The Effects of Materialism, Brand Image, and Ad Appeal Type
on Ad-Based Persuasion
Ronald James Bernard*
[December 2009]
* Ronald Bernard is an undergraduate student in the College of Business Administration Honors
Program at California State University, Long Beach, CA 90840. This manuscript serves to fulfill his
Honors Thesis requirement. Address correspondence to Ronald Bernard: rbernard7@hotmail.com.
Ad-Based Persuasion
i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would first like to thank Dr. Pamela Miles Homer for her patience and guidance through
this process. Without her knowledge, help, and encouragement I would not have been able to
complete this task. Second, I would like to thank all of the professors who allowed me the
opportunity to use their classes as subjects for my research. Third, thank you to all of my friends
for lending their support throughout this task. And finally, I would like to thank my parents.
Without their continued support in all aspects of my life, I would never have had the opportunity
to do this or the many other valuable experiences that they made possible.
Ad-Based Persuasion
1
The Effects of Materialism, Brand Image, and Ad Appeal Type on
Ad-Based Persuasion
ABSTRACT
Ad-based persuasion is dependent on many elements, some are unique to individual
consumers and others are ad-related. Materialism has grown in popularity within the field of
consumer research, but empirical evidence of its relationship to consumption is limited. This
study focuses on the relationships among materialism, brand image, and ad appeal type, with
special focus on a three-way "match-up". Contrary to predictions, interactions among the three
variables are insignificant. However, there is directional support for the notion (match-up) that
materialists prefer the status-theme ad for the high-image/status brand. In addition, brand image
interacts with two measured individual difference characteristics, susceptibility to normative
influence (SNI) and self-brand connection (SBC) to varying degrees. Theoretical and managerial
implications are offered.
Ad-Based Persuasion
2
INTRODUCTION
The emphasis placed on the possession and consumption of material goods as a signal of
one’s status and success in life has given rise to a trend of materialism (Fitzmaurice and
Comegys 2006). [Richins and Dawson's (1992) definition of materialism is adopted here: i.e., “a
mind-set or constellation of attitudes regarding the relative importance of acquisition and
possession of objects in one’s life” (p. 307).] In addition, much of the US consumption-based
economy emphasizes having the newest and the best goods available (Richins and Dawson
1992). For example, US national advertisers’ media expenditures exceeded $279B in 2007
(Advertising Age; June 23, 2008), much of which was spent on ads that focus on coveting others'
possessions (cf. ABC Nightline; October 2, 2009). The amount spent to market "luxury" goods
has also exploded and many major brands and retailers have jumped on the "Luxury for the
Masses" or "Mass Gone Class" bandwagon: e.g., Banana Republic's Guittard premium
chocolates, BMW's 1-Series (MSRP starting at $29,000), and Ralph Lauren's Lauren line of
clothing. Furthermore, the Luxury Consumption Index, which measures consumer luxury
spending for each quarter, rose to an all-time high of 104.8 in 2005 with consumers spending an
average of $14,534 per quarter (Business Wire 2006). With this attraction to possessions, it is not
surprising that the topic of materialism has grown in popularity within the field of consumer
research (e.g., Belk 1985; Richins and Dawson 1992; Burroughs and Rindfleisch 2002; Richins
2004; Fitzmaurice and Comegys 2006). Although research on the topic has grown in recent
decades, empirical evidence of materialism’s relationship to consumption and related factors,
like brand image and ad appeal strategy, is limited.
Brand image is generally regarded as all the associations that consumers connect to a brand
(e.g., Batra and Homer 2004). Companies use brand image to gain differentiation from
competition allowing them to create brand equity and, thus, benefit from the materialistic,
Ad-Based Persuasion
3
consumption-oriented United States economy. McCracken (1986) conceptualizes brand image as
it relates to meaning transfer and celebrity endorsement, and shows that consumers can express
their individuality and personality through brand selection. The current study looks to enhance
understanding of brand image and its relationship to ad appeal type and materialism. Along with
the importance of self-expression and individuality, brand image is critical as products are often
used to create and express one's actual and ideal self concepts, including connecting one's self to
others (Escalas 2004). The creation and preservation of brand image is done via avenues such as
advertising, celebrity endorsement, product placement, etc.
Materialistic persons seek products that show the success and status they wish to be observed
by others and themselves (Richins et al. 1992). With that said, advertising strategy generally
involves framing certain positive product attributes that allow differentiation from the plethora of
competitors (e.g., Kahneman and Tversky 1979). Evidence abounds in the large body of unique
advertisements seen across all media including television, the Internet, billboards, magazines,
and newspapers. Marketers have used various types of ad appeals (e.g., humor, sex, fantasy,
romance; Huang 2004) in an attempt to differentiate their products via critical attributes and,
ultimately, to persuade consumers. The "Matching Hypothesis" argues that using an ad appeal
that is congruent with a brand's image and the values and status gained by consumers from the
product maximizes potential (cf. Kahle and Homer 1985).
This experimental study aims to investigate the relationships among materialism, brand
image, and ad appeal type; and to test their effects on ad-based persuasion. In addition, the
moderating impact of Self-Brand Connection (SBC; e.g., Escalas and Bettman 2003) and
Susceptibility to Normative Influence (SNI; e.g., Bearden, Netemeyer, and Teel 1989) is
explored.
Ad-Based Persuasion
4
BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE REVIEW
Materialism
Throughout the twentieth century, materialism and its other conjugations (e.g., materialistic,
symbolic, status-oriented, etc.) have been used as descriptors of American culture, often without
a clear and precise understanding of its conceptualization. Researchers have offered various
perspectives of what the term encompasses: e.g., Belk (1985) associates materialism with
personality traits. More recently, materialism is conceptualized as a value (cf. Rokeach 1973)
that can be further decomposed into possession values (Richins et al. 1992; Alden, Steenkamp,
and Batra 2006) and personal values (Schwartz 1992; Burroughs and Rindfleisch 2002).
[Rokeach defines a value as “an enduring belief that a specific mode of conduct or end-state of
existence is personally or socially preferable to an opposite or converse mode of conduct or endstate of existence” (p. 5).]
Others target motivations of acquisition as a major focus (e.g., Eastman, Goldsmith, and
Flynn 1999; Fitzmaurice and Comegys 2006). Eastman et al. (1999) focus on status
consumption, or the acquisition of goods based on the status the goods provide for the purchaser.
The authors conceptualize and develop an instrument to measure status consumption (an internal
motivating force), and show that it is positively related to, but distinct from, materialism.
Fitzmaurice et al. (2006) also examine the relationship between materialism and social
consumption, but include leadership opinion, the amount of time spent on shopping, and
spending. Conclusions support the authors' hypotheses that materialism positively correlates with
those four factors. Materialism is also linked to a variety of other factors, including existential
insecurity and brand connection (Rindfleisch, Burroughs, and Wong 2009), family structure
(Roberts, Tanner, and Manolis 2005), and competitiveness (Mowen 2004). In addition to the
Ad-Based Persuasion
5
above empirical evidence, many take a methodological approach, developing reliable
measurement instruments (e.g., Belk 1985; Schwartz 1992; Richins and Dawson 1992).
As noted above, materialistic purchases are based heavily on the connections formed
between the brand and the individual and the perceived status that is gained through the
acquisition of certain goods. Thus, brand image is typically an important consumption criterion
for materialists.
Brand Image
Brands attempt to differentiate themselves from competitors via a variety of techniques (e.g.,
the use of high-quality materials, insuring customer satisfaction, using unique and catchy names;
Aaker 1997). One method to distinguish a brand from others is to create a favorable brand
image. [Brand image is here defined as perceptions about a brand as reflected by the brand
associations held in consumer memory (Keller 1993).] Furthermore, Kahle and Homer (1985)
suggest that brand image pertains to endorsers’ congruency as well as their qualities and effects
on persuasion. Brand image is consequently used as a means to connect with consumers and to
create brand equity [defined from the consumer’s perspective as “the brand attitude based on
beliefs about positive product attributes and favorable consequences of brand use” (Peter and
Olson 2005, p. 546)].
This process by which the connection between a consumer and brand develops can be
explained by McCracken’s (1997) meaning transfer model. McCracken argues that advertising,
along with other factors, can be used to convey cultural meaning from the culturally constituted
world to the consumer goods and then from the consumer goods to the individual consumer. In
this sense, the brand is actually used as a method of expression of an individual’s identity to
his/her self and the rest of society, and in doing so can create brand loyalty. For example,
Ad-Based Persuasion
6
materialistic individuals seek out the acquisition of brands that convey a certain type of cultural
meaning, i.e., those that symbolize status and success (Richins et al. 1992). More recently, Aaker
(1999) finds that personality aspects specific to the brand only have an impact on a consumer’s
brand preference if those personality traits are both descriptive of and important to that
consumer’s sense of personality or self. These works hint at a match-up between the consumer
and the brands selected.
Various match-ups are explored in the literature: e.g., match-ups among an endorsers' image,
the product message, and the aspired-to self-image of the target audience (Kahle and Homer
1985; Kamins 1990; Misra and Beatty 1990). Early research (Kanungo and Pang 1973) finds that
consumer evaluations are favorable when there is a fittingness between the product and the
model in the advertisement due to the existence of attitudinal and perceptual congruence. Kahle
and Homer (1985) propose that consumers are more apt to be attracted to and purchase those
brands whose advertisements and brand image appeal match their perceived image of
themselves. Misra and Beatty (1990) empirically test the match-up between brand and
spokesperson finding that a match-up enhances recall, brand affect, and affect transfer. Till and
Busler (1998) find similar results with respect to celebrities: i.e., that effective advertisements
properly match a celebrity to the brand’s image. Lynch and Schuler (1994) utilize schema theory
to suggest that a change in spokesperson and product schemas can result from the characteristics
of the endorser and the attributes of the product “matching-up.” The authors argue that this
occurs via the transfer of schema between the endorser and the product, consistent with the idea
that the proper fit (match-up) creates informational references between the two. This is further
evidence that congruency between product/brand image and the endorser can transfer desired
meaning to a product.
Ad-Based Persuasion
7
Others examine contingency and situational factors that influence the match-up between
spokesperson and product. For example, Friedman and Friedman (1979) find that the
effectiveness of the spokesperson is dependent on the situation. Their findings suggest that
celebrities should be used in instances where brand name and advertisement recall are most
desirable or the major risk inherent in the purchase of a product is social and/or psychological.
On the other hand, experts should be used for a complex product high only in financial,
performance, and/or physical risk and typical-consumer endorsers should be used for products
with little inherent risk (p. 71). Consistently, Kamins (1990) demonstrates that the endorser
attractiveness/product match-up operates specifically in situations regarded as ‘attractivenessrelated': i.e., an attractive endorser does not enhance ad/brand judgments for an attractivenessunrelated product. Recently, Biswas, Biswas, and Das (2006) find that with certain types of
products (e.g., technology), celebrity endorsement is ineffective because consumers’ need expert
opinions in these situations. This suggests that an improper match-up between the spokesperson
and the product can prove to be a waste of resources and ineffective. The above studied matchups resemble the congruence between consumer image and brand image tested here. Thus:
H1: Consumers favor brands with brand images that match their own personality.
Ad Appeal Type
Materialism’s reach spans across many fields and disciplines: e.g., advertising, consumer
behavior, communication, and social psychology. Materialistic persons use objects to
communicate their self-worth to others and themselves (Liao and Weng 2009). Marketers use
various appeal formats as a way of framing sought after positive attributes that the consumer
wishes to be made known to others. This framing of product attributes, or showing brand
individuality and differentiation, involves identifying a brand's image or another quality and
using it as the focus of an ad campaign. Kahneman and Tversky (1979) are among the first to
Ad-Based Persuasion
8
examine this process and promotional strategy. The use of framing usually takes the form of goal
framing, in which emphasis is placed either on the benefits gained from or the problems avoided
by the use of a particular product. These attributes influence attention and attitude towards a
brand, and are obviously enhanced by visibility and prominence (Gardener 1983). Researchers
also examine the effects of ad appeal format by including the use of celebrity endorsement and
their effects on brand image beliefs to find evidence that ads can transfer cultural meaning (cf.
McCracken 1986) from ad characteristics to the brand (Batra and Homer 2004).
The literature distinguishes and explores various types of ad appeals: e.g., materialistic and
status (Belk and Pollay 1985; Netemeyer, Burton, and Lichtenstein 1995); collectivist/
individualistic, functional (Resnik and Sterns 1977); sexually-oriented (Huang 2004; Bello, Pitts,
and Etzel 1983); symbolic, utilitarian, fear, value-expressive (Lepkowska-White, Brashear, and
Weinberger 2003); emotional versus informational (e.g., Stout, Homer, and Lui 1990); and
second- versus third-person (Chang 2005). In addition, the effectiveness of various formats is
tested by both academics and practitioners: e.g., humorous appeals (Cline, Altsech, and Kellaris
2003; Madden and Weinberger 1984; Weinberger and Gulas 1992; Spotts, Weinberger, and
Parsons 1997; Yong and Zinkhan 2006), comparative appeals (e.g., Chang 2007; Belch 1981),
guilt appeals (e.g., Huhmann and Brotherton 1997), and emotional appeals (Biswas, Olsen, and
Carlet 1992; Moore and Harris 1996). Status/affluent/materialistic types of appeals are the focus
here.
Belk and Pollay (1985) study advertisements’ depiction of life in the United States from 1900
to 1980 via a content analysis of major US magazines. The authors argue that over time, thematic
portions of the advertisements focus more on the “good life,” defined “in terms of increasing
abundance, luxury, and leisure”
(p. 888). This conclusion is based on the increase in ad appeals
Ad-Based Persuasion
9
focusing on terminal materialism, where the product is bought just to be a visible possession and
to gain the status associated with the acquisition of such a good rather than for its usefulness and
function. More recently, Netemeyer et al. (1995) provide evidence that achievement vanity is a
major focus when creating advertisements. Common sense suggests that materialistic individuals
may be attracted to these types of ad appeals. Based on the above discussions, I propose a brand
image/consumer/ad appeal type match-up:
H2: Materialistic consumers favor high status brands advertised via materialistic/status
appeals.
H3: Less materialistic consumers favor non-status brands advertised via nonmaterialistic/utilitarian appeals.
Moderators
Individual difference characteristics may moderate the relative effects of brand image and ad
appeal type proposed above. It is natural to expect that some personal characteristics and traits
may influence consumer's reactions to an ad and/or brand. For example, certain types of
individuals show an increased vulnerability to promotional forms of persuasion (e.g., Bearden,
Netemeyer, and Teel 1989).
Susceptibility to Normative Influence (SNI). Others’ opinions can play an important role in
the behavior of individuals (McCracken 1997). Early studies treat consumers’ susceptibility to
interpersonal influence as a general uni-dimensional construct. Deutsch and Gerard (1955) later
distinguish informational and normative dimensions, where informational social influence is
defined as “an influence to accept information obtained from another as evidence about reality”
and normative social influence is defined as “an influence to conform with the positive
expectations of others” (p. 1). Although not relevant to this research, the latter dimension has
since been divided into two categories (Bearden and Etzel 1982). The first, value expressive
Ad-Based Persuasion
10
influence, reflects yearning to better one's self-image through the association with a reference
group(s). Utilitarian influence reflects conforming to the wishes of others in an attempt to receive
awards or avoid punishment.
In a review of the literature, McGuire (1968) concludes that susceptibility to interpersonal
influence varies by person and that a person’s influenceability in a given situation has a
significant positive relationship with their influenceability in other situations. In addition, Janis
(1954) and Cox and Bauer (1989) show that those low in self-esteem tend to adhere to the
suggestions of others, with the latter suggesting these actions are an attempt to avoid social
disapproval. Batra, Homer, and Kahle (2001) find that those consumers higher in SNI are more
likely to purchase products with visible benefits searching for respect and a sense of belonging,
hence, SNI’s inherent relationship with materialism. Additional research examines SNI and its
effects on self-presentation, concluding that consumers with higher SNI have a tendency to avoid
undesired self-representation in an attempt to avoid disapproval (Wooten and Reed 2004). These
results suggest that SNI may influence consumption and thus, the above predicted
materialism/brand image/ad appeal type match-up. Specifically:
H4: Materialistic consumers who are more vulnerable to normative influence (show higher
SNI) favor status products advertised with materialistic ad appeals.
Self-Brand Connection (SBC). The connection between a product and consumers exists
because the product represents desired self-images that can be shown to others as well as
themselves. This connection, or match, between the product and consumer incorporates one
component of the above predicted three-way product/consumer/ad match-up. Past research
concludes that possessions can satisfy psychological needs within the self and as the self grows,
psychological needs change, and so do the possessions that satisfy them (e.g., Ball and Tasaki
Ad-Based Persuasion
11
1992). Also, if there is such thing as a core-self, as it becomes more prominent and well-defined
with maturity, there should be less attachment to possessions (Ball and Tasaki 1992; Belk 1988).
Others offer multiple conceptual perspectives, including relationship theory (e.g., Fournier
1998) and attachment theory (e.g., Thomson, MacInnis, and Park 1996). Fournier (1998)
investigates the validity of consumer-brand relationships, provides a framework for the
understanding of consumer/brand relationships, and presents a method of calculating brand
relationship quality. Thomson et al. (1996) take a measurement approach and construct a scale
measuring the strength of consumers’ emotional attachment to brands based on the generally
accepted notion that consumers become emotionally attached to products.
Empirical and theoretical research also link SBC to a variety of factors. For example,
Rindfleisch et al. (2009) explore relationships between materialism, existential insecurity, and
brand connection via a Terror Management framework. The authors suggest that SBC (as well as
communal-brand connection) provides an avenue for materialists to cope with death anxiety.
Escalas (2004) links ads eliciting increased narrative processing with enhanced SBC. Recently,
Moore and Homer (2008) link SBC to brand evaluations and attitude strength. With this, I
propose that:
H5: Higher SBC enhances product-related judgments, especially when there is a
"materialistic consumer/materialistic appeal/status brand image" match-up.
METHODOLOGY
Design and Manipulations
Four stimulus ads are created for this 2 (brand image; Lee Jeans/True Religion) x 2 (ad
appeal type; materialistic/utilitarian) x 2 (materialism; low/high) between-subjects design (see
Table 1). Brand image and ad appeal type are manipulated factors, and materialism is a measured
Ad-Based Persuasion
12
factor divided into high and low groups (median split). Materialism is measured via the short
form of Richins and Dawson’s Material Values Scale (MVS; Richins and Dawson 1992).
[Insert Table 1 about here.]
Each ad features the same picture of a female model with two manipulations: (1) the brand
name is True Religion or Lee Jeans (brand image) and (2) the headline and body copy is either
materialistic or utilitarian (ad appeal type). To manipulate brand image, the two brands of jeans
are chosen to represent opposite ends of the jean spectrum; one represents a high-end, expensive
brand (True Religion) and the other represents a low-end, cheaper brand (Lee Jeans). The
headline and copy for each advertisement are similar in length, and are designed to differ only in
terms of ad appeal type. The materialistic advertisement reads “Glamour and Status to Die For”
and “These slim-cut, dark denim jeans are perfect for any hotspot with the look to impress
everyone in your life.” In contrast, the headline and copy for the utilitarian advertisement reads
“Quality and Comfort You Can Count On” and “These quality, dark denim jeans have a
comfortable fit with the durability to handle daily life.” The brand name, True Religion or Lee
Jeans, appears only with-in the copy. Official brand logos are purposefully missing.
Pretest of Manipulations
A pretest was designed to confirm that the copy and brand image manipulations are
effective: i.e., to determine that subjects (Ss) perceived that the ad copy is materialistic or nonmaterialistic and that the brands have low or high materialistic/status images. [Pretest subjects
are from the same general population as the main experiment sample (described below).] After
viewing one of the test ads, participants were asked to write down all claims in the advertisement
and to describe the ad message. Participants also rated the advertised brand and ad via a number
of perception and descriptive characteristic scales. As desired, those exposed to the materialistic
Ad-Based Persuasion
13
appeal elicited more materialistic associations (M=1.74) than those who saw the nonmaterialistic appeal (M=0.56; F(1,33)=16.88, p<.001), while the non-materialistic appeal
induced more non-materialistic/utilitarian associations (M=1.89) than the materialistic appeal
(M=0.16; F(1,33)=31.71, p<.001). In addition, True Religion is perceived as more classy
(Ms=6.85 vs. 4.43; F(1,33)=13.12, p=.001), with a higher image (Ms=7.31 vs. 5.65;
F(1,33)=7.20, p=.01), and Lees Jeans are seen as a greater value (Ms=5.39 vs. 3.25;
F(1,33)=8.55, p<.01). Lastly, as desired, there are no main or interaction effects for ad
credibility, familiarity, and ad clarity. The above findings support that the manipulations behave
as intended, and that the test ads are appropriate for the main experiment.
Subjects and Procedure
The primary sample consists of 250 undergraduate students from the College of Business
Administration at the California State University, Long Beach (males = 58.8% of the sample;
median age = 22). A few participants who provided incomplete or inconsistent data are removed
from the analysis (N= 6). Analysis of the research purpose question shows no evidence that
participants recognized the underlying purpose of the experiment.
All sessions were administered in a classroom setting -- participants were randomly assigned
to treatments. Each subject was first asked to read the instruction page, including the cover story
(i.e., "this is a study about advertising"), attached to the outside of an envelope. After finishing
that task, the subjects reviewed one of four advertisements, each of which contains the
experimental manipulations, timed for thirty seconds. After the allotted time, the subjects put the
advertisement back into the envelope, pulled out the questionnaire, and completed the
questionnaire (self-paced) containing the dependent measures.
Ad-Based Persuasion
14
Measures
Multiple item construct scales are used to measure purchase intent (“not likely to buy
them/very likely to buy them”, “would certainly not buy them/would certainly buy them”; α=.94)
and overall attitude towards the product ("negative/positive", “unfavorable/favorable”,
“dislike/like a lot”; α=.97). [Note: All measures use a 9-point scale format, unless otherwise
noted.] Brand beliefs are reduced to capture quality (“are well-made”, “are well-designed”, “are
reliable”, “are dependable”, “are durable”, “are comfortable”, “are high quality”; α=.92), value
(“are economical”, “are reasonably priced”, “are a good value for the money”; α=.78), and image
(“have a good ‘image’”, “are attractive”, “are special”, “have high status”, “are sophisticated”,
“are fashionable”, “are stylish”, “are ‘hip/cool’”, and “are sexy"; α=.94), all with “Not at all
descriptive” and “Very descriptive” endpoints. Brand personality is assessed using the short
version of Aaker's (1997) scale, adapted for a 9-point format to measure excitement (“daring”,
“spirited”, “imaginative”, “up-to-date”, “‘cool’ (trendy)”, “exciting”; α=.84), competence
(“reliable”, “intelligent”, “successful”; α=.62), sophistication (“glamorous”, “charming”, “upperclass”; α=.76), ruggedness (“tough” and “outdoorsy”; Spearman Brown reliability
coefficient=.73), and sincerity (“down-to-earth”, “honest”, “wholesome”, “cheerful”; α=.80).
Fourteen bi-polar scales capture overall impressions of the advertisement: Aad (“negative/
positive”, “unfavorable/favorable”, “dislike/like a lot”; α=.91), creativity (“not creative/creative”,
“not professional/professional”, “low quality/quality”; α=.75), understandability (“hard to
understand/easy to understand” and “not clear/clear”; Spearman Brown reliability
coefficient=.92), informativeness (“not informative/informative”), credibility ( “not
believable/believable”, “not credible/credible”; Spearman Brown reliability coefficient=.65), and
materialistic appeal (“not an ‘image’ appeal/an ‘image’ appeal”, “non-materialistic/
materialistic”, and “not a status appeal/a status appeal”; α=.81).
Ad-Based Persuasion
15
The short form Material Values Scale (Richins 2004; Richins and Dawson 1992) is used to
create an interval scale of materialism and to divide participants into low versus high materialism
groups (e.g., “I admire people who own expensive homes, cars, and clothes”; “I like to own
things that impress people”; “I like a lot of luxury in my life”; 9 items; α=.85). Afterward, the
Self-Brand Connection instrument (Escalas 2004) is measured using a 7-point format (e.g.,
“[TR/Lees] Jeans reflect who I am”, “I can identify with [TR/Lees] Jeans”, “[TR/Lees] Jeans suit
me well”; α=.94). And finally, the Susceptibility to Normative Influence (SNI) instrument is
included (e.g., “If I want to be like someone I often try to buy the same brands that they buy”, “It
is important that others like the products and brands I buy”; α=.91; 9-items; Bearden et al.
1989)1, before the final page of manipulation checks and demographic items (e.g., age, gender).
[Note: Not all measured constructs described above are relevant to the hypotheses being tested
here. Thus, some are not discussed further.]
RESULTS
Manipulation Checks and Potential Covariates
As desired, those exposed to the True Religion advertisement rate the brand as being more
exciting (F(1,241)=17.56, p<.001, MTR=6.04) and more sophisticated (F(1,241)=38.68, p<.001,
MTR=6.70) compared to those exposed to the Lee Jeans advertisement (MLEE=5.21 and
MLEE=5.32 for excitement and sophistication, respectively). In addition, those exposed to the Lee
Jeans advertisement rate the brand higher in ruggedness than True Religion (F(1,241)=5.30,
p<.022, MLEE=5.06 vs. MTR=4.39). True Religion jeans are also rated as more high image
(F(1,241)=54.78, p<.001; MTR=7.32 and MLEE=5.57). As desired, the "materialistic" ad appeal is
judged as more materialistic (F(1,241)=18.54, p<.001, MMat=6.96 and MNon=5.87) and as an
1
Bearden et al.'s (1989) SNI instrument measures normative influence (combined expressive and
utilitarian) and informational influence. The current study focuses on normative influence only.
Ad-Based Persuasion
16
"image" appeal (F(1,241)=14.56, p<.001, MTR=6.90 and MLEE=5.93). [Note that the ad-related
mean differences are smaller than expected and that all means exceed the scale mid-point.]
No effects emerge for ad understandability or ad credibility, as desired. However, subjects
favor the non-materialistic ad (Aad; F(1,241)=7.48, p<.01; MMat= 5.96 and MNon=6.58), and the
non-materialistic ad is also judged to be more informative (F(1,241)=11.10, p<.001; MMat=4.64
and MNon=5.50). Similar materialism main effects emerge for product familiarity
(F(1,241)=3.62, p=.058; MMat=7.14 versus MNon=6.60), product knowledge (F(1,241)=7.84,
p<.01; MMat=5.64 versus MNon=5.15), and subjects' self-reported involvement and interest
(F(1,241)=6.75, p=.010; MMat=6.33 and MNon=5.67). These noted effects are not of concern as
they are likely due to the topic and specific ad tested. More importantly, when these constructs
(familiarity, knowledge, informativeness, and involvement/interest) are included as covariates in
tests of H1-H3, they have no measurable impact on model estimates and thus, are not discussed
further. In summary, overall, the brand image and ad appeal type manipulations behave as
intended, with few undesired results. [See Table 2 for result summaries.]
[Insert Table 2 about here.]
Hypothesis Tests
In order to account for pre-existing differences in SNI and SBC that may impact model
estimates, both are included as covariates in tests of H1-H3. Also, SNI is used as an independent
variable in H4 tests and SBC as an independent variable in H5 tests.
H1-H3. To test the impact of materialism, brand image, and ad appeal on overall brand
attitude and intent to purchase, ANCOVA models include the materialism split manipulation
dummy variable (where low is coded as “0”, high as “1”), brand image manipulation variable, ad
appeal manipulation variable, all the possible 2-way interactions among these three variables, the
Ad-Based Persuasion
17
3-way interaction term (i.e., materialism x brand image x ad appeal), and the two individual
difference SNI and SBC covariate variables. [ANCOVA results are summarized in Tables 3-A,
3-B, 3-C, and 3-D. Table 4 presents ANOVA results for comparison.]
[Insert Tables 3-A, 3-B, 3-C, 3-D, and 4 about here.]
The first hypothesis (H1) tests whether consumers favor brands with a brand image that
matches their own personality through an interaction between the materialism split dummy
variable and ad appeal type (see Table 3). Data from ANCOVA results for likelihood of purchase
and overall brand attitude are insignificant [(F(1,238)=.50, ns) and (F(1,238)=.001, ns)],
although examination of treatment means show that the materialistic consumers favor the high
image brand over the low image brand (Ms=4.48TR vs. 4.08L for purchase intent and Ms=6.13TR
vs. 5.87L for attitude). Means for the low materialism group do not behave as predicted
(Ms=4.71TR vs. 3.53L for purchase intent and Ms=6.08TR vs. 5.67L for attitude). Lastly, brand
image and the SBC covariate impact purchase intent (MTR=4.60 and MLEE= 3.81; F(1,238)=7.71,
p<.01 for brand image; and F(1,238)=33.55, p=.000 for SBC), and there is a direct effect on
attitude for the SBC covariate (F(1,238)=33.42, p=.000).
H2 suggests that materialistic consumers favor high-status brands advertised with
materialistic ad appeals, while H3 suggests that low materialistic consumers favor lower-status
brands advertised with non-materialistic/utilitarian appeals. These match-up hypotheses are
tested via the 3-way interaction among the materialism split dummy variable, brand image, and
ad appeal type. The ANCOVA results yield no significant effects for likelihood of purchase
(F(1,238)=.01, ns) and overall brand image (F(1,238)=.07, ns). Examination of overall brand
attitude means show that the materialistic/high-image/status-oriented brand (M=6.25) is rated
higher than the other three materialistic-related cells (Ms=6.00, 5.88, 5.86), thus providing
Ad-Based Persuasion
18
directional support for H2. On the other hand, intentions for the non-materialistic/lowimage/non-status brand (M=5.73) are not greater than the other three non-materialistic cells
(Ms=6.26, 5.89, 5.61). Comparison of purchase intent means also reveals that the
materialistic/high-image/status-oriented brand (M=4.64) is more favorable than the other three
materialistic-related cells (Ms=4.32, 4.10, 4.06), thus providing additional directional support for
H2. In comparison, the non-materialistic/low-image/non-status brand (M=3.34) is not more liked
than the other three comparative cells (Ms=5.10, 4.33, 3.72), contrary to H3. To review, the data
offers minimal support of H2 and no support of H3.
Moderating Effects: H4 and H5
The remaining two hypotheses measure the effects of the moderating variables (SNI and
SBC) on a consumer’s overall attitude and brand judgments towards the tested brands. To test
the role of these two moderators, ANOVA models include those independent variables listed
above to test H1-H3 with the addition of either the SNI dummy variable or the SBC dummy
variable (where low is coded as “0”, high as “1”). All analyses estimate all possible 2-way
interactions among the four variables, all possible 3-way interactions (e.g., materialism x brand
image x ad appeal), and the 4-way interaction term (materialism x brand image x ad appeal type
x moderator dummy).
Susceptibility to Normative Influence: H4 proposes that consumers higher in materialism
with higher levels of SNI favor status products advertised with materialistic ad appeals. This
hypothesis predicts a four-way interaction among materialism, brand image, ad appeal type, and
SNI. Data show that the materialism x brand image x ad appeal type x SNI interaction is
insignificant for both likelihood of purchase (F(1,233)=0.88, ns) and overall brand attitude
(F(1,233)=1.09, ns), inconsistent with H4. However, there is a significant interaction between
Ad-Based Persuasion
19
SNI and ad appeal type (F(1,233)=7.78, p<.01) for purchase intent. Contradictory to past
research, those higher in SNI show a slight (non-significant) tendency to purchase products
promoted with non-materialistic ad appeals (MMat=4.18 vs. MNon=4.57), and low SNI subjects
prefer products promoted with materialistic ad appeals (MMat=4.79 vs. MNon=3.41). In addition, a
main effect for brand image emerges for both likelihood of purchase (F(1,233)=10.49, p=.001;
MTR=4.75 vs. MLEE=3.72) and overall brand attitude (F(1,233)=5.50, p<.05; MTR=6.24 vs.
MLEE=5.69). The SNI main effect is also significant for overall brand attitude and behaves as
expected (F(1,233)=3.98, p<.05; MHigh=6.20 vs. MLow=5.73). In summary, tests of this
hypothesis show no statistical support. [See Table 5 and Table 7 for a summary of the ANOVA
effects.]
[Insert Table 5 and Table 7 about here.]
Self-Brand Connection: H5 proposes that higher levels of SBC enhance product-related
judgments when there is a “materialistic consumer/materialistic appeal/status brand image”
match-up. This hypothesis is tested using ANOVA to estimate the predicted interaction among
materialism, brand image, ad appeal type, and SBC). Results show no 4-way interaction effect
for likelihood of purchase (F(1,232)=0.02, ns), nor for overall brand attitude (F(1,232)=0.44, ns).
Although the results suggest no effect for the interaction of all four variables, SBC interacts with
ad appeal type for purchase intent (F(1,232)=4.14, p<.05). The results suggest that, contrary to
hypothesized outcomes, those lower in SBC prefer the materialistic versus non-materialistic ad
appeals (MMat=3.85 and MNon=2.95), and those higher in SBC show no preference for the
materialistic versus non-materialistic ad appeals (MMat=4.99 and MNon=5.22).
As expected, those higher in SBC are more likely to purchase (MHigh=5.10 vs. MLow=3.42;
F(1,232)=33.89, p=.000) the advertised products and like them more (MHigh=6.57 vs. MLow=5.33;
Ad-Based Persuasion
20
F(1,232)=33.47, p=.000) than low SBC individuals. In addition, findings reveal that brand image
affects likelihood to purchase (F(1,232)=8.48, p<.005; MTR=4.68 vs. MLEE=3.84) as well as
overall brand attitude (F(1,232)=4.42, p<.05; MTR=6.18 vs. MLEE=5.73), which provides further
evidence that brand image has power and value. Overall, findings show no support for H5.
[Results are summarized in Tables 6 and 8.]
[Insert Table 6 and Table 8 about here.]
Results Summary
In summary, data show no support for H1, with no significant effects other than SBC
affecting both likelihood of purchase and overall brand attitude as a covariate, and brand image
impacting likelihood of purchase. However, there is evidence of directional support for the high
materialism/high brand image predictions. No results statistically support the match-up predicted
in H2 or H3, although a comparison of cell means show that the materialistic/high brand image/
status ad appeal is more effective than the other three materialistic cells. Moreover, data show no
support that the likelihood of purchase or overall brand attitude are affected by the interactions
put forth in H4; although brand image affects both likelihood of purchase and overall brand
attitude, SNI affects brand attitude, and the interaction between SNI and ad appeal type affects
likelihood of purchase. While H5 is not supported statistically, SBC and brand image main
effects are visible for both purchase intent and overall brand attitude, and SBC and ad appeal
type interact to influence purchase intent. Overall, data show only weak support for the initial
hypotheses.
Ad-Based Persuasion
21
DISCUSSION
Broadly speaking, the intent of this study is to enhance understanding of what influences
consumers' product purchases. Specifically, it explores and tests a consumer/brand image/ad
appeal type match-up, consistent with that proposed by past research (e.g., Kahle and Homer,
1986; Kamins 1990). Further, I examine the moderating effects of SNI and SBC, with respect to
the predicted match-up.
This study (H1) investigates whether consumers favor brands (measured via purchase intent
and brand attitude) with images that are similar to their own self-images (as measured by
materialism). The predicted interaction between materialism and brand image is insignificant,
with both more and less materialistic consumers showing a preference for the high image brand.
Aaker (1999) notes that specific brand personality dimensions impact consumers’ brand
preferences only if the personality dimensions are descriptive of and important to the consumer
and their sense of self. Perhaps materialism lacked salience for the sampled consumers. The
current economic recession in the United States that has lead to a decrease in consumer spending,
especially on luxury goods, along with a less favorable view of both materialism and capitalism
(Varela 2009). Furthermore, one of the two ways self-schematic dimensions become accessible
is through temporary exposure to salient situational cues. I attempted to motivate a social
consumption environment (via verbal instructions), but perhaps that was ineffective at activating
materialistic characteristics.
H2 and H3 test a 3-way match-up: i.e., do materialistic consumers favor high status brands
advertised via materialistic appeals (H2), while low materialistic consumers favor lower status
brands advertised via non-materialistic appeals (H3)? Although no interactions are statistically
significant, directional support for H2 is visible. Consistent with past research that argues that
materialistic persons are inclined to purchase products based on the status that those acquisitions
Ad-Based Persuasion
22
provide (Eastman et al., 1999), materialistic subjects reacted most favorably to the materialistic
ad for the high status/high image brand. However, means for non-materialistic consumers (H3)
are not even directional. The reason for an absence of even directional support may be that those
low in materialism may select products based on their own views of the product itself without
attention given to the type of ad appeal, brand image, or others. Kamins (1990) finds that
attractiveness effects brand attitude only for those products where attractiveness is an important
attribute: i.e., attractiveness has no effect for products where attractiveness is not an important
attribute. This suggests that a materialistic appeal works best for status-driven products. The TR
brand appears to connote status, thus the directional support noted above. As a result, there may
be no reason to expect a match-up involving status (either brand image or ad-based) for less
materialistic consumers. Moreover, Lee jeans lack this status image and thus other, more salient
attributes (e.g., quality, material, cut, etc.) may have dominated processing, especially for nonmaterialists.
Meyer-Levy and Tybout's (1989) concept of product-category schema variations and their
importance to product evaluations may be adapted to explain why the predicted match-up for
non-materialists did not emerge. The authors provide evidence that those products mildly
incongruent with their associated category schemas elicit enhanced and more favorable
evaluations as opposed to those with complete congruence or extreme incongruence. This is
observed in part because of the more elaborative processing needed to resolve incongruity. The
higher rating for the high image brand by less materialistic consumers suggests an "incongruity
effect". This incongruence may be the result of the TR brand's image of trendy and stylish being
different from the consumer's perceived schema of jeans (e.g., relaxed attire). Materialists’
evaluations are best explained as a "match-up" as they favor the high image brand promoted via
Ad-Based Persuasion
23
an image ad appeal. These directional patterns resemble past research that consumers are more
apt to purchase products whose brand image appeal matches their own perceived image of
themselves (cf. Kahle and Homer 1985). I acknowledge that future research is needed to
determine the robustness of the incongruity and match-up effects.
McCracken’s (1986) “meaning transfer” model offers some insight as to why treatment
means do not behave as expected. Advertising is one of the three means by which meaning is
drawn from, and if an advertisement is not processed as intended, that avenue for meaning
transfer is lost. The ad appeal type manipulation may have been flawed. Although pretests
suggest that the verbal copy in each test ad represents the relevant ad appeal (materialistic/status
versus non-materialistic/utilitarian), and manipulation checks are as desired, treatment means
suggest that the two appeals may not be sufficiently distinct. [Recall that manipulation check
means for "high image appeal" exceed the scale mid-point for both low and high ad appeal type
levels.] In addition, the ad layout and dominant picture may have diverted subjects' attention
away from the ad copy: i.e., information processing may have been image-based and not copydriven. If the copy information was ignored or inadequately processed, the only meaning
transferred would come from the picture itself, all of which were the same.
Results may further be explained by the use of popular brands and their preconceived
reputations. Belk (1988) shows that consumers maintain and enhance parts of their self-concept
by purchasing and using certain commercial brands. Thus, brands may be chosen by consumers
to suggest certain qualities about themselves that they want to convey to others. Chattopadhyah
and Basu (1990) confirm that favorable prior brand evaluations contribute to more receptiveness
and less critical views by consumers for future evaluations, while unfavorable prior brand
evaluations contribute to less receptive and more critical views by consumers in future
Ad-Based Persuasion
24
evaluations. It is possible that preexisting brand-related beliefs' overpowered the manipulations:
i.e., enduring brand images in the minds of sampled consumers may have altered subjects'
decision-making processes and thwarted any possibility of attitude change. Also, the brands
chosen may be declining in popularity or are being reinvented or repositioned causing an altered
and new perception of the brands' images. So, it is reasonable to assert that over the course of
this study, from formulation to data collection, one or both of these brands became more or less
popular and, thus, skewed the results. While fictitious brands eliminate any confounding effects
of preexisting brand image beliefs, that approach makes the manipulation of low versus high
brand image difficult, as brand image formation requires some prior knowledge.
An additional goal of this study is to investigate the role of SNI. There is no support for the
proposed 4-way interaction that tests the hypothesized materialism/brand image/ad appeal type
match-up for high SNI individuals (H4). Interestingly, the means for SNI suggest that for those
higher in SNI, the two tested ad appeals behave similarly. Bearden and Etzel (1982) and Batra et
al. (2001) conclude that consumers higher in SNI are more concerned with the purchase of
products that have visible benefits or that are scarce. Thus, high SNI consumers may have no
regard for the type of ad appeal as long as the products possess the desired benefits.
Unfortunately, data to test this rationale is unavailable. The fact that low SNI consumers respond
more favorably to the materialistic appeal is notable and deserves further study.
The particular types of appeals used in this study (i.e., status versus non-status) may also
contribute to the lack of hypothesis support. There is a current trend amongst young consumers
to purchase inexpensive apparel that is considered unfashionable. Consumers higher in SNI are
more concerned with the thoughts and opinions of others (Bearden et al. 1989) and therefore, if
the advertised product is seen as “out of style” (the jeans visual image was rather generic and
Ad-Based Persuasion
25
perhaps lacked style), it would be unappealing regardless of the type of ad appeal or brand name.
In addition, as stated above, the product category chosen for this study includes brands that
fluctuate in popularity over time and may have become less popular. Perhaps, SNI may only be
effective in certain product categories, where brand popularity is not so sporadic and fads are not
so prevalent.
The final purpose of this study is to investigate the moderating impact of SBC. Similar to
SNI and contrary to desired outcomes, there is not a statistically significant effect of SBC on the
match-up interaction for either likelihood of purchase or overall brand attitude. Yet, SBC and ad
appeal type interact to influence purchase intent. Examination of the treatment means indicate
that both ads are equally effective for materialists, while less materialistic consumers prefer the
materialistic ad. The latter of the two results is counter-intuitive, and may have been impacted by
consumers' decision-making processes. As previous literature suggests, materialism and SBC are
positively related (Rindfleisch et al. 2009), and as materialism decreases, so too does the focus
on brand image. The less materialistic consumers may have more thoroughly investigated the
advertisement with respect to the task/scenario given (shopping to impress friends at a party). In
doing so, they may have found the materialistic ad appeal to be the more appropriate selection
for the occasion. The minute variation between the two means for high SBC consumers suggests
that they may feel a “connection” with the brand regardless of the type of ad appeal. Fournier
(1998) suggests that it is not necessarily the brand relationship put in place by marketers that
consumers use, but rather the ones that they themselves have placed on the brand to add meaning
to their own lives. Therefore, consistent with above comments about prior beliefs, those
relationships between participants and the test brands may have already been derived
Ad-Based Persuasion
26
independently of the ad appeal presented. Thus, the “connection” overpowered the ad appeal
type effect.
Past literature offers additional insight into the lack of significant interactions involving SBC
and the other variables. Rindfleisch et al. (2009) suggest that materialistic preferences are
positively related to existential insecurities (e.g., death anxiety) and that manipulating/
monitoring these factors can better elicit interactions between materialism and other attributes
(e.g., brand image, SBC). In addition, Rindfleisch et al. (2009) suggest that SBC is greatly
determined by the nature and quality of interaction between a brand and consumers. If
interactions between the consumers and the brand have been poor or nonexistent as of late, due
to any number of circumstances (e.g., the state of the economy), then SBC may have been lost.
Using this logic, it may be noted that if SBC, which plays a significant role for materialists, has
been lost, any chance for interactions between materialism and other factors likely dissipated as
well.
Brand image matters more for consumption decisions that are socially visible - i.e., people
see you owning and using them. For example, Batra and Homer (2004) find that brand image
beliefs are more influential over brand purchase intentions when a situation of “high social
consequences” is induced. Similarly, Aaker’s (1999) argues that in certain situations (e.g., an
important party) brand personality dimensions can impact consumer’s brand preferences. I
attempted to motivate a social consumption environment, but as noted above, perhaps that was
ineffective. Thus, my ability to detect desired effects was limited.
Post-hoc examination of the individual difference scales indicates that they may lack
sufficient variance to detect differences. This lack of deviation for some individual difference
characteristics amongst student samples is noted in the literature (e.g., Sears 1986). For example,
Ad-Based Persuasion
27
Sears (1986) finds that college students tend to share common characteristics (e.g., incompletely
formulated senses of self, strong need for peer approval, quite unstable group relationships,
unusual egocentricity) that in turn, can create difficulties for studies of certain individual
difference constructs (e.g., SNI).
Although results have limited significance, the data do offer managerial implications. The
data confirm that brands have distinct "personalities" that impact consumption and consumer
attitudes. Brand image is of the utmost importance to brand managers and companies and
displays dominance over the other effects in the study likely because of its ability to be a
repository of meaning. The proliferation of strong brand communities (e.g., Harley-Davidson,
Mac/Apple, Coca-Cola, Nike, etc.) offers further evidence that brand image matters (e.g., Muñiz
and O'Guinn 2001). Because materialists search for what others value as a means to obtain and
project their own status, managers are advised to emphasize research on SNI within consumer
markets. Also, directional support for the ‘match-up’ between brand image and ad appeal type
for materialistic consumers can guide advertising creative strategy. Rather obviously, managers
can persuade materialistic purchasers by using promotional tools that focus on brand image and
appeal to their need for visible markers of their status. While it may be obvious that status brands
should convey that "elite" image, results imply that non-status brands may have more creative
strategy flexibility. Managers should also implement situational cues important to their target
markets if they wish to elicit certain consumer self-schematic dimensions regarding their
products. In addition, managers are cautioned of the lack of clearly defined high/low groups
when attempting to identify materialism, SNI, and SBC within their target markets. If
"incongruency" facilitates persuasion for less materialistic consumers, it is likely that while an
Ad-Based Persuasion
28
advertisement’s appeal must fit the general brand image, it may be designed for mild
incongruence to better elicit attention and positive evaluations.
By manipulating only three variables (materialism, brand image, and ad appeal type), a
multitude of other potentially important alternatives are neglected and unaccounted for in this
study. Theoretically, I predicted that materialism, brand image, ad appeal, SNI, and SBC would
interactively impact purchase intent and overall brand attitude towards a product. In actuality,
analyses show that none of my hypothesized interactions are statistically significant. Future
research is required to resolve these insufficient results and contradictions.
Limitations and Future Research
One obvious limitation is the sample of respondents for this study. College students taking
undergraduate business courses may likely have different attitudes, mind-sets, and purchasing
patterns than college students with other majors (e.g., Psychology, English, Mathematics, etc.)
and the rest of the population as a whole. A larger, more diverse/representative sample is
preferable.
Past studies of the match-up effect focus on two-way interactions, whereas I predict 3-way
and 4-way interactions. Apart from a larger sample size, such higher-order interactions may be
difficult to test and identify. The fact that there are no known instances in the academic literature
supporting three-way match-up interactions may be a “signal” that my research objectives were
too ambitious. Also, the study has a narrow scope. My main conceptual focus is materialism, yet
many other consumption-related values may elicit ad/brand/consumer match-ups.
Another contributing factor to the lack of supported findings may be the current economic
recession in the United States that has lead to a decrease in consumer spending, especially on
luxury goods. This decrease in spending on luxury goods and a less favorable view of both
Ad-Based Persuasion
29
capitalism and materialism within the country, may explain some of the lack of support for the
hypotheses. This “economic effect” deserves further research attention.
This study can be expanded in many ways. Potential preexisting brand-based beliefs and
biases should be measured and accounted for. The use of revised ad copy that better
differentiates between materialistic and non-materialistic ad appeals as well as enhancing copy
visibility is suggested. Additionally, as mentioned above, future research can expand the scope of
or investigate other consumption-based values that interact to affect purchase likelihood and
overall brand attitude. The use of multiple products can create a means of comparison to
determine if the proposed consumer/brand image/ad appeal type match-up is product-specific.
Future research can also explore more varied levels of the independent variables for a more
comprehensive perspective (rather than just high vs. low, status vs. non-status, etc.). Another
avenue for future research is to investigate the various dimensions of self-brand connection (e.g.,
communal rather than self), as well as various situations that elicit different levels of
materialism. Additional research can explore how materialism affects the decision-making
process. Lastly, further study can investigate more types of ad appeals to test the robustness of
the ad appeal type effects and cross-cultural endeavors should enhance generalizability.
Ad-Based Persuasion
30
REFERENCES
Aaker, Jennifer L. (1997), “Dimensions of Brand Personality,” Journal of Marketing Research,
24 (3), 347-356.
Aaker, Jennifer L. (1999), “The Malleable Self: The Role of Self-Expression in Persuasion,”
Journal of Market Research, 36 (1), 45-57.
Alden, Dana L., Jan-Benedict E. M. Steenkamp, and Rajeev Batra (1999), “Brand Positioning
through Advertising in Asia, North America, and Europe: The Role of Global Consumer
Culture,” Journal of Marketing. 63 (1), 75-87.
Ball, A. Dwayne, and Lori H. Tasaki (1992), “The Role and Measurement of Attachment in
Consumer Behavior,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 1 (2), 155-172.
Batra, Rajeev, and Pamela M. Homer (2004), “The Situational Impact of Brand Image Beliefs,”
Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14 (3), 318-330.
Batra, Rajeev, Pamela M. Homer, and Lynn R. Kahle (2001), “Values, Susceptibility to
Normative Influence, and Attribute Importance Weights: A Nomological Analysis,” Journal
of Consumer Psychology, 11 (2), 115-128.
Bearden, William O., and Michael J. Etzel (1982), “Reference Group Influence on Product and
Brand Purchase Decisions,” Journal of Consumer Research, 9 (September), 183-194.
Bearden, William O., Richard G. Netemeyer, and Jesse E. Teel (1989), “Measurement of
Consumer Susceptibility to Interpersonal Influence,” Journal of Consumer Research, 15
(March), 473-481.
Belch, George E. (1981), “An Examination of Comparative and Noncomparative Television
Commercials: The Effects of Claim Variation and Repetition on Cognitive Response and
Message Acceptance,” Journal of Market Research, 18 (3), 345-253.
Belk, Russell W., and Richard W. Pollay (1985), “Images of Ourselves: The Good Life in
Twentieth Century Advertising,” Journal of Consumer Research, 11 (4), 887-897.
Belk, Russell W. (1985), “Materialism: Trait Aspects of Living in the Material World,” Journal
of Consumer Research, 12 (3), 265-280.
Belk, Russell W. (1988), “Possessions and the Extended Self,” Journal of Consumer Research,
15, 139-162.
Bello, Daniel C., Robert E. Pitts, and Michael J. Etzel (1983), “The Communication Effects of
Controversial Sexual Content in Television Programs and Commercials,” Journal of
Advertising, 12, 32-42.
Biswas, Abhijit, Janeen E. Olsen, and Valerie Carlet (1992), “A Comparison of Print
Advertisements from the United States and France,” Journal of Advertising, 21 (4), 73-81.
Ad-Based Persuasion
31
Biswas, Dipayan, Abhijit Biswas, and Neel Das (2006), “The Differential Effects of Celebrity
and Expert Endorsements on Consumer Risk Perceptions,” Journal of Advertising, 35 (2),
17-31.
Burroughs, James, and Aric Rindfleisch (2002), “Materialism and Well-Being: A Conflicting
Values Perspective,” Journal of Consumer Research, 29 (December), 348-370.
Chandy, Rajesh K., Gerard J. Tellis, Deborah J. MacInnis, and Pattana Thaivanich (2001),
“What Happens When: Advertising Appeal in Evolving Markets,” Journal of Marketing
Research, 38 (4), 399-414.
Chang, Chingching (2005), “Enhancing Self-Consciousness: Implications for Effectiveness of
Ad appeals,” Advances in Consumer Research, 33 (1), 503-508.
Chang, Chingching (2007), “The Relative Effectiveness of Comparative and Noncomparative
Advertising,” Journal of Advertising, 36 (Spring), 21-35.
Chattopadhyah, Amitiva, and Kunal Basu (1990), “Humor in Advertising: The Moderating Role
of Prior Brand Evaluations,” Journal of Market Research, 27 (4), 466-476.
Cline, Thomas W., Moses B. Altsech, and James J. Kellaris (2003), "When Does Humor
Enhance or Inhibit Ad Responses?" Journal of Advertising, 32 (Fall), 31-45.
Cox, Donald, and Raymond A. Bauer (1989), “Self-Confidence and Persuasibility in Women,”
Public Opinion Quarterly, 28 (Fall), 453-466.
Deutsch, Morton, and Harold B. Gerard (1955), “A Study of Normative and Informational Social
Influences upon Individual Judgment,” Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 51 (November),
629-636.
Eastman, Jacqueline K., Ronald E. Goldsmith, and Leisa R. Flynn (1999), “Status Consumption
in Consumer Behavior: Scale Development and Validation,” Journal of Marketing Theory
and Practice, 7 (3), 41-51.
Escalas, Jennifer E. (2004), “Narrative Processing: Building Consumer Connections to Brands,”
Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14 (1 and 2), 168-180.
Escalas, Jennifer E., and James R. Bettman (2003), “You Are What They Eat: The Influence of
Reference Groups on Consumer Connections to Brands,” Journal of Consumer Psychology,
13, 339-348.
Fitzmaurice, Julie, and Charles Comegys (2006), “Materialism and Social Consumption,”
Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 14 (4), 287-299.
Fournier, Susan (1998), “Consumers and Their Brands: Developing Relationship Theory in
Consumer Research,” Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (4), 343-373.
Ad-Based Persuasion
32
Friedman, Hershey H., and Linda Friedman (1979), “Endorser Effectiveness by Product Type,”
Journal of Advertising Research, 19 (5), 63-71.
Gangestad, Steven W., and Mark Snyder (1985), “‘To Carve Nature at Its Joints’: On the
Existence of Discrete Classes in Personality, Psychology Review, 92, 317-349.
Gardener, Meryl P. (1983), “Advertising Effects on Attributes Recalled and Criteria Used for
Brand Evaluations,” Journal of Consumer Research, 10 (December), 310-318,
Gearino, G. Daniel (2007), “When Does Spending Become Shameful?” McClatchy-Tribune
Business News, 1.
Huang, Ming-Hui (2004), “Romantic Love and Sex: Their Relationship and Impacts on Ad
Attitudes,” Psychology & Marketing, 21 (1), 53-73.
Huhmann, Bruce A., and Timothy P. Brotherton (1997), "A Content Analysis of Guilt Appeals in
Popular Magazine Advertisements," Journal of Advertising, 26 (Summer), 35-45.
Janis, Irving L. (1954), “Personality Correlates of Persuasion,” Journal of Personality, 22 (1),
504-518.
Kahle, Lynn R., and Pamela M. Homer (1985), “Physical Attractiveness of the Celebrity
Endorser: A Social Adaption Perspective,” Journal of Consumer Research, 11 (March), 954961.
Kahneman, Daniel, and Amos Tversky (1979), “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under
Risk,” Econometrica, 47 (2), 263-291.
Kamins, Michael A. (1990), “An Investigation into the ‘Match-Up’ Hypothesis in Celebrity
Advertising: When Beauty May be Only Skin Deep,” Journal of Advertising, 19 (1), 4-13.
Kanungo, Rabindra N., and Sam Pang (1973), “Effects of Human Models on Perceived Product
Quality,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 57 (2), 172-178.
Keller, Kevin L. (1993), “Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer-Based Brand
Equity,” Journal of Marketing, 57 (1), 1-22.
Lepkowska-White, Elzbieta, Thomas G. Brashear, and Marc G. Weinberger (2003), “A Test of
Ad Appeal Effectiveness in Poland and the United States: The Interplay of Appeal, Product,
and Culture,” Journal of Advertising, 32 (3), 57-67.
Liao, Jiangqun, and Lei Weng (2009), “Face as a Mediator of the Relationship between Material
Value and Brand Consciousness,” Psychology & Marketing, 26 (11), 987-1001.
“Luxury Consumption Index Reaches 104.8 Points as Luxury Consumers Express Confidence in
Economy; As Quickly as It Fell in Third Quarter, the Luxury Consumption Index Reaches Its
Highest Point Ever at End of Fourth Quarter, Unity Marketing Reports,” Business Wire,
(January 2006), 1.
Ad-Based Persuasion
33
Lynch, James, and Drue Schuler (1994), “The Match-Up Effect of Spokesperson and Product
Congruency: A Schema Theory Interpretation,” Psychology & Marketing, 11 (5), 417-445.
Madden, Thomas J., and Marc G. Weinberger (1984), "Humor in Advertising: A Practitioner
View," Journal of Advertising Research, 24 (4), 23-29.
Martin, Brett A. S., Daniel Wentzel, and Torsten Tomczak (2008), “Effects of Susceptibility to
Normative Influence and Type of Testimonial on Attitude toward Print Advertising,” Journal
of Advertising, 37 (1), 29-43.
McCracken, Grant (1986), “Culture and Consumption: A Theoretical Account of the Structure
and Movement of the Cultural Meaning of Consumer Goods,” Journal of Consumer
Research, 13 (June), 71-84.
McGuire, William J. (1968), “Personality and Susceptibility to Social Influence,” Handbook of
Personality and Research, eds. Edgar F. Borgatta and William W. Lambert, 1130-1187.
Meyers-Levy, Joan, and Alice M. Tybout (1989), “Schema Congruity as a Basis of Product
Evaluation,” Journal of Consumer Research, 16 (June), 39-55.
Misra, Shekhar, and Sharon E. Beatty (1990), “Celebrity Spokesperson and Brand Congruence:
An Assessment of Recall and Affect,” Journal of Business Research, 21 (2), 159-173.
Moore, David J., and William D. Harris (1996), “Affect Intensity and the Consumer’s Attitude
toward High Impact Emotional Advertising Appeals,” Journal of Advertising, 25 (2), 37-50.
Moore, David J., and Pamela Miles Homer (2008), “Self-Brand Connections: The Role of
Attitude Strength and Autobiographical Memory Primes,” Journal of Business Research, 61
(July), 707-714.
Mowen, John C. (2004), “Exploring the Trait of Competitiveness and Its Consumer Behavior
Consequences,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14 (1), 52-64.
Muñiz, Albert M., Jr., and Thomas C. O'Guinn (2001), "Brand Community," Journal of
Consumer Research, 27 (March), 412-432.
Netemeyer, Richard G., Scot Burton, and Donald R. Lichtenstein (1995), “Trait Aspects of
Vanity: Measurement and Relevance to Consumer Behavior,” Journal of Consumer
Research, 21 (4), 612-626.
Park, C. Whan, and Parker V. Lessig (1977), “Students and Housewives: Differences in
Susceptibility to Reference Group Influence,” Journal of Consumer Research, 4
(September), 102-110.
Peracchio, Laura A., and Alice Tybout (1996), “The Moderating Role of Prior Knowledge in
Schema-Based Product Evaluation,” Journal of Consumer Research, 23 (3), 177-192.
Ad-Based Persuasion
34
Peter, J. Paul, and Jerry C. Olson (2005), Consumer Behavior & Marketing Strategy, New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Resnik, Alan, and Bruce L. Stern (1977), “An Analysis of Information Content in Television
Advertising,” Journal of Marketing, 41 (1), 50-53.
Richins, Marsha L. (2004), “The Material Values Scale: Measurement Properties and
Development of a Short Form,” Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (June), 209-219.
Richins, Marsha L., and Scott Dawson (1992), “A Consumer Values Orientation for Materialism
and Its Measurement: Scale Development and Validation,” Journal of Consumer Research,
19 (December), 303-316.
Rindfleisch, Aric, James E. Burroughs, and Nancy Wong (2009), “The Safety of Objects:
Materialism, Existential Insecurity, and Brand Connection,” Journal of Consumer Research,
36 (June), 1-16.
Roberts, James A., John F. Tanner, Jr., and Chris Manolis (2005), “Research Note: Materialism
and the Family Structure-Stress Relation,” Journal of Consumer Psychology. 15 (2), 183192.
Rokeach, Milton (1973), The Nature of Human Values, New York: Free Press.
Schwartz, Shalom H. (1992), “Universals in the Content and Structure of Values: Theoretical
Advances and Empirical Tests in 20 Countries,” Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology, 25, 1-76.
Sears, David O. (1986), “College Sophomores in the Laboratory: Influences of a Narrow Data
Base on Social Psychology’s View of Human Nature,” Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 51 (3), 515-530.
Spotts, Harlan E., Marc G. Weinberger, and Amy L. Parsons (1997), "Assessing the Use and
Impact of Humor on Advertising Effectiveness: A Contingency Approach," Journal of
Advertising, 26 (Fall), 17-32.
Stout, Patricia A., Pamela M. Homer, and Scott S. Lui (1990), "Does What We See Influence
What We Feel: Felt Emotions Versus Depicted Emotions in TV Commercials," in S. Agres,
J. Edell, and T. Dubitsky (eds.), Emotion in Advertising, Westport, CT: Quorum Books,
195-210.
Swaminathan, Vanitha, Karen M. Stilley, and Rohini Ahluwalia (2008), “When Brand
Personality Matters: The Moderating Role of Attachment Styles,” Journal of Consumer
Research, 35 (April), 985-1002.
Thomson, Matthew, Deborah J. MacInnis, and C. Whan Park (1996), “The Ties that Bind:
Measuring the Strength of Consumers’ Emotional Attachments to Brands,” Journal of
Consumer Psychology, 15 (1), 77-91.
Ad-Based Persuasion
35
Till, Brian D., and Michael Busler (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.
“U.S. Ad Spending Totals by Medium: U.S. Advertising for the Top 100 and All Advertisers in
2008,” Ad Age, (22 June 2009), 23.
Varela, Francis M. (2009), “To Take a Stand,” BusinessWorld, (1 December).
Weinberger, Marc G., and Charles S. Gulas (1992), “The Impact of Humor in Advertising: A
Review,” Journal of Advertising, 21 (4), 35-59.
Wooten, David B., and Americus Reed II (2004), “Playing It Safe: Susceptibility to Normative
Influence and Protective Self-Presentation,” Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (3), 551-556.
Yong, Zhang, and George M. Zinkhan (2006), "Responses to Humorous Ads," Journal of
Advertising, 35 (Winter), 113-127.
Ad-Based Persuasion
36
TABLE 1
Primary Experimental Design
High Brand Image
Ad Appeal Type
Low Brand Image
Status
Non-Status
Status
Non-Status
Low
Cell 1
Cell 2
Cell 3
Cell 4
High
Cell 5
Cell 6
Cell 7
Cell 8
Materialism
Ad-Based Persuasion
37
TABLE 2
Summary of Significant Effects for Manipulation Checks
dfs
F
P
Excitement Brand Perceptions
Brand Image
1,241
17.56
.000
Ad Appeal Type
1,241
6.62
.011
1,241
38.68
.000
1,241
5.30
.022
1,241
7.48
.007
1,241
11.10
.001
Ad Appeal Type
1,241
18.54
.000
Brand Image
1,241
14.56
.000
Brand Image
1,241
54.78
.000
Materialism Split x Ad Appeal Type
1,241
5.03
.026
1,241
3.62
.058
1,241
7.84
.006
1,241
6.75
.010
Sophistication Brand Perceptions
Brand Image
Ruggedness Brand Perceptions
Brand Image
Aad
Ad Appeal Type
Ad Informativeness
Ad Appeal Type
Ad Materialism
Product Type
Product Familiarity
Materialism
Product Knowledge
Materialism
Involvement/Interest
Materialism
Ad-Based Persuasion
38
TABLE 3-A
Summary of ANCOVA Analyses for H1-H3
dfs
F
p
SBC
1,238
33.552
.000
SNI
1,238
0.57
.451
Materialism
1,238
0.26
.612
Ad Appeal Type
1,238
1.81
.180
Brand Image
1,238
7.71
.006
Materialism x Ad Appeal Type
1,238
0.50
.481
Materialism x Brand Image
1,238
1.90
.169
Brand Image x Ad Appeal Type
1,238
0.36
.551
Materialism x Ad Appeal Type x Brand Image
1,238
0.01
.924
SBC
1,238
33.42
.000
SNI
1,238
1.18
.278
Materialism
1,238
0.31
.576
Ad Appeal
1,238
0.35
.553
Brand Image
1,238
2.55
.111
Materialism x Ad Appeal
1,238
.001
.978
Materialism x Brand Image
1,238
0.13
.715
Brand Image x Ad Appeal Type
1,238
0.81
.368
Materialism x Ad Appeal Type x Brand Image
1,238
0.07
.791
Purchase Intent
Overall Brand Attitude
Ad-Based Persuasion
39
TABLE 3-B
Treatment Means for Materialism x Brand Image Interaction (H1)
High Materialism
Low Materialism
Brand Image
High
Low
High
Low
Purchase Intent
4.48
4.08
4.71
3.53
Brand Attitude
6.13
5.87
6.08
5.67
TABLE 3-C
Treatment Means for Purchase Intent
High Brand Image
Ad Appeal Type
Status
Non-Status
5.10
4.64
4.33
4.32
Low Brand Image
Status
Non-Status
Materialism
Low
High
3.72
4.10
3.34
4.06
TABLE 3-D
Treatment Means for Overall Brand Attitude
High Brand Image
Ad Appeal Type
Status
Non-Status
6.26
6.25
5.89
6.00
Low Brand Image
Status
Non-Status
Materialism
Low
High
5.61
5.86
5.73
5.88
Ad-Based Persuasion
40
TABLE 4
Summary of ANOVA Analyses for H1-H3
dfs
F
p
Materialism
1,241
2.06
.152
Ad Appeal Type
1,241
2.00
.158
Brand Image
1,241
11.50
.001
Materialism x Ad Appeal Type
1,241
0.26
.610
Materialism x Brand Image
1,241
0.56
.453
Brand Image x Ad Appeal Type
1,241
0.81
.368
Materialism x Ad Appeal Type x Brand Image
1,241
0.06
.802
Materialism
1,241
4.97
.027
Ad Appeal
1,241
0.41
.524
Brand Image
1,241
5.57
.019
Materialism x Ad Appeal Type
1,241
0.02
.904
Materialism x Brand Image
1,241
0.15
.695
Brand Image x Ad Appeal Type
1,241
1.17
.281
Materialism x Ad Appeal Type x Brand Image
1,241
0.26
.610
Purchase Intent
Overall Brand Attitude
Ad-Based Persuasion
41
TABLE 5
Summary of ANOVA Effects - H4
dfs
F
p
Purchase Intent
Brand Image
1,233
10.49
.001
SNI x Ad Appeal Type
1,233
7.78
.006
Materialism x SNI x Ad Appeal Type
1,233
0.86
.354
Materialism x SNI x Brand Image
1,233
.002
.967
Materialism x Ad Appeal Type x Brand Image
1,233
.001
.974
SNI x Ad Appeal Type x Brand Image
1,233
0.07
.798
Materialism x SNI x Ad Appeal x Brand Image
1,233
0.88
.349
SNI
1,233
3.96
.047
Brand Image
1,233
5.50
.020
Materialism x SNI x Ad Appeal Type
1,233
2.12
.146
Materialism x SNI x Brand Image
1,233
0.06
.811
Materialism x Ad Appeal Type x Brand Image
1,233
0.71
.401
SNI x Ad Appeal Type x Brand Image
1,233
1.36
.245
Materialism x SNI x Ad Appeal x Brand Image
1,233
1.09
.298
Overall Brand Attitude
Ad-Based Persuasion
42
TABLE 6
Summary of ANOVA Effects - H5
dfs
F
p
SBC
1,232
33.89
.000
Brand Image
1,232
8.48
.004
SBC x Ad Appeal Type
1,232
4.14
.043
Materialism x SBC x Ad Appeal Type
1,232
.001
.977
Materialism x SBC x Brand Image
1,232
0.05
.822
Materialism x Ad Appeal Type x Brand Image
1,232
0.18
.670
SBC x Ad Appeal Type x Brand Image
1,232
1.54
.217
Materialism x SBC x Ad Appeal x Brand Image
1,232
0.02
.887
SBC
1,232
33.47
.000
Brand Image
1,232
4.42
.037
Materialism x SBC x Ad Appeal Type
1,232
0.06
.805
Materialism x SBC x Brand Image
1,232
1.96
.163
Materialism x Ad Appeal Type x Brand Image
1,232
0.61
.437
SBC x Ad Appeal Type x Brand Image
1,232
2.12
.146
Materialism x SBC x Ad Appeal x Brand Image
1,232
0.44
.506
Purchase Intent
Overall Brand Attitude
Ad-Based Persuasion
43
TABLE 7
2-Way Interaction (SNI x Ad Appeal Type) for Purchase Intent (H4)
Ad Appeal Type
SNI Split
Materialistic
Non-Materialistic
Low
High
4.79
4.18
3.41
4.57
TABLE 8
2-Way Interaction (SBC x Ad Appeal Type) for Purchase Intent (H5)
Ad Appeal Type
SBC Split
Low
High
Materialistic
Non-Materialistic
3.89
4.99
2.95
5.22