The effect of an anti-consumption message on brand perception

(1)

The effect of an anti-consumption message on brand

perception

July 9, 2018

(2)

The effect of an anti-consumption message on brand perception

Master Thesis, MSc Marketing Management University of Groningen

Faculty of Economics and Business Department of Marketing

July 9, 2018

Inge Schuurman

Van Ketwich Verschuurlaan 177 9721SK Groningen, The Netherlands

+31612086870

i.schuurman.1@student.rug.nl

Student number 2356457

Words: 8856

(3)

3

Abstract

Understanding the effect of anti-consumption messages on consumers is very important in both the academic and business world. Climate change is becoming an increasingly important topic. Previous research predominantly focused on the effect of green messages on consumer behavior, but green consumption might not be enough to tackle the problem of climate

change. Therefore, this current study focusses on the effect of an anti-consumption message in comparison to a green message on brand masculinity. In addition, individual masculinity is measured as moderator. Green messages are known to influence brand gender and this is an important marketing tool to create product equity, but it is not yet known how an anti-consumption message changes brand perceptions. From this study it can be concluded that anti-consumption messages do not significantly influence brand masculinity. Moreover, individual masculinity does not have a moderator role in this relation.

Keywords: Anti-consumption, brand masculinity, brand femininity, masculinity,

(4)

4

1. Introduction

Climate change is real. The planet's average surface temperature has risen about 1.1 degrees Celsius. Most of the warming occurred in the past 35 years, with 16 of the 17 warmest years on record occurring since 2001. Oceans are getting warmer and the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position (Shaftel, 2018). In 2015 the United Nations Climate Change

Conference was held in Paris. On 22 April 2016, 174 countries agreed to take steps to slow down, then reduce greenhouse emissions and limit global warming to ‘well below 2 °C’ (UNFCCC, 2015). Although some countries are really making an effort to reach these goals, the change in policy direction under the Trump administration has called into question whether the US climate commitment for the Paris Agreement will be achieved. In addition, more action is needed to ensure the EU’s target is realized and even overachieved (Chen, 2017).

In an attempt to help preserve the environment, academic research in marketing has already greatly enhanced the understanding of the traits and motivations of individuals who prefer to purchase and consume environmentally friendly products (Black & Cherrier, 2010; Chatzidakis & Lee, 2013). However, to tackle the problem of climate change, shifting consumption to a marginally ‘greener’ product or service might not be sufficient enough (Howard-Grenville, Buckle, Hoskins, & George, 2014). According to some researchers, a change in the dominant lifestyles and reduction of current consumption levels is needed to tackle climate change (Jackson, 2005; Peattie & Peattie, 2009).

One of the industries that could really make a difference concerning consumption levels and climate change is the meat industry. Because of the worldwide promotion of meat, the global meat production will increase around 1,6% each year until 2023 (OECD/FAO, 2014) and this will aggravate the environmental impact related to livestock (Westhoek et al., 2014). However, when livestock production is reduced by 50%, this will lead to large

structural changes within the EU agricultural sector, resulting in a reduction in the emission of greenhouse gases (25– 40%) and reactive nitrogen (around 40%) (Westhoek et al., 2014).

(6)

6 eat less and better quality meat (Wakker Dier, 2018). One recent initiative is the ‘a week without meat’ foundation, where people in the Netherlands are supported to stop their meat consumption for one week. The initiative is supported by several supermarkets, food brands and other organizations (SNWZV, 2018).

Furthermore, supermarkets in the Netherlands like Jumbo and Albert Heijn are also trying to make their consumers more aware about their meat consumption. Jumbo for example has introduced ‘Veggie Monday’(eating vegetarian for one day of the week) and ‘Jumbo Veggie Chef’, which is a private label of the Jumbo for their own vegetarian and vegan products (Veghel, 2017). In addition, Albert Heijn is trying to reduce meat consumption among Flemish people by offering them a vegetarian alternative for every meat product. Their goal is not to make everybody vegetarian, but they want consumers to know that it is not hard to choose a vegetarian alternative (Elvh, 2018). However, it is not yet known how customers react to anti-consumption messages coming from supermarkets or food brands. Over the past years, most consumer research focused on buying eco-friendly products (green consumption) rather than not-buying environmentally polluting ones, and only few studies consider the more radical idea of practicing anti-consumption for environmental concerns by reducing consumption altogether (Chatzidakis & Lee, 2013). Therefore, the effect of anti-consumption messages of meat on brand masculinity and the moderation effect of individual masculinity is studied in this research paper.

When it is known how consumers react to anti-consumption messages, it can help these animal rights organizations and supermarkets to target the right audience in the right way. For, example if the relation of anti-consumption messages on brand masculinity is more positive than green messages, animal rights organizations and environmental organizations can use this in their communication strategy. They can use this in their campaigns to convince brands to use anti-consumption messages. It gives them some prove and support. Moreover, supermarkets will know how their support for anti-consumption affects their brand.

Furthermore, when it is known how more masculine people react to anti-consumption messages compared to less masculine people, these organizations can target their message more precise by making their communication messages more or less attractive to masculine people via gender marketing.

In a study that compared a green demarketing appeal to a traditional

(7)

7 This current paper can have a theoretical contribution by expanding the research paper of Reich and Soule (2016). A different product category will be used and the effect of

demarketing on brand masculinity is researched instead of brand attitude. By doing this, the operationalization of product advertising via anti-consumption messages becomes broader.

Moreover, since meat is associated with masculinity and vegetarians are associated with femininity (Rothgerber, 2013), anti-consumption messages can have an effect on the perceived masculinity of a brand. Therefore, brand masculinity is an interesting concept to research. Brands associated with high levels of masculinity and femininity command higher equity than do undifferentiated brands (Lieven, Grohmann, Herrmann, Landwehr, & van Tilburg, 2014). In addition, brand androgyny (high levels of both masculinity and femininity) is negatively related to brand equity. Brand equity is a central construct in the marketing literature and has important implications for brand management (Aaker & Keller, 1990; Barwise, 1993; Keller, 1993). High brand equity contributes to consumer satisfaction, brand loyalty, and ability of the brand to command a price premium (Aaker, 1991; Park &

Srinivasan, 1994).

Therefore, it is relevant to know how people rate brands that communicate anti- consumption messages. This theses can make a theoretical contribution by researching this relation and provides a deeper theoretical explanation for consumer reactions to

anti-consumption messages. Moreover, the results can be important for a brand to choose the right strategy, when anti-consumption messages have a positive influence on brand masculinity for example, brands might consider to implement this into their communication strategy.

Furthermore, people who think of themselves as more masculine eat more meat and are less concerned with environmental issues than people who judge themselves as less masculine (Rothgerber, 2013). Since people who eat more meat are judged as more

masculine, this could also be the case for brands. This means that brands communicating anti-consumption messages for meat, might be perceived as less masculine. And this perception could be influenced by the individual masculinity of the person judging the brand. Therefore, the moderating effect of individual masculinity on the relation between the anti-consumption message and brand personality is researched. Since manipulating individual masculinity by threatening it only works for men (Cheryan, Cameron, Katagiri, & Monin, 2015; Willer, Rogalin, Conlon, & Wojnowicz, 2013), only men are studied in this paper.

Knowing how the brands are perceived when they communicate an anti-

(8)

8 the influence of individual masculinity on brand masculinity will be provided. To summarize, the research question of this paper is:

What is the effect of anti-consumption messages on brand masculinity and how does individual masculinity moderate this effect?

Sub questions are:

- What is anti-consumption? - What is brand masculinity? - What is individual masculinity?

- How do anti-consumption messages affect brand masculinity? - How does individual masculinity moderate this relation?

In the remainder of this paper, first the theory behind this research is discussed, then the methodology will be explained. After this, the results are analyzed and discussed followed by the conclusion and recommendations.

2. Theoretical framework

2.1 Environmental oriented anti-consumption

In the main research question, the influence of an environmental oriented anti- consumption (EOA) message on brand masculinity is measured. This is compared to the influence of a green message on brand masculinity. To measure this correctly, the distinction between anti-consumption and green consumption has to be made.

Green consumption does not tackle the overconsumption of meat, but rather supports consumers to choose a more environment-friendly product. So instead of not consuming certain products, eco-friendly products are purchased. This is different from

(9)

9 The concept anti-consumption has different dimensions (García-de-Frutos et al., 2016). For example, people might not consume meat because of monetary reasons, because it is not animal friendly or because of environmental reasons. In this thesis, the focus is on environmentally oriented anti-consumption (EOA). This are acts directed against any form of consumption, with the specific aim of protecting the environment. Hence, for considering a behavior as EOA, it has to be directed against consumption, such as consumption reduction, avoidance, or rejection and it needs to be driven by environmental motivations or concerns (García-de-Frutos et al., 2016). For this thesis, environmentally oriented anti-consumption messages are displayed to research its effect on brand masculinity. This means that the environment will be mentioned as reason to not consume meat.

An action can be defined as anti-consumption when it has the following two characteristics. First, the action has to be conscious, this means it has to be intentional. For example, the non-purchase of a product that is not part of the consumer’s consideration set should not be regarded as consumption (García-de-Frutos et al., 2016). Second, anti-consumption serves an important self-expressive function, it helps individuals to distance themselves from their undesired self and communicate the beliefs and values they actually hold (García-de-Frutos et al., 2016; Cherrier, 2009). This is not exclusively a characteristic for anti-consumption, since it is quite common in most consumption manifestations. However, it does differentiate anti-consumption from other ways of non-consumption, like the preference for other products (Cherrier et al. 2011).

Moreover, this self-expressive function makes people choose products that fit their self-image. In terms of masculinity and femininity, people feel the need to express themselves through brand choice, this need is based on the notion that gender is part of customer’s self-concept. In the next section, the concept masculinity and the self-expressive need in

combination with perceived brand masculinity is discussed.

2.2 Effect of anti-consumption message on brand masculinity

To study the effect of anti-consumption messages on brand masculinity, it is important to first clearly define masculinity. Masculinity is a part of gender identity, most authors in gender studies have noted the confusion between sex and gender (Borna & White, 2003; Carr, 2005). To avoid this confusion, it is important to distinguish between these two terms. Gender, unlike sex, is not biologically determined. Instead, it is a culturally constituted, socially

(10)

10 Gender is created in social interactions by adapting actions to conform (or not) to the

normative perceptions of masculinity and femininity that exist in a culture (Gherardi, 1995) by choosing from a cultural repertoire of gendered behaviors (Wetherell & Edley, 1999). These practices, in turn, create a social gender display that reinforces (or resists) the current conceptions of masculinity and femininity (Avery, 2012).

Previous studies on gender and brand evaluation have found that men and women generally prefer and choose brands, possessions, and activities that reflect their gender identity (Palan, 2001; Stern, 1988). Consumers prefer brands that are congruent with their self-concept (Dolich, 1969; Sirgy, 1982) because such brands allow them to reinforce their actual or desired view of themselves (Fournier, 1998) and thus help them achieve personal goals. Moreover, gender dimensions of brand personality influence affective, attitudinal, and behavioral consumer responses positively when they are congruent with consumers’ sex role identity and thus enable consumers to express an important dimension of their self-concept (Grohmann, 2009). In addition, incongruent brand rejection also takes place, where masculine consumers react negatively to feminine brands (Neale, Robbie & Martin, 2015). This means that this distinction cannot only be made between sexes, but it also means that people who rate themselves as more masculine, prefer more masculine brands.

Moreover, masculine and feminine personality traits are readily accessible to people. Therefore, it is likely that along with other personality traits, consumers also associate masculine and feminine personality traits with brands (Grohmann, 2009). Consumers

associate human personality traits with brands because they relate to brands as they would to partners or friends (Fournier, 1998), because they perceive brands as extensions of themselves (Belk, 1988), or because marketers suggest that brands have certain characteristics. The association of human personality traits with brands occurs through brand appearance (brand name, logo, or type font), brand communication (spokespeople, advertising), and brand behavior (performance and experience based on product attributes; Batra, Lehmann, & Singh, 1993).

2.2.1 Hypothesis

Previous studies on masculinity and meat have found that vegetarian men were

(11)

11 with cream cheese; Mooney & Lorenz, 1997). In addition, the link between masculinity and meat is also made in the fast-food industry, which repeatedly suggests that real men eat more meat and that compromised masculinity can be regained through meat consumption.

Domino’s Pizza, Taco Bell, Burger King, McDonald’s, and General Motors have all produced popular TV advertisements in the last decade operating on this theme (for a review, see Rogers, 2008).

The above argumentation states that brands are associated with human personality traits and that people can relate to brands in the same way as to people. Therefore, I expect that people will also evaluate brands in the same way as people. Men who do not eat meat are perceived as less masculine and there is a strong relation between meat and masculinity. Moreover, green brands are perceived as more feminine than non-green brands because it is perceived as doing something good for the environment and it is linked to caring and cooperating (Brough, Wilkie, Ma, Isaac, & Gal, 2016). Anti-consumption is even more radical and the message clearly states that the respondents should eat less meat to support the environment. Because it is expected that this anti-consumption message stands even further away from the masculine self-concept, men would want to differentiate themselves more from this brand by rating it as less masculine than the supermarket displaying the green message.

H1: An anti-consumption message (vs. green consumption message) about meat will have a negative effect on brand masculinity.

The relation between brand masculinity and brand femininity differs for brands. Although for many brands, masculinity and femininity are negatively correlated, this is not always the case (Grohmann, 2009). Brand masculinity and brand femininity should be considered as two independent concepts, therefore brand femininity is also measured to explore this relationship.

2.3 Moderating effect of individual masculinity

(12)

12 “must never, never resemble women, or display strongly stereotyped feminine characteristics” (Brannon, 1976, p.14). Most men manage their masculinity through consumption to avoid fears that others will see them as effeminate or gay (Carrigan, Connell & Lee, 1985). For men striving to achieve masculinity, success largely depends upon rejecting the feminine

(Conway-Long, 1994).

2.3.1 Hypothesis

It is proven that men feel threatened after they received false gender identity scores of this scale. When faced with feedback that they did not measure up to others of their gender, men (but not women) showed increased anxiety and threat-related thoughts (Vandello, Bosson, Cohen, Burnaford and Weaver, 2008). Threats to one’s membership status in a meaningful group can lead to compensatory efforts to reestablish ingroup status and restore a positive self-view. These efforts may include engaging in follow-up behaviors that are

representative of the ingroup (Branscombe, Spears, Ellemers & Doosje, 2002; Maass, Cadinu, Guarnieri & Grasselli, 2003; Schmitt & Branscombe, 2001) and/or distancing oneself from outgroup members (Branscombe, Wann, Noel & Coleman, 1993; Maass et al., 2003; Quillian, 1995). Therefore, men with threatened masculinity are more likely to overcompensate and act in ways which will make them more masculine. For example, those men adopt stronger dominance attitudes, suggesting that these threats motivate men to reassert their support for such hierarchies and their position in them (Willer et al., 2013).

Furthermore, men tend to exaggerate the differences in brands more markedly than women. Men are found to perceive a masculine brand to be more masculine and a feminine brand to be more feminine (Alreck, Settle, & Belch, 1982). And although adolescents have little difficulty in seeing themselves as having both masculine and feminine characteristics, they still maintain higher levels of sex-typed attributes. That is, girls are more feminine than masculine, and boys are more masculine than feminine.

Summing up, when the masculinity of men is threatened, they will overcompensate and try to belong to the masculine group and at the same time distance themselves from the opposite (feminine) group. Since anti-consumption of meat is seen as more feminine, I expect that men with a threatened masculinity will try to distance themselves from the

(13)

13

H2: Compared to non-threatened individual masculinity, threatened masculinity will intensify the significant negative effect of the anti-consumption message on brand masculinity

The literature review and hypotheses have led to the following conceptual model:

Figure 1. Conceptual model

3. Methodology

3.1 Design and participants

An online experiment was conducted to test the effect of anti-consumption messages on brand masculinity and the moderating effect of individual masculinity. It is studied that masculinity is different between men and women (Ulrich, 2013; Galambos, Almeida & Petersen, 1990), therefore the distinction between sexes has to be made. In this thesis, only men are studied and the masculinity of men is manipulated to investigate the effect of

individual masculinity on the relation between the message and brand masculinity. Moreover, the Slovenian supermarket ‘Mercator’ is used as brand to communicate the message. This supermarket is chosen because it is expected that the respondents do not know the brand and therefore previous experiences cannot influence the judgement.

The respondents were approached via social media and in person to fill out the online Questionnaire. In total, 231 men participated in the study, ten men did not finish the full survey, meaning they did not answer the questions related to the dependent variables. These ten men were also excluded from the survey since imputing the missing values with the mean value can lead to biased estimates (Donders, van der Heijden, Stijnen & Moons, 2006).

(14)

14 served as independent variable and the individual masculinity (threatened or not) served as moderator. Two attention checks were done to make sure that the participants were paying attention when filling out the questionnaire. In total 13 men failed both checks, since they did not pay attention when filling out the survey, they were excluded from further analysis. This means the analysis was done with the data of 208 respondents with an average age of 29.63.

3.2 Procedure and measurement

Before the survey started, participants were explained that it would take approximately ten minutes of their time. In addition, the participants were made aware of the fact that their anonymity would be protected and that they could withdraw from the online study anytime they wanted. After the participants agreed with this, the survey started.

To make sure the respondents did not know what the study was about, each participant was explained that the survey included 2 different studies. They were told that in the first study the validation of a test was studied and in the second study an advertisement of a supermarket had to be evaluated. In reality, their individual masculinity was manipulated in the first study and their reaction to the message was measured in the second study.

For the first study the participants had to fill out a demographic questionnaire. After this, they filled out a gender identity survey. The gender identity survey used in this research is the Bem Sex Role Identity (BSRI). This Sex Role Inventory treats masculinity and

femininity as two independent dimensions, thereby making it possible to characterize a person as masculine, feminine, or androgynous as a function of the difference between his or her endorsement of masculine and feminine personality characteristics (Bem, 1974). In this survey, respondents had to indicate how well the adjectives described their personality on a 7-point Likert scale from 1 (Never or almost never true) to 7 (Always or almost always true).

In this research, respondents were randomly given a certain gender identity score after finishing the survey. Feedback sheets displayed a 0–50 scale of possible scores on the gender identity survey. The range from 0 to 25 was the masculine half of the scale and from 26 to 50 the feminine half. In the middle of each range, brackets indicated the “average male range” and “average female range” for scores in the study.

(15)

15 distribution noted on the feedback sheets, while the other half were given a score of 32, just inside the feminine range of the scale (see Appendix A for the complete survey). The group that received a score of 32 on the feminine scale, is the group that had to experience a threatened masculinity.

After receiving the masculinity scores, the respondents were told the second study would begin. First the respondents read a text where they were told that the supermarket Mercator wants to use this advertisement in their upcoming campaigns. They were also told to take a close look at the advertisement because questions would be asked about it later.

Secondly, they received either a picture from the supermarket with an anti-consumption message, or a picture with a green message. The two messages were made as similar as possible. With the exception of a few keywords to make the two conditions different, the content and word counts of the advertisements were the same.

3.3 Dependent variable

Brand masculinity was measured with the masculine brand personality (MBP) and feminine brand personality (FBP) scale (Grohmann, 2009). In this scale masculinity and femininity emerge as two independent personality dimensions that are captured by six items. For brand masculinity, the following items are measured: Adventurous, Aggressive, Brave, Daring, Dominant and Sturdy. For the femininity of the brand the items are: Expresses tender feelings, Fragile, Graceful, Sensitive, Sweet and Tender. To respondents had to rate these items on 7-point Likert scales on 7‐point from 1 (Does not apply at all) to 7 (Fully applies). All conditions had to rate these six items on brand masculinity and brand femininity. Finally, participants were sensitively debriefed regarding the deceptive gender identity feedback and thanked for their participation.

3.4 Exploratory measures

For exploratory reasons, several auxiliary measures were added in the online survey.

First of all, environmental concern was measured. People who are more concerned about the environment are more likely to support anti-consumption (Black & Cherrier, 2010;

(16)

16 Moreover, the demographic variable ‘age’ and the amount of meat a person eats each week with their main meal are controlled for. The amount of meat was measured in four groups, where 1 is 0-1 times a week and 4 is 6-7 times a week. The variable was mean centered to look into the difference between people who eat more meat than average and people who eat less meat.

3.5 Plan of analysis

First, the manipulation of the independent variable had to be tested with a pre-test. The participants were shown the introduction and the advertisements just like in the main study. They had to fill out a questionnaire to measure if they perceived the green message and anti-consumption message as intended (See Appendix B). Moreover, just like in the main study, some were shown the anti-consumption message and some were shown the green message. The messages were perceived significantly different from each other, therefore they could be used in the main study.

Secondly, the reliability of the MBP/FBP scale had to be tested. In order to understand whether the items in this questionnaire all reliably measure the same latent variables (brand masculinity and brand femininity), a Cronbach's alpha was run. After this, brand masculinity and femininity could be used to create a new variable based on its mean scores.

Furthermore, with these new variables, four variables could be distinguished for analysis and each variable was given a name. The first variable was named ‘threat’ and consisted of either 0 (not-threatened masculinity) or 1 (threatened masculinity). The second variable was named message and consisted of either 0 (green message) or 1 (anti-consumption message). In addition, the third and fourth variables were the mean of brand masculinity and brand femininity for each respondent. To measure the interaction effect of the moderator, Process by Andrew F. Hayes, model 1 was used to research the interaction effect. The results of this test will be discussed in the next chapter.

4. Results

4.1 Assumptions checks

Before we can use the Process model to do the moderation analysis, the assumptions

(17)

17 the component analysis was done, Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy (KMO) and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity were performed in order to determine whether the data of this study is suitable for the analysis. The KMO measure (>.50) and the Bartlett’s test (<.05) both meet the criteria to continue with the principal component analysis (Kaiser, 1974; Field, 2013) (See Appendix C, table 1).

In addition, the correlation matrix shows good correlations overall (>.30 and <.80), but the items ‘aggressive’ and ‘dominant’ do not seem to correlate with a lot of other items (See Appendix C, table 2) Moreover, the determinant is greater than .00001 and there are no items that correlate above .80, therefore it can be assumed that there is no multicollinearity.

The rotated component matrix (table 1) shows that the items of brand femininity all load on component 1 and there are no other items in this component. Consequently, brand femininity was treated as a separate variable in the further analysis. The items of brand masculinity load on two different components, where ‘aggressive’ and ‘dominant’ together load on component three. From the correlation matrix, it could already be seen that these items did not correlate very well with the other items. It seems like they do not measure the same thing as the other items of brand masculinity, therefore they were removed from further analysis.

TABLE 1

Rotated Component Matrix (Varimax)

Component1 Component 2 Component 3

Adventurous ,135 ,730 ,036 Brave ,184 ,819 ,016 Sensitive ,631 ,254 -,205 Aggressive -,163 -,045 ,845 Fragile ,654 -,212 ,372 Graceful ,598 ,446 -,018 Daring ,138 ,796 ,095 Sweet ,784 ,247 -,172 Tender ,824 ,210 -,144 Dominant -,049 ,273 ,830

Expresses tender feelings ,796 ,141 ,091

Sturdy ,280 ,550 ,439

(18)

18 After the principal components analysis, the reliability of the items that are now put together had to be measured. Reliability of brand masculinity on 4 items (adventurous, brave, daring and sturdy) showed a Cronbach’s alpha of .78. The reliability analysis of brand femininity on 6 items showed a Cronbach’s alpha of .83 (See Appendix E). Both analysis pass the threshold of .70 (Nunnally, 1975), therefore the items can be put together to create the new variables ‘brand masculinity’ (M = 4.3, SD = 1.12) and ‘brand femininity’ (M = 3.96, SD = 1.07) based on their mean scores.

After the new variables were created, the normality of the variables “brand masculinity” and “brand femininity” was tested for the four different groups. The Shapiro-Wilk test was used because of the small sample size of each group (around 50). According to the Shapiro-Wilk test ( p < .05), the data for each group is not normally distributed and the data is skewed to the left (negative). Therefore the data had to be reversed and transformed, this was done with log transformation. As can be seen in table 2, after the transformation, the data was normally distributed1_{and the Levene’s test showed that equal variance could be} assumed for brand masculinity (p = .42) and brand femininity (p = .95).

TABLE 2

Normal distribution and homogeneity.

Normality br. masc. Normality log br. masc. Normality br. fem. Normality log br. fem. Homogeneity log br. masc. Homogeneity log br. fem. No threat, organic ad .000 .088 .000 .034 .420 .974 No threat, anti-ad .014 .846 .312 .099 .420 .974 Threat, organic ad .005 .747 .001 .059 .420 .974 Threat, anti-ad .006 .726 .008 .301 .420 .974 4.2 Hypothesis testing

Now that the assumptions are met, the hypotheses can be tested by using Process by Andrew Hayes, model 1. All the results are presented in table 3, including the exploratory measures.

(19)

19 When looking at the results, it can be seen that the overall model is not significant p = .86,

F(3, 204) = .26.

To test the first hypothesis, “an anti-consumption message (Vs. green consumption

message) about meat will have a negative effect on brand masculinity”, the effect of the

message on brand masculinity was studied. The moderation analysis shows that the effect is not significant with b = -.02, t(204) = -.82 and p = .412. This means hypothesis 1 can be rejected. Respondents who saw the advertisement with an anti-consumption message (M = 4.67, SD = 1.03), did not rate the supermarket significantly less masculine than people who saw the green message (M = 4.59, SD = 1.03) 3.

In addition, the results showed that the interaction effect of threat and advertisement did not reach significance, b = .02, t(204) = .55 and p = .59. Therefore, hypothesis 2 can also be rejected. The moderator individual masculinity (threatened or not threatened) does not influence the strength of the relation of the advertisement on brand masculinity. Although the results are not significant, the mean scores of brand masculinity show a trend in the expected direction. Threatened men do rate the brand as less masculine when they received an anti-consumption messages, for the organic message there is no difference (See figure 2).

Figure 2.Interaction effect of advertising message and threat on brand masculinity.

4.3 Exploratory measures

In addition to brand masculinity, brand femininity was measured as second dependent

variable. To see whether the message type and individual masculinity have an effect on brand

2_{All results are log transformed and reversed.} 3_{Geometric means and standard deviations}

4,45 4,5 4,55 4,6 4,65 4,7 4,75

Organic message Anti-consumption message

Br an d m as culi n it y N = 208_{p = .86}

(20)

20 femininity, a second moderation analysis was done by using Process by Andrew Hayes, model 1. The overall model is again not significant, p = .14, F(3, 204) = 1.84.

Moreover, the effect of the message on brand femininity is not significant with b = .01, t(204) = .66, p = .51. This means that respondents who saw the advertisement with an anti-consumption message (M = 4.00, SD = 1.03), did not rate the supermarket significantly more feminine than people who saw the green message (M = 4.20, SD = 1.03). Moreover, the interaction effect of threat and advertisement message is also not significant for brand

femininity, b = .02, t(204) = .48 and p = .63. So there is not a difference between men with a threatened masculinity or no threatened masculinity when it comes to the effect of the

advertisement message on brand femininity. The mean scores of brand femininity do show a trend that men with a threatened masculinity perceive the brand as less feminine for both message types (See figure 3).

Figure 3.Interaction effect of advertising message and threat on brand femininity.

4.3.1 Covariates

Before the covariate ‘environmental concern’ can be analyzed, it has to be checked if the reliability of the scale is strong enough using this dataset. The reliability analysis resulted in α = .698. The item ‘The so called ecological crisis facing humankind has been greatly

exaggerated’, does not seem to correlate very well with the other items in the scale (See Appendix F). This could be because this was the only item that was reversed in the answer options (1 = strongly agree and 7 = strongly disagree). Removing the item resulted in a stronger reliability α = .72. To make the scale more reliable and pass the threshold of .70 (Nunnally, 1978), the item was excluded from the scale.

3,6 3,7 3,8 3,9 4 4,1 4,2 4,3 4,4

Organic message Anti-consumption message

Br an d fem in in it y

Not threatened masculinity Threatened masculinity

(21)

21 The covariates were all included separately in the moderation analysis on the two dependent variables ‘brand femininity’ and ‘brand masculinity’. The results showed a

significant effect of ‘environmental concern’ on ‘brand masculinity’, b = -.02, t(203) = -2.34,

p = .02. This means that the covariate ‘environmental concern’ significantly predicts brand

masculinity. Because the data are reversed, the slope is actually positive, therefore an increase in environmental concern will positively influence brand masculinity. The covariate,

‘environmental concern’ was also tested on ‘brand femininity’, however this did not result in a significant effect (b = -.004, t(203) = -.49, p = .63).

The second covariate that was tested was the amount of meat that the respondent eats per week on brand masculinity. The results did not show a significant effect of the amount of meat on brand masculinity (b = -.01, t(203) = -1.13, p = .26). For brand femininity the effect was significant with b = -.02, t(203) = -2.24 and p = .03. So the covariate ‘amount of meat’ significantly predicts the dependent variable, therefore the rating of brand femininity is positively influenced by how much meat the person eats.

TABLE 3

Results of the moderation analysis

Brand masculinity b Se t p Constant .535 .018 29.296 .000 Advertisement -.020 .025 -.757 .450 Threat -.005 .029 -.184 .854 Ad*Threat .021 .039 .554 .580 Environmental concern -.023 .010 -2.340 .017 Amount of meat -.012 .011 -1.13 .260 Brand femininity b Se t p Constant .571 .015 38.150 .000 Advertisement .015 .022 .662 .509 Threat .019 .023 .837 .404 Ad*Threat .015 .032 .483 .630 Environmental concern -.004 .009 -.486 .628 Amount of meat -.020 .009 -2.240 .026

5. Discussion

(22)

22 aimed to extend previous findings of the effect of anti-consumption messages on brand

perceptions. Previous research did find a significant difference between the effect green messages and anti-consumption messages on brand attitude (Reich & Soule, 2016). It was expected that participants who saw the organic message reacted more favorable (higher brand masculinity) to the message than people who saw the anti-consumption message. The results of this current study do not show this significant effect. The reaction of the threatened respondents to the different messages did not change when the message type changed. For non-threatened men, a trend could be seen where the masculinity score was higher with the anti-consumption message. When looking at the scores of people passing both attention checks, the same trend can be spotted for threatened men (See Appendix G, figure 1). There they even scored both messages a little higher in masculinity than non-threatened men, but these results are also not significant.

Moreover, the extra measured dependent variable ‘brand femininity’ shows the same trend, where the anti-consumption message is perceived as less feminine than the green message. This is even more the case for men with a threatened masculinity, but this effect is also not significant. When looking at the results from the men who passed both attention checks, the trend is in the same direction, but difference in masculinity between the organic message and anti-consumption message for threatened men is a bit bigger (See Appendix G, figure 2). These trends confirm the finding that most of the time, brand masculinity and femininity are negatively correlated. Although the findings of this study are not significant, the trend shows a decrease in brand femininity and an increase in brand masculinity when displaying an anti-consumption message.

The reason why the trend for brand masculinity is not in the expected direction might be that masculinity is also related to adventure and high-risk behavior (Azar, 2013). The topic of anti-consumption is relatively new and supermarkets do not use anti-consumption

(23)

23 This difference between people with a threatened masculinity (low individual

masculinity) and no threatened masculinity (high individual masculinity) was also expected to be significant in this study. Previous research has found that when the masculinity of men is threatened, they want to compensate for this by acting in ways that make them more

masculine (Maass et al., 2003; Schmitt & Branscombe, 2001) and distancing themselves from feminine behavior (Branscombe et al., 1993; Maass et al., 2003; Quillian, 1995). In this case that would mean that men with a threatened behavior would rate the anti-consumption message about meat as less masculine, since meat is thought to be related to masculinity.

The group with a threatened masculinity does show the expected trend, they do perceive the brand as less masculine than people without a threatened masculinity. However, this difference is not significant and the results of people who passed both test show an opposing trend. People with a threatened masculinity did not perceive the brand with the anti-consumption message as less masculine than the brand with the organic message. Therefore it seems that the respondents do not seem to overcompensate for their threatened masculinity

In the measured covariates, a significant effect of environmental concern on brand masculinity is found. Previous research already indicated that consumers with high eco-involvement are more influenced by messages concerning the environment and anti-consumption than people with low involvement (Cervellon, 2013). Also, environmentally concerned consumers evaluated a company displaying an anti-consumption message as more favorable than less environmentally concerned people. The current study has found the same significant effect of environmental concern on brand masculinity. Men with a higher

environmental concern perceived the brand as more masculine than less concerned men, regardless of the message that was displayed. Men with a higher concern for the environment might think the supermarket is more brave and daring by supporting the environment. In this study only men were studied, therefore this relation can only be confirmed for men.

In addition, for the other covariate ‘amount of meat’ a significant effect was found on brand femininity. People who eat more meat with their main meal each week, perceive the brand as more feminine than people who eat less meat. Although the brand was rated as more feminine, it was not significantly perceived as less masculine at the same time.

(24)

24 of the brand masculinity and brand femininity scale (Grohmann, 2009). How brands are perceived in terms of gender dimensions differs for each brand. It does not necessarily have to be the case that brands that scored high on masculinity score low on femininity. More

research should be done on this topic, for example, whether androgynous brands (high masculinity and high femininity) results in conflicting customer expectations and how these contradictions affect brands is however still not known (Grohmann, 2009).

5.1 Implications for theory

This research aimed to enhance the current understanding of the effect of anti-consumption messages on brand perceptions. A lot of earlier research on anti-consumption is focussed on which factors influence consumption behavior, for example, how environmental concern influences anti-consumption (Carey, Shaw & Shiu, 2008; Craig-Lees & Hill, 2002; Shaw & Moraes, 2009). Therefore previous research has focused more on how people can be

influenced to participate in anti-consumption. This research extends prior research by looking at the influence of anti-consumption messages in advertising on brand perceptions.

As mentioned in the introduction, in the last decade, most studies have focussed on the effect of environmentally friendly products compared to products that are not environmentally friendly (Black & Cherrier, 2010; Chatzidakis & Lee, 2013). Moreover, if the research did focus on anti-consumption, it was mainly about looking at the brand characteristics or

company reputation in combination with the green image on brand perceptions. This research contributes to the literature by exploring this ‘gap’. Instead of only green characteristics of a brand, this research also looks at the influence of anti-consumption messages in advertising coming from a brand.

Furthermore, the current paper contributes to the current literature about meat and masculinity. Previous research has found that men want to compensate for their masculinity if it is threatened, this influences their behaviour. This paper is the first to look into the topic of individual masculinity and anti-consumption perceptions. It was found that individual

(25)

25

5.2 Implications for practice

The results of this study did not find any significant difference between the rating of an organic ad and an anti-consumption ad. Although these advertisements were clearly perceived as displaying two different messages as could be seen in the pre-test. Therefore the earlier finding that green messages are judged differently from anti-consumption messages might not always be the case. A supermarket that displays an anti-consumption message for meat does not have to fear for negative judgements. How people perceive the brand will likely stay the same, there is even a positive trend when the brand displays an anti-consumption message, although this is not significant. Brands that are known for their masculine image thus do not have to fear for harming this image by displaying an anti-consumption or green ad.

If a brand chooses to display anti-consumption messages in their advertising campaigns, the messages should be directed to consumers with high involvement in the environment. Animal rights organizations that want to reduce meat consumption can also target environmentally involved customers to reach their goal. This research found that high involved customers react more positive (perceive the brand as more masculine) than low involved customers. Brand masculinity in known to influence brand equity which leads to consumer satisfaction and loyalty (Lieven et al., 2014; Aaker, 1991; Park & Srinivasan, 1994), therefore it is important to first attract involved customers that will support the brand. Brands should also find a way to involve less environmentally involved customers, it is however not clear yet how this should be done.

Moreover, no significant effect was found of individual masculinity on brand

masculinity. In previous research it was found that threatened men were less likely to choose green products compared to non-green products (Brough et al., 2016). They also found that masculine (vs. conventional) branding can increase the likelihood of men donating to green organizations and their evaluation of green products. The results in the current study did not find the same results for an anti-consumption message. This suggests that brands do not have to adapt their branding strategy to different segments related to masculinity, for example like coca cola does with cola zero and light. It is not necessary to make the brand look more tough to attract men that want to compensate for their masculinity.

5.3 Limitations and further research

(26)

26 explained in the method section, some men were excluded because they did not pass both tests and therefore were not paying enough attention. In addition, even more men did not pass one of the two attention checks, but they were included in the analysis because the sample size would otherwise be too small. These men could however have influenced the results because they did not pay enough attention to the survey. Some of them failed attention check one, which was placed in the masculinity score questionnaire. Therefore it is possible that these respondents are not affected by the outcome of study one where they receive their masculinity score, because they did not answer the questions seriously and thus perceive the result as incorrect.

Other participants failed attention check two, where they had to correctly choose for the advertisement that they had seen. These respondents did not remember correctly which advertisement they had seen, the results for judging the advertisement could be influenced by this. In addition, I noticed that men really felt the need to share their masculinity scores. Therefore it could be that some respondents already knew about the manipulation before they participated in the study although it was explicitly asked to not share the content of the study with others.

There are also several theoretical limitations. The first one concerns the success of the manipulation. For the manipulation of individual masculinity, the same method was used as in previous research (Cheryan et al., 2015; Willer et al., 2013; Vandello et al., 2008). It is

however not known if this manipulation also works for Dutch people. Men will most likely overcompensate for their threatened masculinity in cultural contexts that value masculinity at a relatively high level (Willer et al., 2013). The Dutch culture is not very masculine

(Hofstede, 1984), therefore it could be that they are less likely to compensate.

Moreover, the respondents were not tested for differences before and after the manipulation, also no test was done to look for differences in perceived masculinity between the threatened and not threatened group. So whether the manipulation has worked in this study remains unknown, future research should include a measure to find out whether the manipulation worked. In addition, a cross-cultural study should be done to research the difference in overcompensation when masculinity is threatened.

(27)

27 Therefore they might rate the products they use themselves with more extreme scores. This would make it difficult to detect the differences between the messages because people do not relate to supermarkets with these characteristics and thus use more average ratings.

It is known that the perceptions of masculinity and the importance of meat differs for cultures (Harris, 1994; Vandello et al., 2008; Nam, Jo & Lee, 2010; Sans & Combris, 2015). Therefore the influence of anti-consumption messages might be different for different cultures. For future research it is interesting to look at the differences of anti-consumption message acceptance between cultures.

In addition, future research should investigate if there is a difference in perception if the message is displayed in a different way. In this current research, the message comes from the supermarket itself which says that their customers should eat more organic meat or less meat. In reality, the Albert Heijn and Jumbo have only supported other initiatives. For example by saying they support the week without meat event. Previous research has found a positive link between firms who support charities and the way they are perceived by

customers (Peloza & Shang, 2011; Pracejus & Olsen, 2004). Therefore future research can look if there are differences in the perception of the brand when the message comes from the brand itself and when the brand says it supports another initiative. When are customers more willing to participate in anti-consumption behavior? And which message do the customers prefer when it comes to brand perceptions?

In politics, people are also more and more involved in making anti-consumption decisions. An example is the ban on plastic disposables in the EU (van der Aa &

Nieuwenhuis, 2018). These decisions could have an impact on the overall anti-consumption behavior and attitude of consumers. Therefore, future research could do a longitudinal study on the behavior of consumers and whether the attitude changes after such a decision is made. If consumers react positive to these decisions and for example decrease their water use and meat consumption too, brands can use this change of behavior and attitude to improve their marketing strategy.

5.4 Conclusion

(28)

28 amount of meat a person eats seems to affect the way they perceive a brand in terms of

(29)

29

References

Aaker, D.A., & Keller, K.L. (1990). Consumer evaluations of brand extensions. Journal of

Marketing, 54, 27-41.

Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34, 347−356.

Adams, C. J. (1991). The sexual politics of meat. In A. M, Jaggar (Ed.), Living with

contradictions. Controversies in feminist social ethics, pp. 548–557.

Alreck, P.L., Settle, R. B. and Belch, M.A. (1982). Who Responds to Gendered Ads, and How? Journal of Advertising Research, 22, 25-32.

Avery, J. (2012). Defending the markers of masculinity: consumer resistance to brand gender-bending. International journal of research in marketing, 29(4), 322-336.

Azar, S. L. (2013). Exploring brand masculine patterns: moving beyond monolithic masculinity. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 22(7), 502–512.

Azoulay, A., & Kapferer, J.N. (2003). Do brand personality scales really measure brand personality? Brand Management, 11, 143-155.

Barwise, P. (1993). Brand equity: Snark or Bojum? International Journal of Research in

Marketing, 10, 93-104.

Batra, R., Lehmann, D. R., & Singh, D. (1993). The Brand Personality Component of Brand Goodwill: Some Antecedents and Consequences. In D. A, Aaker & A, Biel (Ed.). Brand

Equity and Advertising. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bekin, C., Carrigan, M., & Szmigin, I. (2005). Defying marketing sovereignty: Voluntary simplicity at new consumption communities. Qualitative Market Research: An International

Journal, 8(4), 413–429.

Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the Extended Self. Journal of Consumer Research, 2(2), 139–68.

Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and

Clinical Psychology, 42(2), 155–162.

Black, I. R., & Cherrier, H. (2010). Anti-consumption as part of living a sustainable lifestyle: Daily practices, contextual motivations and subjective values. Journal of Consumer Behavior,

9(12), 437–453.

Borna, S. & White, G. (2003), ‘Sex’ and ‘gender’: two confused and confusing concepts in the ‘women in corporate management’ literature. Journal of Business Ethics, 47(2), 89-99. Brannon, R. (1976). The male sex role: Our culture's blueprint for manhood, what it's done for use lately. In D, David & R, Brannon (Ed). The forty-nine percent majority: The male sex

role. (ed., pp. 1–45) Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.

(30)

30 Branscombe, N. R., Wann, D.L., Noel, J.G., & Coleman, J. (1993), In-Group or Out-Group Extremity: Importance of the Threatened Social Identity. Personality and Social Psychology

Bulletin, 19(4), 381–388.

Brough, A. R., Wilkie, J. E. B., Ma, J., Isaac, M. S., & Gal, D. (2016). Is Eco-Friendly Unmanly? The Green-Feminine Stereotype and Its Effect on Sustainable Consumption.

Journal of Consumer Research, 43(4), 567.

Carey, L., Shaw, D., & Shiu, E. (2008). The impact of ethical concerns on family consumer decision-making. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 32(5), 553–560.

Carr, C.L. (2005). Tomboyism or lesbianism? Beyond sex/ gender/sexual conflation. Sex

Roles, 53(1/2), 119-131.

Carrigan, T., Connell, B., & Lee, J. (1985). Toward a new sociology of masculinity. Theory

and Society, 5, 551–604.

Cervellon, M.C. (2013). Victoria’s dirty secrets: Effectiveness of green not-for-profit messages targeting brands. Journal of Advertising, 41(4), 133–145.

Chatzidakis, A., & Lee, M. S. W. (2013). Anti-Consumption as the study of reasons against.

Journal of Macromarketing, 62(2), 145–147.

Chen, H. (2017). Implementing the Paris Agreement: 1st Year Progress Report. Retrieved from https://www.nrdc.org/experts/han-chen/implementing-paris-agreement-first-year-progress-report.

Cherrier, H. (2009). Anti-consumption discourses and consumer- resistant identities. Journal

of Business Research, 62(2), 181–190.

Cherrier, H., Black, I. R., & Lee, M. (2011). Intentional non- consumption for sustainability? Consumer resistance and/or anti-consumption? European Journal of Marketing, 45(11–12), 1757–1767.

Cheryan, S., Cameron, J. S., Katagiri, Z., & Monin, B. (2015). Manning up: Threatened men compensate by disavowing feminine preferences and embracing masculine attributes. Social

Psychology, 46, 218 –227.

Conway‐Long, D. (1994). Ethnographies and masculinities. In H, Brod & M, Kaufman (Ed.).

Theorizing masculinities, (ed., pp. 61–81). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Cordano, M., Welcomer, S. A., & Scherer, R. F. (2003). An analysis of the predictive validity of the New Ecological Paradigm Scale. Journal of Environmental Education, 34(3), 22–28. Craig-Lees, M., & Hill, C. (2002). Understanding voluntary simplifiers. Psychology and

Marketing, 19(2), 187–210.

Dolich, I. J. (1969). Congruence Relationships Between Self Images and Product Brands.

Journal of Marketing Research, 6(1), 80–84.

Donderds, A.G.T., van der Heijden, G.J.M.G., Stijnen, T. & Moons, K.G.M. (2006). Review: A gentle introduction to imputation of missing values. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology,

(31)

31 Elvh. (2018). Albert Heijn wil ons helpen om minder vlees te eten. Retrieved from

https://www.nieuwsblad.be/cnt/dmf20180302_03386239.

Field, A. P. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (4th ed.). London: SAGE.

Fournier, S. (1998). Consumers and Their Brands: Developing Relationship Theory in Consumer Research. Journal of Consumer Research, 24, 343–73.

Galambos, N., Almeida, D., & Petersen, A. (1990). Masculinity, femininity, and sex role attitudes in early adolescence: Exploring gender intensification. Child Development, 61(6), 1904 –1914.

García-de-Frutos, N., Ortega-Egea, J.M., & Martínez-del-Río, J. (2016). Anti-consumption for Environmental sustainability: Conceptualization, Review, and Multilevel Research Directions. Journal of Business Ethics, 1-25.

Gherardi, S. (1995). Gender, symbolism and organizational cultures. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Grohmann, B. (2009), Gender dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing

Research, 46(1), 105-119.

Harris, A. C. (1994). Ethnicity as a determinant of sex role identity: A replication study of item selection for the Bem Sex Role Inventory. Sex Roles, 31, 241-273.

Hofstede G. (1984). Cultural dimensions in management and planning. Asia Pacific Journal

of Management, 81-99.

Howard-Grenville, J., Buckle, S. J., Hoskins, B. J., & George, G. (2014). Climate change and management. Academy of Management Journal, 57, 615–623.

Jackson, T. (2005). Motivating Sustainable Consumption: A Review of Evidence on

Consumer Behaviour and Behavioural Change. Sustainable Development Research Network. Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39, 31–36.

Keller, K.L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity.

Journal of Marketing, 57, 1-22.

Lieven, T., Grohmann, B., Herrmann, A., Landwehr, J. R. & van Tilburg, M. (2014). The Effect of Brand Gender on Brand Equity. Psychology & Marketing, 31(5), 371-385. Lieven, T., Grohmann, B., Herrmann, A., Landwehr, J. R. & van Tilburg, M. (2015). The effect of brand design on brand gender perceptions and brand preference. European Journal

of Marketing, 49(1/2), 146–169.

Maass, A., Cadinu, M., Guarnieri, G., & Grasselli, A. (2003), Sexual Harassment Under Social Identity Threat: The Computer Harassment Paradigm. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 85(5), 853–870.

(32)

32 Nam, K. C., Jo, C., & Lee, M. (2010). Meat products and consumption culture in the East.

Meat Science, 86(1), 95–102.

Neale, L., Robbie, R., & Martin, B. (2015). Gender identity and brand incongruence: when in doubt, pursue masculinity. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 24(5), 347-359.

Nunnally, J.C. (1978). Psychometric Theory (2 ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.

OECD/Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2014). Agricultural

Outlook 2014. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/agr_outlook-2014-en.

Palan, K.M. (2001). Gender identity in consumer behavior research: A literature review and research agenda. Academy of Marketing Science Review, 6(2), 1–25.

Park, C.S., & Srinivasan, V.S. (1994). A survey-based method for measuring and

understanding brand equity and its extendibility. Journal of Marketing Research, 31, 271-288. Peattie, K., & Peattie, S. (2009). Social marketing: A pathway to consumption reduction?

Journal of Business Research, 62, 260–268.

Peloza, J., & Shang, J. (2011). How can corporate social responsibility activities create value for stakeholders? A systematic review. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(1), 117-135.

Plummer, J.T. (1985). Brand personality: A Strategic Concept For Multinational Advertising,

Marketing Educators’ Conference, 1-31.

Pracejus, J.W., & Olsen G.D. (2004), The Role of Brand/Cause Fit in the Effectiveness of Cause-Related Marketing Campaigns. Journal of Business Research, 57(6), 635-640. Quillian, L. (1995), Prejudice as a Response to Perceived Group Threat: Population Composition and Anti-immigrant and Racial Prejudice in Europe. American Sociological

Review, 60(4), 586–611.

Reich, B. J., & Soule, C. A. A. (2016). Green Demarketing in Advertisements: Comparing “Buy Green” and “Buy Less” Appeals in Product and Institutional Advertising Contexts,

Journal of Advertising, 45(4), 441-458.

Rogers, R. (2008). Beasts, burgers, and hummers: Meat and the crisis of masculinity in contemporary television advertisements. Environmental Communication, 2(3), 281–301. Rothgerber, H. (2013). Real men don’t eat (vegetable) quiche: Masculinity and the justification of meat consumption. Psychology Of Men & Masculinity, 14(4), 363-375. Ruby, M. B., & Heine, S. (2011). Meats, morals and masculinity. Appetite, 56, 447– 450. Sans, P., & Combris, P. (2015). World meat consumption patterns: An overview of the last fifty years (1961–2011). Meat Science, 109, 106–111.

Schmitt, M. T., & Branscombe, N.R. (2001), The Good, the Bad, and the Manly: Threats to One’s Prototypicality and Evaluations of Fellow In-group Members. Journal of Experimental

(33)

33 Schrock, D., & Schwalbe, M. (2009). Men, Masculinity, and Manhood Acts. Annual Review

of Sociology, 35, 277-95.

Shaftel, H. (2018). Climate change: Scientific consensus: Earth's climate is warming. Retrieved from https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/.

Shaw, D., & Moraes, C. (2009). Voluntary simplicity: An exploration of market interactions.

International Journal of Consumer Studies, 33(2), 215–223.

Sirgy, M. J. (1982). Self-Concept in Consumer Behavior. Journal of Consumer Research,

9(3), 287–300.

Sobal, J. (2005). Men, meat, and marriage: Models of masculinity. Food and Foodways,

13(1), 135–158.

Stern, B. (1988). Sex role self-concept measures and marketing: A research note. Psychology

and Marketing, 5(1), 85–99.

Stichting Nationale Week Zonder Vlees (SNWZV). (2018). Wie zijn we. Retrieved from

https://weekzondervlees.nl/wie-zijn-we/.

Ulrich, I. (2013). The effect of consumer multifactorial gender and biological sex on the evaluation of cross-Gender brand extensions. Psychology and marketing. 30(9), 794-810. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change/UNFCCC. (2015). The Paris

Agreement. Retrieved from http://unfccc.int/paris_agreement/items/9485.php.

Van der Aa, E., & Nieuwenhuis, M. (2018, June 30) Kabinet wil plastic-deal: ban op rietjes, bestek en borden. Algemeen dagblad. Retrieved from https://www.ad.nl/home/kabinet-wil-plastic-deal-ban-op-rietjes-bestek-en-borden~a10f345d/.

Vandello, J. A., Bosson, J. K., Cohen, D., Burnaford, R. M., & Weaver, J. R. (2008). Precarious manhood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(6), 1325-1339. Veghel. (2017). Jumbo introduceert Jumbo Veggie Chef. Retrieved from

https://nieuws.jumbo.com/persbericht/jumbo-introduceert-jumbo-veggie-chef/264/.

Wakker Dier. (2018). Onze missie: De droom van Wakker Dier: visie en missie. Retrieved from https://www.wakkerdier.nl/verantwoord-eten/boodschappen/vlees/.

West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1987). Doing gender. Gender and Society, 1, 125–151. Westhoek, H., Lesschen, J.P., Rood, T., Wagner, S., de Marco, A., Murphy-Bokern, D., Leip, A., van Grinsven, H., Sutton, M.A., & Oenema, O. (2014). Food choices, health and

environment: effects of cutting Europe’s meat and dairy intake. Global Environmental

Change, 26, 196–205.

Wetherell, M., & Edley, N. (1999). Negotiating hegemonic masculinity: Imaginary positions and psycho-discursive practices. Feminism and Psychology, 9, 335–356.

(34)

34

Appendices

Appendix A. Survey

Q1 Dear participant,

Thank you for filling out this questionnaire. This survey is part of my Master thesis at the University of Groningen. Participation in this study is completely voluntary and you are allowed to stop at any time. Please note that participation in this study is completely anonymous and that all responses will be handled confidentially. Therefore, I kindly ask you to answer all questions to the best of your ability and as honest as possible.

The survey consists of two studies. For the first study you are asked to answer some questions about yourself to test the validity of a scale for the study. For the second study, you will answer some questions about an advertisement.

The survey takes approximately 10 minutes to complete, and your help is greatly appreciated.

Q2 What is your age? (in numbers)

________________________________________________________________

Q3 Please select your sex

o Male

o Female

(35)

35 Q4 What is your highest or current education?

o No education

o Primary school

o High school

o MBO

o University of Applied Sciences (In Dutch "HBO")

o University

o Other, namely ________________________________________________

Q5 Please rate your own level of English

Very bad _o _o _o _o _o _o _o Very

good

Q6

How many days per week do you eat meat with your main meal?

o 0-1

o 2-3

o 4-5

(36)

36 Q7 Below you can find five statements about the environment. Please choose the option that suits you best.

1 = completely disagree 7 = completely agree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset o o o o o o o When humans interfere with nature it often produces disastrous consequences o o o o o o o Humans are severely abusing the environment o o o o o o o The so-called ecological crisis facing humankind has been greatly exaggerated o o o o o o o If things continue on their present course, we will soon experience a major ecological catastrophe o o o o o o o

Q8 Study 1 will begin on the next page.

(37)

37 The gender identity survey given to participants is shown below (see Bem 1974).

Q9 Please answer the questions that follow as well as you can. Do not skip questions. If you are unsure of an answer, please give the answer that seems best to you.For every item, the following scale is applicable:

Never or Almost Never True 1-2-3-4-5-6-7 Always or Almost Always True

After filling out the survey, they will receive their scores, their scores will look like this:

(38)

38 The not threatening score

Q12 On the next page, study 2 will begin.

Q13 The supermarket Mercator wants to use this advertisement in their upcoming campaigns. Please take a close look at it, you will be asked questions about it on the next page.

(39)

39 The anti-consumption message

Q17 Please indicate which items you think are best suited for the supermarket Mercator

1 = strongly disagree 7 = strongly agree

(40)

40 Q18 Below you can find six statements about the supermarket Mercator. Please choose the option that suits you best.

1 = strongly disagree 7 = strongly agree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I would prefer this supermarket to comparable others o o o o o o o I could well imagine buying from this supermarket o o o o o o o I would recommend this supermarket to my friends o o o o o o o I am positive about this supermarket o o o o o o o I like this supermarket o o o o o o o This is an attractive supermarket o o o o o o o

Q19 Please describe your overall feelings about the brand (Mercator) described in the advertisement you just read.

The effect of an anti-consumption message on brand perception

The effect of an anti-consumption message on brand

perception

The effect of an anti-consumption message on brand perception

Table of contents

1. Introduction

2. Theoretical framework

3. Methodology

4. Results

5. Discussion

References

Appendices