Irritation of Ad Skeptics

(1)

Irritation of Ad Skeptics

A skeptical consumer is a warned one

Femke Bosch

(2)

1

Irritation of Ad Skeptics

A skeptical consumer is a warned one

(3)

2

Management summary

This master thesis is focused around the concept of irritation in advertising. More particularly, the research question is ‘how does type of appeal moderate the effect of ad skepticism on ad irritation?’

Bauer and Greyser’s (1968) research suggests, besides intrusiveness as primary reason, that there are elements within an ad that consumers consider annoying, such as character(s), music, or voices. However, besides the assumption that there are things within the ad that cause irritation, it should be assumed that differences in perception can also be caused by differences between

consumers, such as skepticism. Ad skepticism is defined as the tendency toward disbelief of

advertising claims (Obermiller et al. 2005). As advertising is an important approach to reach consumers and create brand awareness, increase purchase intentions, etc., reaching and convincing skeptical consumers can be a real challenge for marketers. In order for marketers to get around this skepticism, they need to know how skeptical consumers think, and what it is exactly they are irritated by.

The Elaboration Likelihood Model assumes there are two ways in which consumers process advertisements. When consumers systematically process information they carefully consider all the arguments to make a decision about the validity of the ad; when consumers depend on heuristic cues they use simple decision rules (rules of thumb) in deciding whether to accept or reject a persuasive message (Fennis and Stroebe 2010). Further, there are two main types of appeal marketers use for advertising; argument-based appeals are informational and make use of rational arguments to address consumers’ beliefs about a brand or product, while affect-based appeals use affect and emotion.

(4)

3 untruthful claims in advertisements. Since this is typical for argument-based appeals, the third hypothesis states that skeptical consumers are more irritated by argument-based appeals than affect-based appeals. This also leads to the fourth hypothesis: because less skeptical consumers do not consider the truthfulness of the message as thoroughly, skeptical consumers are more irritated by argument-based appeals than less skeptical consumers.

Empirical data is gathered through an online questionnaire, measuring the irritation level experienced after each – with a total of four – advertisement. These four ads consist of two different brands/products (Calvé peanut butter vs. Becel butter) which each having one argument-based and one affect-based appeal. Respondents are consumers of all ages, of which the majority is highly educated, and are approached via email and social media. They are randomly assigned to a level of skepticism (high vs. low) which is manipulated through a coverstory about the truthfulness of advertising. At the end of the questionnaire a manipulation check is performed to assure the manipulation of skepticism was successful.

Results are analyzed with a repeated measures ANOVA, with a 2 (skepticism: low vs. high) x 2 (type of appeal: argument-based vs. affect-based) x 2 (product type: Calvé vs. Becel) mixed design. The main research question could only be partially confirmed, because results indicated that there is no significant main effect of skepticism on ad irritation, which is likely due to an insignificant difference of irritation experienced from affect-based appeals between skeptical and less skeptical consumers. There is, however, evidence proving a difference in irritation from argument-based appeals between skeptical and less skeptical consumers. Moreover, skeptical consumers are more irritated by argument-based appeals than affect-based appeals, and systematically process information rather than depend on heuristic cues – although less skeptical consumers tend to also systematically process advertisements. It was checked whether product type had an influence on irritation; although there was a main effect of product type, the interaction effect with skepticism and type of appeal was insignificant.

Limitations of this research are mainly due to the shortcomings of an online questionnaire and time frame in which the research had to be completed (because the repeated measures could have been measured over a longer period of time instead of in one questionnaire).

(5)

4

Introduction

The ‘Loden Leeuw’ is a contest in the Netherlands in which the most irritating commercial of the year is chosen by the Dutch population. Anyone can send in a commercial he or she finds irritating, and for what reason1. The commercials with the highest frequency will be made public, and people can vote on which commercial is irritating; the commercial with the most votes wins the ‘Loden Leeuw’. This is similar to the ‘Gouden Loeki’ – the annual Dutch contest for best commercial2.

This raises the question of what it is exactly that consumers find irritating, or likeable, about these commercials. Besides voting for the most irritating commercial in general, people can also vote for the most irritating (famous) person in a TV commercial. This shows that one of the things people can find irritating about a commercial are the character(s) in it. However, the commercial that wins the ‘Loden Leeuw’ for most irritating character is different than the winner of the most irritating commercial in general, which shows there have to be more factors that can play a role in what is considered irritating.

Next to the assumption that there are things within the commercial that cause irritation or make consumers like it, it can be assumed that the differences in perception can also be caused by individual differences. In other words, one person may think a commercial is annoying, while another likes it; these differences may be caused by personal characteristics rather than the content of the commercial.

Ad irritation

Research has identified many different reactions to advertising, such as humor, power, warmth, uniqueness and personal relevance (wells et al. 1971). However, many frameworks also include irritation as a reaction to advertising (Leavitt 1970; Wells et al 1971; Batra and Holbrook 1990). According to De Pelsmacker and Van den Bergh (1998), irritation often leads to a more negative attitude towards the advertisement, and is therefore less likeable. These negative reactions can possible impact the effectiveness of advertisement, as well as reduce the effectiveness of an individual commercial (Aaker and Bruzzone 1985). It is therefore important to carefully consider

(7)

6 irritation as a possible reaction to an ad, and if this feeling is caused by other factors than the advertisement itself.

Concerning this subject, there is some research available on how to reduce irritation in advertising (Greyser 1973), advertising approaches that increase/decrease ad irritation (Aaker and Bruzzone 1985), and what causes irritation (Duncan and Nelson 1985), but there is no clear categorization of what exactly irritates different types of consumers. Wells et al. (1971) define ad irritation as “a reaction that can be measured as the degree to which the rater dislikes what he or she has seen”. A more specific definition is provided by Aaker and Bruzzone (1985), who follow Webster’s definition: “an irritating commercial is one that is provoking, causing displeasure and momentary impatience, and is therefore more negative than ‘disliked”. Following Aaker and Bruzzone (1985), it can be assumed that there is a clear distinction between ads that are perceived as only ‘disliked’ and ads that are actually considered irritating.

Aaker and Bruzzone (1985) provide a thorough analysis of approaches that increase or decrease irritation, and prove that irritation is often linked to the nature of the product itself. They find some differences between consumer segments, for example men are more likely to classify an ad as irritating than women, and higher socioeconomic segments experience more irritation compared to lower segments. Furthermore, the liking of ads has been positively linked to brand preference and product use (Greyser 1973), as well as the other way around: product use and brand preference often result in the liking of an ad (Lutz et al. 1983).

Differences between consumers

(8)

7 1999). In general, when consumers’ motivation and ability to process information is high, they are more likely to engage in systematic processing (Yoo and MacInnis 2005).

Why is it that some consumers consider the arguments in an advertisement, while others rely more on rules of thumb? One reason could be that some consumers know more about the persuasion tactics marketers use and therefore think more about what is actually said. Kirmani and Zhu (2007) state that the activation of persuasion knowledge often leads to skepticism towards the advertising claim. From this it can be assumed that skeptical people rely more on systematic processing rather than heuristic cues.

Ad skepticism is defined as the tendency toward disbelief of advertising claims (Obermiller et al. 2005). According to Calfee and Ringold (1994), 70% of consumers claim they doubt the truthfulness of ads, which can therefore be a real challenge to marketers when trying to get positive responses. Obermiller et al. (2005) claim that a consumer who is skeptical about advertising relies less on advertising when making decisions and therefore pays less attention to it. However, Obermiller and Spangenberg (1998) also discuss that a person can be skeptic about the truthfulness of advertisements but still enjoys looking at them. This raises the question if skeptical consumers are more irritated by advertising than less skeptical consumers. If that is the case, marketers could (and probably should) try to get skeptical consumers to rely more on heuristic cues rather than systematic processing.

Type of appeal

(9)

8 There are two main types of appeal marketers can use for advertisements: argument-based appeals and affect-based appeals. Argument-based appeals are informational, where rational arguments are used to address consumers’ beliefs about the product or service (Fennis and Stroebe 2010). In affect-based appeals affect and emotion are used to appeal to consumers’ feelings about a product or service in order to persuade (Fennis and Stroebe 2010). In sum, there are different types of consumers that process messages in different ways and marketers use different types of appeal. Therefore, it can be assumed that different types of ads cause different reactions in consumers’ feelings (e.g. irritation), since consumers rely on different kinds of processing.

Research purpose

According to Obermiller and Spangenberg (2005) skeptics like advertising less, rely on it less, and attend to it less. As established previously, ad irritation is considered more negative than ‘disliked’. The direct effect of skepticism on ad irritation therefore has not yet been researched and will be investigated in this report, as well as possible moderating factors. The purpose of this report is to find out if there are individual differences in what consumers consider irritating in advertisements. Key factors are ad skepticism and ad irritation, with type of appeal as moderator. The differences between highly skeptical and less skeptical consumers will be exposed, as well as their feelings towards different types of appeal and the effect this has on their level of irritation towards an ad. This leads to the following research question:

How does type of appeal moderate the effect of ad skepticism on ad irritation?

If, by means of this report, it can be proven that there are indeed differences between what consumers consider irritating, this can be valuable information for marketers. If, for example, it can be proven that skeptical consumers are more irritated by informational appeals than emotional appeals, marketers can try to go around this skepticism by using emotional appeals instead, and gain a large group of viewers that are currently expected to avoid advertising as much as possible, rely less on advertising and are more easily irritated (Obermiller et al. 2005).

(10)

(11)

10

Theoretical background

In order to find moderating factors between ad skepticism and ad irritation, the direct relationship between these two variables should be explained as well. The entire model that will be discussed is summarized in figure 1.

Figure 1: conceptual model summarizing hypothesized relationships between concepts

Ad irritation

There are various reasons why companies and organizations advertise, but the two main functions of advertising at the individual level are to inform and persuade a consumer (Fennis and Stroebe 2010). Although this is a very broad term, the media are important sources for companies to show consumers their products and brands in comparison to competitors. According to Fennis and Stroebe (2010), advertising facilitates competition among firms, because through advertising companies compete for consumers’ attention, preferences, and money. However, this also means that when a company advertises, its competitors cannot stay behind and let them have consumers’ attention. Marketers therefore have to try their very best to stand out, to be better than the competitor and thereby gaining or maintaining consumers’

(12)

11 attention. Fennis and Bakker (2001) found that when consumers experience irritation by looking at one particular ad, this can have negative consequences for all other ads following. In other words, an ad that would usually be perceived positively can now be viewed negatively because an irritating ad was showed prior to that ad.

Advertisers may think their advertisements have to be intrusive in order to attract the public’s attention, even though Bauer and Greyser published in 1968 already that intrusiveness is a major cause of advertising irritation. Intrusiveness occurs when a consumer’s cognitive process is interrupted (Li et al. 2002) and can cause feelings of irritation. These feelings of irritation occur due to the advertisement just being there, no matter what product or brand, execution or content.

Next to the fact that elements included in an ad can cause irritation to the consumer, a consumer can also be irritated by advertising in general. In that case, it is not necessarily one single ad that causes irritation in the consumer, but the fact that the ad is ‘there’. This is related to Bauer and Greyser’s (1968) ‘placement’ element, where consumers can be irritated because the ad is shown too frequently, there are too many ads, it interrupts their activity, etc. Therefore, the disliking of some particular ads is closely related to disliking advertising in general (Greyser 1973).

Ad skepticism

Informational failure is another important cause of ad irritation (Bauer and Greyser 1968). In this case one ad in particular irritates consumers, because they do not believe the claims in the ad, or feel that the product’s ability is exaggerated. Informational failures also include misrepresentations, misleading or even false information/demonstrations, and occasions where information in the ad does not comply with consumer experience (Bauer and Greyser 1968).

(13)

12 skeptical of claims they cannot verify than claims that are easily and inexpensively to verify before accepting/rejecting the ad and making a (purchase) decision.

Consumers learn about the tactics advertisers use to get a certain response from the consumer. The more consumers know about persuasion and persuasion tactics, the more likely they are to disbelieve claims in an ad, especially if the message claims are not in accordance with their experiences (Bauer and Greyser 1968). According to Obermiller and Spangenberg (1998) skepticism is a basic marketplace belief that varies across individuals. As stated before, marketers do their best to have their advertisements stand out compared to competition and other surrounding ads. Marketers might feel as if they have to be intrusive and/or use exaggerated information, loud noises, etc. to get consumers’ attention. Since this is allowed by advertising regulation, although it irritates consumers, this free market system encourages consumers to be skeptical (Obermiller and Spangenberg 1998). Although regulations allow this sort of intrusive advertising, the consumer holds market power, because they are the ones that make the purchase decision in the end (Nelson 1974). It might be the bad experiences consumers have had with some particular ads that drove them to develop persuasion knowledge (which can lead to skepticism). Once a consumer is skeptic, they are likely to be skeptical of all advertisements and not just for advertisements of one brand or product (Calfee and Ringold 1994). The disbelief becomes part of the individual, who will not filter every ad to decide if he/she believes the claims or not, but be skeptical of advertising in general.

Irritation

As stated, it can be assumed that a skeptical consumer is skeptic of all advertisements (Calfee and Ringold 1994). A consumer’s overall attitude towards advertising also impacts the attitude towards a specific ad (Bauer and Greyser 1968). Therefore, a consumer with a rather negative attitude towards advertising – such as a skeptical attitude – is likely to evolve negative feelings (e.g. irritation) towards a specific ad as well (James and Kover 1992).

(14)

13 ad. The feeling that the marketers are trying to manipulate consumers, do not tell the truth, or exaggerate the product could cause irritation when viewing the ad. For this reason, skeptical consumers are assumed to feel more irritation towards these ads that are trying to persuade them into something they do not believe compared to less skeptical consumers.

In sum, skeptical consumers tend to be irritated by ads, because they doubt the truthfulness of ads, and therefore respond less positively (or even negatively) to advertising (Obermiller et al. 2005). Because a consumer is likely to be skeptical of advertising in general, negative rather than positive feelings – such as irritation – are likely to evolve from watching a specific ad as well. While a less skeptical consumer might objectively view an ad, more skeptical consumers view ads with in the back of their minds that the marketers behind these ads are not telling/showing the truth, which irritates them. From this it can be assumed that feelings of irritation are developed after viewing ads, which leads to the following hypothesis:

H1: Ad skeptics are more irritated by advertising than less skeptical consumers.

Following Aaker and Bruzzone’s (1985) definition, it can be assumed that an irritating ad is even more negative than ‘disliked’. Therefore, it is relevant to find out which types of commercials actually have an influence on ad irritation, and if this is different for skeptic people or not.

ELM vs. type of appeal

(15)

14 1983). Combining the two models with the types of appeal, it can be assumed that motivation and ability to process determine which route is taken by consumers. Consumers that take the central route are assumed to prefer argument-based appeals. They enjoy thinking about the messages provided in an ad, and argument-based appeals use clear and rational arguments, which give the consumer a clear opportunity to systematically process this information. Vice versa, affect-based appeals use more mood-creating elements in their commercials (De Pelsmacker and Van den Bergh 1998), such as background music or attractiveness of an endorser, and make it easier for consumers who prefer to use the peripheral route to process this. Contrary, affect-based appeals use less clear arguments to persuade the consumer, which makes it more difficult for consumers that prefer the central route.

ELM and the skeptical consumer

Skeptical consumers tend to disbelieve the claims marketers use in ads (Obermiller et al. 2005) and therefore are more irritated by ads than less skeptical people, as assumed in hypothesis 1. According to Fennis and Stroebe (2010) (US) consumers are exposed to a thousand of advertising messages each day. Although consumers do not (consciously) pay attention to every single one of these, some of these messages will get across. Skeptical consumers tend to rely less on advertising (because they simply do not believe what is said) and therefore pay less attention to them (Obermiller et al. 2005). However, in today’s world there is no way around advertising. In this report the assumption of forced exposure will be used instead of assuming skeptical consumers pay less attention to advertising, to clearly see differences between consumers when they consciously process ads.

When skeptical consumers are exposed to advertising, it can be assumed that they systematically process the message, rather than depend on heuristic cues. This is because skeptical consumers tend to disbelieve the messages, in general, for which careful consideration is needed. This does not mean, however, that less skeptical consumers are the opposite and depend on heuristic cues when processing a message. They are just as likely to use systematic processing as skeptical people are, as skepticism is not the only factor determining the processing route (Fennis and Stroebe 2010). From this the following hypothesis can be derived:

(16)

15 Ad irritation and content

What triggers consumers to like, dislike, or to be irritated by a commercial is valuable information for marketers. A consumer’s opinion can make or break a marketing campaign, as it can result in very positive as well as very negative consumer responses. In order to get positive responses, marketers want to know how to get the most effective outcome from their ad. According to Moore and Hutchinson (1983) irritating advertising campaigns can be effective as well. They argue that it is better to create negative feelings towards an ad, than no feelings at all. However, in general, marketers aim for positive affective responses, which represent the moods and feelings evoked by the ad that may affect the attitude toward the ad (Batra and Ray 1983), which does not necessarily have to be evoked by a positive ad. An example of this is Zalando, which has used irritating ads in a positive way. Zalando has launched irritating advertisements from the beginning of its existence in the Netherlands, with as a result winning the ‘Loden Leeuw’ (annual Dutch prize for most annoying commercial) twice in a row3

. Although perceived as annoying, Zalando is able to get positive responses on its campaigns. It attracts attention and creates brand familiarity without associating the negative reaction of irritation with the brand (Moore and Hutchinson 1983).

There are still, however, commercials that contain such irritating elements that result in negative responses. Since skeptical consumers tend to rely less on advertising and generally dislike ads (Obermiller et al. 2005), it is relevant to find out what it is exactly that they find irritating in order to reduce this irritation. In this regard, the research of Aaker and Bruzzone (1985) is of key importance, since it identifies how irritation varies over product classes. The most important conclusions derived from this are that there are some product categories of which the advertisements result in higher level of irritation than others. Examples of these categories are feminine hygiene and laxatives. These categories are considered to be more irritating because a sensitive product is involved, indicating that some product categories are more irritating than others (Aaker and Bruzzone 1985). Furthermore, Aaker and Bruzzone (1985) prove that certain factors related to the product class cause higher levels of irritation, such as a phony, unbelievable situation; a person’s apparel is criticized; an important social relationship appears to be

3_{http://www.trosradar.nl/lodenleeuw/2011/}

(17)

16 threatened (e.g. mother-daughter); demonstration of physical discomfort, etc. (Aaker and Bruzzone 1985). On the other hand, the authors give advice on how irritation can be reduced: using good casting and story line; a positive, happy mood is created (e.g. by music); certain positive phrases; appropriate, credible spokesperson, etc.

Ad content

(18)

17

Table 1: Ad content vs. Ad execution

From table 1 it can be assumed that ad execution factors (e.g. people or music) are mostly used to create a mood or appeal consumers through (evoking) emotions. Therefore, ad execution elements will be considered as affect-based appeals. Contrary, ‘ad content’ from table 1 seems to relate to the actual message of the ad, and will therefore be considered as argument-based appeals.

Skeptical consumers and type of appeal

As assumed in hypothesis 2, skeptical consumers are expected to use the systematic processing route rather than rely on heuristic cues. However, the route consumers choose to process a message, does not say anything about what causes their irritation. To summarize what was previously established in this report: skeptical consumers tend to use the central route, and thus carefully think about arguments; skeptical consumers tend to disbelieve advertising claims, and are more irritated by advertising than less skeptical consumers (because they are irritated by the ‘untruthfulness’ of messages). The majority of the disbelief skeptical consumers experience is caused by the arguments of the ad itself, and thus not by the mood that marketers try to create.

Ad Content Ad Execution

Exaggeration Too loud

Confusion Too long

Insulting consumer’s intelligence Too large

Boring Unpleasant people

Depressing Unpleasant voices

Misrepresentations / fake claims or

demonstrations Unpleasant music

Too detailed demonstration of physical

discomfort Failed humor

Overdramatized Suggestive scene

Consumer is ‘put down’ Important relationship is threatened Certain words create positive mood (e.g.

love, care) Good music

Arguments match experience Positive mood created by music Attempts at amusement Positive mood created by story line

(19)

18 Thus, since the disbelief of skeptical consumers is targeted towards the arguments of the ad, which supposedly causes irritation, it can be assumed that skeptical consumers are more irritated by informational appeals than emotional appeals. This results in the following hypothesis:

H3: Skeptical consumers are more irritated by argument-based appeals than affect-based appeals.

Even though it has been assumed that skeptical consumers rely on systematic processing, tend to disbelieve messages and therefore are more irritated by informational appeals, this does not mean less skeptical people act the opposite way. There could be many reasons why a consumer chooses to use the central route rather than the peripheral route besides skepticism. For instance, consumers high in need for cognition tend to respond differently to argument-based appeals than emotional appeals than consumers who dislike such evaluative thinking (low in need for cognition) (Fennis and Stroebe 2010). Nonetheless, it can be assumed that less skeptical consumers are less irritated by argument-based appeals than skeptical consumers are. This leads to the following hypothesis:

H4: skeptical consumers are more irritated by argument-based appeals than less skeptical consumers.

(20)

19

Methodology

The research question of this study is: How does type of appeal moderate the effect of ad

skepticism on ad irritation? In order to answer this question, this report is guided by four

hypotheses. The first hypothesis examines the differences in ad irritation between highly skeptical and less skeptical consumers; it is expected that highly skeptical consumers are more irritated by advertising than less skeptical consumers. Hypothesis 2 contains the assumption that, compared to less skeptical consumers, skeptical people use systematic processing when looking at ads, rather than depending on heuristic cues. The third and fourth hypotheses are related to argument- and affect-based appeals. In hypothesis 3 it is assumed that skeptical consumers are more irritated by argument- than affect-based appeals, and are more irritated by argument-based appeals than less skeptical consumers (hypothesis 4).

Empirical data for this experimental study is collected through an online questionnaire. This method was chosen to reach a large amount of respondents in a relatively short period of time. The goal of this research is to investigate if/how skepticism and different types of appeal have an effect on ad irritation. A 2 (level of skepticism: low vs. high) x 2 (type of appeal level: argument-based vs. affect-argument-based) x (product: Calvé vs. Becel) mixed design will be employed; differences between the two respondent groups will be investigated, as well as differences within groups regarding their irritation from types of appeal. Thus, both groups are exposed to both types of appeal, after which the differences within the group (irritation caused by different types of appeal), as well as between groups, can be measured.

Pretest manipulation

(21)

20 & A2) for both manipulated groups. In the main experiment, respondents will be exposed to four commercials after which irritation is measured. After viewing and rating all four commercials, they are asked to answer the questions employed as manipulation check after viewing all four commercials. A total of 15 questions will be answered measuring total skepticism, of which eight questions measure skepticism and the remaining seven are filler questions (see appendix B). All questions will be answered on a 7-point Likert scale (1-totally disagree, …, 7-totally agree). If manipulation is successful, one group will consist of highly skeptical consumers, while the other group will be less skeptical. In order to test whether these questions successfully measure skepticism and the coverstory is successful, a pretest is conducted.

The pretest, with 15 respondents (6 male, 9 female), was conducted to make sure the manipulation of level of skepticism was successful. All questions were asked in a positive way, and were therefore recoded in the analysis to a negative direction so a higher mean would represent a higher level of skepticism. Following, a reliability test was performed to check whether the eight questions measuring skepticism could be combined in one variable. Cronbach’s Alpha was .982, and would only decrease if items were deleted. One sum variable measuring the level of skepticism was now created and tested for normality for both groups (skeptical and less skeptical respondents). This variable turned out to be normally distributed for skeptic respondents (p = .480), but not normally distributed for less skeptic respondents (p = .014). This not normal distribution for less skeptic respondents is probably due to the low number of participants, and since this is a pretest analysis will still be performed. An independent samples t-test was performed to check if there was a significant difference between the two manipulated groups. Equal variances could be assumed, and the independent t-test was significant, t (13) = 6.38, p = .000. This leads to the conclusion that, on a scale of 1 (not at all skeptic) to 7 (very skeptic), the average level of skepticism of manipulated skeptical consumers (M = 5.98, SD = .7638) significantly differs from the average level of skepticism of manipulated less skeptical consumers (M = 2.91, SD = 1.0613). Based on this result it can be concluded that the manipulation was successful.

Pretest commercials

(22)

21 Mean Arguments Std. Deviation Arguments Mean Affect Std. Deviation Affect Ad 1 (Calvé; arguments) 6.50 .516 2.18 .188 Ad 2 (Calvé'; affect) 1.75 .683 6.25 .194 Ad 3 (Becel; arguments) 6.31 .704 2.56 .387 Ad 4 (Becel; affect) 2.25 1.05 6.50 .316

over two products (Calvé peanut butter and Becel butter), so each product has one argument-based appeal and one affect-argument-based appeal. The four commercials are tested in a pretest, to confirm that respondents also perceive these commercials as argument- or affect-based.

All respondents saw the four commercials, after which they were asked to answer two questions (per ad) to which extent the commercials used rational arguments to influence consumers or if they tried to influence their feelings. Because these questions were asked after each commercial, so four times, a repeated measures ANOVA was used to look at the differences between commercials. Two factors were tested, namely arguments and affect, over four levels (four ads). Mauchly’s test indicated that the assumption of sphericity had been violated, arguments = 27.40,

p = .000, therefore degrees of freedom were corrected using Huynh-Feldt estimates of sphericity

(ɛ = .524). A significant main effect of Arguments was found F (3, 23.57) = 63.58, p = .000. This means that opinions about arguments used were affected by the different commercials. Looking at contrasts, it can be seen that commercial 1 (argument-based appeal) was significantly different in terms of arguments used than commercial 4 (affect-based appeal), F (1, 15) = 51.00, p = .000,

r = .88. Commercial two was not significantly different than commercial 4, F (1, 15) = .811, p =

.382, r = .11, which is the expected result as these commercials were both affect-based appeals. Commercial 3 (argument-based appeal) was significantly different than commercial 4 (affect-based appeal), F (1, 15) = 42.62, p = .000, r = .80.

The same was done for questions regarding influence from affect and emotions. Mauchly’s test indicated that the assumption of sphericity had not been violated, Affect = 10.75, p = .057. A significant main effect of ‘Affect’ was found, F (3, 23.57) = 73.79, p = .000. This means that opinions about affect used were affected by the different commercials. Looking at contrasts, it can be seen that commercial 2

(affect-based appeal) was significantly different in terms of affect and emotion used than commercial 1 (argument-based appeal), F (1, 15) = 209.16, p = .000, r = .97. Commercial 3 was not significantly different than commercial 1, F (1, 15) = 1.216,

(23)

22

p = .287, r = .27, which is the expected result as these commercials were both argument-based

appeals. Commercial 4 (affect-based appeal) was significantly different than commercial 1 (argument-based appeal), F (1, 15) = 113.18, p = .000, r = .94.

Table 2 shows the means and standard deviations of respondents’ perceptions of arguments and affect used per commercial. From these results it can be concluded that respondents agreed with the choice of commercials; the chosen argument-based ads were rated as argument-based, and the chosen affect-based ads were rated as affect-based and will be used in the main questionnaire.

Procedure

Aim was to get a minimum of 100 Dutch (speaking) respondents. Ideally these respondents would all have the same age and education level. Marketing students of the University of Groningen were approached via e-mail and social media, with a disappointing response rate, however. The target group was then widened to students in general (no specific university or degree), who were approached via email and social as well. When this resulted, once again, in a disappointing response rate, people of all ages and education levels were approached via social media, e-mail, and word-of-mouth, to reach the appropriate amount of respondents.

(24)

23 Independent Variables

Ad skepticism. This variable has two levels, which will be manipulated: highly skeptical and less

skeptical.

Participants will be randomly assigned to one of two groups:

- Group 1 will be manipulated for high skepticism, - Group 2 will be manipulated for low skepticism.

As in the pretest for manipulation, respondents will be randomly assigned to one of two groups. Both groups will be manipulated into either becoming skeptical consumers or less skeptical consumers. This is done using a coverstory about the goal of the questionnaire. The basic message of the coverstory for group 1 will state that in 95% of the cases marketers are not telling the truth in their commercials and that through this they try to manipulate the consumer and trick them into buying their products or using their services. The complete text used for this manipulation can be found in appendix A1.

The coverstory text for group 2 will state the opposite; in 95% of the cases marketers are actually telling the truth about their products/services, despite what people think. There is no reason for consumers to doubt the truthfulness of TV commercials. The complete text used for this manipulation can be found in appendix A2.

The method of manipulating skepticism (rather than measuring) will be used because it has been assumed that skeptical consumers rely less on advertising and pay less attention to it. In order to find individual differences between the two groups, this experiment is conducted based on forced exposure. This way differences are expected to be found in the way consumers process information and irritation caused by advertisements. Further, it has been proven that higher educated people tend to have a higher knowledge of persuasion (Friestad and Wright 1994). Due to the majority of respondents being highly educated (HBO/bachelor’s degree or higher), manipulating respondents into being highly or less skeptical should result in clearer differences than when measured because two clearly distinctive groups are created.

Type of appeal. This variable has two levels: argument-based appeal and affect-based appeal.

(25)

24 separate brands/products; each brand/product will show one argument-based ad and one affect-based ad. This will be done to avoid differences in results due to brand or product preferences as much as possible.

Product type. This variable has two levels: product = Calvé (peanut butter) and product 2 =

Becel (butter). Each product has two commercials, consisting of one argument-based appeal and one affect-based appeal. Product type will therefore be controlled for, and should not affect skepticism or irritation.

Dependent variable

Ad irritation. The irritation experienced from each commercial will be measured using ten

7-point Likert scale statements (1-totally disagree, …, 7-totally agree). These statements measure to what extent participants consider each ad they see irritating, likeable, believable, etc. The questions were based on research from Mehta (2000), Aaker and Bruzzone (1985), and Chakrabarty and Yelkur (2005). The complete questionnaire participants fill in after each commercial can be found in appendix D.

Processing. Respondents’ way of processing of each commercial will be measured using three

7-point Likert scale statements (1-totally disagree, …, 7-totally agree). These statements measure to what extent respondents thought about the commercial and paid attention to the commercial and the commercial’s argument or mood creating factors (e.g. music). These questions can be found in appendix D (question 15, 16, 17).

Manipulation check

(26)

25

Results

Descriptives

A total of 99 respondents completed the online questionnaire. These 99 respondents were randomly split into two (manipulated) groups; 52 skeptical and 47 less skeptical consumers. Of these 99 respondents, 41 were male and 58 were female. Although aimed for only marketing students of the University of Groningen as respondents, due to circumstances people of all ages and occupations were allowed to participate, which brought the mean age to 34.4. The majority of respondents had either an HBO (37,4%) or WO (at least Bachelor’s degree) (51,5%) education.

The distribution per group can be found in table 3.

Table 3: Demographics respondents

Preparing the dataset

First of all, incomplete questionnaires were deleted from the dataset. All questionnaires that missed more than 50% of the items were deleted, with a total of 36 questionnaires. Reason for this was that these respondents never reached the part with the manipulation check, and only filled in questions of one product/brand. This could have an influence on the total level of skepticism or irritation that could not be checked, and were therefore deleted. Deleted questionnaires did not differ from remaining questionnaires in a demographic sense, as they were randomly gathered throughout the collection process. In other words, part of incomplete

Skeptics Not skeptics Total

N 52 47 99

Gender Male: 21 Male: 20 Male: 41

Female: 31 Female: 27 Female: 58

Age (mean) 33.7 35.3 34.4 Age (min; max) Min: 18; Max: 75 Min: 18; Max: 63 Min: 18; Max: 75 Median age 25 24 25

Education VMBO: 2 VMBO: 1 VMBO: 3 HAVO/WO: 1 HAVO/WO: 3 HAVO/WO: 4

HBO: 21 HBO: 16 HBO: 37

WO: 28 WO: 23 WO: 51

(27)

26 questionnaires were filled in when the target group was only marketing students from the University of Groningen, part was filled in when target group was all students, and part was filled in when all segments were invited to participate.

Secondly, a majority of the questions were asked in a positive way (e.g. I liked the ad). Since irritation is a rather negative construct, those items testing this construct were recoded. The same holds for the manipulation check of skepticism; those questions were asked in a rather positive way (e.g. I think marketers tell the truth in their advertisements) and were therefore recoded. See appendix B and D for a more detailed overview of the recoded items.

Reliability analysis

Participants were shown four ads, after which they had to answer a series of questions, of which ten measured the irritation experienced per ad. Therefore, a total of 40 questions (ten per ad) measured the total irritation experienced. All questions were the same after each ad, thus a repeated measures analysis will be conducted. Participants answered questions using a 7-point Likert scale (1-totally disagree, …, 7-totally agree).

In order to measure irritation per ad, all ten questions measuring this construct had to be combined. A reliability analysis showed that the ten questions measuring irritation of ad one were allowed to be combined, with α = .83, as well as the questions measuring irritation of ad two (α = .785), ad three (α = .864), and ad four (α = .864). The Cronbach’s Alpha of the new variables were checked for consequences if items were deleted, and showed that Cronbach’s Alpha would decrease if any items were deleted. Based on these results four new variables were created that will be used for further analysis.

Besides irritation, respondents’ way of processing the ad was tested after viewing each ad. This was done using three questions that measured if respondents systematically processed information or depended on heuristic cues, using a point Likert scale (1-totally disagree, …, 7-totally agree). All questions were the same after each ad, thus a repeated measures analysis will be conducted.

(28)

27 Skeptic consumers Less skeptic consumers Irritation ad 1 (Calvé; argument) .943 .578 Irritation ad 2 (Calvé; affect) .261 .397 Irritation ad 3 (Becel; argument) .678 .974 Irritation ad 4 (Becel; affect) .706 .281

measuring respondents’ processing of ad two (α = .697), ad three (α = .760), and ad four (α = .830). The Cronbach’s Alpha of the new variables were checked for consequences if items were deleted, and showed that Cronbach’s Alpha would decrease if any items were deleted. Based on these results four new variables were created that will be used for further analysis.

Normality tests

All four dependent variables of irritation (Irritation ad 1 – irritation ad 4) were tested for normality for the two (manipulated) groups ‘skeptic’ and ‘less skeptic’. Table 4 shows that all four variables are normally distributed for both skeptic consumers and less skeptic consumers.

All four dependent variables were tested for normality for the (manipulated) groups ‘skeptic and ‘less skeptic’ consumers. Table 5 shows that all four variables are normally distributed.

Table 4: Normality test – Irritation per ad

Table 5: Normality test – Processing per ad

(29)

28

Table 6: Overview descriptives

Manipulation Check

After participants filled in the questionnaire on irritation, they filled in a series of questions to check whether the manipulation at the beginning of the questionnaire had been successful. This manipulation randomly assigned them to one of two groups: skeptical or less skeptical. A total of eight questions (excluding filler questions) tested whether there was indeed a difference in skepticism between the two groups. Participants answered questions using a 7-point Likert scale

(30)

29 (1-totally disagree, …, 7-totally agree). In order to measure total skepticism, all eight questions measuring this construct had to be combined. A reliability analysis showed that the eight questions measuring skepticism were allowed to be combined, with α = .895. The Cronbach’s Alpha of the new variable was checked for consequences if items were deleted, and showed that Cronbach’s Alpha would decrease if any items were deleted.

Results showed that the new variable measuring skepticism was normally distributed for the skeptical participants (p = .470) as well as for less skeptical participants (p = .808).

An independent samples t-test was performed to check if there was a significant difference in the level of skepticism between the two manipulated groups. Equal variances could be assumed after which a significant difference between the two groups was found, t (97) = -2.27, p = .025. Although level of skepticism is relatively high for both groups (see table 6), on a scale from 1 (not at all skeptic) to 7 (very skeptic), the level of skepticism of group 1 (skeptical consumers) (M = 5.25, SD = .9965) is significantly higher than the level of skepticism of group 2 (less skeptic consumers) (M = 4.81, SD = .9174).

Furthermore, it was tested whether age had a significant effect on skepticism. Respondents were split at the median age (25) into two groups: ‘young’ and ‘old’ respondents. Skepticism was normally distributed for both young (p = .538) and old respondents (p = .692).

An independent samples t-test was performed to check if there was a significant difference in the level of skepticism between young and old respondents. Skepticism is quite high for both groups (see table 7). Equal variances could be assumed, but a significant difference could not be found, t (82) = .641, p = .523. This indicates that,

on a scale from 1 (not at all skeptic) to 7 (very skeptic), the level of skepticism of young respondents does not significantly differ from the level of skepticism of old respondents. N Mean level of skepticism Std. deviation level of skepticism Young respondents 48 5.06 1.0600 Old respondents 36 4.97 .9970 Missing 15

(31)

30 Results hypothesis 1: skeptical consumers are more irritated by advertising than less

skeptical consumers.

Reliability analysis and normality checks on irritation per ad have already been performed, which showed that Cronbach’s Alpha was high enough to compute four new variables representing irritation per ad, which were normally distributed for both skeptical and less skeptical consumers.

All effects are reported as significant at p = .05. Sphericity is not an issue, as the repeated items of type of appeal and product type both only have two levels, and for sphericity to be an issue at least three conditions are needed (Field 2009).

Skepticism is marginally significant F (1, 97) = 3.363, p = .070, r = .18. This indicates that, on a scale from 1 (not at all irritated) to 7 (very much irritated), although marginally significant, no actual significant difference could be found between the irritation skeptical (M = 4.02, SD = .8181) and less skeptical consumers (M = 3.74, SD = .6470) experience (see table 6).

Although the p-value is larger than .05, it is worth looking at the differences between the ads. Syntax of the analysis was adjusted to be able to compare all means of the four ads with each other (see table 6). This contrast analysis showed that the irritation experienced from ad 1 (Calvé, argument-based) significantly differs from the irritation experienced from ad 2 (Calvé, affect-based), F (1, 97) = 21.43, p = .000, r = .43, and ad 3 (Becel, argument-based) F (1, 97) = 25.72, p = .000, r = .46, but not significantly different from the irritation experienced from ad 4 (Becel, affect-based), F (1, 97) = .199, p = .657, r = .045. Further, ad 2 (Calvé, affect-based) is significantly different from ad 3 (Becel, argument-based), F (1, 97) = 74.97, p = .000, r = .66, and ad 4 (Becel, affect-based), F (1, 97) = 74.97, p = .000, r = .66. Ad 3 (Becel, argument-based) is also significantly different from ad 4 (Becel, affect-based), F (1, 97) = 24.48, p = .000, r = .49. It can be concluded that skeptical consumers are not more irritated by advertising than less skeptical consumers. Table 8 summarizes the main results of this hypothesis.

Although it has just been proven that there is a marginal significant difference between skeptical and less skeptical consumers regarding irritation experienced from advertisements, it should be investigated if brand and product type affect this difference.

(32)

31 (Becel), F (1, 97) = 37.86, p = .000, r = .53. However, there was no significant interaction effect for skepticism and product/brand type, F (1, 97) = 1.227, p = .271. This indicates that the irritation experienced per brand/product did not significantly differ for skeptical and less skeptical respondents (see table 6).

Results hypothesis 2: Compared to less skeptical consumers, skeptical consumers use the systematic processing route rather than depend on heuristic cues

Reliability analysis and normality checks on processing per ad have already been performed, which showed that Cronbach’s Alpha was high enough to compute four new variables representing processing per ad, which were normally distributed.

All effects are reported as significant at p = .05. Mauchly’s test indicates that the assumption of sphericity has not been violated, processing = 9.20, p = .101; therefore sphericity can be assumed when looking at the F-statistic.

The main effect of skepticism turned out not to be significant, F (1, 97) = .389, p = .534. This means that, on a scale from 1 (low processing) to 7 (high processing), skeptical consumers (M = 4.30, SD = .9903) do not process ads differently than less skeptical consumers (M = 4.30, SD = .8887)

Further, the results of the repeated measures ANOVA showed that the way of processing is not affected by the ad that was viewed, F (3, 291) = .986, p = .400.

Contrast analysis shows that, compared to less skeptic consumers, skeptic consumers did not process ad 1 (Calvé, argument-based) differently than ad 2 (Calvé, affect-based), F (1, 97) = .662, p = .418, r = .08, ad 3 (Becel, argument-based), F (1, 97) = 2.686, p = .104, r = .16, or ad 4 (Becel, affect-based), F (1 97) = .998, p = .320, r = .10. Furthermore, contrasts revealed ad 2 (Calvé, affect-based) was not processed significantly different by skeptical and less skeptical consumers than ad 3 (Becel, argument-based), F (1, 97) = .623, p = .432, r = .08, or ad 4 (Becel, affect-based), F (1, 97) = .009, p = .925, r = .009; Ad 3 (Becel, argument-based) was, compared to less skeptical respondents, also not processed differently by skeptical consumers, F (1, 97) = .798, p = .374, r = .09.

(33)

32 peripheral route (using heuristic cues). These groups will be made by splitting the data at the median (4.0665). Looking at the average of the 52 skeptical respondents, descriptives show that for all four ads the processing mean was above 4.0665 (see table 6). On average, skeptical consumers therefore fall in the group ‘high processing’, but as it turns out, so do less skeptical consumers. This, combined with the results from the repeated measures ANOVA, proves that skeptical consumers systematically processed all four ads, rather than depended on heuristic cues. However, this was not significantly different than the processing route of less skeptical consumers, who, as can been seen in table 6, seem to also systematically process advertisements. The main results of this hypothesis are summarized in table 8.

Results hypothesis 3: Skeptical consumers are more irritated by argument-based appeals than affect-based appeals.

The total of four ads that were shown to participants can be split into two types of appeal: argument-based and affect-based appeals. Ad 1 and ad 3 are argument-based appeals; ad 2 and ad 4 are affect-based appeals. Reliability analysis and normality checks on irritation per ad have already been performed, which showed that Cronbach’s Alpha was high enough to compute four new variables (of which two will be argument-based and two affect-based), which were normally distributed.

All effects are reported as significant at p = .05. Sphericity is not an issue, as the repeated variable consisting of types of appeal only has two levels, and for sphericity to be an issue at least three conditions are required (Field 2009).

A significant main effect of type of appeal was found, F (1, 97) = 39.45, p = .000. As there are only two levels in type of appeal contrast analysis shows that irritation from argument-based appeal (M = 4.1, SD = .81322) is higher than irritation from affect-based appeals (M = 3.6717, SD = .83251), F (1, 97) = 39.451, p = .000.

The main effect of skepticism is marginally significant, F (1, 97) = 3.363, p = .070, r = .18. This means that although there is not an actual significant difference between skeptical and less skeptical consumers, it is worth looking into further differences.

(34)

33 irritated), there is no significant difference between the irritation experienced by skeptical and less skeptical respondents for the different types of appeal (see table 6).

However, only point of interest here is the difference in irritation experienced from the two types of appeal for skeptical consumers. To investigate only this part of the model, syntax was adjusted. There was a significant difference between the irritation experienced from argument-based appeals and affect-argument-based appeals for skeptical consumers, F (1, 51) = 27.36, p = .000. There are only two levels of appeal, and therefore contrasts revealed that irritation from argument-based appeal is significantly higher than irritation from affect-based appeals, F (1, 51) = 27.36, p = .000.

This indicates that, on a scale from 1 (not at all irritated) to 7 (very much irritated), skeptical consumers are more irritated by argument-based appeals (M = 4.28, SD = .8879) than affect-based appeals (M = 3.75, SD = .9008). Results of this hypothesis are summarized in table 8.

Although it has just been proven that there is a significant difference between skeptical and less skeptical consumers regarding irritation experienced from argument-based appeals, it should be investigated if brand and product type affect this difference.

A main effect of product/brand type was found, F (1, 51) = 12.85, p = .001. Further, contrasts revealed that irritation from brand/product 1 (Calvé) is significantly lower than brand/product 2 (Becel), F (1, 51) = 12.85, p = .001, r = .34. However, there was no significant interaction effect for type of appeal and product/brand type for skeptical consumers, F (1, 51) = .062, p = .804. This indicates that the irritation experienced per brand/product by skeptical consumers did not significantly differ per type of appeal.

Results hypothesis 4: skeptical consumers are more irritated by argument-based appeals than less skeptical consumers

Reliability analysis and normality checks on irritation per ad have already been performed, which showed that Cronbach’s Alpha was high enough to compute four new variables, which were normally distributed for both skeptic- and not skeptic consumers.

(35)

34 Sphericity is not an issue because appeal only has two levels (argument- and affect-based appeal), and for sphericity to be an issue at least three conditions are necessary (Field 2009). Results show that there was a significant main effect of appeal, F (1, 97) = 39.451, p = .000. Contrasts revealed that on a scale from 1 (not at all irritated) to 7 (very much irritated), irritation experienced from argument-based appeals (M = 4.1, SD = .81322) was significantly higher than the irritation experienced from affect-based appeals (M = 3.6717, SD = .83251), F (1, 97) = 39.451, p = .000 (see table 6).

As seen previously, the main effect of skepticism is marginally significant, F (1, 97) = 3.363, p = .070, r = .18. This means that although there is not an actual significant difference between skeptical and less skeptical consumers, it is worth looking into further differences.

There is not a significant interaction effect between the irritation experienced by the types of appeal and the level of skepticism of respondents, F (1, 97) = 2.240, p = .138. This indicates that, on a scale from 1 (not at all irritated) to 7 (very much irritated), there is no significant difference between the irritation experienced by skeptical and less skeptical respondents for the different types of appeal.

Although the interaction effect is not significant, this interaction included both types of appeal, even though the hypothesis is focused on argument-based appeal. To investigate this part of the model, the syntax was adjusted to only see the difference in level of skepticism regarding argument-based appeals. This showed that there is indeed a difference in the irritation experienced by skeptical and less skeptical respondents, F (1, 97) = 5.480, p = .021. On a scale from 1 (not

at all irritated) to 7 (very much irritated), skeptical consumers (M = 4.28, SD = .8879) are more irritated by argument-based appeals than less skeptical consumers (M = 3.90, SD = .6779) (see table 6). This difference is graphically displayed in figure 2. The main results of this hypothesis are summarized in table 8.

(36)

35 Although not of particular importance for this this hypothesis, the irritation of affect-based appeals was also investigated in order to cover all parts of the irritation from different types of appeal and check if there are any other effects found.

The repeated measures ANOVA shows that irritation caused by affect-based appeals was not significantly affected by the level of skepticism, F (1, 97) = 1.067, p = .304. This indicates that, on a scale of 1 (not at all irritated) to 7 (very irritated), there is no difference in irritation caused by affect-based appeals between skeptical (M = 3.75, SD = .9008) and less skeptical respondents (M = 3.58, SD = .7490).

Furthermore, a main effect of product/brand type was found, F (1, 97) = 37.86, p = .000. Contrasts revealed that irritation from brand/product 1 (Calvé) is significantly lower than brand/product 2 (Becel), F (1, 97) = 37.86, p = .000, r = .53. However, there was no significant interaction effect for skepticism and product/brand type, F (1, 97) = 1.227, p = .271. This indicates that the irritation experienced per brand/product did not significantly differ for skeptical and less skeptical respondents.

No significant interaction effect of product type and type of appeal was found, F (1, 97) = .556, p = .458. This indicates that the irritation caused by product type did not significantly differ according to their type of appeal.

(37)

36

Table 8: Overview main results

* Skeptical consumers are more irritated by advertising than less skeptical consumers

** Compared to less skeptical consumers, skeptical consumers use the systematic processing route rather than depend on heuristic cues

*** Skeptical consumers are more irritated by argument-based appeals than affect-based appeals **** Skeptical consumers are more irritated by argument-based appeals than less skeptical consumers

Hypothesis Mean skeptical respondents (N = 52) Std. deviation skeptical respondents Mean less skeptical respondents (N = 47) Std. deviation less skeptical respondents Result Hypothesis rejected? Manipulation Check Level of skepticism 5.25 .9965 4.81 .9174 t-test t (97) = -2.27, p = .025 Manipulation successful Hypothesis 1*

Irritation (all four ads) 4.02 0.8181 3.74 0.6470 Irritation product 1 3.82 0.8614 3.47 0.6295 Irritation product 2 4.21 0.9458 4.02 0.8443 Skepticism F (1, 97) = 3.363, p = .070 Brand/Product type F (1, 97) = 37.86, p = .000 Brand/Product type*Skepticism F (1, 97) = 1.227, p = .271 Conclusion Yes Hypothesis 2**

Processing (all four ads) 4.3029 0.9903 4.1844 0.8887

Skepticism F (1, 97) = .389, p = .534 Processing F (3, 291) = .986, p = .400 Conclusion Yes Hypothesis 3*** Argument-based appeal 4.28 0.8879 3.90 0.6779 Affect-based appeal 3.75 0.9008 3.58 0.7490 Type of appeal F (1, 97) = 39.45, p = .000 Skepticism F (1, 97) = 3.363, p = .070 Type of appeal*Skepticism F (1, 97) = 2.240, p = .138 Type of Appeal (skeptical consumers) F (1, 51) = 27.36, p = .000 Product type (skeptical consumers) F (1, 51) = 12.85, p = .001

Product type*Type of appeal

(38)

37

Discussion

Overall ad irritation of skeptical consumers vs. less skeptical consumers

For the first hypothesis, it was tested whether skeptical consumers are more irritated by advertising than less skeptical consumers. After preparing the data that was needed (recoding, reliability analysis, computing new variables, normality tests), a repeated measures ANOVA was performed. Results indicated that there was a marginal significant difference in the irritation skeptical consumers experienced compared to less skeptical consumers. In retrospective, it can be seen that there is indeed a difference in the average irritation experienced, but yet however not significant. This by itself is not strange; however, some questions were raised after the results of other hypotheses were discovered. This proved that, although there is not a significant difference in overall irritation between skeptical and less skeptical consumers, there still is a difference in irritation experienced from argument-based appeals between the two groups. This means that the indifference in overall irritation did not result from argument-based appeals, and it is therefore necessary to look for an explanation in irritation from affect-based appeals. After the results of hypothesis 4, it was discovered that there was indeed an insignificant difference in irritation experienced from affect-based appeals between the two consumer groups. This is likely the most important explanation for the insignificant result of hypothesis 1.

Secondly, this research has only tested four ads, while Fennis and Stroebe (2010) claimed that (US) consumers are exposed to a thousand advertising messages a day. Therefore, it is possible that although their irritation on the four ads in this research did not significantly differ, in real life (with over a thousand ads a day) this difference can be significant. As established before, the primary reason for irritation from advertising is intrusiveness. Although this was not the main purpose of this research, it is possible that the fact that these commercials did not interrupt a respondents’ activity (e.g. watching a TV show) played a significant role in the difference between the two groups. Further, a skeptical consumer might not be irritated after seeing four commercials, but might be after seeing more. This could be another reason the difference between the two groups was not significant.

(39)

38 discovered in the theoretical background of this subject was that some product categories cause more irritation than others. This is especially the case for sensitive products, such as feminine hygiene products, compared to more neutral products, such as battery products (Aaker and Bruzzone 1985). The commercials used in this research might have been neutral to clearly see differences between types of appeal as only conditions, but results could be different for other products/brands that are less neutral.

Another reason for this insignificant outcome stems from the limitations of an online questionnaire. Since the questionnaire is conducted online, and respondents participate in their own time, it is likely that there are differences in their surroundings. Respondents might have been distracted while filling in the questionnaire, which can give results that could have been different if respondents’ surroundings had been stable. A clear example of this was that the average time to complete the questionnaire was approximately eleven minutes, but these times ranged from 5 minutes to 3.5 hours. Skeptical consumers might not have been as skeptical or irritated by the ads as they normally would have been, and less skeptical consumers might have been more skeptical or irritated than they normally would have been.

These are all possible explanations for the insignificant result of the first hypothesis. Nonetheless, solely based on this research, it can be concluded that skeptical consumers are not more irritated by advertising than less skeptical consumers.

Systematic processing vs. heuristic cues

Irritation of Ad Skeptics

Irritation of Ad Skeptics

A skeptical consumer is a warned one

Irritation of Ad Skeptics

Management summary

Contents

Introduction

Theoretical background

Methodology

Results

Discussion