Back to Basic:
How Fear Alters Advertising Effectiveness
An Evolutionary Social Psychological Perspective
Marije J. Remmelink
Back to Basic:
How Fear Alters Advertising Effectiveness
An Evolutionary Social Psychological Perspective
Marije J. Remmelink
July, 2013
Number of Words: 7478
University of Groningen
Master Marketing Management Faculty of Economics and Business
Supervisor: Prof. Dr. B. M. Fennis External Supervisor: Dr. D. Trampe
Address: Hoekstraat 12a 9712 AN Groningen Phone number: +31 6 41 14 09 20
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
Do fundamental motives alter consumer behaviour? In this research, the objective was to find the relationship between a self-protection motive and advertising effectiveness. The extent to which the self-protection motive alters advertising effectiveness was explored, which was measured by recognition, attitude toward the ad and willingness to pay. Furthermore, the factors group membership and Belief in a Dangerous World were included to test in what way they are involved in the relationship between the self-protection motive and advertising effectiveness. By creating two advertisements, one with an ingroup member (a White man) and one with an outgroup member (a Black men), group membership was manipulated.
In this research, the theory of evolutionary social psychology is applied to mundane, day-to-day consumer behaviour. This theory states that all that we do nowadays emanates from the fundamental motives that helped our ancestors survive. Six key motives are defined, of which each was designed to effectively address one of the fundamental challenges to survive. The motive that was explored is self-protection. When an individual perceives fear, their self-protection motive is activated, which brings the individual in a state in which his primary goal is to protect himself and alliance members against threats. The key question of this research was to what extent this self-protection motive alters advertising effectiveness. Advertising effectiveness is an umbrella term that can include all measurements of the results of an advertisement, depending on the objectives that the advertiser has set. In this research advertising effectiveness was measured by means of three factors; recognition, attitude toward the ad and willingness to pay (WTP). Furthermore were group membership and Believe in a Dangerous World (BDW) included, these are factors that have shown to affect people’s behaviour when they perceive fear. Group membership refers to whether a person can identify with someone. An ingroup member belongs to the same social group, an outgroup member is someone to which an individual does not identify. Group membership dissimilarity indicates that that the individuals are not from the same social group, they perceive each other as outgroup members. BDW is the extent to which an individual feels more vulnerable to interpersonal dangers than others. This research investigated the effect of a self-protection motive on recognition, attitude toward the ad, and WTP, and the way group membership and BDW interacted this relationship.
had on the relationship between a self-protection motive and the three dependent variables; hence, a three-way interaction was expected. Two groups were distinguished, the experimental group, in which participants were primed with self-protection and the control group, in which participants were not primed. Group membership was manipulated by showing participants an advertisement with either an ingroup endorser (a White man) or an outgroup (Black man) endorser.
The results revealed a relationship between the self-protection motive and recognition; participants with a self-protection motive were significantly better in recognizing elements from the advertisement. No other hypothesized main or interaction effects were found. It was however demonstrated that, regarding attitude toward the ad, group membership and BDW have an interaction effect. Participants with high BDW showed higher attitude toward the ad when it depicted an outgroup member than when it depicted an ingroup member, or than participants with low BDW.
PREFACE
I’ve always been interested in the psychological aspects of marketing. It was not a difficult choice to choose the topic for my Master thesis; “Fundamental Motives in Consumer Choice” supervised by Prof. Dr. Fennis. I knew this was my chance to finally do a research about the aspects of marketing that I was most interested in. Now that the research is done and the result lies in front of you, I find it weird to conclude that this is the last step in gaining my Master’s title. But maybe, most of all I find it weird that this is the last step of this research. After digging into the existing literature I am without a doubt that all fundamental motives have so much more impact in our mundane, day-to-day life than we are now aware of. However, this is as far as I could have gone in the context of a thesis. And I am glad that I’ve been able to find a –to me– pioneering result. With this in mind I present my thesis, hoping that more (marketing) researchers will step into the world of the evolutionary social psychology and link it to consumer behaviour.
Some people had a special contribution in the realization of this research, these people I would like to thank. First of all I would like to thank Prof. Dr. Bob Fennis, who has been my enthusiastic supervisor, for giving me new inputs where and when I needed them. Also thanks to Dr. Debra Trampe, who has helped me with her suggestions. Vladas Griskevicius is one of the most important researcher in this field, he was so kind to lend me his priming procedures, which I am extremely thankful for. My parents and sisters have supported me and helped me getting my respondents, I wouldn’t have reached as much as I did now without them; thanks Hayé, Tetta, Jantien and Annelijn. Furthermore do Talisa and Jildau of course deserve a special place in these acknowledgements. In my opinion, we’ve been working as such a strong team together. Lastly, this research could not have been realized without my participants, the last, but certainly not least thank you, is for all of them.
1.1 The Basics of Evolutionary Social Psychology 2
1.2 Advertising Effectiveness 3
1.3 Factors Involved in the Reaction on Fear 5
1.4 Conceptual Model 7 2. Methods 8 2.1 Design 9 2.2 Participants 9 2.3 Procedure 9 2.4 Independent Variables 11 2.5 Dependent Variables 12
3. Results & Discussion 14
3.1 Results 14
3.2 Discussion 20
References 23
Appendices A 1
Appendix A: Priming Procedures A 1
Appendix B: Advertisements A 6
Appendix C: 12-Item Dangerous World Scale By Altemeyer A 5
Appendix D: Measurements Attitude Toward The Ad, WTP And Recognition A 7
1. INTRODUCTION & THEORY
Imagine being home alone at night, you’re trying to sleep but a thunderstorm keeps you awake. The thunderclaps are deafening and the lightening enlightens your entire room. You really don’t like thunderstorms. Your cat, normally sleeping on your bed, has left your room and walks through the house meowing out loud. Suddenly you hear the sound of a door slamming open against the wall and you feel a cold breeze along your face. Your cat has stopped meowing. Would you go out of bed to see what happened, or would you hide under your blanket? Although you don’t realize it, there is much going on in your brain, which determines your reaction. This reaction could be predicted by the psychological implications of human evolutionary social psychology. This evolutionary approach has produced deeper understanding of classic social psychological phenomena in the human behavior (Neuberg, Kenrick and Schaller, 2010). It was only in 2000 that the authors of a social psychology textbook, Baron and Byrne, observed that human social behaviour is influenced by biological processes and genetic factors (Kenrick, Maner and Li, 2005). Since then, the topic of evolutionary social psychology has frequently been studied. But it was never before linked to consumer behavior. This, whilst marketers have been trying to predict and explain consumer behaviour for a long time (Hoyer and MacInnis, 2009). Hence one can conclude that there is a gap between the theory about evolutionary social psychology and consumer behaviour. This research focuses on that gap and links evolutionary social psychology to modern consumer behaviour.
Emotions are at the very heart of evolutionary social psychology. Of these emotions, fear is maybe one of the most known. The focus of this research is on that emotion, fear. Previous studies have shown how a fundamental emotion such as fear determines our day-to-day behaviour (Griskevicius, Goldstein, Mortensen, Sundie, Cialdini and Kenrick, 2009; Li and Kenrick, 2012; Maner, Kenrick, Becker, Robertson, Hofer, Neuberg, Delton, Butner and Schaller, 2005). In this research will be explored how the perception of fear influences consumer behavior and in particular, advertising effectiveness. Fear activates the need for self-protection. With an experiment will be examined how this self-protection can influence recognition, attitude toward the ad and willingness to pay. The key research question is:
By answering this question, this research contributes to exploring if and how the theory of evolutionary social psychology is applicable in understanding and predicting consumer behavior.
1.1 The Basics of Evolutionary Social Psychology
According to Neuberg et al. (2010: 762) evolutionary psychology is “a set of metatheoretical assumptions that govern how scientists approach conceptual and empirical inquiry into psychological phenomena”. Such an assumption is that cognition is the product of an underlying psychology that has been shaped by a long history of biological selection pressures. The basic of evolutionary social psychology is that all that we do nowadays, emanates from the fundamental motives that helped our ancestors survive. In this research will be investigated whether this theory is also applicable in the advertisement context.
Fundamental Motives Much of the human behaviour is organized around a limited set of fundamental motives, of which every motive is linked to particular adaptive problems posed by ancestral environments (Kenrick et al., 2005). This evolutionary approach treats the brain as multiple domain-specific mechanisms, each with a different set of key social problems. Kenrick et al. (2005) define these six key domains of social life; coalition formation, status, self-protection, mate choice, mate retention and parental care. The terms motive and domain refer to the same: the mechanism that was designed to effectively address one of the fundamental challenges (Neuberg, 2010). In this research the term motive will be used instead of domain. Emotions are conceived as the activators of these motives. An activated motive promotes a “functional cascade” of perceptions, cognitions and behaviours that are conducive to the successful solution of the adaptive problem or inhibit the activation of other domains (Griskevicius et al, 2009: 387). This research focuses on the self-protection motive.
(such as danger-connoting photos or movies) are activators of the self-protection system (Griskevicius et al., 2009). The activation of a motive is called priming. Consequently, priming the self-protection motive is done by creating the perception of fear. Priming the self-protective motive has several behavioural implications that should help avoid harm. Known and widely investigated examples of such behaviours are herding together (Griskevicius et al., 2009), loss aversion (Li and Kenrick, 2012) and exaggerated prejudice (Maner et al., 2005). Hence, there is evidence that primed self-protection –what we do when we perceive fear– alters the way people behave. The question that arises is whether this also affects consumer behaviour.
1.2 Advertising Effectiveness
In this research is examined whether the self-protection motive also changes the way consumers react when seeing an advertisement. Understanding consumers is one of the fundamental requirements of marketing, therefore, for marketing managers it is extremely useful to know how consumers respond to advertisements. Logically, advertising effectiveness is thus a widely studied topic (Hoyer and MacInnis, 2009). The direct link between a self-protection motive and advertising effectiveness was never before examined. However, there is evidence that fear fosters retrieval (Fernandes, Koji, Dixon and Aquino, 2011) and negatively affects attitude (Gorn, Pham and Sin, 2001) when an advertisement is fear-arousing itself. Furthermore was demonstrated that fear fosters loss aversion (Li and Kenrick, 2012), however not in the advertisement context. Anyway, in a way that will be discussed later, it is obvious that these items are related to advertising effectiveness and therefore it seems plausible that there is a direct relationship between a self-protection motive and advertising effectiveness.
Arousal, Attention and Recognition Fear involves arousal (Yang, Jackson, Gao and Chen, 2012), which can be positive or negative, based on the kind of emotion causing the arousal. As love causes positive arousal, fear causes negative arousal (Fernandes et al., 2011). Frischen, Eastwood and Smilek (2008) state that emotional items draw attention faster than neutral items. This is in line with the study of Lang, Greenwald, Bradley and Hamm (1993), that demonstrated that people tend to look longer at highly arousing images (positive as well as negative) than at nonarousing images. In their research, attention, which can be defined as the process by which an individual allocates part of his mental activity to a stimulus (Hoyer and MacInnis, 2009), was measured by the time spent looking at an image; when the time spent is longer, attention is higher. This leads to the postulation that when activating an emotion in an advertisement, regardless of the valence, attention to the advertisement will be drawn faster. More specifically related to this topic however, is that several studies implied that threat-related cues attract visual attentive processing and that people who are exposed to negative cues, have a more narrowed attention and an enhanced detection in visual-search tasks, than people who were exposed to positive cues (Fernandes et al., 2011). These changes in attention could be directed at anything, hence, it could enhance recognition of elements of an advertisement when being exposed to one. Therewith could be concluded that negative arousing cues draw attention to an advertisement faster and that this attention is more narrowed and focused. Since the mental activity allocated to the advertisement is more when attention is high, consumer’s ability for recognition should increase. Recognition is the process of determining whether a stimulus has (not) been encountered before (Hoyer and MacInnis, 2009). Accordingly, one can state that negative arousing stimuli fosters recognition. Herewith the first hypothesis of this research arises:
H1: A self-protection motive should lead to a higher recognition of elements in an advertisement.
same was demonstrated by Clark, Milberg and Ross (1983), who found that students in a positive mood had a more favorable attitude toward their university when they were in a state of high versus moderate arousal. Albeit the focus of the research of Clark et al. (1983) was more on what the valence of a person’s mood causes, they suggested that high arousal generates more intense valence-consistent memories during the completion of the attitude measures. They demonstrated that when arousal is high and positive, the attitude will be more positive than when arousal was low; as arousal is high and negative, the attitude will be more negative than when arousal was low. Fear, the emotion that primes self-protection causes a high and negative arousal. Hence, when people perceive fear and their self-protection motive is primed, they would evaluate an advertisement more negatively. This leads to the following hypothesis:
H2: A self-protection motive should lead to a more negative attitude toward the ad.
Fear, Risk Aversion and Willingness to Pay Willingness to pay (WTP) is the last objective of advertising effectiveness that is covered by this research. In previous literature was demonstrated that WTP is linked to loss- and risk aversion (Pesheva, Kroll and Vogt, 2011; Okada, 2010). Loss aversion is the tendency for people to weigh losses stronger than objectively equivalent gains. (Carr and Steele, 2010). Li and Kenrick (2012) linked loss aversion to fundamental motives, proposing that loss aversion is a cognitive bias that is well suited to solving recurring challenges related to survival, such as protecting oneself from physical danger. They found that self-protective motives led people to become more loss averse. The same was found for risk aversion; people subjected to a threat, became more risk averse (Carr and Steele, 2010). Hence, primed self-protection, caused by the perception of fear, should lead people to become more risk and loss averse. Pesheva et al. (2011) stated that WTP is explained by measures of loss aversion and risk aversion. This is in line with the study of Okada (2010), who demonstrated that people who are more risk averse, show lower WTP. Hence, people with a self-protection motive should show lower WTP. Herewith the following hypothesis arises:
H3: A self-protection motive should lead to lower WTP.
1.3 Factors Involved in the Reaction on Fear
should enhance the reaction that was caused by the self-protection motive. These factors are group membership and Believe in a Dangerous World.
Group Membership Fear causes exaggerated prejudice (Maner et al., 2005), which results in higher vigilance towards outgroup members (Maner et al., 2012). An outgroup can be defined as a social group to which an individual does not identify. This can be based on race, culture, gender or religion, since these are the features that group membership can arise from (Tajfel et al., 1971). An outgroup member is ought to be the counter stereotype, which, of a White person is a Black person (Tajfel et al., 1971). In the American literature group membership relations are often tested by means of race or skin colour, since it is the most visible manner to show it is an outgroup member. In case of dissimilarity of group membership, persons do not belong to the same race or do not have the same skin colour. In several studies it was demonstrated that when the self-protective motive of White people is primed, they see more aggression in faces of Black man that have the same neutral expression as the White men’s faces in which they do not recognize aggression (Schaller, 2005; Maner et al., 2012). Given that a self-protection motive cause higher vigilance against outgroup members, it is expected that group member dissimilarity should have a moderating effect on the relationships between self-protection motives and recognition, attitude toward the ad and WTP. Hence, when an endorser in an advertisement is an outgroup member, the effect of fear on recognition, attitude toward the ad and WTP should be strengthened. This line of reasoning leads to the following hypotheses:
H4a: In an advertisement, the endorser’s group membership dissimilarity should enhance the positive effect that a self-protection motive has on recognition.
H4b: In an advertisement, the endorser’s group membership dissimilarity should enhance the negative effect that a self-protection motive has on attitude toward the ad.
H4c: In an advertisement, the endorser’s group membership dissimilarity should enhance the negative effect that a self-protection motive has on WTP.
unpredictable and threatening (Dallago, Mirisola and Roccato, 2012). ‘Belief in a Dangerous World’ (BDW) indicates to what extent people think the world is a dangerous place. To measure this extent, Altemeyer (1988) developed an individual-difference measure of chronic beliefs about interpersonal danger. People who score high on this Belief on a Dangerous World Scale (Altemeyer, 1988) tend to react stronger on fear indicating stimuli (Schaller, Park and Mueller, 2003); the impact of a fear indicating stimuli is larger on these people. Therefore it is expected that believing the world is a dangerous place strengthens all reactions on fear. A three-way interaction is expected. Hence, for people with high BDW, the effect of a self-protection motive and group membership dissimilarity should be even stronger. When primed and shown an outgroup member, they should show highest recognition, lowest attitude toward the ad and lowest WTP. Herewith the last hypotheses of this research arise:
H5a: BDW should enhance the strengthening effect that the endorser’s group membership dissimilarity has on the relationship between fear and recognition.
H5b: BDW should enhance the strengthening effect that the endorser’s group membership dissimilarity has on the relationship between fear and attitude toward the ad.
H5c: BDW should enhance the strengthening effect that the endorser’s group membership dissimilarity has on the relationship between fear and WTP.
1.4 Conceptual Model
By means of the hypotheses that were stated in the previous sections, this research explores the key question:
“How does a self-protection motive alter advertising effectiveness with respect to recognition, attitude toward the ad and willingness to pay?”
Group membership dissimilarity is expected to have an interaction effect; it should strengthen the effect that a self-protection motive has on the dependent variables (H4). Believe in a Dangerous World is expected to have a three-way interaction; it should enhance the –by group membership dissimilarity strengthened– relationship between a self-protection motive and all dependent variables (H5).
2. METHOD 2.1 Design
To obtain evidence for the relationship between a self-protection motive and recognition, attitude toward the ad and willingness to pay (WTP), and the moderating effects of the endorser’s group membership dissimilarity and Belief in a Dangerous World (BDW), an experiment was conducted. Two groups were distinguished to test the effect of a self-protection motive, one control group and one experimental group. Participants were randomly assigned to one of the groups. In addition, both groups also consisted of two groups, one group that was shown an ingroup member endorser (group membership similarity) and one group that was shown an outgroup member endorser (group membership dissimilarity). Furthermore did the score on the BDW scale divide the participants into the groups BDW low and BDW high. With this, eight different conditions arose, which are displayed in Table 2.1. Based on these conditions, the study had a between-subjects 2 (motive: control vs. self-protection) X 2 (group membership: similarity vs. dissimilarity) X 2 (BDW: low vs. high) design. The first two variables were manipulated and the latter was measured and split up into BDW low and BDW high by means of a median-split.
2.2 Participants
One-hundred-fifty-four people voluntarily participated in the experiment. To be able to test the moderating effect of the endorser’s group membership dissimilarity, the questionnaire contained a question about continental origin, that determined the skin colour. Two participants indicated that they were not of Caucasian (White) origin, leaving 252 participants for the analyses (88 female, 64 male; Mage = 35.7 SD = 14.71). The participants were approached through a direct network and social media. The experiment was placed on the Internet and the link to the experiment was spread through e-mail and social media. A disadvantage of this method is that the participants will have demographic and psychological characteristics that are more similar to those of the researcher than would occur by change (Malholtra, 2010). In order to avoid this as much as possible, the link to the experiment was sent through email to a diverse selection of people with the question to forward the link to their network, which is called snowball sampling (Malhotra, 2010).
2.3 Procedure
that could cause problems such as ambiguities. The detected errors were solved right after that. The second part was the actual experiment, in which the hypotheses were tested. The experiment was set up in Dutch to increase the understandability of the questionnaire.
All participants could voluntarily participate in the experiment at their own computer in their own time, by opening the link. The link randomly assigned the participants to one of the four versions of the experiment, which are displayed in Table 2.1 at the end of this section. The experiment consisted of six parts: (1) BDW measurement, (2) the fear priming procedure, (3) the exposure to the advertisement (4) a filler task, (5) the questions regarding the advertisement and finally (6) the demographic questions. Every questionnaire was identical, except from the priming procedures (2) and the advertisement shown (3). The division of the versions of the experiment are shown in Table 2.1.
TABLE 2.1
Versions And Scenarios Of The Experiment
Version Motive Group Membership BDW* Condition
1 Control Similarity Low 1
High 2
2 Control Dissimilarity Low 3
High 4
3 Self-protection Similarity Low 5
High 6
4 Self-protection Dissimilarity Low 7
High 8 Note: Measured by Altemeyer’s (1988) Belief in a Dangerous World Scale
2.4 Independent Variables
The independent variable is a self-protection motive and the moderators group membership dissimilarity and Belief in a Dangerous World
Self-protection Motive Priming the self-protection motive was done by simulating the presence of fear through a priming procedure. The priming procedure was adopted from Griskevicius et al. (2009) and consists of two elements; a film clip and a story. In both conditions participants were asked to carefully read the story and to try to put themselves in the shoes of the main character. In the self-protection motive conditions, participants were asked to attentively watch the trailer from The Shining and then they had to read a short scenario in which they had to imagine being in a house alone at night and overhearing scary noises. In the control conditions participants watched the trailer from The Human Planet and read a story about losing keys, with a similar length of approximately 700 words. Both prime and control stories were written by and adopted from Griskevicius et al. (2009) and are shown in Appendix A. The stories were translated before being included in the experiment, which is to be seen in Appendix E.
identical, as were the facial expression of the endorser and the affective tone of the advertisement.
Belief in a Dangerous World BDW was not manipulated but measured by Altemeyers’s Belief in a Dangerous World Scale (Altemeyer, 1988: 195 – 196) as is shown in Appendix C. This questionnaire was placed preliminary to avoid influences of the priming procedures and the advertisements. The BDW questionnaire includes six positively worded and six negatively worded statements about the dangers in the social world (e.g., “It seems that every year there are fewer and fewer truly respectable people, and more and more persons with no morals at all who threaten everyone else”). The participants could rate their agreement with each statement on 7-point likert scales with on the left “fully disagree” and on the right “fully agree”. An overall score was computed by reversing the six negatively worded statements (e.g., “If a person takes a few sensible precautions, nothing bad will happen to him. We do not live in a dangerous world”). Herewith a single BDW index (α = .79) was developed, whereby a high score indicated that the participant believed that the world is a dangerous place. Then, participants were assigned to the groups BDW low and BDW high, based on a median split. The median was 38, hence all participants with a score under 38 were assigned to the group BDW low, all participants with a score higher than 38 were assigned to BDW high. Four participants had an exact score of 38. Randomly, two of them were assigned to BDW low and two of them to BDW high.
2.5 Dependent Measures
This research consisted of three dependent variables; recognition, attitude toward the ad and WTP. In the last parts of the experiment, participants had to complete questionnaires about the advertisement, with which these dependent variables could be measured. The sequence of the following discussion of the dependent measures is as the sequence with which they were tested in the experiment.
reversed (e.g., (1) Boring (7) Interesting) in the questionnaire and reversed back in the analysis, resulting in one Aad index (α = .82). A high average indicated a positive attitude toward the ad. The complete measurement is shown in Table D 1 of Appendix D. To test the influence of a self-protection motive and both moderators, the mean differences between the groups were compared.
Willingness to Pay To measure WTP, the method of Rucker and Galinsky (2008) was adopted, where participants were asked “How much would you be willing to pay for the product featured?” Participants could respond on a 12-point scale, with increasing intervals of 10% per scale, where 1 was 10% of the retail price of the item, 12 was 120% of the retail price. All options are shown in Table D 2 of Appendix D. A high score indicated high WTP. To test the influence of the self-protection motive and both moderators, the mean differences were compared between the groups.
3. RESULTS & DISCUSSION 3.1 Results
After assigning the participants based on their score on the BDS scale, six different groups were distinguished. These groups are shown in Table 3.1.
TABLE 3.1 Experiment Groups
BDW Motive Group Membership N
Low Control Similarity 20
Low Control Dissimilarity 16
Low Self-protection Similarity 22
Low Self-protection Dissimilarity 17
High Control Similarity 19
High Control Dissimilarity 21
High Self-protection Similarity 16
High Self-protection Dissimilarity 21
In a General Linear Model (GLM), differences in recognition, attitude toward the ad and willingness to pay (WTP) (all continuous; between-subjects) were measured. The full factorial design included the motive (control vs. self-protection) and both interaction effects of group membership (similarity vs. dissimilarity; between-subjects) and BDW (low vs. high; between-subjects).
an interaction effect (F(1, 144) = 1.54, p = .21). The same applies to BDW; no main effect was found (F(1, 144) = 1.85, p = .18), neither an interaction effect (F(1, 144) = 1.37, p = .24). For the tree-way interaction no support was found either (F(1, 144) = .07, p = .80). The results demonstrated that both moderators did not have any effect on the relationship between a self-protection motive and recognition, and that the three-way interaction of BDW on the relationship between fear, group membership and recognition is not supported. With these results, hypothesis 4a, stating that group membership dissimilarity should increase the positive effect that a self-protection motive has on recognition, can not be accepted. Hypothesis 5a stated that BDW should strengthen the effect of group dissimilarity. This hypothesis can also not be supported. In conclusion, only the self-protection motive had a significant, positive effect on recognition.
TABLE 3.2
Test Results of Main Effects for Recognition
Variable Value Mean SD
BDW Low 3.56 1.307
High 3.79 1.068
Motive* Control 3.50 1.149
Self-protection 3.86 1.219
Group Membership Similarity 3.75 1.258
Dissimilarity 3.60 1.127
Note: marginally significant difference in means
TABLE 3.3
Test Results of Interacting Variables for Recognition
BDW Motive Group Membership Mean SD
Low Control Similarity 3.35 1.424
Low Control Dissimilarity 3.13 1.025
Low Self-protection Similarity 3.86 1.125
Low Self-protection Dissimilarity 3.82 1.551
High Control Similarity 3.84 1.302
High Control Dissimilarity 3.62 .669
High Self-protection Similarity 4.00 1.155
High Self-protection Dissimilarity 3.76 1.136
attitude toward the ad demonstrated that the main effect of activating the self-protection motive on attitude toward the ad was not supported. The results did not align with earlier findings and showed insignificant main effect of the self-protection motive (F(1, 144) = 1.11,
p = .21). Hence, hypothesis 2 can not be accepted; the presence of fear does not decrease
attitude toward the ad. No other significant main effects were demonstrated (see Table 3.4). Group membership dissimilarity (F(1, 144) = .94, p = .34) and BDW (F(1, 144) = 1.01, p = .31) did not show to have a significant main effect. The results of the interaction effect of group membership dissimilarity (F(1, 144) = 1.87, p = .17) and the three-way interaction of BDW (F(1, 144) = .02, p = .90) did not reach significance (see Table 3.5). The results demonstrated that group membership did not have an interaction effect on the relationship between self-protection motives and attitude toward the ad and that the three-way interaction of BDW is not supported. With these findings respectively hypotheses 4b and 5b, can not be accepted. Remarkably, BDW and group membership showed a significant interaction effect on attitude toward the ad F(1, 144) = 4.68, p = .03). As is shown in Graph 3.1, participants with high BDW who were shown an outgroup member, showed significantly higher attitude than participants with low BDW who were shown the same advertisement. In conclusion, none of the stated effects reached significance. The relationship that was found was not one that was hypothesized. Hence, this will be discussed in the discussion section of this research.
TABLE 3.4
Test Results of Main Effects for Attitude Toward the Ad
Variable Value Mean SD
BDW Low 3.37 .997
High 3.52 .935
Motive Control 3.35 1.036
Self-protection 3.53 .891
Group Membership Similarity 3.36 1.030
TABLE 3.5
Test Results of Interacting Variables for Attitude Toward the Ad
BDW Motive Group Membership Mean SD
Low Control Similarity 3.17 1.064
Low Control Dissimilarity 3.17 .959
Low Self-protection Similarity 3.71 .954
Low Self-protection Dissimilarity 3.33 .973
High Control Similarity 3.12 1.128
High Control Dissimilarity 3.84 .884
High Self-protection Similarity 3.40 .915
High Self-protection Dissimilarity 3.65 .694
Graph 3.1
Mean Differences in Attitude Toward the Ad (Interaction BDW X Group Membership)
Willingness to Pay A 2 (motive: control vs. self-protection,) X 2 (group membership: similarity vs. dissimilarity) X 2 (BDW: low vs. high) full factorial ANOVA on WTP demonstrated that the main effect of priming the self-protection motive on WTP was not supported. The results did not align with earlier findings and showed an insignificant main effect (F(1, 144) = 0.29, p = .58) of priming the self-protection motive; it did not decrease WTP. Hence, hypothesis 3 is not supported. No other main effects were demonstrated (see Table 3.6). Group membership and BDW had insignificant main effects on
WTP (respectively F(1, 144) = .04, p = .84 and F(1, 144) = .01, p = .91). Furthermore, no interaction effects were demonstrated (Table 3.7); group membership (F(1, 144) = .02, p = .90) nor BDW (F(1, 144) = 1.55, p = .22) had a significant interaction effect on the relationship between a self-protection motive and WTP. Also the three-way interaction of BDW was not supported (F(1, 144) = 2.07, p = .15). Herewith hypothesis 4c, stating that there is an interaction effect of self-protection motives and group membership and hypothesis 5c, stating that there is a three-way interaction between self-protection motives, group membership and BDW, are not supported. In conclusion, no significant effects concerning WTP were found.
TABLE 3.6
Test Results of Main Effects for Willingness To Pay
Variable Value Mean SD
BDW Low 7.00 2.488
High 7.05 2.176
Motive Control 6.89 2.409
Self-protection 7.16 2.251
Group Membership Similarity 7.00 2.513
Dissimilarity 7.05 2.137
TABLE 3.7
Test Results of Interacting Variables for Willingness To Pay
BDW Motive Group Membership Mean SD
Low Control Similarity 6.40 2.722
Low Control Dissimilarity 6.87 2.986
Low Self-protection Similarity 7.59 2.218
Low Self-protection Dissimilarity 7.06 2.015
High Control Similarity 7.37 2.191
High Control Dissimilarity 6.95 1.802
High Self-protection Similarity 6.50 2.921
High Self-protection Dissimilarity 7.29 1.901
TABLE 3.8
Conclusions and Overview of Hypotheses
Hypothesis P-value Results
H1 A self-protection motive should lead to a higher recognition of elements in an advertisement. .05 Supported H2 A self-protection motive should lead to a more negative
attitude toward the ad. .21 Not Supported
H3 A self-protection motive should lead to lower WTP. .59 Not Supported H4a
In an advertisement, the endorser’s group membership dissimilarity should enhance the positive effect that a self-protection motive has on recognition.
.82 Not Supported
H4b In an advertisement, the endorser’s group membership dissimilarity should enhance the negative effect that a self-protection motive has on attitude toward the ad.
.17 Not Supported
H4c
In an advertisement, the endorser’s group membership dissimilarity should enhance the negative effect that a
self-protection motive has on WTP. .90 Not Supported
H5a
BDW should enhance the strengthening effect that the endorser’s group membership dissimilarity has on the relationship between fear and recognition.
.80 Not Supported
H5b
BDW should enhance the strengthening effect that the endorser’s group membership dissimilarity has on the relationship between fear and attitude toward the ad.
.90 Not Supported
H5c BDW should enhance the strengthening effect that the endorser’s group membership dissimilarity has on the relationship between fear and WTP.
3.3 Discussion
This research was focused on how a self-protection motive affects advertising effectiveness, with relation to recognition, attitude toward the ad and willingness to pay (WTP). In addition, two moderators were included in the experiment; group membership and Believe in a Dangerous World (BDW). It was expected that a self-protection motive should increase recognition, but decrease attitude toward the ad and WTP. Furthermore was group membership expected to have a strengthening interaction effect on all three aforementioned relationships. Concerning BDW a three-way interaction was expected; the hypothesis stated that BDW should strengthen the effect that group membership has on the relationships between a self-protection motive and recognition, attitude toward the ad and WTP.
The results indicated that a self-protection motive does not have an effect on attitude toward the ad (H2) and WTP (H3), however, on recognition it had a significant effect (H1). Participants with a self-protection motive were better able to recognize elements from the advertisement, exactly as was stated in hypothesis 1. For the other two relationships however, no evidence was found. Both moderators group membership (H4) and Belief in a Dangerous World (H5) did not show to have an interaction effect, for both hypotheses no evidence was found.
The cause of the lack of support for the hypotheses can firstly be sought in the manner the experiment was done; participants could join the experiment alone and there was no control. Perhaps they were not motivated enough to ‘let’ themselves being primed; if participants have not paid enough attention to the story and movie clip in the priming procedures, -that have shown to work in the past-, the priming procedures may not have been strong enough to make a difference between the groups. What needs to be kept in mind however, is that in the actual advertising context an advertiser may also not have a change to prime consumers, since the exposure of an advertisement is also in the own time of the consumer. The extent to which consumers can be primed in the true advertisement context would be a nice topic for further research.
higher, this could influence also recognition, as both recognition and recall are parts of the retrieval systems of the explicit memory (Hoyer and MacInnis, 2009). Prior research on mood demonstrated that people who are in a negative mood, pay more attention to details, and do not rely on general theories or schema’s (Schwarz, 1990). Hence, mood could also affect recognition, and disturb the effect that a self-protection motive has on recognition. Mood is also found to alter attitude, when being in a more positive mood, overall attitudes are more positive (Hoyer and MacInnis, 2009). Another factor that could have influenced attitude toward the ad it the advertisement’s affective tone. As the affective tone was predominantly positive, the emotions activated by the advertisements were in contradiction to the emotions activated by the fear priming procedure. It is plausible that the affective tone of the advertisement has neutralized the emotions activated during the priming procedure. Hence, there are many more factors that alter recognition and attitude toward the ad than only the factors that were discussed in this research.
Regarding WTP, risk aversion, which diminishes WTP, was found to be stimulated by fear in previous research (Li and Kenrick, 2012), which made a plausible basis for the hypotheses regarding WTP. However, Frankhauser, Tol and Pearce (1997) found that socio-economic characters of a country determine the WTP observed in different countries. Furthermore do cultural differences influence the effect that fundamental motives have on the human behaviour (Neuberg, 2010). As previous studies were not conducted in the Netherlands, one could argue that these differences in WTP may have caused insignificant results for the hypotheses stated about WTP in this research.
Dutch people both are Caucasian and hence, are the same race (Risch, Burchard, Ziv and Tang, 2002). Hence, this matter should be investigated more extensively.
Implications and Future Research Directions Despite the fact that not much of the hypotheses of this study were supported, the study did indicate that evolutionary models need to be more extensively tested by marketing researchers and that there are more factors than we have already explored that alter advertising effectiveness. In that way it has contributed to the literature and shown that there is a relationship between fundamental self-protection and mundane consumer behaviour. For marketing managers this research also has implications, as the results showed that the self-protection motive fosters recognition. Higher recognition can make brand attributes more accessible; they become more top-of-mind in the consumer’s memory. When a consumer is being exposed to other related items, the likeliness that brand attitudes come in mind is greater (Hoyer and MacInnis, 2009). Hence, when consumers perceive fear, attributes to which they are exposed to may become more accessible.
BDW. What might have played a role as well is that most participants were direct related to the researchers and wanted to give socially desired answers. However, this line of reasoning is just a speculation and this matter clearly needs to be further explored.
Furthermore, in order to find out the true effects of fundamental motives on consumer behaviour, researchers should focus on the role that a motive has in the culture of a country. As cultural differences are expected to influence the reaction once the motives are primed (Neuberg et al., 2010), for every country these reaction may differ. Moreover was previously discussed that WTP differs per country and that Black people may not be the typical outgroup members to the Dutch. Hence, when elaborating on the existing literature, one should also study these differences. It would be interesting to study to what extent exactly Blacks and Turkish people are perceived as outgroup members by the Dutch.
REFERENCES
Altemeyer, B. (1988). Enemies of Freedom. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass
Biehal, G., Stephens, D. and Curlo, E. (1992). Attitude Toward the Ad and Brand Choice. Journal of Advertising, 3, pp. 19 – 36
Bryant, J. And Comisky, P. W. (1978). The Effect of Positioning a Message Within Differentially Cognitive Involving Portions of a Television Segment on Recall of the Message. Human Communication Research, 5, pp. 63 – 75
Carr, P. B. and Steele, C. M. (2010). Stereotype Threat Affects Financial Decision Making. Psychological Science, 21, 10, pp. 1411 – 1416
Clark, M. S., Milberg, S. And Erber, R. (1984). Effects of Arousal on Judgments of Other’s Emotions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 3 pp. 551 – 560
Dallago, F., Mirisola, A. and Roccato, M. (2012). Predicting Right-Wing Authoritarianism via Personality and Dangerous World Beliefs: Direct, Indirect, and Interactive Effects. The Journal of Social Psychology, 152, 1, pp. 112 – 127
Fernandes, M. A., Koji, S., Dixon, M. J. and Aquino, J. M. (2011). Changing the Focus of Attention: The Interacting Effect of Valence and Arousal, Visual Cognition, 19, 9, pp. 1191 – 1211
Frankhauser, S., Tol, R. S. J. and Pearce, D. W. (1997). The Aggregation of Climate Change Damages: A Welfare Theoretic Approach. Environmental and Resource Economics, 10, pp. 249 – 266
Griskevicius, V., Goldstein, N. J., Mortensen, C. R., Sundie, J. M., Cialdini, R. B. and Kenrick, D. T. (2009). Fear and Loving in Las Vegas: Evolution, Emotion, and Persuasion. Journal of Marketing Research, 46, pp. 384 – 395
Gorn, G., Pham, M., and Leo Yatming, S. (2001). When Arousal Influences Ad Evaluation and Valence Does Not (and Vice Versa). Journal Of Consumer Psychology,11, 1, pp. 43 – 55
Hoyer, W. D. and MacInnis, D.J. (2009) Consumer Behaviour. 5th International Edition. Boston: Houghton Mifflin
Kenrick, D. T, Maner, J. K. and Li, N. P. (2005). Evolutionary Social Psychology. In D. Buss (Ed.), The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology (pp. 803 – 850). Hoboken, NJ:
Wiley
Kennedy, J. R. (1971). How Program Environment Affects TV Commercials. Journal of Advertising Research, 11, pp. 33 – 38
Keshari, P., Jain, A., and Jain, S. (2012). Constituents of Advertising Effectiveness: A Study of Select Service Advertisements. Journal of Services Research, 12, 2, pp. 111 – 126 Lang, P. J., Greenwald, M. K., Bradley, M. M. and Hamm, A. (1993). Looking at Pictures: Evaluative, Facial, Visceral, and Behavioral Responses. Psychophysiology, 30, pp. 261 – 273
Li, Y. J. and Kenrick, D. T. (2012). Economic Decision Biases and Fundamental Motivations: How Mating and Self-Protection Alter Loss Aversion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 3, pp. 550 – 561
Lutz, R. J. (1985). Affective and Cognitive Antecedents of Attitude Toward the Ad: A Conceptual Framework. In L. F. Alwitt and A. A. Mitchell (Eds.) Psychological Processes and Advertising Effects: Theory, Research and Application.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 45 – 63
MacKenzie, S. B., Lutz, R. R., and 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, 23, pp. 130 – 43
Maner, J. K., Kenrick, S. L., Becker, D. T., Robertson, T. E., Hofer, B., Neuberg, S. L., Delton, A. W., Butner, J. and Schaller, M. (2005). Functional Projection: How Fundamental Social Motives Can Bias Interpersonal Perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, pp. 63 – 78
Malholtra, N. K. (2010). Marketing Research. An Applied Orientation. Pearson Education. New Jersey
Neuberg, S., Kenrick, D. T. and Schaller, M. (2010). Evolutionary Social Psychology. In Fiske, S. T., Gilbert D. and Lindzey G. (Eds.), Handbook of Social Psychology. 5th ed., NY: John Wiley & Sons
Okada, E. M. (2010). Uncertainty, Risk Aversion, and WTA vs. WTP. Marketing Science, 29, 1, pp. 75 – 84
Pavelchak, M. A., Antil, J. and Munch J. M. (1988). The Super Bowl: An Investigation Into The Relationship Among Program Context, Emotional Experience And Ad Recall. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 360 – 367
Pesheva, D., Kroll, E. B., and Vogt, B. (2011). Gender Differences in Willingness to Pay to Avoid Pain and Their Correlation With Risk. Journal of Neuroscience, Psychology, & Economics, 4, 3, pp. 181-191
Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J.T., Schumann, D. (1983) Central And Peripheral Routes To Advertising Effectiveness: The Moderating Role Of Involvement. Journal of
Consumer Research, 10, pp. 135 – 46
Phelps, E. A., O’Conner, K. J., Cunningham, W. A., Funayama, E. S., Gatenby, J. C., Gore, J. C., et al. (2000). Performance On Indirect Measures Of Race Evaluation Predicts Amygdala Activation. Journal Of Cognitive Neuroscience, 12, pp. 729 – 738 Risch, N., Burchard, E., Ziv, E. and Tang, H. (2002) Genome Biology, 3, 7
Schaller, M., Park, J. H. and Mueller, A. (2003). Fear of the Dark: Interactive Effects of Beliefs About Danger and Ambient Darkness on Ethnic Stereotypes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, pp. 637 – 649
Schwarz, N. (1990). Feelings as Information: Informational and Motivational Functions of Affective States. In Sorrentino, R And Higgins E. T. (Eds.), Handbook of Motivation and Cognition: Foundations of Social Behavior, 2, NY: Guilford Press, pp. 527 –
561
Tajfel, H., Billig, M., Bundy, R. P. and Flament C. (1971). Social Categorization and Intergroup Behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1, 2, pp. 149 – 178 Thorson, E., Reeves, B., Schleuder, J., Lang, A. And Rothchild M. (1985). Effect of Program Context on the Processing of Television Commercials. In Proceeding of the
American Academy of Advertising. AZ: Arizona State University, pp. 58 – 63 Verkuyten, M., and Masson, K. (1995). ‘New Racism’, Self-Esteem, and Ethnic Relations Among Minority and Majority Youth in the Netherlands. Social Behaviour and Personality, 23, 2, pp. 137 – 154
APPENDIX A Priming Procedures 1. Fear Scenario (priming self-protection)
Instructions: Please carefully read the following scenario. As you’re reading the scenario, try to put yourself in the shoes of the main character and experience the emotions that they are feeling.
*************************************************************************** Imagine that it’s the middle of the semester and you are getting a little stressed out from everything you have to do. To unwind, you decide to have a quiet evening at home tonight by yourself to get away from all of the hassles and stress.
Tonight is a particularly windy night. As the wind howls, tree branches sway from side to side. A small crescent moon is barely visible, making it feel a little darker than usual. Few people would want to be outside, and it makes the house feel cozy. You initially watch some TV on the couch to relax. But you soon decide to go to the bedroom and curl up with a book you’ve been meaning to read. You feel relaxed and comfortable in your bed, and you notice how everything seems so quiet when you’re home by yourself. All you can hear is the rumble of the wind. It makes you feel a little chilly, so you get more comfortable in your sheets and slowly become engrossed in your book.
Silence envelops the room, and you hear the front door rattle. Although you know it’s just the wind, the noise makes you feel a little uneasy. You think back to whether you locked the door, and you think you did. Out of the corner of your eye you notice a sudden movement. You quickly turn your head to look, but there’s nothing there. You are a little jittery. You try to go back to the book, but you have a hard time concentrating. You hear the wind outside getting stronger. Tree branches brush against the outside walls, making it sound as though something is scraping against the house. You get an eerie feeling, and you try to calm yourself down, hoping to get back into the story you were just reading.
You look around the room, but you can’t see anything. You can’t even make out your own hand right in front of you. You are wide awake. Your chest is pounding. You try to remember where you keep the flashlight, recalling that it’s in the kitchen. You collect yourself and decide to try to slowly feel your way over to the flashlight. With both hands feeling the walls, you slowly feel your way to the bedroom doorway in absolute darkness.
Then, you hear a petrifying sound: The handle on the front door rattles and the door squeaks as it opens. You’ve heard that noise a hundred times, but it has never been this frightening. You are sure the door was locked and you’re not expecting anyone. You want to tell yourself it’s your imagination, but you are not so sure. Your body presses up against the wall. Unsure of what to do, you call out: “is anyone there?” There’s no response. Just daunting silence. Gripped with a new jolt of fear, your arms clench up against your body. All of your senses are heightened; you can hear your own breathing. You strain your ears for the slightest noise.
You hear a footstep. Then another. There is someone in your house. Your eyes open wide, and you begin to feel panicked inside. Your instinct tells you to scream, but nothing comes out. Suddenly, you hear a crashing lamp in the living room. The noise sends your heart throbbing and makes your hands begin to shake.
You decide to try to call 911, but it’s almost impossible to find the phone in the darkness. In a panic, you run back into the bedroom. But in the confusion, you trip on the corner of the bed. You stumble and fall onto the bedroom floor. Turning your head toward the doorway, you hear the sound of heavy footsteps coming down the hall towards your room…
2. Control Scenario (no priming)
Instructions: Please carefully read the following scenario. As you’re reading the scenario, try to put yourself in the shoes of the main character and experience the emotions that they are feeling.
As you go to get your keys and wallet from the counter, you only find your wallet. The keys are nowhere in sight. Thinking that it’s a little awkward, you feel your pockets. No keys in there either. You try to think back to where you last saw the keys, but you can’t exactly remember. You know you had it yesterday, and you’re usually pretty good about leaving your keys right next to your wallet.
You sometimes put your keys in your backpack, so that seems the logical place to look. You search through your bag. Books, folders, pens, but no keys. You turn the bag upside down and shake it. Nothing but junk. Now you start getting a little annoyed, and a little worried. Where the heck are your keys?
You decide to search around the house. You look all around your desk. You open the drawers. You search deep in the drawers. But it’s not anywhere. You look through your bedroom floor, but all you find is junk.
Getting more desperate, you look through the laundry. Maybe they’re in another pocket somewhere? You find some pieces of paper, but no keys. Feeling more upset, you go into your closet and start throwing things to the floor—no keys. You run to the kitchen and start looking on the counters. You open all the cupboards and drawers. You have no idea why the keys would be there, but you need to look somewhere. In fifteen minutes, your kitchen looks like a disaster area. But still no keys!
You’re feeling really frustrated at this point. You think back to when you last remember having the keys and try to retrace your steps. You clearly remember having them yesterday, but you just don’t know where you put them. You hope you didn’t leave them somewhere. You really don’t need another thing to worry about right now.
Remembering that you had gone outside to take out the garbage earlier, you run out into the driveway. Maybe the keys fell out there? You look in the grass, the bushes, underneath cars. You see nothing. You think to yourself: did I really lose my keys? As you walk back inside the house in frustration, you feel as though you’re ready to pull out your hair. Your keys have disappeared. You knew this was coming sometime, but why now. It’s so annoying.
APPENDIX B Advertisements
1. Advertisement With an Ingroup Endorser (Group Membership Similarity)
APPENDIX C
12-Item Dangerous World Scale by Altemeyer Adopted from Altemeyer (1988 : 195-196)
1. It seems that every year there are fewer and fewer truly respectable people, and more and more persons with no morals at all who threaten everyone else.
2. Although it may appear that things are constantly getting more dangerous and chaotic, it really isn’t so. Every era has its problems, and a person’s chances of living a safe, untroubled life are better today than ever before.
3. If our society keeps degenerating the way it has been lately, it’s liable to collapse like a rotten log and everything will be chaos.
4. Our society is not full of immoral and degenerate people who prey on decent people. New reports of such cases are grossly exaggerating and misleading.
5. The “end” is not near. People who think that earthquakes, wars and famines mean God might be about to destroy the world are being foolish.
6. There are many dangerous people in our society who will attack someone out of pure meanness, for no reason at all.
7. Despite what one hears about ‘crime in the street’. There probably isn’t any more now than there ever has been.
8. Any day now, chaos and anarchy could erupt around us. All the signs are pointing to it.
9. If a person takes a few sensible precautions, nothing bad will happen to him. We do not live in a dangerous world.
10. Every day, as our society becomes more lawless and bestial, a person’s chance of being robbed, assaulted and even murdered go up and up.
11. Things are getting so bad, even a decent law-abiding person who takes sensible precautions can still become victim of violence and crime.
APPENDIX D
Measurements Attitude Toward the Ad, WTP and Recognition
TABLE D 1
Measurement Attitude Toward the Ad by use of Aad Score
Statements Source
1 Good Bad Biehal et al. (1992)
2 Like Dislike Biehal et al. (1992)
3 Interesting Boring Biehal et al. (1992)
4 Creative Uncreative Biehal et al. (1992)
5 Informative Uninformative Biehal et al. (1992)
6 Pleasant Unpleasant MacKenzie, Lutz and Belch (1986)
7 Favourable Unfavourable MacKenzie, Lutz and Belch (1986)
8 Appealing Unappealing Hampel et al. (2012)
9 Attractive Unattractive Hampel et al. (2012)
TABLE D 2
Measurement Willingness To Pay
Options 1 € 0,30 7 € 1,90 2 € 0,55 8 € 2,20 3 € 0,80 9 € 2,50 4 € 1,10 10 € 2,75 5 € 1,40 11 € 3,00 6 € 1,65 12 € 3,30
TABLE D 3
Measurements Recognition
Question Options
1. What was the name of the brand in the advertisement? Prodent Oral-B Aquafresh Sensodyne 2. What was the price of the product? € 2,55
€ 2,75 € 2,95 € 2,45
3. Since when is/was the product available? Beginning March 2013 End March 2013
Beginning April 2013 End April 2013 4. In which store is the product exclusively available? Kruidvat
Albert Heijn Etos
Jumbo
5. What award did the product won? Best Choice
APPENDIX E
Questionnaires Experiment Questionnaire Version 1
Bedankt dat u wilt meewerken aan mijn onderzoek! Hallo,
Mijn naam is Marije Remmelink, ik ben een Marketing student aan de RUG en in de afrondende fase van mijn master. Op dit moment ben ik een scriptie aan het schrijven over de invloed van fundamentele motieven op het hedendaagse consumentengedrag. Daarvoor heb ik uw hulp nodig! Ik heb een vragenlijst opgesteld die onder andere een filmpje en een verhaaltje bevat, het is dus ook nog eens leuk om in te vullen! Al met al bent u maar 10 minuten kwijt en helpt u mij enorm.
Belangrijk in dit experiment is dat u er even voor gaat zitten en de hele vragenlijst in één keer invult. Daarnaast bevat de vragenlijst video-elementen waarbij het geluid een belangrijke rol speelt, zorgt u er dus voor dat u het geluid aan heeft. Op deze manier krijg ik een zo betrouwbaar mogelijk resultaat. Deze vragenlijst is compleet anoniem en er wordt vertrouwelijk met de informatie om gegaan. Alvast hartelijk dank voor uw medewerking!
Met vriendelijke groet, Marije Remmelink
volgende pagina
De Samenleving
Lees de volgende stellingen goed en geef aan, op een schaal van 1 tot 7, in hoeverre u het eens bent met de stellingen.
1. Het lijkt alsof er elk jaar minder echt fatsoenlijke mensen zijn, en steeds meer mensen zonder moraal die de rest bedriegen.
2. Het soms lijkt alsof alles steeds meer gevaarlijk en chaotisch is, maar dat is niet zo. Elk tijdperk heeft zijn eigen problemen, en de kansen om een veilig en zorgeloos leven te leiden zijn nu groter dan ooit.
Oneens Eens
3. Als onze samenleving blijft ontaarden zoals het al tijden doet, zal het in elkaar storten als verrot hout en zal alles een chaos zijn.
Oneens Eens
4. Onze samenleving zit niet vol met immorele en ontaarde mensen die misbruik maken van fatsoenlijke mensen. Berichten daarover zijn overdreven en misleidend.
Oneens Eens
5. Het ‘einde’ is niet naderend. Mensen die denken dat aardbevingen, oorlogen en hongersnoden betekenen dat God ons binnenkort vernietigd, zijn dom.
Oneens Eens
6. Er zijn veel mensen in onze samenleving die andere mensen aanvallen uit pure ‘slechtheid’, zonder enige reden.
Oneens Eens
7. Wat je ook hoort over ‘criminaliteit op straat’, het is waarschijnlijk niet erger dan het ooit was.
Oneens Eens
8. Alles wijst er op dat op elk moment chaos en anarchie kan uitbarsten. Oneens Eens
9. Als je een paar zorgvuldige voorzorgsmaatregelen neemt, kan je niks gebeuren. We leven niet in een gevaarlijke wereld.
Oneens Eens
10. Onze samenleving wordt elke dag wettelozer en beestachtiger. De kans dat je wordt beroofd, aangerand of vermoord worden steeds groter.
Oneens Eens
Oneens Eens
12. Onze samenleving is niet uit elkaar aan het vallen of van binnenuit aan het wegrotten. Oneens Eens
volgende pagina
Gaat u lekker zitten en bekijk het volgende filmpje alstublieft aandachtig. Het is belangrijk dat u uw geluid aan heeft en het filmpje bekijkt tot aan het eind.
Klikt u na het bekijken van het filmpje gelijk op de doorgaan-knop.
*filmpje The Human Planet*
volgende pagina
Instructies: leest u alstublieft het volgende scenario nauwkeurig en zonder tussenpozen. Terwijl u leest, probeert u zich in de schoenen van het personage te verplaatsen en de emoties te voelen die het personage voelt.
Klikt u na het lezen van het scenario gelijk op de doorgaan-knop.
*************************************************************************** Stel je voor dat het dinsdag is, midden in je semester. De vakken die je gekozen hebt zijn behoorlijk moeilijk, en je begint in de stress te raken als je nadenkt over alles wat je nog moet doen. Je zit thuis een beetje huiswerk te maken, maar het saaie stof en je begint moe te worden. Je bedenkt je dat je nog boodschappen moet doen voor de winkel sluit, dus je besluit eerst maar even naar de winkel te gaan.
Soms stop je je sleutels ook wel in je rugzak, dus je bedenkt dat ze misschien daar liggen. Je zoekt de hele tas door, boeken, folders, pennen, maar nog steeds geen sleutels. Je zet de hele tas op z’n kop en schud hem heen en weer. Er komt alleen maar troep uit. Je begint een beetje geïrriteerd te raken, maar maakt je ook een beetje zorgen. Waar heb je die rotsleutels nou gelaten?
Je begint een zoektocht door je hele huis, startend bij je bureau. Je opent alle laadjes en doorzoekt ze één voor één. Maar nergens zie je je sleutels. Je speurt de hele vloer van je slaapkamer af, maar je ziet alleen maar troep.
Je wordt nu wel een beetje wanhopig, en begint de wasmand overhoop te halen. Misschien zitten ze in één of andere broekzak? Je vindt allemaal stukjes papier, maar geen sleutels. Je begint nu boos te worden, duikt je kast in en gooit de hele inhoud op de grond – geen sleutels. Je haast je naar de keuken en doorzoekt het aanrecht en trekt alle kastjes en laadjes open. Je hebt echt geen idee waarom de sleutels hier zouden kunnen zijn, maar je weet ook niet meer waar je anders moet zoeken. Na een kwartier ziet je keuken er uit als een slagveld. Maar die sleutels heb je nog steeds niet.
Nu begin je gefrustreerd te raken. Je denkt aan de laatste keer dat je je sleutels had en gaat al je stappen na. Je weet zeker dat je ze gister nog had, maar je hebt echt geen idee waar je ze toen gelaten hebt. Je hoopt dat je ze niet ergens hebt laten liggen. Dit kan je er echt niet bij hebben nu.
Je herinnert je dat je eerder vandaag het vuilnis buiten hebt gezet, je rent richting de straatkant. Misschien zijn de sleutels daar gevallen? Je zoekt in het gras, de bosjes en onder de auto’s. Je ziet niets. Je denkt bij jezelf: ben ik m’n sleutels echt verloren? Gefrustreerd loop je terug je huis in, je zit met je handen in het haar. Je sleutels zijn kwijtgeraakt. Je wist dat dit ooit zou gebeuren, maar waarom nou nu? Dit is echt irritant.
Zuchtend laat je je op de bank vallen die in de woonkamer staat. Je kijkt naar het kastje waar je normaal gesproken je sleutels neerlegt. Tot je grote verbazing zie je ze daar liggen. Je sleutels liggen gewoon op het kastje! Hoe kan het dat je ze niet hebt gezien? Je kunt het niet geloven. Dit soort dingen gebeuren jou altijd.
