A research into the effects of admiration and extremity of
the claim on consumer behavior
Jozien van der Wal S2173093
Rijksuniversiteit Groningen
2
A research into the effects of admiration and extremity of
the claim on consumer behavior
Jozien van der Wal S2173093 j.c.van.der.wal@student.rug.nl +31625382843 Lage der A 20 9718 BK Groningen The Netherlands Rijksuniversiteit Groningen MSc Marketing Management Master Thesis
First supervisor: Y. Joye Second supervisor: L. Voerman
3 Abstract
The use of endorsers by marketers is rising, this is due to ‘old’ media such as television and billboards, but also due to ‘new’ media such as social media. Consumers are spending more time online than ever before, which makes the internet a great place for marketers to reach out to their target market. The rise of social media goes hand in hand with the rise of social media stars, which are used more often as endorsers. One of the main reasons that endorsement is such a good marketing tool is due to the level of admiration the consumer feels for the
endorser. The claims that are made by these endorses can sometimes be very extreme. Claims are made that the product is ‘the best’, ‘number one’ or ‘best sold’, while this is not true in a lot of cases. In this paper, we will research the influence of the level of admiration the consumer feels and the extremity of the claim on consumer behavior. We found little support for our hypotheses. The only effect found was the significant difference between the
4
Table of contents
Abstract ... 3
Chapter 1 Introduction ... 5
Chapter 2 Theoretical Framework ... 7
Main variables ... 7
Moderators... 10
Hypotheses ... 14
Conceptual model ... 14
Chapter 3 Research Design ... 15
Main effect ... 15 Preliminary Results ... 18 Chapter 4 Results ... 20 Sample description ... 20 Main effect ... 20 Moderators... 22 Correlations ... 25 Chapter 5 Conclusion ... 27 Chapter 6 Discussion ... 28 Limitations... 28
Implications and future research ... 28
References ... 31
5 Chapter 1 Introduction
The usage of influencers in advertising claims of a brand have been around since the late nineteenth century (Erdogan, 1999). An example of using endorsement in this period of time is Queen Victoria for Cadbury’s Cocoa (Sherman, 1985). Since then, the usage of these influencers has evolved by newer media-outlets such as magazines, television and the internet. In 2003, 25% of all brand communications made use of some sort of endorsement (Keel & Nataraajan, 2012). In the last years, there is a shift going on in the way which consumers experience touchpoints with a brand (Baxendale, Macdonald, & Wilson, 2015). Because of internet touchpoints, such as banner advertising, apps, social media and electronic Word-of-Mouth, a brand can expand the way it can interact with the consumer. Making use of influencers is a valuable investment for companies (Agrawal & Kamakura, 1995). This is why more and more companies are using influencers in all kinds of outings.
Social media is becoming increasingly important for marketers. It can be seen as the new hybrid element of the promotion mix (Mangold & Faulds, 2009). With hybrid, a combination between traditional marketing (companies talking to customers) and non-traditional marketing (customers talking to each other) is meant (Mangold & Faulds, 2009). Slowly, marketers are finding social media outlets for promoting their product (Thompson & Malaviya, 2013; Verhellen, Dens, & De Pelsmacker, 2013). Expenditures are increasing and in 2012, over 50% of social media users were following a brand (De Vries, Gensler, & Leeflang, 2012). The average revenue from social media advertising per user in the US is currently $50.06, and rising (Statista.com, 2016), so this offers a lot of potential for marketers. Every year, more advertisers capitalize on the social media usage of consumers to promote their brand (Jin & Phua, 2014). Web 2.0 is the term used for two-way interaction between companies and customers on the internet (Gill, Arlitt, Li, & Mahanti, 2007) and creates an environment where electronic Word-of-Mouth (eWOM) has gained a lot of power (Leung, Bai, & Stahura, 2015). In the last years, key websites in web 2.0 have become YouTube (Freeman & Chapman, 2007; Gill et al., 2007) and Instagram (Marwick, 2015). Other examples of web 2.0 sites are Twitter, Facebook and Second Life (Huang, Hood, & Yoo, 2013)
6
purchase intentions. This means companies could benefit from using these endorsers in their communications. Consumers rate the usage of endorsers as enjoyable (Kapitan & Silvera, 2015). Important to note is that the influence of endorsers is directly linked to the level of admiration for the endorser by the consumer. By using an endorser, the company influence the consumer to generalize their attachment to the endorser to the endorsed brand (Hyman & Sierra, 2010). There is little to no research performed on the effect of the level of admiration in endorsement on consumer behavior.
There are all kinds of claims made both online and offline. The credibility of these claims can be influenced by factors like the credibility of the endorser, the trustworthiness and the extremity of the claim (Goldberg & Hartwick, 1990; Lafferty, Goldsmith, & Newell, 2002; Ohanian, 1991). In this paper, we will research the influence of the extremity of the claim on consumer behavior in combination with the level of admiration portrayed by the consumer. Extremity of the claim can be perceived in all kind of ways. Examples of extreme claims are results of a competition: ‘product X is rated best out of 30 competitors’ or ‘we make the very best product you can buy’ (Goldberg & Hartwick, 1990).
Besides the extremity of the claim, we will look at the influence of admiration on the credibility of the claim. Since endorsers are admired and consumers find them attractive, does this influence how credible consumers find the claim made by the endorser?
7 Chapter 2 Theoretical Framework
Main variables Consumer behavior
There are all kinds of constructs that can be defined as consumer behavior. Examples are; the intention to buy the product, endorsing behavior and brand preference (Um, 2013).
A widely used model in advertising is the Hierarchy-of-Effects model (HOE) (Balasubramanian, Karrh, & Patwardhan, 2006; Fennis & Stroebe, 2016; Moriarty, 1983; Palda, 1966; Smith, Chen, & Yang, 2009). This model is used to measure the influence advertising has on the behavior of the consumer. There are a number of HOE models used in research, examples are the AIDA model and the AIDCA model (Fennis & Stroebe, 2016). The main structure of all HOE models consist out of three stages: cognition, affect and conation (Balasubramanian et al., 2006; Fennis & Stroebe, 2016; Ford, Smith, & Swasy, 1990; Palda, 1966). The cognitive stage involves recognition and recall, the affect stage involves attitudes and the conative stage involves intentions.
In this paper we will research the last two steps of the HOE model. To research the affect stage, we will take a look at the attitudinal acceptance of the consumer and to research the conative stage we will research purchase intentions. Consistent with research by Schlosser et al., 2006, we conceptualize purchase intentions as ‘consumers' intentions to make an initial (online or offline) purchase from a firm’. Attitudinal acceptance is defined as ‘internalizing external information into beliefs and values’ (Wright, 1973). We will research whether admiration and the extremity of the claim have an influence on the consumers’ intention to buy the product and whether it has an impact on beliefs and values of the consumer Changing the beliefs and value of consumers will generate spontaneous cues, which will influence message acceptance (Wright, 1973).
Admiration
8
uses, admiration has been used by people to express something they marvel at and seek to investigate (Schindler, Zink, Windrich, & Menninghaus, 2013).
There is a number of emotions that can be classified as admiration. Such as forms of respect (respect for superiors (Shamir, Zakay, Breinin, & Popper, 1998)), moral elevation (Algoe & Haidt, 2009), and the state in which people are inspired (Thrash, Elliot, Maruskin, & Cassidy, 2010). Admiration is thus a very complex emotion, influenced by different kinds of things. Whether it is a beautiful landscape, inspiring lecturer or an accomplished superior; these things can induce a state of admiration. The inducement of admiration is not for everyone the same. Some people are merely influenced by a beautiful landscape, others merely by an inspiring person. Due to the interesting complexity of admiration, it is interesting for marketers to access its potential. Since marketers need to research in what way they can induce admiration in target market. An example in which admiration is taken to the next level is in the paper of Aaker, Garbinsky, and Vohs (2012). In their research they investigate the cultivation of admiration towards a brand. Evoking competence and warmth in brands (thus evoking admiration) is beneficial for the purchase intentions of that brand. Another example is the research of Kelan and Mah (2014) about gender admiration. They found that people specifically admire others who are of the same gender, this is found especially in case of women.
Admiration is seen in all kinds of sectors, such as sports, politics, religion and entertainment (Zainal Ariffin et al., 2012). In western countries, idols come mainly from industries such as entertainment, sports and music. These idols are widely exposed on all media outlets This is seen in sports, where higher sport fandom and exposure during games will increase purchase intentions (Tobar, 2006). But also in performing arts: singer/band idolization can effect attitude and behavioral intentions in the case of pirated music product purchasing (Chiou, Huang, & Lee, 2005). According to Jankovi (2014) congruence between the celebrity and brand personality positively impacts purchase intention of the advertised brand. This is because the effects of celebrity endorsement are mostly driven by identification (D. Biswas, Biswas, & Das, 2006; Zinkhan & Hong, 1991) and these higher levels of identification result in higher purchase intentions (S. Biswas, Hussain, & O’Donnell, 2009).
9
positively without risk of being rejected. This is confirmed by Algoe and Haidt (2009), they found that admiration motivates self-improvement.
Overall, admiration is used in many ways in marketing, whether it is in celebrity endorsement or in branding. By investigating the effect of admiration on consumer behavior, including purchase intentions, we would like to extent current research of admiration and endorsement. Since admiration and endorsement are linked via the admiration of the endorser (Hyman & Sierra, 2010; Zainal Ariffin et al., 2012) and endorsement leads to a more positive consumer behavior (Chiou et al., 2005; Jankovič & Šeimienė, 2014; Tobar, 2006; Zainal Ariffin et al., 2012), we would like to investigate the direct effect of admiration on consumer behavior in this paper.
Extremity of the claim
Credibility, expertise and trustworthiness of endorsers have a positive impact on purchase intentions (Ohanian, 1991; Pornpitakpan, 2004; Verhellen et al., 2013). These three aspects are part of the source credibility model. We define expertise as ‘the extent to which a communicator is perceived to be a source of valid assertations’ (Ohanian, 1990, p. 41; Till & Busler, 2000,). Trustworthiness can be describe as the integrity, honesty and believability of an endorser (Erdogan, 1999). The information a credible source provides can influence the opinion, beliefs, behavior and/or attitudes of a receiver through internalization (Erdogan, 1999; Fraser & Brown, 2002; Pornpitakpan, 2004; Um, 2013). The more credible a source is, the higher its ability to persuade will be (Pornpitakpan, 2004), and thus the higher the likeliness of purchase intentions. Lafferty and Goldsmith (1999) found that both endorser credibility and corporate credibility are very important when it comes to attitudes towards the brand and purchase intentions. Popularity and credibility are used interchangeably (Abbasi & Liu, 2012). Consumers might accept claims due to the popularity of the source, instead of credibility.
10
1990). These indirect comparative claims are more useful than direct comparative claims and thus a popular method among advertisers (Miniard, Barone, Rose, & Manning, 2006; Snyder, 1992). Besides, claims can be very effective even when the advertiser knows the claim is not true (Oehler, 1944). This means there are a lot of extreme claims in advertising that are not true and that are not disputed by anyone. According to Goldberg and Hartwick (1990) the extremity of the claim can influence the attitude towards the brand. When a highly extreme claim is made, the attitude of the consumer towards the brand could lower. A low-extreme claim is likely to be accepted, both by a source with low credibility and a source with high credibility (Goldberg & Hartwick, 1990; Tan, 2002). Previous research has shown that a positive attitude towards a brand will result in higher purchase intentions (Lafferty & Goldsmith, 1999; MacKenzie & Spreng, 1992; Spears & Singh, 2004). This should mean that the extremity of the claim will increase purchase intentions, through a positive brand attitude. In this paper we will research the direct effect of extremity of the claim on consumer behavior. In order to extend work on credibility of the claim beyond the source of the claim.
Moderators
Depth of customer processing
Every day consumers are exposed to large quantities of claims made on television, radio, billboards and the internet. It is key for marketers to make sure their advertisement stands out compared to others. The Hierarchy-Of-Effects model by McGuire (1968) shows the six steps a consumer takes to process information: Exposure, Attention, Comprehension, Yielding, Intention and Behavior. This means that firms have to first make sure the consumer gets exposed to their marketing message. After the four other steps the consumer will create brand awareness, which will result in positive consumer behavior (Williams & Petrosky, 2011).
Consumers process marketing claims on a superficial level or on a very deep level (Boatright-Horowitz, Langley, & Gunnip, 2009; Smith et al., 2009). This phenomenon is called depth of processing. Low-level processing entails superficial things in the advertisement, such as colors used, and high-level processing entails the content of the advertisement (Boatright-Horowitz et al., 2009).
11
it is estimated that the average U.S. citizen is exposed to over 1000 commercial messages every day (Fennis & Stroebe, 2016), it is key for advertisers to make sure their message is recalled. Research has shown that depth of processing has an effect on performance in recall tasks (Fay, Isingrini, & Clarys, 2005). Thus investigating depth of processing, mainly low depth of processing, is very helpful to advertisers.
Extremity of the claim can only have an effect when at least a part of the message is processed by the consumer (Goldberg & Hartwick, 1990; Lutz, 1985). So, there is at least low-depth of processing necessary for extremity of the claim to be influential. Thus, the effect of extremity of the claim is moderated by depth of processing. However, when the consumer demonstrates deep level processing, the effects on consumer behavior will be negative (Balasubramanian et al., 2006). This negative effect is due to the increased level of skepticism that is linked to deeper level processing and skepticism lowers the attitude towards an advertisement (Gupta, Balasubramanian, & Klassen, 2000). Research has also shown that the admiration of an experienced endorser is useful in the persuasion of people that are superficially processing the claim (Feick & Higie, 1992). This means that the effect of admiration can be moderated by depth of processing, at least in the case of low-processing. We expect that there will be a negative effect in the case of deep level processing. There is no research done into the levels of processing combined with admiration of the source. In this paper we will research the negative moderating effect of depth of processing on the main effect of both admiration and extremity of the claim on consumer behavior.
Cognitive capacity
12
When cognitive capacity is low, consumers cannot fully process the marketing message. This means that they might not know they are seeing a message that wants to influence them. Endorsers are used in marketing communication as a way to implicitly convey messages to consumers (Choi et al., 2005). Implicit persuasion can drive consumer behavior in ‘low control’ situations (Friese, Wänke, & Plessner, 2006; Perugini, 2005). Higher cognitive capacity might negatively influence the level of admiration, since consumers are more in control of their own behavior. This also means that the extremity of the claim can be of lower effect, that is, consumers with higher cognitive capacity will be more critical about the claim they see. They are more likely to analyze the claim deeper and to be skeptical about a claim made by a source (Campbell & Kirmani, 2000).
Higher education is related to higher cognitive capacity (Boyatzis, Stubbs, & Taylor, 2002). Examples of this cognitive capacity are; information analysis, information gathering and sense-making (Boyatzis et al., 2002). This means that the consumer is able to analyze the message better which will result in a better comprehension of the message. Since comprehension is an important step for marketers (Walsh, Shiu, & Hassan, 2014; Zhao & Pechmann, 2007), a higher educated consumer can be preferred. Without comprehension, advertisers lose an opportunity to influence the consumer (Walsh et al., 2014).
Contemplating the above, the literature is not unanimous about whether the influence of cognitive capacity is positive or negative for marketers. On one hand the literature states that a higher cognitive capacity will make that the consumer analyzes the message better which will result in higher intentions. On the other hand, the literature states that a higher cognitive capacity lowers the influence of messages in ‘low control’ situations, which means the consumer will be more critical about the message. Since there is little research done towards the level of education on the moderating effect of education involving consumer behavior, purchase intentions or attitudinal acceptance as the dependent variable. We will assess cognitive capacity using the level of education. Thus, we will take the findings of Boyatzis et al., (2002), who state that being highly educated will lead to a more elaborate analysis of the message. This means that cognitive capacity will have a negative moderating effect on the effect of extremity of the claim on consumer behavior and admiration on consumer behavior.
Product involvement
13
discuss the latter. We define product involvement as: ‘the consumers’ overall evaluation of how important the product is to their life‘ (Suh & Youjae, 2006, p.148; Zaichkowsky, 1994). Product involvement is one of the main reasons for consumers to process a message (Voorveld et al., 2011). There are certain levels of product involvement. When consumers have a low product involvement, they will assess the product based on first impressions such as packaging or other visual aesthetics (D. Biswas et al., 2006). Consumers with a high level of product involvement will go through an extensive selection process (Sanchez-Franco & Rondan-Cataluña, 2010). Extreme claims will thus be better analyzed by the consumer, which might have an effect on the consumer behavior. When the consumer processes the message deeper, the influence on consumer behavior is negative (Balasubramanian et al., 2006). We will research whether there is indeed a negative moderating effect of product involvement on the main effect of extremity of the claim on consumer behavior.
The Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) explains how involvement can change the attitude of a consumer (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). Consumers form their attitudes through two persuasion routes: the peripheral or central route. With central route processing, the consumer is more likely to be persuaded if he can extensively elaborate on the message. With this route, a strong message might be more persuasive. Thus, an over extreme claim might not have the desired effect. With peripheral processing, executional cues will have more effect (such as endorsers or extreme claims). The ELM states that product involvement is one of the key reasons for a consumer to process a message (Limbu, Huhmann, & Peterson, 2012).
14 Hypotheses
H1: Admiration will have a positive influence on consumer behavior
H2: Extremity of the claim will have a negative influence on consumer behavior
H3a: Depth of customer processing will have a negative moderating effect on the effect of admiration on consumer behavior
H3b: Depth of customer processing will have a negative moderating effect on the effect of extremity of the claim on consumer behavior
H4a: High cognitive capacity will decrease the effect of admiration on consumer behavior H4b: High cognitive capacity will decrease the effect of extremity of the claim on consumer behavior
H5a: High product involvement will increase the effect of admiration on consumer behavior H5b: High product involvement will decrease the effect of extremity of the claim on consumer behavior
Conceptual model
The hypotheses are visually represented in figure 1.
15 Chapter 3 Research Design
Our data came from 152 respondents who received the questionnaire via e-mail. The data was collected using an online questionnaire. The questionnaire set up in Qualtrics and held in English. However respondents were allowed to fill in the open questions in both Dutch and English. The research had a 3x2 factorial design.
Main effect Admiration
To manipulate the level of admiration, three conditions were created. For the second condition, we chose satisfaction as an emotion that is also positive, but does not imply admiration. Satisfaction is defined as the fulfillment of basic needs (Griskevicius et al., 2010). In both the admiration and satisfaction condition, the respondents were asked to recall and describe the last time they felt the emotion. The third condition was a neutral condition, asking the respondents to recall and describe the last time they did the laundry (Rainville, Bechara, Naqvi, & Damasio, 2006). This way, we can ensure that respondents have a neutral emotion. For both satisfaction and admiration definitions were given. Satisfaction was defined as: the fulfillment or gratification of a desire, need, or appetite. Admiration was defined as: a feeling of strong approval or delight with regard to someone or something.
A manipulation check was performed on the extent to which the respondents felt the emotion of satisfaction and the emotion of admiration. This way, we could check whether our manipulation to induce these emotion has worked. Answers were given on a likert-scale from 1 – 7; not at all – a lot.
Extremity of the Claim
16
To measure the perceived credibility of the extreme or moderate claim, we used the same scales as used in the research of Goldberg and Hartwick (1990). The respondents were asked to what extent they found the claim to be: deceptive/honest, misleading/sincere, dull/exciting, unprofessional/professional, un-sophisticated/sophisticated, boring/interesting. Answers were given on a 7-point scale. Ranging from 1 = negative (such as boring or unprofessional) and 7 = positive (such as interesting or professional). Using a factor analysis one factor that entails credibility of the claim was computed that includes all of the six scales by Goldberg and Hartwick (1990). The Cronbach’s Alpha of this variable was .84, which means that there is a high internal consistency within this variable.
We used a person to convey the message to the respondents, this way a claim is given to the respondents by an ‘endorser’. To ensure that no other variables influenced the results, the person that makes the claim is neutral, it is just a silhouet of a person. This way, variables like age, appearance and gender do not influence the claim.
Consumer Behavior
17
Purchase intentions Literature
´Do you intend to purchase Miro chocolate in the next six months?´
Morwitz and Schmittlein (1992)
‘Will you purchase Miro Chocolate when it becomes available in your local store?’
Wright (1973)
Intention to try Miro chocolate: likely- unlikely
probable-improbable possible-impossible
Belch (1981)
Attitudinal acceptance Literature
‘The arguments about the product contained in the advertisement were very convincing’
Convincing – not convincing
Wright (1973)
‘How do you yourself feel about the product?’ I like it very much – I don’t like it at all
Wright (1973)
Table 1: overview questions Consumer Behavior
Moderator: Depth of Processing
To measure depth of processing we measured the number of items of brand information correctly recalled (Misra & Beatty, 1990; Srull, 1984). The items that needed to be recalled were added in the claim. The total claim that was shown to all respondents was: ‘Miro chocolate came X against the world’s top 100 products in its category. The chocolate is harvested from cocoa farms in Colombia. Each chocolate bar contains 200 grams of chocolate. Their best selling bar is Cherry Tree Delight.’ The questions to recall a certain items were: ‘What is the name of the brand from the advertisement?, How many products were in the top-list?’, ‘Where does the company harvest their beans?’, ‘How many grams of chocolate is in each chocolate bar?’ and ‘What is the name of the company’s best selling product?’. To assess depth of processing, all right answers to the questions about the claim were scored 1 and all wrong answers were scored 0. Then one variable was computed from the five questions asked. Moderator: Cognitive capacity
18 Moderator: Product involvement
To measure product involvement, the scale of Lynne and Zaichkowsky (1985) was used. The entire scale can be found in Appendix A. Respondents were asked to answer to what extent chocolate is for example relavant, important and desirable to them. An example of these questions can be found below:
To me, chocolate is: irrelevant – relevant important – unimportant undesirable- desirable
Answers were given on a scale from 1 – 7. From all these scales, one factor ‘product
involvement’ was computed using factor analysis. The overall Cronbach’s Alpha of this factor was .96.
Preliminary Results Manipulation Check
19
Condition M SD Satisfaction 5.40 1.43 Admiration 5.57 1.17
Neutral 4.30 1.61
Table 2: Means and standard deviations admiration
Extremity level The next manipulation we have to check is the manipulation of extremity of the claim. We performed a one-way ANOVA of the manipulation on our new variable ‘credibility of the claim’ which consists out of 6 questions related to the credibility of our made claims. The effect of the manipulation on credibility of the claim revealed a non-significant effect F(1,148) = 1.02, p = .314. This means our manipulation of extremity of the claim is not manipulated correctly, meaning there is no significant difference in perceived credibility between the extreme claim and the moderate claim. The mean and standard deviation of this manipulation can be found in table 3.
Condition M SD Extreme Claim 3.97 1.02 Moderate Claim 4.13 .99
20 Chapter 4 Results
Sample description
In total 152 respondents filled in the questionnaire. Of those 152 respondents, 45 respondents were male and 107 respondents were female. The average age of the respondents was 26 years (SD = 10.88). Forty-nine respondents were asked to recall the last time when they felt satisfaction, 46 respondents were asked to recall the last time they felt admiration and 57 respondents were asked the neutral question. Our second manipulation involved the extremity of the claim. Seventy-seven respondents got the condition of the extreme claim and 75 respondents got the condition of the moderate claim.
Main effect
21
Admiration Condition Extremity Condition M SD Satisfaction Extreme Claim
Moderate Claim
4.03 4.67
.28 .27
Admiration Extreme Claim
Moderate Claim
4.33 4.48
.32 .26
Neutral Extreme Claim
Moderate Claim
4.34 3.68
.23 .29 Admiration Condition Admiration Condition p-value
Satisfaction Admiration Neutral .838 .208 Admiration Satisfaction Neutral .838 .153 Neutral Satisfaction Admiration .208 .153 Extremity Condition Extremity Condition p-value
Extreme Claim Moderate Claim .845
Moderate Claim Extreme Claim .845
Table 4 Results main effect
22
Extremity Condition Admiration Condition Admiration Condition p-value
Extreme Claim Satisfaction Admiration
Neutral .465 .375 Admiration Satisfaction Neutral .465 .981 Neutral Satisfaction Admiration .375 .981
Moderate Claim Satisfaction Admiration
Neutral .603 .013 Admiration Satisfaction Neutral .603 .040 Neutral Satisfaction Admiration .013 .040
Table 5 Pairwise comparisons interactions
Figure 2 Graphical representation main effect
Moderators
23 Depth of Processing
Admiration Level We examined depth of processing as a moderator on the effect of the admiration level on consumer behavior. We entered consumer behavior as the dependent variable, admiration as the independent variable and depth of processing as the proposed moderator. This analysis gave F(3,148) = 2.32, p = .077. Table 6 shows that the effect of depth of processing is significant (p = .023). The interaction effect however is not significant (p = .678). This means that depth of processing is not a moderator on the effect of the admiration level on consumer behavior.
Coefficient Standard Error T-value p-value
Constant 4.2726 .1092 39.1305 .0000
Depth of processing -1.0750 .4685 -2.2947 .0232 Admiration level .1534 .1332 1.1517 .2513 Interaction effect -.2518 .6054 -.4160 .6780
Table 6 Moderating effect depth of processing on effect admiration level
Extremity of Claim We examined depth of processing as a moderator on the effect of the extremity level on consumer behavior. We entered consumer behavior as the dependent variable, extremity of the claim as the independent variable and depth of processing as the proposed moderator. This analysis gave F(3,148) = 1.95, p = .123. Table 7 shows that the effect of depth of processing is significant (ß = -1.08, p = .023). The interaction however is not significant (p = .499). This means that depth of processing is not a moderator on the effect of the extremity level on consumer behavior.
Coefficient Standard Error T-value p-value
Constant 4.2670 .1101 38.7652 .0000
Depth of processing -1.0769 .4714 -2.2846 .0238 Extremity level -.0131 .2202 -.0596 .9526 Interaction effect .6386 .9425 .6776 .4991
Table 7 Moderating effect depth of processing on effect extremity level
Cognitive Capacity
24
capacity is not significant (p = .792). The interaction effect also is not significant. This means that cognitive capacity is not a moderator on the effect of the admiration level on consumer behavior.
Coefficient Standard Error T-value p-value
Constant 4.2790 .1107 38.6452 .0000
Cognitive capacity .0216 .0819 .2637 .7924 Admiration level .1637 .1352 1.2109 .2279 Interaction effect -.0885 .0960 -.9213 .3584
Table 8 Moderating effect cognitive capacity on effect admiration level
Extremity of Claim We examined cognitive capacity as a moderator on the effect of the extremity level on consumer behavior. We entered consumer behavior as the dependent variable, extremity of the claim as the independent variable and cognitive capacity as the proposed moderator. This analysis gave F(3,148) = .28 p = .841. Table 9 shows that the effect of cognitive capacity is not significant (p = .799). The interaction is also not significant (F(1,148) = .65 p = .423). This means that cognitive capacity is not a moderator on the effect of the extremity level on consumer behavior.
Coefficient Standard Error T-value p-value
Constant 4.2737 .1113 38.4059 .0000
Cognitive capacity .0210 .0825 .2547 .7993 Extremity level -.0669 .2226 -.3004 .7643 Interaction effect -.1325 .1648 -.8036 .4229
Table 9 Moderating effect cognitive capacity on effect extremity level
Product involvement
25
Coefficient Standard Error T-value p-value
Constant 4.2748 .1055 4. 5340 .0000
Product Involvement -.3634 .0908 -4.0007 .0001 Admiration level .1549 .1287 1.2033 .2308 Interaction effect -.0081 .1116 -.0728 .9421
Table 10 Moderating effect product involvement on admiration level
Extremity of Claim We examined product involvement as a moderator on the effect of the extremity level on consumer behavior. We entered consumer behavior as the dependent variable, extremity of the claim as the independent variable and product involvement as the proposed moderator. This analysis gave F(3,148) = 5.62, p = .001. Table 11 shows that the effect of product involvement is significant (p = .0001) and has a lowering influence on the main effect (ß = -.360). The interaction however is not significant (F(1,148) = .21, p = .647). This means that product involvement is not a moderator on the effect of the extremity level on consumer behavior.
Coefficient Standard Error T-value p-value
Constant 4.2713 .1060 40.2849 .0000
Product involvement -.3602 .0936 -3.8468 .0002 Extremity level -.1294 .2121 -.6102 .5427 Interaction effect -.0866 .1879 -.4612 .6465
Table 11 Moderating effect product involvement on effect extremity level
Correlations
26
CB CoC Sat Adm DoP PI
CB Pearson’s r p-value -.487 .000 -.134 .101 -.070 .394 -.187 .021 -.314 .000 CoC Pearson’s r p-value -.487 .000 .083 .309 .074 .367 -.061 .454 .100 .218 Sat Pearson’s r p-value -.134 .101 .083 .309 .675 .000 .107 .191 -.057 .487 Adm Pearson’s r p-value -.070 .394 .074 .367 .675 .000 .060 .464 .003 .966 DoP Pearson’s r p-value -.187 .021 -.061 .454 .107 .191 .060 .464 .007 .933 PI Pearson’s r p-value -.314 .000 .100 .218 -.057 .487 .003 .966 .007 .933
Table 12 Correlations variables used
27 Chapter 5 Conclusion
To answer our research question: How do admiration felt by the consumer and the extremity of the claim made influence consumer behavior?, we researched 152 respondents using a questionnaire. Our results showed that none of our hypotheses were fully supported, this means that we could not provide any evidence in favor of our research question: admiration and extremity of the claim do not influence consumer behavior.
We found one significant result in our main model. This result was the significant difference between the neutral condition and the admiration and satisfaction condition within the moderate claim condition. This means that purchase intentions and attitudinal acceptance is higher when the consumer has an induced level of admiration (whether satisfaction or admiration) compared to the neutral condition. However, the effect was higher for our satisfaction condition than our admiration condition. This means our hypothesis H1 is partially accepted. All other hypotheses cannot be confirmed due to non-significant results. For an overview of our hypotheses, see table 13.
H1: Admiration will have a positive influence on consumer behavior Partially supported H2: Extremity of the claim will have a negative influence on consumer behavior Not supported H3a: Depth of customer processing will have a negative moderating effect on
the effect of admiration on consumer behavior
Not supported
H3b: Depth of customer processing will have a negative moderating effect on the effect of extremity of the claim on consumer behavior
Not supported
H4a: High cognitive capacity will decrease the effect of admiration on consumer behavior
Not supported
H4b: High cognitive capacity will decrease the effect of extremity of the claim on consumer behavior
Not supported
H5a: High product involvement will increase the effect of admiration on consumer behavior
Not supported
H5b: High product involvement will decrease the effect of extremity of the claim on consumer behavior
Not supported
Table 13 Overview support hypotheses
28 Chapter 6 Discussion
Limitations
As shown in our results, our manipulation check for the extremity of the claim did not work. Eventhough this claim was succesfully used by Goldberg and Hartwick (1990). A preliminary analysis is nescessary for further research. In further research, cognitive capacity should be measured in another way than education level. Perhaps, the message can be shown between other messages. This way, the respondent has to allocate a certain amount of cognitive capacity to the add, instead of using all of his cognitive capacity for one task (MacKenzie & Spreng, 1992).
The manipulation to measure the admiration level worked. However, this might not have influenced the consumer behavior in the way we intended. It is possible that the induced admiration was not to an extent in which it has an influence on consumer behavior. Since the level of felt satisfaction and felt admiration positively correlated and no significant difference was found between both levels, another way of manipulating the level of admiration should be used. For example, a negative versus a positive emotion.
The scale of the research, with 152 respondents, might have been too low to give good statistical usable results. In further research, it would be best to double the amount of respondents. And have a more diverse range of ages, since our average age was 26. Besides, the gender of respondents could also have influence on the perception of credibility and level of admiration. Darley and Smith (1995) show that women process advertisements different than men. For example, they view the advertisement in a more positive way when a woman is in this advertisement. Since 107 of 152 respondents were female, this could have influenced our research, eventhough we made use of a neutral person to make the claim in our questionnaire.
The variable consumer behavior was computed out scales from different articles. Although our Cronbach’s Alpha was high, it is possible that these scales were not good indicators for our research. Other scales to measure consumer behavior should be used in future research. Implications and future research
29
To do further research, we checked whether our main IVs and DVs correlated with each other. Consumer behavior and credibility of the claim are negatively related, meaning when the claim is perceived to be more credible, the lower purchase intentions and attitudinal acceptance, and vice versa. Although the direction of this effect stays unclear, it is contradictory with the literature, in which is stated that higher credibility leads to higher purchase intentions (Ohanian, 1991; Pornpitakpan, 2004; Verhellen et al., 2013). Felt admiration and felt satisfaction are positively related, which means that when a consumer feels high admiration, he feels high satisfaction as well. And when a consumer feels low admiration, he feels low satisfaction. The direction of this effect remains unclear, but since both emotions are positive (Cavanaugh & California, 2010) it is assumable that they both have a positive influence on each other. Depth of processing and consumer behavior are negatively related, meaning when the more deeply a message is processed, the lower the purchase intention and attitudinal acceptance, and the more superficial it is processed, the higher the purchase intentions and attitudinal acceptance. This seems controversial at first, but although the direction of this effect stays unclear, this result falls in line with the depth of processing theory (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986) which stated people are more likely to be influenced by a claim when processing superficially. Lastly, product involvement and consumer behavior are negatively related, which means that when a consumer is more involved in the product, purchase intentions and attitudinal acceptance is lower, and when the consumer is less involved in the product, purchase intentions and attitudinal acceptance is higher. The direction of the effect is not clear and seems contradictory. However, research by Sanchez-Franco and Rondan-Cataluña (2010) shows that higher product involvement go through an extensive selection process, which could have a negative effect on purchase intentions and attitudinal acceptance.
30
these factors can have a direct effect on consumer behavior (Balasubramanian et al., 2006; Boyatzis et al., 2002; Jaworski & MacInnis, 1989; Lee & Thorson, 2008; Petty & Cacioppo, 1986; Smith et al., 2009) and should not be neglected by marketers.
Social media makes it possible for regular people to attract mass audiences (Ertimur & Gilly, 2012; Marwick, 2015). Since the usage of social media is rising, the research should be extended to direct followers of online celebrities to investigate this ‘new’ kind of endorser. It might be better to use actual admirers of celebrities for future research, this way the admiration is directly linked to the endorser that makes the claim. Due to the scale of this research, it was not possible to do this in our research.
31 References
Aaker, J. L., Garbinsky, E. N., & Vohs, K. D. (2012). Cultivating admiration in brands: Warmth, competence, and landing in the “golden quadrant.” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(2), 191–194.
Abbasi, M. A., & Liu, H. (2012). Measuring Credibility in Social Media. Computer Science and Engineering, 6–8.
Agrawal, J., & Kamakura, W. A. (1995). The Economic Worth of Celebrity Endorsers : An Event Study Analysis. Journal of Marketing, 59(3), 56–62.
Algoe, S. B., & Haidt, J. (2009). Witnessing excellence in action: the “other-praising” emotions of elevation, gratitude, and admiration. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 4(2), 105–127.
Balasubramanian, S., Karrh, J., & Patwardhan, H. (2006). Audience Response to Product Placements: An Integrative Framework and Future Research Agenda. Journal of Advertising, 35(3), 115–141.
Baxendale, S., Macdonald, E. K., & Wilson, H. N. (2015). The Impact of Different Touchpoints on Brand Consideration. Journal of Retailing, 91(2), 235–253.
Belch, G. E. (1981). An Examination of Comparitive and Noncomparitive Television Commercials: The effects of Claim Variation and Repitition on Cognitive Response. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3), 333–349.
Biswas, D., Biswas, A., & Das, N. (2006). The Differential Effects of Celebrity and Expert Endorsements on Consumer Risk Perceptions. The Role of Consumer Knowledge, Perceived Congruency, and Product Technology Orientation. Journal of Advertising, 35(2), 17–31.
Biswas, S., Hussain, M., & O’Donnell, K. (2009). Celebrity Endorsements in Advertisements and Consumer Perceptions: A Cross-Cultural Study. Journal of Global Marketing, 22(2), 121–137.
Boatright-Horowitz, S. L., Langley, M., & Gunnip, M. (2009). Depth-of-processing effects as college students use Academic Advising Websites. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 12(3), 331–5.
Boyatzis, R., Stubbs, E., & Taylor, S. (2002). Learning cognitive and emotional intelligence
competencies through graduate management education. Academy of Management …, 1(2), 150– 162.
32
Cavanaugh, L., & California, S. (2010). Positive Emotions Are Like a Box of Chocolates : Without Identifying the Different Flavors You Never Know What Behavior You’re Going to Get. Advances in Consumer Research, 37, 24–28.
Chiou, J. S., Huang, C. Y., & Lee, H. H. (2005). The antecedents of music piracy attitudes and intentions. Journal of Business Ethics, 57(2), 161–174. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-004-5263-6
Choi, S. M., Lee, W.-N., & Kim, H.-J. (2005). LESSONS FROM THE RICH AND FAMOUS: A Cross-Cultural Comparison of Celebrity Endorsement in Advertising. Journal of Advertising, 34(2), 85–98. h
Darley, W. K., & Smith, R. E. (1995). Gender differences in information processing strategies: An empirical test of the selectivity model in advertising response. Journal of Advertising, 24(1), 41– 56.
De Vries, L., Gensler, S., & Leeflang, P. S. H. (2012). Popularity of Brand Posts on Brand Fan Pages: An Investigation of the Effects of Social Media Marketing. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 26(2), 83–91.
Derrick, J. L., Gabriel, S., & Tippin, B. (2008). Parasocial relationships and self-discrepancies: Faux relationships have benefits for low self-esteem individuals. Personal Relationships, 15(2), 261– 280.
Engle, Y. (2005). Why do Adolescent Girls Idolize Male Celebrities? Journal of Adolescent Research, 20(2), 263–283.
Erdogan, B. Z. (1999). Celebrity Endorsement: A Literature Review. Journal of Marketing Management, 15(4), 291–314.
Ertimur, B., & Gilly, M. C. (2012). So Whaddya Think? Consumers Create Ads and Other Consumers Critique Them. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 26(3), 115–130.
Fay, S., Isingrini, M., & Clarys, D. (2005). Effects of depth-of-processing and ageing on word-stem and word-fragment implicit memory tasks: Test of the lexical-processing hypothesis. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 17(6), 785–802.
Feick, L. F., & Higie, R. a. (1992). The effects of preference heterogeneity and source characteristics on ad processing and judgments about endorsers. Journal of Advertising, 21(2), 9–24.
33
Ford, G. T., Smith, D. B., & Swasy, J. L. (1990). Consumer Skepticism of Advertising Claims : Testing Hypotheses from Economics of Information. Journal of Consumer Research, 16(4), 433– 441.
Fraser, B. P., & Brown, W. J. (2002). Media, Celebrities, and Social Influence: Identification With Elvis Presley. Mass Communication and Society, 5(2), 207–228.
Freeman, B., & Chapman, S. (2007). Is “YouTube” telling or selling you something? Tobacco content on the YouTube video-sharing website. Tobacco Control, 16(3), 207–210.
Friese, M., Wänke, M., & Plessner, H. (2006). Implicit consumer preferences and their influence on product choice. Psychology and Marketing, 23(9), 727–740.
Gill, P., Arlitt, M., Li, Z., & Mahanti, A. (2007). Youtube Traffic Characterization: A View From the Edge. IMC ’07: Proceedings of the 7th ACM SIGCOMM Conference on Internet Measurement, 15–28.
Goldberg, M. E., & Hartwick, J. (1990). The effects of advertiser reputation and extremity of advertising claim on advertising effectiveness. The Journal of Consumer Research, 17(2), 172– 179.
Griskevicius, V., Shiota, M. N., Neufeld, S. L., Kaptein, M., Markopoulos, P., Ruyter, B. De, … Menzel, A. J. (2010). Influence of different positive emotions on persuasion processing: a functional evolutionary approach. Emotion (Washington, D.C.), 10(2), 190–206.
Gupta, P. B., Balasubramanian, S. K., & Klassen, M. L. (2000). Viewers’ Evaluations of Product Placements in Movies: Public Policy Issues and Managerial Implications. Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 22(2), 41–52.
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis. A Regression-Based Approach. New York: Guilford.
Huang, W. H. D., Hood, D. W., & Yoo, S. J. (2013). Gender divide and acceptance of collaborative Web 2.0 applications for learning in higher education. Internet and Higher Education, 16(1), 57– 65.
Hyman, M. R., & Sierra, J. J. (2010). Idolizing sport celebrities: a gateway to psychopathology? Young Consumers: Insight and Ideas for Responsible Marketers, 11(3), 226–238.
34
Jaworski, B. J., & MacInnis, D. J. (1989). Marketing Jobs and Management Controls: Toward a Framework. Journal of Marketing Research, 26(4), 406–419.
Jin, S.-A. A., & Phua, J. (2014). Following Celebrities’ Tweets About Brands: The Impact of Twitter-Based Electronic Word-of-Mouth on Consumers’ Source Credibility Perception, Buying Intention, and Social Identification With Celebrities. Journal of Advertising, 43(2), 181–195.
Kamins, M. A., Brand, M. J., Hoeke, S. A., & Moe, J. C. (1989). Two-Sided versus One-Sided Celebrity Endorsements : The Impact on Advertising Effectiveness and Credibility. Journal of Advertising, 18(2), 4–10.
Kapitan, S., & Silvera, D. H. (2015). From digital media influencers to celebrity endorsers: attributions drive endorser effectiveness. Marketing Letters.
Keel, A., & Nataraajan, R. (2012). Celebrity Endorsements and Beyond: New Avenues for Celebrity Branding. Psychology & Marketing, 29(9), 690–703.
Kelan, E. K., & Mah, A. (2014). Gendered identification: Between idealization and admiration. British Journal of Management, 25(1), 91–101.
Lafferty, B. A., & Goldsmith, R. E. (1999). Corporate Credibility’s Role in Consumers’ Attitudes and Purchase Intentions When a High versus a Low Credibility Endorser Is Used in the Ad. Journal of Business Research, 44, 109–116.
Lafferty, B. A., Goldsmith, R. E., & Newell, S. J. (2002). The Dual Credibility Model: The Influence of Corporate and Endorser Credibility on Attitudes and Purchase Intentions. Journal of
Marketing Theory and Practice, 10(3), 1–12.
Lee, J. G., & Thorson, E. (2008). The impact of celebrity–product incongruence on the effectiveness of product endorsement. Journal of Advertising Research, 48(3), 433–449.
Leung, X. Y., Bai, B., & Stahura, K. a. (2015). The Marketing Effectiveness of Social Media in the Hotel Industry: A Comparison of Facebook and Twitter. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 37(2), 1–24.
Limbu, Y. B., Huhmann, B. a., & Peterson, R. T. (2012). An examination of humor and endorser effects on consumers’ responses to direct-to-consumer advertising: The moderating role of product involvement. International Journal of Pharmaceutical and Healthcare Marketing, 6(1), 23–38.
35
Lynne, J., & Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1985). Measuring the Involvement Construct. Journal of Consumer Research, 12(3), 341–352.
MacKenzie, S. B., & Spreng, R. A. (1992). How does motivation moderate the impact of central and peripheral processing on brand attitudes and intentions? Journal of Consumer Research, 18(4), 519–529.
Mangold, W. G., & Faulds, D. J. (2009). Social media: The new hybrid element of the promotion mix. Business Horizons, 52(4), 357–365.
Marwick, A. E. (2015). Instafame: Luxury Selfies in the Attention Economy. Public Culture , 27 (1 75 ), 137–160.
McGuire, W. J. (1968). Personality and attitude change: An information-processing theory. In Psychological foundations of attitudes (pp. 171–196).
Miniard, P., Barone, M., Rose, R., & Manning, K. (2006). A Further Assessment of Indirect Comparative Advertising Claims of Superiority Over all Competitors. Journal of Advertising, 35(4), 53–64.
Misra, S., & Beatty, S. E. (1990). Celebrity spokesperson and brand congruence. An assessment of recall and affect. Journal of Business Research, 21(2), 159–173.
Moriarty, S. (1983). Beyond the Hierarchy of Effects: A Conceptual Framework. Current Issues and Research in Advertising.
Morwitz, V. G., & Schmittlein, D. (1992). Using Segmentation to Improve Sales Forecasts Based on Purchase Intent: Which “Intenders” Actually Buy? Journal of Marketing, 29(4), 391–405.
Oehler, C. M. (1944). Measuring the Believability of the Advertising Claims. Journal of Marketing, 9, 127–131.
Ohanian, R. (1990). Construction and Validation of a Scale to Measure Celebrity Endorsers ’
Perceived Expertise , Trustworthiness , and Attractiveness. Journal of Advertising, 19(3), 39–52.
Ohanian, R. (1991). The impact of celebrity spokespersons’ perceived image on consumers' intention to purchase. Journal of Advertising Research, 31(1), 46–52.
Palda, K. S. (1966). The hypothesis of a hierarchy of effects: A partial evaluation. Journal of Marketing Research, 3(1), 13–24.
36
Perugini, M. (2005). Predictive models of implicit and explicit attitudes. The British Journal of Social Psychology / the British Psychological Society, 44(Pt 1), 29–45.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 123–205. http://doi.org/10.1558/ijsll.v14i2.309
Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Schumann, D. (1983). Central and Peripheral Routes to Advertising Effectiveness : The Moderating Role of Involvement. Journal of Consumer Research, 10(2), 135–146.
Pornpitakpan, C. (2004). The Effect of Celebrity Endorsers’ Perceived Credibility on Product Purchase Intention. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 16(2), 55–74.
Rainville, P., Bechara, A., Naqvi, N., & Damasio, A. R. (2006). Basic emotions are associated with distinct patterns of cardiorespiratory activity. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 61(1), 5–18.
Raviv, A., Bar-Tal, D., Raviv, M., & Ben-Horin, A. (1996). Adolescent Idolization of Pop Singers: Causes, Expressions, and Reliance. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 25(5).
Sanchez-Franco, M. J., & Rondan-Cataluña, F. J. (2010). Virtual travel communities and customer loyalty: Customer purchase involvement and web site design. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 9(2), 171–182.
Scherer, K. R. (2004). Which Emotions Can be Induced by Music? What Are the Underlying Mechanisms? And How Can We Measure Them? Journal of New Music Research, 33(3), 239– 251.
Schindler, I., Zink, V., Windrich, J., & Menninghaus, W. (2013). Admiration and adoration: Their different ways of showing and shaping who we are. Cognition and Emotion, 27(1), 85–118.
Schlosser, A. E., White, T. B., Lloyd, S. M., Schlosser, A. E., White, T. B., & Lloyd, S. M. (2006). Converting Web Site Visitors into Buyers : How Web Site Investment Increases Consumer Trusting Beliefs and Online Purchase Intentions. American Marketing Association, 70(2), 133– 148.
Shamir, B., Zakay, E., Breinin, E., & Popper, M. (1998). Correlates of Charismatic Leader Behavior in Military Units : Subordinates ’ Attitudes , Unit Characteristics , and Superiors ’ Appraisals of Leader Performance. The Academy of Management Journal, 41(4), 387–409.
37
Simpson, J. A., & Weiner, S. C. (1989). Oxford English dictionary (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Clarendon.
Smith, R. E., Chen, J., & Yang, X. (2009). The Impact of Advertising Creativity on the Hierarchy of Effects. Journal of Advertising, 37(4), 47–62.
Snyder, R. (1992). Comparative Advertising and Brand Evaluation: Toward Developing a Categorization Approach. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 1(1), 15–30.
Spears, N., & Singh, S. N. (2004). Measuring Attitude toward the Brand and Purchase Intentions. Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 26(2), 53–66.
Srull, T. K. (1984). Methodological Techniques for the Study of Person Memory and Social
Cognition. In R. S. Wyer & T. K. Srull (Eds.), Handbook of social cognition (2nd ed., pp. 1–72). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Statista.com. (2016). Social media advertising. Retrieved from
https://www.statista.com/outlook/220/109/social-media-advertising/united-states#market-revenue
Suh, J.-C., & Youjae, Y. (2006). When Brand Attitudes Affect the Customer Satisfaction-Loyalty Relation: The Moderating Role of Product Involvement. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16(2), 145–155.
Tan, S. J. (2002). Can consumers’ scepticism be mitigated by claim objectivity and claim extremity? Journal of Marketing Communications, 8(1), 45–64.
Thompson, D. V, & Malaviya, P. (2013). Consumer-Generated Ads : Does Awareness of Advertising Co-Creation Heip or Hurt Pursuasion. Journal of Marketing, 77(iWay), 33–47.
Thrash, T. M., Elliot, A. J., Maruskin, L. A., & Cassidy, S. E. (2010). Inspiration and the promotion of well-being: Tests of causality and mediation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(3), 488–506.
Till, B. D., & Busler, M. (2000). The match-up hypothesis: Physical attractiveness, expertise, and the role of fit on brand attitude, purchase intent and brand beliefs. Journal of Advertising, 29(3), 1– 13.
Tobar, D. a. (2006). Affect and purchase intentions of Super Bowl XL television spectators: Examining the influence of sport fandom, age and gender. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 15(4), 243–252.
38
Identification and Brand Commitment. Journal of Global Marketing, 26(2), 68–79.
Verhellen, Y., Dens, N., & De Pelsmacker, P. (2013). Consumer Responses To Brands Placed in Youtube Movies: the Effect of Prominence and Endorser Expertise. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 14(4), 287–303.
Voorveld, H. a. M., Neijens, P. C., & Smit, E. G. (2011). The interacting role of media sequence and product involvement in cross-media campaigns. Journal of Marketing Communications, 18(3), 110927093134003.
Walsh, G., Shiu, E., & Hassan, L. M. (2014). Cross-National Advertising and Behavioral Intentions: A Multilevel Analysis. Journal of International Marketing, 22(1), 77–97.
Williams, K., & Petrosky, A. (2011). Product placement effectiveness: revisited and renewed. Journal of Management & Marketing Research, 1–24.
Wright, P. L. (1973). The Cognitive Processes Mediating Acceptance of Advertising. Journal of Marketing Research, 10(1), 53–62.
Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1994). The personal involvement inventory: reduction, revision, and application to advertising. Journal of Advertising, 23(4), 59–70.
Zainal Ariffin, Z., Othman, N., & Abdul Karim, J. (2012). Relationship between American popular culture and conspicuous consumption: A moderating effect of religiosity. African Journal of Business Management, 6(36), 9969–9988.
Zhao, G., & Pechmann, C. (2007). The Impact of Regulatory Focus on Adolescents’ Response to Antismoking Advertising Campaigns. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(4), 671–687.
39 Appendix A
What is your age?
What is your gender? Male / Female
What is the highest level of education you have completed? High school diploma
Trade/technical/vocational training (MBO) Associate degree (HBO)
Bachelor’s degree Master’s degree Doctorate degree
CONDITION 1: Please describe in a couple of sentences the last time you felt satisfaction (definition: The fulfillment or gratification of a desire, need, or appetite)
CONDITION 2: Please describe in a couple of sentences the last time you felt admiration (definition: A feeling of strong approval or delight with regard to someone or something) CONDITION 3: Please describe in a couple of sentences the last time you did the laundry Please imagine yourself shopping for chocolate. You encounter a person making the following statement:
40
Condition 2
Manipulation check
To what extent did you feel satisfaction? Not at all – A lot To what extent did you feel admiration? Not at all – A lot I gave the ad a lot of consideration A lot – Not at all
I was able to imagine using the advertised product Not able – Able I imagined using the advertised product Not able – Able
How do you feel right now? (scale of 1-7) Stressed Unhappy Energetic Angry Tired Happy Exited Depth of Processing
What is the name of the brand from the advertisement? How many products were in the top-list?
Where does the company harvest their beans?
41
What is the name of the company’s best selling product? Consumer behavior All on 7-point likert scale I would try Miro chocolate within the next 6 months
likely- unlikely probable-improbable possible-impossible
Will you purchase Miro Chocolate when it becomes available in your local area? Definitely will – Definitely won’t
The arguments about the product contained in the advertisement were very convincing Convincing – not convincing
How do you yourself feel about the product? I like it very much – I don’t like it at all
Product involvement All on 7-point likert scale
To me, chocolate is:
important - unimportant
of no concern - of concern to me irrelevant - relevant
means a lot to me - means nothing to me useless- useful
42
Credibility of Claim
