic design of the ad, they can superficially assume they wouldn’t like the product and this may have resulted in my not significant findings. For future research, I think is better to offer mode information such as: ingredients or characteristics of the product. Finding the right balance between a minimalist design and the proper amount of information is the key to better results for ad attitude.
The effect of brand attitude on the relationship between attractiveness and purchase intention
Given the previous research about the direct effect between brand attitude and purchase intention I expect that the more positive the brand attitude, the stronger the effect of attractiveness on purchase intention. Since to my knowledge there is no research about the moderation effect of brand attitude, my expectation is that people who like the model unconsciously want to purchase the product. But if they also have a positive brand attitude then attractiveness’ influence is much higher. My results have confirmed that brand attitude moderates this relationship, however my reasoning is wrong. Opposite to my expectations, a positive brand attitude weakens the effect that attractiveness has on purchase intention, while a negative brand attitude slightly increase the effect of attractiveness on purchase intention. I think this happens because people didn’t know the brand before. Therefore, they don’t have any knowledge of the brand and in the few seconds they spend looking at the advertisement it is unlikely they have developed some sort of attitude or evaluation of the brand. Future
studies should research the moderation of brand attitude in cases where the brand is popular. But, this also may be a problem as people already have strong opinions about the brand and these opinions can interfere with the study. If the brand is popular then the effect that brand attitude has on any relationship cannot be properly measured. This happens because people either like or don’t like the brand and other variable doesn’t influence people’s perception about the brand.
Limitations and future research
Although these findings are valuable, additional work is needed to arrive at a useful set of applicable guidelines for advertising practice and to provide a more complete understanding of the functioning and effectiveness of model attractiveness on purchase intention.
This research brought light into this field and made significant contributions, but its findings need to be viewed with their limitations in mind. Firstly, the participants in this study are not necessarily representative of all consumers. The sample was rather small, therefore a larger sample, including a wider age range between participants would have been more relevant. Due to time and resources limitations a convenience sample has been used. Convenience samples are problematic and they are not representative for the entire population. However, Bogaert (1996) argues that convenience samples are valid to establish initial relationships between variables. For future research, it would be interesting to see what role age plays and whether attractiveness has an effect on purchase intention if the sample’s mean age is around 40s, instead of 20s.
Another limitation of my research is the artificial environment exposure. Given the limited financial resources, instead of creating real media, an online Qualtrics experiment was performed. Hence, rather than using real print ads, the advertisements were simulated in Qualtrics. Different medium types contribute differentially to the route of persuading the
consumer into purchasing the product. Consequently, using an ad on a computer or phone device may interfere the results. Further research should focus on measuring the printed advertisement by integrating it into a magazine and measure the results in a lab experiment. Also, an observation study would probably offer more accurate results regarding the environment, but as in each design there are disadvantages and the measurement error is high in observation studies. In addition, there was no time limit to watch the advertisement. Maybe some people took longer to analyze the ad, maybe some just took a quick look. If there was a time limit such as minimum 10 seconds, then everyone would have look at the ad for at least 10 seconds, rather than skipping to answering questions.
Thirdly, the results are dependent on the type of product that has been chosen. I manipulated an ad for a body lotion brand, which is rather an unknown brand in Europe. According to the FCB grid, body lotion is a low involvement/ feeling product and people are not usually involved with these types of products. This means they do not think much when purchasing it, but they do it because they feel so (Vaughn, 1980), because they like the ad or the brand or for different reasons. If people are not involved with the product, then they do not have any reason to purchase it. Further evidence for the influence of attractiveness on purchase intention should be acquired by new studies using other similar products, which are commonly used by both men and women, so men could be involved with the product in equal measure as women were. However, the product must also be used to enhance their attractiveness.
Additionally, I believe my results could have been different if I would have chosen a high involvement product such as a hair dryer. With high involvement products, people spend more time reading the ad, the product characteristics, researching the brand, comparing similar products from different brands. Buying a body lotion is more of an impulse purchase, a product that is cheap and is bought with the weekly grocery. Sometimes people buy the
brand because they have a special relationship with it or they know about it and they bought it for a long time. But, if people would spend more time thinking about the product and reading the information and instructions, probably model’s attractiveness wouldn’t matter as much. Also, there is a possibility that purchase intention is going to be much lower in the case of a high involvement product. I assume that people do not buy high involvement products because they like the brand, or the model is attractive, but because they are completely sure about the product. An important avenue for future research is expanding the aim of this study and comparing the differences between a low involvement product and a high involvement product.
Also, it may be interesting to see whether gender plays a role and if there are any differences between men and women’s purchase intention in regards to model’s attractiveness. Previous studies showed that there are gender differences between male’s and female’s purchase intention (Noble, Griffith & Adjei, 2006; Granot, Greene, Brashear, 2010). Also, given that men are more rational and interested in information about products, while women are detailed oriented and driven by emotions (Lee, 2011), I would expect women to manifest a higher purchase intention compared to men.
Further research can also expand on the relationship between attractiveness and other variables such as brand likeability. It is possible that attractiveness influences how much people like or don’t like the brand. If, for instance participants find the model attractive, they may also like the brand better compared to the situation when participants find the model unattractive.
Moreover, future research could expand on the moderation role of participants’ identification with the model or participants’ self-esteem. There is a possibility that, if participants identify with the model, they will perceive it more attractive compared to the situation when they won’t identify with the model. If, for instance, an overweight girl would
see the advertisement for the unattractive condition she will probably rate the model higher on attractiveness, than a skinny girl would. Similarly, participants’ self-esteem can be used as a moderator. If participants perceive themselves as attractive, they are more likely to rate the model they identify with better as being more attractive than the other model.
Managerial implications and practical recommendations
My study provides advertisers with beneficial and relevant insights into the effect that attractiveness has on purchase intention. It provides advertisers with knowledge on the effectiveness of attractive models in advertisements. Based on the results, I would recommend advertisers to use attractive models when they advertise cosmetic products that are meant to enhance attractiveness. In addition, the study showed that brand attitude plays an important role moderating the relationship between attractiveness and purchase intention. Hence, advertisers should keep this in mind and use this information when promoting products. As my results showed that a negative brand attitude slightly increases the purchase intention, I would recommend the design and usage of some controversial advertisements. As long as people talk about your brand, they know about you, they will eventually buy. However, I believe this is possible for established brands that can support the immediate consequences which could be negative. In a long term, this can be a good marketing strategy. Otherwise, if the brand is rather unknown advertisers should spend more revenues into building strategies to achieve a better brand recognition. Once the brand is well known, they can spend money on design commercials and campaigns that feature attractive models.
Attractiveness matters! Whether we like to accept it or not, attractiveness matters. In everyday life, in businesses or in commercials being an attractive person comes with certain advantages. It is a superficial world we live in and we must adapt accordingly. From a practical point of view, especially for cosmetic companies, I would recommend investing
money in advertising attractive models. This way, the company will receive more revenues and have more sales.
References
Baker, M. J., & Churchill Jr, G. A. (1977). The impact of physically attractive models on advertising evaluations. Journal of Marketing research, 538-555.
Batra, R., & Ray, M. L. (1986). Affective responses mediating acceptance of advertising. Journal of consumer research, 234-249.
Berscheid, E., & Reis, H. T. (1998). Attraction and close relationships. The handbook of social psychology, 2, 193-281.
Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1974). Physical attractiveness. Advances in experimental social psychology, 7, 157-215.
Biehal, G., Stephens, D., & Curio, E. (1992). Attitude toward the ad and brand choice.
Journal of Advertising, 21(3), 19-36
Bogaert, A. F. (1996). Volunteer bias in human sexuality research: Evidence for both sexuality and personality differences in males. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 25(2), 125-140.
Bower, A. B. (2001). Highly attractive models in advertising and the women who loathe them: The implications of negative affect for spokesperson effectiveness. Journal of advertising, 30(3), 51-63.
Bower, A. B., & Landreth, S. (2001). Is beauty best? Highly versus normally attractive models in advertising. Journal of Advertising, 30(1), 1-12.
Caballero, M. J., Lumpkin, J. R., & Madden, C. S. (1989). Using physical attractiveness as an advertising tool: An empirical test of the attraction phenomenon. Journal of Advertising Research.
Caballero, M. J., & Solomon, P. J. (1984). Effects of model attractiveness on sales response. Journal of Advertising, 13(1), 17-33.
Cialdini, R. B. (1994). Interpersonal influence.
Cialdini, R. B., & Sagarin B.J. (2001). Principles of interpersonal influence.
Dion, K., Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1972). What is beautiful is good. Journal of
personality and social psychology, 24(3), 285.
Edell, J. A., & Burke, M. C. (1984). The moderating effect of attitude toward an ad on ad effectiveness under different processing conditions. Advances in consumer
research, 11(1), 644-648.
Erdogan, B. Z. (1999). Celebrity endorsement: a literature review. Journal of marketing management, 15(4), 291-314.
Granot, E., Greene, H., & Brashear, T. G. (2010). Female consumers: Decision-making in brand-driven retail. Journal of Business Research, 63(8), 801-808.
Joseph, W. B. (1982). The credibility of physically attractive communicators: A review. Journal of advertising, 11(3), 15-24.
Kahle, L. R. (1984). Attitudes and social adaptation: A person-situation interaction approach. Pergamon Press.
Kahle, L. R., & Homer, P. M. (1985). Physical attractiveness of the celebrity endorser: A social adaptation perspective. Journal of consumer research, 954-961.
Kamins, M. A. (1990). An investigation into the “match-up” hypothesis in celebrity advertising: When beauty may be only skin deep. Journal of Advertising, 19(1), 4-13.
Lee, Y. C. (2011). m-Brand loyalty and post-adoption variations for the mobile data services: gender differences. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(6), 2364-2371.
Lynch, J., & Schuler, D. (1994). The matchup effect of spokesperson and product congruency: A schema theory interpretation. Psychology & Marketing,11(5), 417-445.
MacKenzie, S. B., Lutz, R. J., & Belch, G. E. (1986). The role of attitude toward the ad as a mediator of advertising effectiveness: A test of competing explanations. Journal of marketing research, 130-143.
McGuire, William J. (1985), "Attitudes and Attitude Change," in The Handbook of Social Psychology, Vol. 2, ed. Gardner Lindzey and Elliot Aronson, New York: Random, 233-346.
Miller, A. G. (1970). Role of physical attractiveness in impression formation.Psychonomic Science, 19(4), 241-243.
Moore, C. H. (1990). Effects of physical attractiveness of the plaintiff and defendant in sexual harassment judgments. Journal 0fSocial Behavior and Personality, 5(6), 547-562.
Noble, S. M., Griffith, D. A., & Adjei, M. T. (2006). Drivers of local merchant loyalty: Understanding the influence of gender and shopping motives. Journal of Retailing,
82(3), 177-188.
Ohanian, R. (1990). Construction and validation of a scale to measure celebrity endorsers' perceived expertise, trustworthiness, and attractiveness. Journal of advertising, 39-52.
Olson, J. C., & Mitchell, A. A. (2000). Are product attribute beliefs the only mediator of advertising effects on brand attitude?. Advertising & Society Review, 1(1).
Petroshius, S. M., & Crocker, K. E. (1989). An empirical analysis of spokesperson characteristics on advertisement and product evaluations.Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 17(3), 217-225.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change.
Richins, M. L. (1991). Social comparison and the idealized images of advertising. Journal
of consumer research, 71-83.
Runyon, K. E. (1984). Advertising. Journal of Advertising, 13(4), 61-62
Shimp, T. A. (1981). Attitude toward the ad as a mediator of consumer brand choice. Journal of advertising, 10(2), 9-48.
Spears, N., & Singh, S. N. (2004). Measuring attitude toward the brand and purchase intentions. Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 26(2), 53-66.
Till, B. D., & Busler, M. (2000). The match-up hypothesis: physical attractiveness, expertise, and the role of fit on brand attitude, purchase intent and brand beliefs. Journal of Advertising, 29(3), 1-13.
Vaughn, R. (1980). How advertising works: A planning model. Journal of advertising
Appendix 2- The questionnaire
Dear Participant,
You are invited to take part in a research study about reactions to specific kinds of advertising. Your participation will require approximately 5 to 7 minutes and is completed online at your computer. Taking part in this study is completely voluntary; however you must be over 18 in order to complete this questionnaire.
As this research is being carried out under the responsibility of the ASCoR, University of Amsterdam, we can guarantee that:
1) Your anonymity will be safeguarded, and that your personal information will not be passed on to third parties under any conditions, unless you first give your express permission for this.
2) You can refuse to participate in the research or cut short your participation without having to give a reason for doing so. You also have up to 24 hours after participating to withdraw your permission to allow your answers or data to be used in the research.
3) Participating in the research will not entail your being subjected to any appreciable risk or discomfort, the researchers will not deliberately mislead you, and you will not be exposed to any explicitly offensive material.
4) No later than five months after the conclusion of the research, we will be able to provide you with a research report that explains the general results of the research.
For more information about the research and the invitation to participate, you are welcome to contact the project leader Roxana Panaite (roxanaa.cristina@yahoo.com), at any time.
Should you have any complaints or comments about this research, you can contact the designated member of the Ethics Committee representing ASCoR, at the following address: Ethics Committee, University of Amsterdam, Nieuwe Achtergracht 166 | 1018WV Amsterdam 020-525 3680; ascor-secr-fmg@uva.nl.
Clicking “Next” button bellow you indicate you are 18 years of age or older. It also offers your consent to participate in this survey.
Please pay full attention to the advertisement in order to answer questions that would follow. You will not be able to see this advertisement again.
Please pay full Please pay full attention to the advertisement in order to answer questions that would follow. You will not be able to see this advertisement again.
Q1. What is the name of the brand you just saw the ad for? ………..
Q2. Please choose the brand name of the body lotion you saw in the advertisement. ☐Avene
☐Alby ☐ Botanics ☐ Alba Botanica ☐Albeen
☐Botanical Body Lotion ☐ Aveeno
☐ Burt’s Bees ☐ Green Beaver
Q3. The ad was about a body lotion brand named "Alba Botanica". Have you heard about this brand before this study?
☐ Yes ☐ No
Q4. After watching the advertisement, I will purchase product. Unlikely |____|____|____|____|____|____|____| Likely
Improbable |____|____|____|____|____|____|____| Probable Impossible |____|____|____|____|____|____|____| Possible
Q5. On a scale from 1 to 7 what do you think about the advertisement that you saw.
bad|____|____|____|____|____|____|____| good
unpleasant|____|____|____|____|____|____|____| pleasant boring|____|____|____|____|____|____|____| interesting unappealing |____|____|____|____|____|____|____| appealing unlikeable|____|____|____|____|____|____|____| likeable
Q6. Do you think the model in the commercial is:
Unattractive |____|____|____|____|____|____|____| attractive ugly |____|____|____|____|____|____|____| beautiful
not sexy|____|____|____|____|____|____|____| sexy
unpleasant|____|____|____|____|____|____|____| pleasant unfriendly|____|____|____|____|____|____|____| friendly
not effective at all |____|____|____|____|____|____|____| effective
untrustworthy|____|____|____|____|____|____|____| trustworthy unimpressive|____|____|____|____|____|____|____| impressive
unappealing |____|____|____|____|____|____|____| appealing
Q7. On a scale from 1 to 7, how would you describe the brand?
bad|____|____|____|____|____|____|____| good unfavourable|____|____|____|____|____|____|____| favourable unpleasant|____|____|____|____|____|____|____| pleasant boring|____|____|____|____|____|____|____| interesting unappealing |____|____|____|____|____|____|____| appealing unlikeable|____|____|____|____|____|____|____| likeable
Q8. Do you see yourself as an attractive person?
strongly agree |____|____|____|____|____|____|____| strongly disagree
Q9. How often do you use body lotion? ☐Never
☐ Twice a week ☐ Once a week ☐2-3 times a month ☐Once a month
Q10. How many different brands of body lotion did you use? ☐Only one
☐I tried 2-3 brands ☐ always try new brands ☐ None
Q11. What year were you born?
………..
Q12. What is the education you presently follow? ☐High school
☐Bachelor ☐ Master ☐ PHD
☐I don’t follow school at the moment
Q13. What is the highest level of education you have a diploma for? ☐High school
☐Bachelor ☐ Master ☐ PHD ☐Other
Q14. What is your gender? ☐ Male
☐ Female
Q15. What is your height in centimetres? ………..
Q16. What is your weight?
………..
Q17. What do you think this research is about? ………..
Q18. If you have any additional remarks or comments please write them down in the box bellow.
………
