1. Introduction
Many people are used to seeing products and services being advertised by other people these days. It is
fairly understandable as people are fond of seeing others performing the role of a representative for a
certain product or service due to the natural need to compare themselves to other human beings in a
number of daily activities. Therefore, advertising is one of marketing channels that human beings are
communicated by other human beings.
A traditional view of advertising communication claims that advertisement is something what advertiser
does to the audience (Brajesh, Gouranga, 2011). The caused effect, in case of targeted and expedient
advertisement communication, can shape consumers buying behavior to a favorable one. It is said that
in the right context and to the targeted audience, marketers know that people ‘buy’ people (Clifton,
2006). Therefore, since advertisers are generally viewed as communicators with consumers as well as
stimulus to acquire an advertised product or service (Brajesh, Gouranga, 2011), it is not surprising that in
a great majority of advertising cases exactly people play the role of representative for products and/or
services.
When it comes to advertisements using models as communication tools to market product or service,
ideally, there should be no distinction between Highly Attractive (further: HAMs) and Normally
Attractive Models (further: NAMs). It may be explained by the generic idea of the models role: an
advertising body is to promote a certain product which would result in greater sales; and in such
situation models appearance should not play a major role due to the persuasive nature of sales pitch
itself. However, in many situations differentiation among HAMs and NAMs appears. In a great majority
of cases HAMs are thought to affect consumers’ minds considerably more than average-attractive
models because of superior looks, which generally include elements such as beautiful facial appearance
(Richins, 1991) as well as thinness (Striegel-Moore, Silberstein and Rodin, 1986). Contrary to this, NAMs
are considered to be of an average or moderate weight, height and facial beauty (Bower and Landreth,
2001) and, consequently, changing consumers’ attitudes on a lesser degree.
Contrary to the conventional practice on HAMs’ effectiveness as well as usage in a variety of
advertisements, personal care brand Dove has launched a campaign “Campaign for Real Beauty”, which
featured women slightly less skeletal models praising the natural physical variation as well as inspiring
1
women to have confidence about their own unique looks. One might question the reasons of campaign
success, especially since less attractive or “average” models were used. Most likely one of the most
important reasons of success is a great variety of models, causing a natural self-comparison to models
and consequently making customers feel good about their own looks regardless of height, size, skin
color and age. Such a different approach with various models have made consumers trust the advertised
product and changed consumers’ self-perception at the same time boosting their confidence. That is the
reason why Dove’s “Campaign for Real Beauty” received extremely positive responses from all around
the world consequently making Dove the greatest and most women-appreciating company in the world.
Such an off-beat campaign denied the general rule on HAMs undisputed benefit raising the question
whether HAMs are always effective and whether NAM-type models can be perceived as being more
trustworthy as well as likeable over HAMs.
The above mentioned trust factor matched together with models appearance is an important issue. The
perceived trust of the model has to be taken into consideration as the level of trust for HAMs versus
NAMs might differ to a great extent in advertisements.
Trustworthiness refers to the audience’s belief in models ability to provide information in a non-biased
and sincere manner, whereas attractiveness is related to how physically attractive or likable the source
is to the audience (Ohanian 1991). It makes it understandable that models that are perceived to be
physically attractive or likeable are considered to be credible and trustworthy, which, in turn, induces
positive attitudinal as well as behavioral responses from consumers (Ohanian, 1991). It is clear that in
cases of a favorable models appearance liking might be caused; and a greater liking for the source may
influence trustworhiness for the model which, as mentioned above, results in a positive change of
buying behavior (Simons, Berkowitz and Moyer, 1970).
The purpose of this study is twofold. First, the effect of HAMs‘ as well as NAMs‘ effectiveness when
matched with different products that models might have a direct influence on is being analyzed.
Different attractiveness-relevant product types (Bloch and Richins, 1992) are being matched with HAMs
as well as NAMs with the aim to explore which model has the strongest effect when matched with a
certain type of product. Second, as previous research has explored the effect of model-product type
match-up on perceptions of model credibility (Kamins, 1990; Maddux and Rogers, 19980), the perceived
trustworthiness of HAMs and NAMs will be analyzed. Third, both models will be compared in the area of
expertise as well as product attitude in order to see which model is more effective.
2
In order to investigate the topic of trustworthiness for HAMs and NAMs promoting beauty products, two
research questions are raised:
RQ1: Are NAMs perceived to be more credible than HAMs and does it depend on the
product type?
RQ2: Are NAMs more effective than HAMs?
Answering the above research questions will help understand on how consumers differentiate HAMs
and NAMs and what kind of influence both models have towards consumers’ purchase intentions when
matched with a certain product.
Achieved results may be beneficial for consumer behaviour analysis concerning the issue of models’
trustworthiness which leads to a change in buying behaviour. Hopefully, an outcome of the research will
bring beneficial results that could be used by marketing practitioners to understand consumer
behaviour influenced by HAMs and NAMs perceived credibility according to the classification of their
advertised products.
3
2. Literature Review and Hypotheses
Prior research focuses on a number of topics in the area of attractiveness. It discusses how elements of
attractiveness can be classified (e.g. facial attractiveness, body, charisma) and impact of models‘
appearance in relation to the provided feeling of trust to customers. In addition to this, the role of
attractiveness in regards to a product is analyzed. One of the most valuable research in the field is
conducted by Bower and Landreth (2001), who focus on HAMs‘and NAMs‘ appearance distinctions in
relation to product evaluations. As eleven years after the research passed, trends as well as general
conception of beauty have changed. Therefore, since the beauty industry is one which can be
characterized as having rapidly changing patterns, it would be valuable to repeat a similar research in
the field of HAMs‘ and NAMs‘ attractiveness to examine their impact on product evaluations, namely
trustworthiness, expertise and purchase intention.
In order to understand the three different aspects of HAMs’ and NAMs’ differences, credibility and the
product role, all three aspects have to be analyzed in depth.
2.1. HAMs versus NAMs
Numerous studies show that attractive people receive more positive responses (Dion, Berscheid,
Walster, 1972), are better liked (Eagly, Ashmore, Makhijami, Longo, 1991) and tend to have a greater
social influence (Debevec, Madden, Kernan, 1986). Besides, it is generally thought that appearance,
which can be described as better than average, can be linked to perceived better life and a greater
amount of opportunities (Bower and Landreth, 2001). „Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder“ one would
claim, but yet how do both sides - consumers as well as marketers - define which model is attractive?
What are the standards of beauty and how are people classified according to their looks? Studies have
shown that facial symmetry is one of the most important traits of attractiveness (Eden, 2011). To prove
the theory, scientists have proposed certain formulas to measure facial proportions in order to identify
whether a person can be classified as attractive or not. Additional research has shown that society as
well as social discourse on beauty generally includes thin body, big eyes, full lips, flawless skin and high
cheekbones (Freedman, 1986). It becomes clear that those are “superior traits” which characterize
HAMs appearance, that only minority of population has. After all, physical attractiveness seems to have
been granted greater influence that can be supported empirically (Caballero, Lumpkin, and Madden,
1989).
4
Although HAMs are perceived to be more attractive over NAMs, HAMs superior appearance might not
arouse interest in an advertisement. The downside of HAMs’ superior appearance is that it is very much
idealized (Bower and Landreth, 2001) and does not match the reality. Moreover, the majority of
customers, if not all, unconsciously compare themselves to models and such self-comparison to HAMs
produce body dissatisfaction and negative view on ones self-esteem (Richins, 1991). Peoples’ selfesteem is gradually being lowered due to perceptions that HAMs must be “happier”, “luckier” and
“simply better” than them. In the long term, such perceptions might even result in anorexia, bulimia and
depression (Becker & Hamburg 1996; Harrison & Cantor 1997), or in other words, it contributes for
peoples long-term psychological effects (Engeln-Maddox, 2005).
Thus, it is likely that people will be more attracted to (i.e., be more aroused by) models who increase
their self-enhancement and inspire self-improvement (Goodman, Morris, Sutherland, 2008) making
them feel better with the way they naturally are. To prove the theory, a number of scholars investigate
NAMs’ benefit for customers (Richins, 1991, Bower and Landreth, 2001; Goodman, Morris, Sutherland,
2008) claiming that natural human self-comparison to NAMs, who are similar to “average" people,
highly influences positive self-perceptions of beauty and body image. Halliwell and Dittmar (2004) find
that advertisements containing average-size models were just as effective as those containing thin
models when effectiveness was measured in terms of attitude towards the advertisement, attitude
towards the brand, and purchase intention. Moreover, the exposure of HAMs in advertisements
increases women's dissatisfaction with their facial and overall attractiveness but not with body shape
(Richins, 1991). Besides, when consumers compare themselves to HAMs, they tend to negatively
evaluate HAMs as spokesperson and the product argument (Bower, and Landreth, 2001). Contrary to
this, some other researchers find that the use of HAMs as sales representatives produce higher purchase
rates (Caballero, Pride, 1984).
Taking into account that results providing both – HAMs’ as well as NAMs’ promotional benefit one can
assume that a clear distinction of models looks matching the specific beauty criteria (i.e. facial beauty,
body built etc.) has to be made; in addition to this, other factors of their induced attention from
customers side should also be analyzed.
5
2.2. HAMs and NAMs distinction in relation to credibility
According to Ohanian (1991), credibility is a construct that consists of three sub-dimensions: expertise,
trustworthiness and attractiveness. To narrow the terms down, attractiveness is the degree to which
models physical appearance as well as personality is appealing and likeable; trustworthiness is a
measure of how responsible and reliable model is, and expertise is models ability or professionalism
related to the certain product or service that he/she is promoting. The overall term “credibility” can be
perceived as the degree to which a model is perceived to be believable, and such believability depends
on models attractiveness, his/her professionalism as well as trustworthiness. Therefore, a credible
person is thought to be good-looking, expert in a certain field and arising the feeling of trustworthiness
due to the attractiveness-expertise match.
According to past research on credibility, the greater spokesperson’s credibility is, the bigger the
attitude change it makes (Kelley 1953; Dholakia and Leavitt 1978) which consequently increases
purchase intension of consumers. Consumers generally base their purchase decisions the judgment they
make on dimensions of models’ credibility (i.e. attractiveness, expertise and trustworthiness) to
conclude whether the model is credible, i.e. whether we rely on him or not - and whether the product
that he/she is promoting is good enough to purchase. Thus, all three dimensions - attractiveness,
expertise and trustworthiness play an important role in decision making process.
2.2.1. Attractiveness
Attractiveness is the degree to which models physical appearance as well as personality is appealing and
likeable (Ohanian, 1991). It refers to physical characteristics (i.e. appearance) as well as perceived
personality (i.e. match of character and charisma) of the model. Previous research shows that facial
symmetry is one of the most important traits of attractiveness (Eden, 2011). However, not only facial
symmetry, but also body shape and a number of particular facial features constitute whether a person
can be classified as attractive or not.
Given the objective evaluations of attractiveness (e.g. smooth skin = attractive, flecked skin =
unattractive) one might question whether attractiveness attributes are still the same as it used to be a
couple of decades ago. The linkage of changing perceptions can be seen looking at the Dove’s campaign
example, where the use of models being of different shapes, sizes and ages has brought a lot of
attention which, in turn, has brought a great turnover to the company in a relatively short period of
time. With the help of catchphrases like “Wrinkled? Wonderful?”, “Oversized? Outstanding?”, “Grey?
6
Gorgeous?”, “Big? Beautiful?” and “Fat? Fabulous?”, accompanied by graphic pictures depicting goodlooking however not extremely attractive women, the company has raised a debate whether women,
who are out of established attractiveness standards, can still be perceived as being attractive.
Surprisingly enough, since the campaign has received a great amount of positive responses, it made
clear that the perception of attractiveness might be gradually changing. Changing patterns in HAMs’ as
well as NAMs’ appearances is one of the aspects of the present study.
2.2.2. Expertise
As already mentioned, expertise is the extent to which the communicator is perceived to be a source of
valid assertions about the advertised object (Ohanian, 1991). It refers to skills, knowledge and
experience possessed by the model (Eisend and Langner, 2010). In other words, expertise is models
professionalism related to the certain product or service of promotion that customers judge and
evaluate.
A number of scholars (Ohanian, 1991, Eisend and Langner, 2010) claim that high expertise exerts in
influence. Generally, when compared to a low-perceived expertise model, a highly competent model is
assumed to be more persuasive. For instance, a plumber can be perceived being an expert in the field of
water supply because of a certain knowledge that he possess as well as “typical” plumber looks (e.g.
special work outfit, working tools etc.). In such situation, plumber is being perceived to be an expert i.e. knowledgeable enough to trust, and therefore customers feel more “safe” about the product/service
of promotion. However, there has to be a match between the product and the model. In the case of a
plumber, one can assume that he would play a role of an expert when promoting his own service (i.e.
plumbing services), but it would not make any sense for a plumber to promote an unrelated product,
e.g. cosmetics. The expertise “hook” is suggested by Kahle and Homer (1985) as well as Kamins and
Gupta (1994), who use the concept “congruency”, which suggests that an model should be congruent
with the product of promotion. Thus, a model should be suitable for the product/service. In addition to
this, by providing additional information asserting professional qualifications, such as third party seals, a
company is able to improve its perceived credibility (Tripp, 1997). Therefore, one can assume that there
is a close relationship between expertise and trustworthiness, which is worth analyzing further.
7
2.2.3. Trustworthiness
According to Ohanian (1991), trustworthiness is the degree of confidence in the source’s intent to
communicate valid assertions. Trustworthiness can also be described as the degree of confidence given
to perceivers which can shape their opinion about a product/service being promoted and, consequently,
share (i.e. increase or decrease) customers’ purchase intention(s).
A trustworthy model is one whom people perceive to be honest and sincere, whereas an untrustworthy
model is one about whom people feel skepticism and suspicion (Priester and Petty, 1995). One can
assume that a trustworthy model influences consumers’ purchase decisions making them unconsciously
believe in model as well as the use of their promoted products/services. Researchers claim that
information associated with an untrustworthy model will most likely be unthinkingly rejected, or at the
very least, it will be severely devalued (Priester and Petty, 1995). In addition to this, it is also believed
that the information presented by an untrustworthy model is likely to be thoughtfully elaborated,
whereas information presented by a trustworthy model is likely to be unthinkingly accepted. Such
findings show the undeniable benefit as well as evident need of trustworthy models.
Miller (1970) argues that an attractive person can be perceived as more credible than a less attractive
one. People of superior looks are generally perceived to have a greater social influence (Debevec,
Madden, Kernan, 1986). However, Guido and Peluso (2004, 2006) further generalize the match-up
hypothesis including the trustworthiness dimension in the field, claiming that consumers’ general
perception mostly depends on the product and sub-dimensions. Therefore, it is worth analyzing whether
such theories apply in practise.
2.3. HAMs and NAMs distinction in relation to product
Bloch and Richins (1992) have suggested a distinction of beauty-related products, where problemsolving, which are meant to fix beauty flaws (e.g. concealer) and beauty-enhancing, which are meant to
enhance beauty (e.g. lipstick or hair-dye) have been ascertained. The distinction of attrractivenessrelevant products (i.e. problem-solving and beauty-enhancing) is based on whether the product is
associated with a potentially problematic area of life or is meant to beautify ones appearance (Bloch and
Richins 1992). Products not matching any of the two have been named as “beauty-unrelated” or simply
“other” products (e.g. furniture, home-tools, etc.). However, it has been found that a products’
classification depends on whether the product-related body attribute is perceived positively or
negatively - and what kind of effect it gives. For instance, a consumer may use mascara either to thicken
8
puny eyelashes or to enhance the looks of naturally beautiful eyes (Bower and Landreth, 2001).
Therefore, ones‘ perceptions also make an impact both in buying behavior and consumption of a
product.
As mentioned earlier, studies show that people are more willing to accept persuasive messages from
beautiful individuals. Prior research has argued that HAMs are most effective when matched with
attractiveness-relevant products (e.g., Kahle and Homer 1985; Kamins 1990; Peterson and Kerin 1977).
However, no clear theory has been made and a number of various results from similar researches
(Bower and Landreth, 2001; Richins, 1991; Kelley 1953; Dholakia and Leavitt 1978) show that such
results might be gotten due to the different types of attractiveness-relevant products (Bloch and Richins
1992) that may not all be appropriate for use with HAMs only. As mentioned earlier, it has been found
that a perception of three sub-dimensions of credibility has got the most effect if a model, being of a
specific characteristic, is being matched with the most suitable product according to his looks (i.e.
product and model congruency). For instance, a HAM, having a flawless skin and promoting facial cream
will most likely attain positive reactions because of his perceived beauty and beauty-related product
relation (i.e. “buy this product and you will become as good-looking as me”). Consequently, if a NAM is
promoting a beauty-related product, customers might get a sense that a promoted product is not worth
the purchase because it is not „working“ (i.e. „if I buy this product there will be no effect because the
model is not as attractive as I would like to become“). Therefore, one can assume that HAMs and NAMs
and their promoted products distinction do exist.
In order to better understand models influence given the necessity of attractiveness, a number of
scholars (e.g. Caballero and Solomon 1984; Kahle and Homer 1985; Kamins 1990; Peterson and Kerin
1977) explore the importance of a convergence between the product and the message communicated
by a model’s image, or in other words, a product and models match-up (Bower and Landreth, 2001).
2.4. Match-up hypothesis perspective
According to Kahle and Homer (1985); Kamins(1990) and Peterson and Kerin(1977), one of the best
ways to address an issue of HAM and NAM trustworthiness would be contemplating it from the matchup hypothesis perspective. A number of match-up theorists (Baker and Churchill, 1977; Caballero and
Solomon, 1984; Joseph, 1982; Kahle and Homer, 1985; Kamins, 1990; Park and Young, 1986; Peterson
and Kerin, 1977) have stressed out the importance of product and model congruency, which suggests
that models are more effective when there is a “fit” between the model and the promoted product
9
(Kamins, 1990). Looking from match-up hypothesis perspective, there should be a match between the
model and a product, and a match should be based on models’ physical attractiveness (Kahle and
Homer, 1985; Kamins 1990). It implies that a model should be qualified to promote the product so that
appearance would make a “fit”. For instance, a model, having great shinny hair of a perfect color would
make a stronger influence on consumers promoting a shampoo than a model with only satisfactory hair.
Using a previous example of a plumber under the match-up hypothesis perspective one can understand
why a man, dressed in a special plumber outfit and holding working tools can be perceived being a
trustworthy expert when promoting plumbing services rather than promoting unrelated product or
service (e.g. cosmetics).
Considering model attractiveness matched with trustworthiness, it might seem obvious that a HAM
would be more effective and give a greater feeling of trust when promoting a beauty-related product
over a NAM since such an advertisement generally arouses willingness to change and look better (i.e. “I
want to be as beautiful as this model, “this product will make me as good as this model does”).
However, even though a number of scholars claim that HAMs are the most effective choice for all
categories of attractiveness-relevant products (Kahle and Homer, 1985, Kamins 1990) a couple of results
suggest that HAMs are not the most effective choice all the time (Bower and Landreth,2001).
It seems intuitively appealing that the best outcome of an advertisement is achieved when there is
match-up between the model and the product (e.g. HAM and beauty-enhancing product versus NAM
and problem-solving or beauty-unrelated product). However, such campaign as “Dove” has proven that
the need of exclusivity makes a positive impact. Therefore, a choice of themodel highly depends on a
specific case, product and given situation. Yet the reason of HAMs‘ inefficiency in all kind of products
might be explained by the social comparison theory.
2.5. Social comparison theory’s perspective
The majority of customers, if not all, unconsciously compare themselves to variety of models. It has
been proven that self-comparison to HAMs produce body dissatisfaction and negative view on ones selfesteem (Richins, 1991). When exposed to HAMs, the majority of people generate negative emotions
because they perceive themselves as being less attractive than the HAM. Comparing themselves to a
HAM they form questions such as “Why can’t I be thin?”, “Why can’t I have such an attractive face” and
so forth.
10
Social comparison theory, initially proposed by the American social psychologist Leon Festinger in 1954,
can be best described as a self-comparison with others who are superior or inferior on the judgment
dimension strongly influencing how people think and feel about themselves and the emotions they
experience (Epstude and Mussweiler 2009). At the same time it contributes to one’s own body image
perceptions (Richins, 1991). An initial explanation of social comparison theory is that people naturally
tend to compare themselves to others and, while looking at advertisements, evaluate their own abilities
as well as appearances. Such evaluations may be positive (i.e. when customers perceive themselves
being as good as or even better than models) or negative (i.e. when customers perceive themselves
being worse than models), which are upward and downward comparisons, respectively. In a downward
social comparison customers compare themselves with people who are worse than them, and such
comparison generally creates satisfaction with their own belongings and/or appearance. In an upward
comparison customers compare themselves to others (i.e. models) who are performing and/or looking
better than them, and such comparison generally creates guilt, shame and long-term dissatisfaction
related to appearance. Such comparison produces body dissatisfaction and negative view on ones selfesteem (Richins, 1991). In a great majority of cases it results in decreased mood, shame about own facial
and body appearance and long-term appearance-related dissatisfaction.
Viewed from the social comparison theory perspective, it becomes clear why Dove’s campaign has been
that successful. In the campaign, which was launched in 2004, and featured in television, print and
billboard advertisements, the company claimed that it would “inspire women and society to think
differently about what is defined as beautiful” (Campaign for Real Beauty 2006). Dove’s campaign tried
to break down the match-up theory and determine whether exposure to images of average-size women
will result in the short-term effect of lower self-discrepancy. Since the campaign has received a lot of
positive responses from women all around the world - which resulted in increased Doves’ products’
sales - it becomes clear and customers’ comparison with “wrinkled, flawed, big” models have shown
that even a defective, or “out-of-standards” appearance can be attractive.
Thus, if a woman perceives herself to be physically more similar to a NAM, a greater perceived
attitudinal similarity between the receiver and the source may drive her to like the source more
(O'Keefe 1990; see also Berscheid 1985; Byrne 1969) and such behavior, consequently, results in a
change in a purchase intention.
11
There is evidence that NAMs may be perceived as more credible over HAMs due to a natural human
self-comparison to models. Given dissenting opinions and results of a number of scholars and
considering the above mentioned discussion, it is hypothesized:
H1: NAMs are perceived to be more trustworthy for problem-solving products over HAMs;
H2: HAMs are perceived to be moretrustworthyfor beauty-enhancing productsthan NAMs;
H3: NAMs are perceived to have greater source expertise for problem-solving products than are HAMs;
H4: HAMs are perceived to have greater source expertise for enhancing products than are NAMs;
H5: Advertisements for problem-solving products that include NAMs will be more effective than those
that include HAMs.
H6: Advertisements for enhancing products that include HAMs will be more effective than those that
include NAMs;
H7:NAMs would generate stronger buying intentions for problem-solving products compared to HAMs;
H8:HAMs would generate stronger buying intentions for beauty-enhancing products compared to
NAMS.
12
3. Methodology
The current study was based on a questionnaire where the stimuli of advertisements with different
models promoting beauty-enhancing and problem-solving products were used. The questionnaire was
distributed in Denmark.
3.1. The research design
An 2x2 experimental factorial desing was used to test the earlier mentioned hypotheses. The
independent variables were models image (HAM versus NAM) and beauty product type (beautyenhancing and problem-solving). Levels for the mentioned variables were HAM versus NAM and beautyenhancing product (perfume) versus problem-solving product (facial cleanser).
Table 1. Factors and levels of the experiment
Factors
Models image
Product
Levels
Highly Attractive Model
Normally Attractive Model
Beauty-enhancing (perfume)
Problem-solving (facial cleanser)
With the combination of factors and levels four stimuli were designed: HAM with beauty-enhancing
product, HAM with problem-solving product, NAM with beauty-enhancing product and NAM with
problem-solving product. The following section introduces the process of creating the artificial
advertisements where four different stimuli have been used and were presented to respondents.
3.2. Stimuli design
In order to avoid resembling answers for the similar-looking advertisements, a Latin Square design was
used. With the usage of the mentioned design it was possible to control for variation across treatments.
It resulted in four different advertisements which were presented to two groups of respondents (two
advertisements to each pool of respondents).
13
3.2.1. Selection of products
The selection of the products was based on different usage to reach the beauty-related purpose. To
differentiate the products and initial beauty-related purposes of the products A perfume was decided to
be used for a beauty-enhancing product (i.e. the product does not solve a beauty-related issue but
enhances the current beauty state of a customer) and a facial cleanser was chosen for the problemsolving product (i.e. the product does not enhance your current beauty state, but solves your skinrelated problems, e.g. acne-prone skin or facial skin richness). Both product types are widely consumed
all around the world, including Denmark. Therefore, a good sense of notoriety could be ensured to make
associations with their own consumption habits which may also form opinion about the model.
3.2.2. Brand design
In order to avoid prior brand knowledge as well as prejudices related to brand associations, fictitious
brands were used for the experiment. To give respondents’ clear product associations, simple names for
both products were chosen. The beauty-enhancing product perfume was named as “Perfume” and facial
cleanser was named as “Cleanser”.
Packages of both products were designed to give direct associations to products as well as their usage
specifics. Both the brand name and designed packages represented two completely new (fictional)
products that could be used in the Danish market.
3.2.3. Selection of the model
Two different pictures illustrating two types –highly attractive and normally attractive women were
chosen. A picture illustrating happy and appealing, however, not an extremely attractive woman was
chosen to represent a NAM, whereas as for the HAM a picture of an extremely attractive woman with a
flawless skin was chosen. Both selected models were made to look quite distinctive and their
appearance differences making them highly/normally attractive could be easily distinguished.
Pictures of female models were bought from an online photo database and were adjusted for the
experiment using the graphics editing program “Photoshop”.
14
3.2.4. The arrangement of the elements in advertisements
Advertisements with the combination of one model and one product were made. An image of the model
was put in the right corner of an advertisement, whereas the image of the product was put in the
bottom left part of an advertisement. In all model-product combinations arrangements of the
advertisement elements were exactly the same in order to eliminate advertisement differences. No
additional text for the advertisement was used.
In order to have an understanding of how model and products were manipulated, the four different
advertisements are illustrated below.
Figure 1 NAM and a problem-solving product
Figure 3 HAM and a problem-solving product
Figure 2 NAM and a beauty-enhancing product
Figure 4 HAM and a beauty-enhancing product
15
3.3. The questionnaire design
The questionnaire began with a short introduction to the questionnaire; the questionnaire consisted of
four parts. The first part consisted of questions on models and product match resulting in a perceived
trustworthiness. Models trustworthiness as well as perceived expertise was measured with five-item
semantic differential scales (Ohanian, 1990). It was measured using the scale: “UndependableDependable, Dishonest-Honest, Unreliable-Reliable, Insincere-Sincere, and Untrustworthy-Trustworthy”.
Models expertise was measured using the scale: “Not an expert-Expert, UnknowledgeableKnowledgeable, Inexperienced-Experienced, Unqualified-Qualified, and Unskilled-Skilled”. Question
statements were randomized.
The further question appealed to respondents’ product liking/taste. Using a 7-point Likert scale it was
asked to rate such statements as “I dislike it-I like it”, “It is ineffective-It is effective”, “Negative-Positive”
and “I would not purchase it-I would purchase it”.
The second part was on products evaluation. Two questions for this part were asked. Using a 7-point
Likert scale respondents were asked to rate statements “This product would improve my unsatisfactory
physical feature” and “This is a kind of product I would use to “fix” a beauty problem”.
The third part was about perceived attractiveness as well as normalcy of the model. The first part
investigated perceived attractiveness; using a 7-point Likert scale respondents were asked to rate
statements including models attractiveness (sexiness, elegance etc.). The second part investigated in
perceived models normalcy; respondents were asked to state on which degree they agree that the
model is an “ordinary woman and normal”.
The last, fourth part of the questionnaire contained of socio-demographic questions, where respondents
were asked to state the frequency of their beauty-product purchases, their gender, age and whether
they live in Denmark. Questions of gender, age and residence were needed so that only relevant
respondents are included in the sample size (male respondents, respondents under 18 years old and
respondents not living in Denmark have been taken out of the sample size).
16
3.3.1. Procedure
Two identical, however containing different model-product variation pictures, web based surveys were
conducted in Qualtrics. Links of the surveys were distributed using a number of social media sources.
Questionnaires were distributed to consumers residing in Denmark.
No incentive was promised to respondents and therefore all respondents filled out questionnaire on
their own will.
17
4. Analysis and Results
4.1. Sample Description
Due to the nature of the analysis (beauty-related products) it was aimed to obtain answers exclusively
fromfemale respondents who would be over 18 years old and would reside in Denmark.
The total number of repondents was 82; the sample size was big enough for the further analysis. The
average participant’s age was 23 years old. In relation to beauty-related products’ purchases, it has
become clear that respondents purchase beauty products approximately once a month.
4.2. Product manipulation
A paired samples t-test was conducted to explore the difference between product and product two and
significant differences were found (t(81)=2.39; p=0.019). There are differences between the products.
Results suggest that a problem-solving product cleanser is perceived to be slightly more adequate
(M=3.24) than a beauty-enhancing product perfume (M=2.76).
4.3. Model manipulation
After conducting a paired samples t-test it has become clear that there are significant differences
between NAM and HAM attractiveness (t(81)=-5.74; p=0.000). Since significance level does not exceed
five percent, there is a high probability that the given mean is the true mean of the population.
As expected, NAM was perceived to be less attractive compared to a HAM by one point (out of seven)
which makes HAM to be a very attractive (M=5.08) and NAM to be of the moderate attractiveness
18
(M=4.07). Standard deviation of HAMs attractiveness is slightly larger than NAMs; however the
difference is not significant.
A graph below represents NAM and HAM models’ attractiveness evaluations.
According to a paired samples t-test on normalcy, as expected, a difference between NAMs and HAMs
normalcy can be pointed out (t(81)=9.35; p=0.000). Results show that NAM is perceived to be more
normal looking (i.e. an “ordinary woman”, M=5.77) compared to a HAM (M=3.72).
19
4.4. Main analysis
Four analyses were conducted to test hypotheses. All analyzes were conducted using PASW Statistics 18
and were based in repeated measures ANOVA.
20
4.4.1. Hypotheses I and II
Arepeated measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) with two levels of models‘s condition (NAM, HAM)
and two products (cleanser, perfume) with trustworthiness as dependent variable was conducted. Table
3 represents the key findings relating to it.
Results indicated that NAMs perceived trustworthiness for problem-solving product was lower (M=4.25)
than HAMs perceived trustworthiness for the problem-solving product (M=4.39) failing to support H1
that NAMs are perceived to be more trustworthy for problem-solving products.
As for beauty-enhancing products, results show that NAM was perceived to be more trustworthy
(M=4.71) compared to a HAM (M=4.36) failing to support H2 that HAMs are perceived to be more
trustworthy for beauty-enhancing products compared to NAMs.
21
4.4.1. Hypotheses III and IV
Following hypothesis are related to perceived HAM and NAM expertise solely for beauty-enhancing and
problem solving products. Both hypotheses relate to product type conditions in which HAM or NAM
would be thought to have a greater expertise. As from table 3, it can be seen that there is no significant
effect of the model condition x product type interaction on source expertise (F=0.52, p=0.472). High F
value on expertise (at the point of p value being less than 0.05) tells that change in product type has a
definite effect on the change in the grand mean of expertise (high variance). On the other hand there is
a low probability that the change in product type had any effect on the perception of model’s
trustworthiness (low F value, high p value).
As for problem-solving products, NAMs were perceived to be a better source of expertise (M=4.91)
compared to a HAM (M=4.74). However due to insignificant difference, H3 cannot be supported.
As for beauty-enhancing products, NAMs were perceived to be a greater source of expertise (M=3.68)
compared to HAMs (M=3.23) failing to support H4 that HAMs are perceived to have greater source
expertise for enhancing products than are NAMs.
22
A graph below represents NAM and HAM models’ evaluations for the expertise for beauty-enhancing
product.
4.4.2. Hypotheses V and VI
Hypotheses IV and V relate to the direct effect of model-product type match-up on product evaluations.
As it can be seen from table 3, the interaction between model and product has a significant effect on
product evaluation (F=1.07, p=0.301). Data shows that NAMs resulted in higher evaluations (M=3.86) for
problem solving products than HAMs (M=3.60), however, the difference is not significant and therefore
H5 cannot be supported.
23
As from table 4, it can be seen that NAM resulted in higher evaluations for enhancing products (M=4.44)
compared to a HAM (M=3.59) failing to support H6.
The following part analyzes whether a model would generate and/or change customers’ buying behavior
in regards to a product.
4.4.3. Hypotheses VII and VIII
Hypotheses VII and VIII analyze purchase intention for both products when generated by both models HAM and NAM. According to data, there is no significant effect of the model condition by product type
interaction on purchase intention (F=0.27, p=0.604). However, resulting p-value was very close to the
selected threshold of 0.05, meaning that slight change in either variable or threshold would cause this
result to be accepted. Keeping this in mind for future discussion, we still have to reject the hypothesis.
Data shows that NAMs generated higher buying intentions (M=4.32) for problem solving products than
HAMs (M=4.24); however, the difference is not significant and therefore H7 cannot be supported.
24
A graph below represents NAM and HAM models’ generated buying intentions for problem-solving
product.
As for beauty-enhancing products data shows that NAMs scored higher (M=2.93) than HAMs (M=2.59)
failing to approve H8 that HAMs would generate stronger buying intentions for beauty-enhancing
products over NAMs.
25
5. Discussion
5.1. Conclusions
The paper adressed the question of how HAMs and NAMs are perceived in advertisements and whether
model‘s attractiveness can affect customers‘ opinion as well as shape purchase intentions when
matched with a product of a certain category. To investigate this, an experiment of an model (NAM
versus HAM) and a product (problem-solving product cleanser versus beauty-enhancing product
perfume) was designed.
To begin with, the manipulation check of the product revealed that cleanser was perceived to be a more
adequate than perfume making cleanser more „needed“ and beneficial product over perfume. As
expected, cleanser was perceived to be a product of improvement (the one which can change ones
appearance) whereas perfume scored lower because of the natural tendency to enhance appearance
(no correction or “fix”, but upgrading the current state).
As for model manipulation, having shown stimuli including HAM and NAM, as expected, results
uncovered that a HAM model was categorized as more attractive and less normal than a NAM. It
confirmed the perception that HAM is perceived to be better looking in terms of appearance when
compared to a NAM.
The main analysis revealed that there are no differences in perceived NAMs’ trustworthiness for
problem-solving and perceived HAMs’ trustworthiness for beauty-enhancing products failing to support
both H1 and H2. It concludes that both models – HAMs as well as NAMs are perceived to be equally
trustworthy for both product categories (problem-solving and beauty-enhancing). On the other hand,
even though hypotheses were not approved, the manipulation for the trustworthiness raised a question
of the changing patterns of perceived trustworthiness which might be the reason why NAM scored
slightly higher for both products compared to a HAM (however, the difference is not significant).
Hypotheses III and IV predicted that NAM will be perceived being a greater expert for problem-solving
and HAM will be perceived an expert for beauty-enhancing product. However, the outcome shows that
it is not the case; there is no difference in perceived expertise between both model concluding that both
models – NAM as well as HAM are perceived to be equally professional to promote products of both
categories (M=4.91 for HAM and M=4.74 for HAM).
26
One of the previous researches analyzing the match of model attractiveness and product attitude done
by Westovera and Randleb (2009) found that there is no significant difference between models
attractiveness and product attitude. In the current paper hypotheses V and VI were aiming to analyze
the direct effect of model-product type match-up on product evaluations (i.e. product attitude) where
results showed that there are no significant differences for product attitude when checking on modelproduct match (NAM with the problem-solving versus HAM with the beauty-enhancing product)
supporting previous findings and concluding that there is no significant relationship between models
attractiveness and product attitude.
When interpreting hypothesis VII and VIII, which analyzed NAMs and HAMs aroused buying intentions
for both products, it has become clear that NAM generated slightly stronger purchase intentions;
however the difference between NAM’s and HAM’s generated purchase intentions was not large
enough to conclude that models would generate different buying intentions. It concludes that NAM
would generate the same level of buying intentions as HAM.
Contrary to expectations of the past research about product distinctions and different perceptions of
highly and normally attractive models (e.g. Kamins 1990), there is no evidence to conclude that there
are significant differences in perceived HAMs and NAMs trustworthiness, expertise, product attitude
and aroused purchase intention making to think that NAM is equally beneficial for both types of
products in advertisements as HAM. Current outcome supports Halliwell‘s and Dittmar‘s (2004) eduction
that advertisements containing average-size and/or thin models are equally effective; and such
conclusion was made analyzing data measures in attitude towards the advertisement, attitude towards
the brand and purchase intention. To sum up, even though NAM is perceived to be worse-looking when
compared to a HAM, it still is perceived to be equally effective, trustworthy and expert in the field for
both types of product just like a HAM.
5.2. Marketing Implications
Results of the paper lead to certain marketing implications. In advertising, it is worthy to know which
model to use when promoting a certain product so that a promotional goal could be reached. In a
number of cases marketers experience the confusion of model-product match and face the dilemma
which model to choose (HAM or NAM) for the specific product promotion. Surprisingly enough,
outcome of the analysis suggests that both type models would do equally well (i.e. there is no significant
difference between both models) in terms of expertise, product attitude and aroused purchase
27
intentions for customers. Therefore, it can be concluded that there is no difference between a NAM and
a HAM consequently making NAM being as effective as HAM for both product types (problem-solving
and beauty-enhancing).
As analyzed earlier, contraty to stereotypical approach that only HAMs (or NAMs) should promote a
certain product due to models appearance specifics, Dove has launched a campaign using solely NAMs
promoting both – beauty-enhancing and problem-solving products. Both products were equally wellbought after the campaign has been launched. Therefore, both results – paper analysis and Dove
campaign suggest that there is no significant relationship between the model and product making to
think that a different customer approach (i.e. breaking stereotypes and using a number of catchy and
unused attention-attracting methods) might be an issue marketers should consider first before deciding
which type of model to use for the product promotion. Analysing Dove‘s unusual customer approach
(i.e. breaking stereotypes that only HAMs can promote beauty products, solely beauty-enhancing
products), Dove has caught attention with the „irregular“ and out-of-standards usage of NAMs. As
mentioned earlier, people unconsciously compare themselves to models – and self-comparison to NAMs
results in model-liking and, consequently, interest in a product. Therefore, Dove has hit the top
matching the need of positive self-comparison with the unusual customer approach.
The dilemma whether to choose a NAM or a HAM for product promotion could be solved with the help
of unconventional customer approach, i.e. promotion which would be different from what has been
done so far. In such case model should match a general idea as well as goals of an advertisement (i.e. to
impress, to shock, to astonish, etc.). Therefore, innovative solutions for product promotion might be an
issue that marketers should consider when deciding which model to choose.
5.3. Limitations and Further Research
There are certain limitations in the paper which are worth mentioning. The first concern is diverse and
contradicting results from a number of researches done under this topic. Such a variety can be explained
because of a time dimension (i.e. lengthy time span) as well as changing patterns in NAMs and HAMs
appearance perception. Meanwhile a couple of decades ago a full-bodied healthy woman would have
been perceived as HAM, nowadays only a slim person could be recognized as a HAM.
In addition to this, a slightly different outcome of the data could have been achieved with the usage of
different stimuli. The notoriety of model as well as product brands might have provided different results
28
due to precedent brand (or model) knowledge. However, such prior knowledge might have resulted in
an unexpected outcome due to plausible brand (or model) prejudice.
The manipulation accomplished in a different environment (i.e. country) could have also provided with
the different results that would vary from the current data. Besides, in case of a larger sample size
results would have been different.
Finally, after having analysed the data and having mentioned limitations it can be concluded that in
general consumers have become more conscious about the product choice and model appeals, or in
other words, consumers have become more educated about their product choice. Therefore, it would
be thrilling to investigate a NAM, HAM, and unattractive model’s match up with a product. As for such a
study, it would be also worthy to investigate changing patterns of advertisement and sales pitches since
NAM does not differ from HAMs and does not make substantial changes in product attitude or purchase
intention. Therefore, since NAM and HAM promotions do not differ and since consumers have become
more educated, marketers are advised to investigate the need of catchy and innovative advertisement
solutions. Nevertheless, having collected the data it can be concluded that both products would be
bought in either case regardless of which model is used in an advertisement.
29
References:
Becker, A.E. & Hamburg, R (1996) Culture, the media, and eating disorders. Harvard Review of
Psychiatry, 4, 163-167
Bloch, Peter and Richins, Marsha L. (1992), „You Look „Mahvelous“: The Pursuit of Beauty and the
Marketing Concept“, Psychology and Marketing, 9(1), 3-15
Brajesh, Kumar and Gouranga, Patra, „Celebrity Endorsement in FMCGs Advertising - A Case Study in a
Culturally Vibrant Society“, 1
Bower, Amanda and Landreth, Stacy (2001), „Is beauty best? Highly versus normally attractive models in
advertising“, Journal of Advertising, 30(1), 1
Caballero, Marjorie J. and William. M. Pride (1984), "Selected Effects of Salesperson Sex and
Attractiveness in Direct Mail Advertisements," Journal of Marketing, 48 (January), 94-100.
Clifton, Daphne (2006), „Network with Confidence“ (Steps to Sucess), Chapter 3, „People ‚buy‘ people“
Debevec, Kathleen‘ Madden, Thomas; Kernan, Jerome (1986) „Physical Attractiveness, Message
Evaluation and Compliance: A Structural Examination“, Psychological Reports 58, 503-508
Dholakia, Ruby Roy; Sternthal, Brian (1977), "Highly Credible Sources Persuasive Facilitators or
Persuasive Liabilities," Journal of Consumer Research, 3, 223-32
Dion, Karen; Berscheid, Ellen; Walster, Elaine (1972) „What Is Beautiful Is Good“, Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology 24, 285-290
Eagly, Alice H.; Ashmore, Richard D.; Makhijami, Mona G.; Longo, Laura C. (1991) „What is Beautiful is
Good, But...: A Meta-Analytic Review of Research on the Physical Attractiveness Stereotype“,
Psychological Bulletin 110 (1991): 109-128
Eden, Dan (2009), Body, Mind and Spirit, „How do we know what is beautiful?“, Viewzone
Engeln-Maddox, R. (2005) Cognitive responses to idealized media images of women: The relationship of
social comparison and critical processing to body image disturbance in college women. Journal of Social
and Clinical Psychology, 24(8), 1114-1138
30
Epstude, Kai, and Thomas Mussweiler (2009), “What You Feel Is How You Compare: How Comparisons
Influence the Social Induction of Affect,” Emotion, 9 (1), 1–14.
Freedman, Rita, Beauty Bound (Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1986); Cunningham, Michael R.,
Roberts, Alan R.; Barbee, Anita P.; Druen, Perri B.; Wu, Cheng-Huan, “Their Ideas of Beauty Are, On the
Whole, the Same as Ours: Consistency and Variability in the Cross-Cultural Perception of Female Physical
Attractiveness”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 68 (2, 1995): 261-279
Goodman, Robyn Morris, Jon; Sutherland, John (2008),“Is Beauty a joy forever? Young women’s
emotional responses to varying types of beautiful advertising models”, J&MC Quarterly V. 85, 1, 147-168
Harrison, K. & Cantor, J. (1997), The relationship between media consumption and eating disorders,
Journal of Communication, 47(1), 40-67
Kahle, Lynn R. And Pamela M. Homer (1985), „Physical Attractiveness of the Celebrity Endorser: A Social
Adaptation Perspective“, Journal of Consumer Research, 11, 954-961
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.
Lord, Kenneth and Putrevu, Sanjay (2009) Informational and transformational responses to celebrity
endorsements, Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 31(1), pp. 1-13.
Maddux, James E. and Ronald W. Rogers (1980), “Effects of Source Expertness, Physical Attractiveness,
and Supporting Arguments on Persuasion: A Case of Brains over Beauty”, Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 39 (2), 235-244
Mile, Arthur G. (1970), Role of physical attractiveness in impression formation, Psychometric Science,
19(4), 241-243
Ohanian, Roobina (1991). Construction and validation of a scale to measure celebrity endorsers’
perceived expertise, trustwrothiness, and attractiveness. Journal of Advertising, 19(3). 39-52
Priester, Joseph and Petty, Richard (1995). Source attribution and persuasion: Perceived honesty as a
determinant of message scrutiny. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 637–654.
Richins, Marsha L. (1991), “Social Comparison and the Idealized Images of Advertising,” Journal of
Consumer Research, 19 (June), 71–83.
Simons, Herbert; Berkowitz, Nancy and Moyer, John (1970), “Similarity, Credibility and Attitude Change:
A Review and a Theory”, Psychological Bulletin, 73 (1), 1-16
31
Striegel-Moore, Ruth H.; Silberstein, Lisa R.; Rodin, Judith (1986), “Towards an Understanding of Risk
Factors for Bulimia”, American Psychologist, 41(3), 246-263
Westovera, Michael Lea and Randleb, Quint (2009). Endorser weight and perceptions of brand attitude
and intent to purchase. Journal of Promotion Management, 15, 57-73
32
APPENDIX
APPENDIX I: QUESTIONNAIRE
Dear participant,
Welcome to the survey.
I am a student at the Aarhus School of Business, currently working on my
Bachelor thesis. This questionnaire is the main part and I would be very thankful
if you answered the questions which would help me investigate further in the
topic of interest.
The survey will approximately take 5-7 minutes.
Thank you in advance!
Viktorija Gorcakovaite
PART 0: Explanation
What follows are advertisements of two beauty-related products, a cleanser and a
perfume. These products are hypothetical and do not exist in the market. However, you
are asked to rate these advertisements as if the products did exist.
33
PART 1: Model and product match
34
35
PART 2: Product manipulation
36
37
PART 3: Model manipulation
38
39
PART 4: Socio-demographics
40