The Effects of Informational and Transformational Motivations on Responses toward
Celebrity Endorsements
Extended Abstract
Celebrity-endorsement contracts have grown substantially in quantity and cost in recent
years. Armbruster (2006) described an array of benefits that may account for the popularity of
this strategy: instant recognition, immediate “cut-through” (in a cluttered ad environment),
implied preference (assumption that the celebrity likes the product), “cool” factor, and
competitive advantage (through instant credibility). Ohanian (1990) presented evidence that
source credibility consists of three major dimensions: attractiveness, trustworthiness, and
expertise. This research examines which of the three dimensions dominate celebrity-endorser
credibility perceptions under informational and transformational motivational conditions and
how those dimensions affect consumer judgment and choice.
The Elaboration-likelihood Model (ELM) postulates two routes to persuasion or attitude
change (Petty and Cacioppo 1986). It suggests that individuals who are high in processing
motivation, opportunity, and ability will, upon exposure to a persuasive message, engage in
purposeful processing of the message arguments (central route to persuasion). On the other hand,
at lower levels of motivation, opportunity, and/or ability, any persuasive effect that emerges is
presumably associated with the individual’s liking or disliking of the various executional
elements of the message (peripheral route to persuasion). In addition, the spokesperson might be
construed as either a central or peripheral cue, depending on the type of relationship between the
endorser and the product. Thus, an involved consumer may look to an endorser’s trustworthiness
or expertise as an “argument” in favor of message acceptance via the central route, whereas
acceptance for a less involved recipient may derive from the endorser’s attractiveness or
familiarity via the peripheral route.
The R-P Grid (Rossiter and Percy 1987) incorporates several aspects of the involvement
theory and ELM constructs along two dimensions: involvement (high versus low) and type of
motivation (informational versus transformational). Informationally motivated consumers are
likely to be sensitive to the personal relevance and potential functional risk associated with
purchase decisions. Here, the most effective endorsers will be those in whom the buyer can place
his or her confidence or whose credibility offers the greatest potential for minimizing risk. In the
first instance (confidence), the advantage would appear to fall to the “trustworthy” endorser. In
the second (risk reduction), an “expert” presumably offers greatest credibility advantage because
of his or her superior knowledge. Transformational motivations stem from a consumer’s desire to
enhance his or her sensory, mental, or social state. The attractive, engaging properties the
consumer may like to attain are potentially more likely to reside in the “attractiveness” than in
the trustworthiness or expertise dimensions of endorser credibility.
Study 1 examined the influence of the attractiveness, expertise, and trustworthiness
dimensions of endorser credibility by observing their effects on the attitudes and purchase
intentions of subjects toward informational and transformational products.
H1: For products appealing to informational motivations, brand attitude and purchase
intention are influenced by the expertise and trustworthiness of the endorser.
H2: For products appealing to transformational motivations, brand attitude and
purchase intention are influenced by the attractiveness of the endorser.
1
Print advertisements were created to measure consumer reaction to messages for products
typified by informational (microwave ovens and aspirin) and transformational (designer jeans
and chocolate bars) motivations. In a between-subjects design, subjects (120 students from a
major Australian university – 63 females and 57 males) received one of the test ads (the Michael
Jordan endorsement for the product in the relevant condition) and three filler ads (for the other
three products). The three dimensions of credibility were measured using 15 six-point semantic
differential items and attitude and purchase intent were measured using multiple items. To test
hypotheses 1 and 2, attitude and purchase-intention scores were regressed as a function of the
mean attractiveness, expertise, and trustworthiness scores. In the informational-motivation
category (microwave oven, aspirin), trustworthiness was the only dimension of credibility that
emerged as a significant predictor of attitude and intention. This provides partial support for H1,
which predicted significant effects of trustworthiness and expertise, but not for attractiveness. In
the transformational-motivation condition (designer jeans, chocolate bars), as predicted by H2,
attractiveness was a positive and significant predictor.
The intent of Study 2 was to provide direct evidence of a link between the three
credibility dimensions and the two motivation types in an externally valid context.
H3: Informational processing is influenced by the expertise and trustworthiness
dimensions of endorser credibility.
H4: Transformational processing is influenced by the attractiveness dimension of
endorser credibility.
To enhance external validity, actual ads from several publications depicting celebrity
endorsers were selected as the stimuli for the second study. A judgment sample of 241 nonstudent consumers in the United States was exposed to these ads. Upon agreeing to participate in
the study, respondents were shown a magazine article and two ads (a test ad and a filler) and
invited to read them as they would in their typical magazine reading. Upon completing that task,
they were provided with the instrument, containing the same measures of the three dimensions of
endorser credibility used in Study 1 and the Puto and Wells (1984) Informational and
Transformational Ad Content scale. To test hypotheses 3 and 4, the informational- and
transformational-processing scores were regressed as a function of the mean attractiveness,
expertise, and trustworthiness scores. As in Study 1, results were partially consistent with the
informational-motivation hypothesis (H3) whereby expertise was found to be the only significant
predictor of informational processing (β = .51, t = 3.58, p < .005). H4 obtained support in the
results, with attractiveness emerging as the only significant positive predictor of motivational
processing (β = .28, t = 2.12, p < .05).
This research set out to explore how celebrity endorsements are processed by consumers
and how such processing influences brand attitude and purchase intention. There were two
dimensions of credibility to which consumers were expected to respond cognitively in response
to informational motivations – expertise and trustworthiness; each emerged as a significant
predictor of relevant dependent variables. Similarly, attractiveness, which was expected to
dominate when consumers were experiencing transformational motivation on the basis of its
affective relevance, emerged consistently as significant in the predicted conditions across Studies
1 and 2. It appears that informationally motivated consumers draw upon their perceptions of an
endorser’s trustworthiness or expertise to enhance their confidence or minimize risk, whereas
transformationally motivated consumers are affected primarily by the attractiveness dimension of
credibility. Hence, informational motivation leads to the cognitive processing of endorser
2
expertise and trustworthiness, while transformational motivation leads to the affective processing
of endorser attractiveness; these in turn shape attitudinal and behavioral outcomes.
References
Armbruster, Adam (2006), “Starts Might Shine for You . . . or Fall Fast; Before Hiring a
Celebrity Spokesperson, Weigh the Benefits Against Drawbacks,” Television Week,
October 23, 2006, p. 12.
Atkin, Charles and Martin Block (1983), “Effectiveness of Celebrity Endorsers,” Journal of
Advertising Research, 23 (February/March), 57-61.
Beltramini, Richard F. and Ajay K. Sirsi (1992), “Physician Information Acquisition and
Believability: A Field Experiment on Source and Type of Information,” Journal of
Health Care Marketing, 12 (4), 52-59.
Biswas, Dipayan, Abhijit Biswas, and Neel Das (2006), “The Differential Effects of Celebrity
and Expert Endorsements on Consumer Risk Perceptions: The Role of Consumer
Knowledge, Perceived Congruency, and Product Technology Orientation,” Journal of
Advertising, 35 (2), 17-31.
Braunsberger, Karin and James M. Munch (1998), “Source Expertise Versus Experience Effects
in Hospital Advertising,” Journal of Services Marketing, 12 (1), 23-32.
Calfee, John E. and Debra Jones Ringold (1994), “The 70% Majority: Enduring Consumer
Beliefs About Advertising,” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 13 (Fall), 228-238.
Choi, Sejung Marina, Wei Na Lee, and Hee Jung Kim (2005), “Lessons from the Rich and
Famous: A Cross-Cultural Comparison of Celebrity Endorsement in Advertising,”
Journal of Advertising, 34 (2), 85-98.
Collins, Allan M. and Elizabeth F. Loftus (1975), “The Theory of Semantic Processing,”
Psychological Review, 82 (6), 407-428.
Cronin, Joseph Michael (2004), “The Effect of Celebrity Endorsements on Attitude Toward
Advertisements, Brands, and Purchase Intentions,” Unpublished dissertation, University
at Albany, State University of New York.
Frieden, Jon B. (1984), “Advertising Spokesperson Effects: An Examination of Endorser Type
and Gender on Two Audiences,” Journal of Advertising Research, 24
(October/November), 33-41.
Friedman, Hershey H. and Linda Friedman (1979), “Endorser Effectiveness by Product Type,”
Journal of Advertising Research, 19 (October), 63-71.
3
Friedman, Hershey H., Salvatore Termini, and Robert Washington (1976), “The Effectiveness of
Advertisements Utilizing Four Types of Endorsers,” Journal of Advertising, 5 (3), 22-24.
Goldsmith, Ronald E., Barbara A. Lafferty and Stephen J. Newell (2000), “The Impact of
Corporate Credibility and Celebrity Credibility on Consumer Reaction to Advertisements
and Brands,” Journal of Advertising, 29 (Fall), 43-54.
Giffin, Kim (1967), “The Contribution of Studies of Source Credibility to a Theory of
Interpersonal Trust in the Communication Process,” Psychological Bulletin, 68, 104-120.
Gotlieb, Jerry B. and Dan Sarel (1991), “Comparative Advertising Effectiveness: The Role of
Involvement and Source Credibility,” Journal of Advertising, 20 (1), 38-45.
Homer, Pamela M. and Lynn R. Kahle (1990), “Source Expertise, Time of Source Identification,
and Involvement in Persuasion: An Elaborative Processing Perspective,” Journal of
Advertising, 19 (1), 30-39.
Hovland, Carl I., Irving L. Janis, and Harold H. Kelley (1953), Communications and Persuasion:
Psychological Studies of Opinion Change, New Haven: Yale University Press.
Kamins, Michael A. (1990), “An Investigation into the Match-up Hypothesis in Celebrity
Endorsers,” Journal of Advertising, 19 (1), 4-13.
Kamins, Michael A., Meribeth J. Brand, Stuart A. Hoeke, and John C. Moe (1989), “Two-sided
Versus One-Sided Celebrity Endorsements: the Impact on Advertising Effectiveness and
Credibility,” Journal of Advertising, 18 (2), 4-10.
Lafferty, Barbara A., Ronald E. Goldsmith and Stephen J. Newell (2002), “The Dual Credibility
Model: The Influence of Corporate and Endorser Credibility on Attitudes and Purchase
Intentions,” Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 10 (Summer), 1-12.
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, 71-84.
McCracken, Grant (1989), “Who is the Celebrity Endorser? Cultural Foundations of the
Endorsement Process,” Journal of Consumer Research, 16, 310-321.
McGuire, William J. (1969), “The Nature of Attitudes and Attitude Change,” in The Handbook
of Social Psychology, Vol. 3, Gardner Lindsey and Elliott Aronson, eds., Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Mills, Judson and John Harvey (1972), “Opinion Change as a Function of When Information
About the Communicator is Received and Whether He is Attractive or Expert,” Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 21 (1), 52-55.
4
New York Times (2003), “Celebrity Endorsement Deals Continue Despite Economic Downturn,”
April 20.
Ohanian, Roobina (1990), “Construction and Validation of a Scale to Measure Celebrity
Endorsers’ Perceived Expertise, Trustworthiness, and Attractiveness,” Journal of
Advertising, 19 (3), 39-52.
Ohanian, Roobina (1991), “The Impact of Celebrity Spokespersons’ Perceived Image on
Consumers Intention to Purchase,” Journal of Advertising Research, 31
(February/March), 46-54.
O’Mahony, Sheila and Tony Meenaghan (1997/98), “The Impact of Celebrity Endorsements on
Consumers,” Irish Marketing Review, 10(2), 15-24.
Petty, Richard E. and John T. Cacioppo (1986), Communication and Persuasion: Central and
Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change, New York: Spring-Verlag.
Petty, Richard E., John T. Cacioppo, and David Schumann (1983), “Central and Peripheral
Routes to Advertising Effectiveness: The Moderating Role of Involvement,” Journal of
Consumer Research, 10 (2), 135-146.
Puto, Christopher P. and William D. Wells (1984), “Informational and Transformational
Advertising: The Differential Effects of Time,” in Thomas C. Kinnear (ed.), Advances in
Consumer Research, Vol. 11, Provo, Utah: Association for Consumer Research, 638-643.
Rossiter, John R. and Larry Percy (1987), Advertising and Promotion Management, New York:
McGraw Hill.
Rossiter, John R., Larry Percy, and Robert J. Donovan (1991), “A Better Planning Grid,”
Journal of Advertising Research, 31 (5), 11-21.
Scott, Walter (2007), “Personality Parada,” Parade Publications, New York: Advance Magazine
Publishers Inc.
Sengupta, Jaideep, Ronald C. Goodstein and David S. Boninger (1997), “All Cues Are Not
Created Equal: Obtaining Attitude Persistence under Low-Involvement Conditions,”
Journal of Consumer Research, 23 (March), 351-361.
Stafford, Marla Royne, Thomas F. Stafford, and Ellen Day (2002), “A Contingency Approach:
The Effects of Spokesperson Type and Service Type on Service Advertising
Perceptions,” Journal of Advertising, 31 (Summer), 17-34.
Till, Brian D. (1998), “Using Celebrity Endorsers Effectively: Lessons from Associate
Learning,” Journal of Product & Brand Management, 7 (5), 400-409.
5
Till, Brian D. and Michael Busler (1998), “Matching Products with Endorsers: Attractiveness
versus Expertise,” The Journal of Consumer Marketing, 15 (6), 576-586.
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 (Fall), 1-13.
Till, Brian D. and Terence A. Shimp (1998), “Endorsers in Advertising: The Case of Negative
Information,” Journal of Advertising, 27 (Spring), 67-82.
Tom, Gail, Rebecca Clark, Laura Elmer, Edward Grech, Joseph Masetti Jr., and Harmona
Sandhar 1992), “The Use of Created Versus Celebrity Spokespersons in
Advertisements,” Journal of Consumer Marketing, 9 (4), 45-51.
Tripp, Carolyn, Tom Jensen, and Les Carlson (1994), “The Effects of Multiple Product
Endorsements by Celebrities on Consumers’ Attitudes and Intentions,” Journal of
Consumer Research, 20 (March), 535-547.
Withers, Tom (2003), “LeBron James Oks $90M Nike Endorsement,” The Associated Press
News Service, May 22.
6