Relationship of Purchasing, Brand, and Self Involvement with
Advertising Interactions and Beliefs Among Malaysian Students
Jyotika Ramaprasad
School of Journalism
Southern Illinois University
Carbondale, IL 62901
(618) 453-3277
Paper accepted for presentation to the Advertising Division of the
Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication at the
National Convention, Atlanta, GA, August 1994. The author acknowledges
the help of Dr. Meera Komarraju, Visiting Faculty, and Mohamad Md.
Yusoff, Faculty, University of Science, Penang, Malaysia, in data
collection, and the help of the Center for International Business
Education and Research, College of Business Administration, Southern
Illinois University, Carbondale, IL, in funding.
Relationship of Purchasing, Brand, and Self Involvement with
Advertising Interactions and Beliefs Among Malaysian Students
Abstract
This study finds relatively high purchasing involvement, average
brand involvement, and a somewhat individualistic orientation to
purchasing, as well as average interactions (attention to, influence
of, etc.) with advertising and average to negative beliefs about
social and economic aspects of advertising among Malaysian students.
It also finds that purchasing involvement is negatively related to
social beliefs about advertising, and brand involvement is related to
the functional value and influence of advertising on purchase. That
is, the more highly involved purchasers have more unfavorable views
about advertising's social impact, and the more brand conscious
respondents find advertising useful and believe it influences their
purchasing behavior.
The stage of development of Malaysia as a consumer society and
the strong government and consumer association efforts to regulate
advertising and educate consumers about it respectively are offered as
explanations for many of the findings.
Jyotika Ramaprasad
School of Journalism
Southern Illinois University
Carbondale, IL 62901
(618) 453-3277
Paper accepted for presentation to the Advertising Division of the
Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication at the
National Convention, Atlanta, GA, August 1994. The author acknowledges
the help of Dr. Meera Komarraju, Visiting Faculty, and Mohamad Md.
Yusoff, Faculty, University of Science, Penang, Malaysia, in data
collection, and the help of the Center for International Business
Education and Research, College of Business Administration, Southern
Illinois University, Carbondale, IL, in funding.
Relationship of Purchasing, Brand, and Self Involvement with
Advertising Interactions and Beliefs Among Malaysian Students
The attention marketing researchers have focused on the construct
of involvement is historically long, conceptually wide, and
operationally diverse. Advertising interactions, particularly
cognitive, affective, and conative responses to specific advertising,
have also received considerable scrutiny. While advertising beliefs
have not been quite the same "blue-eyed boy" of marketing researchers,
they have received a fair share of attention. This study is positioned
at the crossroads where these strands of research meet. It assesses
the relationship between involvement and interactions with and beliefs
about advertising. Given the importance of international study in
advertising, the study is set in Malaysia.
Involvement
In the marketing/advertising literature, the construct of
involvement occupies a central place. Its multidimensional nature is
evident in the many referents it has: advertising message and
execution (Krugman 1966-67; Lutz 1985), brand (Cushing and Douglas-
Tate 1985), product (Bowen and Chaffee 1974; Vaughn 1980), and
purchase (Zaichkowsky 1985), to name a few. Though it is an issue of
some debate, involvement is sometimes conceptualized to reside in the
referent (object) itself. For example, some products may be more
involving than others simply because they are more expensive or a
higher risk is associated with making a poor choice for these
products. More often, however, involvement is seen as a link or tie
between a person and an object, i.e., involvement is not an intrinsic
feature of an object rather it is a condition of an individual with
reference to the object. For example, an ad is not more or less
involving in itself, rather it is an individual who is more or less
involved with the ad.
If the presence or absence of this link in a person with regard
to any one of the objects is enduring in nature, the type of
involvement might best be described, borrowing Muehling, Laczniak, and
Andrews' (1993) terminology, as a trait, i.e., a characteristic of an
individual. If the link, however, is temporarily activated, the
involvement might best be defined as a state, i.e., a condition an
individual is in for a limited period of time.
This (trait and state) involvement or lack thereof is likely to
affect a person's reactions towards the object or towards related
objects. For example, if a person is highly involved with an ad, it is
likely to affect the way he/she responds to the ad. If a person is
highly involved with purchasing, this is also likely to affect the way
he/she responds to advertising. These responses or processing states
of individuals have often been used as a third (apart from trait and
state) way to define involvement (Batra and Ray 1983; Greenwald and
Leavitt 1985); they are however more precisely consequences of
involvement rather than involvement per se (Andrews, Durvasula, and
Akhter 1990).
Interactions with Advertising
Consumers' responses to advertising are generally considered to
follow a certain hierarchy of steps starting with cognitions, going to
affection, and ending with behavior. Formalized by Colley (1961) and
Lavidge and Steiner (1961), the hierarchy has undergone expansion and
modification and has been revised from the linear to the cybernetic
and from one fixed combination to a few flexible combinations of the
three basic steps (Krugman 1966-67; Zajonc and Markus 1982-83).
A vast amount of theoretical as well as empirical literature is
available on the hierarchy or parts thereof. An area of research
within this body of work has the theoretical literature proposing and
the empirical literature testing the effects of certain variables,
either singly or in combination with others, on consumer responses, as
defined in the hierarchy, to advertising messages. One such variable
is involvement; it has played a central role in models which have
advanced the understanding of people's responses to advertising (Petty
and Cacioppo 1985; MacKenzie and Lutz 1989).
In Petty and Cacioppo's (1985) Elaboration Likelihood Model, the
more involved the respondent is, the more likely he/she will follow
the central route to persuasion with a resulting attitude change which
is more enduring in nature than if the respondent had followed the
peripheral route as a result of being less involved. MacKenzie and
Lutz' (1989) attitude toward the ad model posits that except under low
ad message and execution involvement where peripheral antecedents
become important, attitude toward the ad is more likely to be a
function of the central processing of ad execution. In fact,
involvement has been a key variable in the explanation not only of
specific cognitive, affective and conative responses to advertising,
but also of the order of occurrence of the steps within the hierarchy
(Krugman 1966-67).
While research has paid considerable attention to the effects of
involvement on respondents' cognitive, affective, and conative
reactions to ads, to ad messages, to brands advertised in the ads, and
so on (Leigh and Menon 1987; Gill, Grossbart, and Laczniak 1988;
Muehling and Laczniak 1988; Buchholz and Smith 1991), little attention
has been focused on responses to advertising in general. Just as
consumers may react cognitively, affectively, and conatively to a
particular ad because of their involvement either with the ad or a
related object, they may also react similarly to advertising in
general. Additionally, their involvement may affect their beliefs
about advertising.
Advertising Beliefs
Research on beliefs, particularly social and economic, about
advertising in the United States and, to some extent, in other
countries is common. Bauer and Greyser's (1968) benchmark scholarly
study in the United States found that the "public as a whole endorses
advertising's basic economic aspects, is critical of its social
aspects, and questions the content and tone of advertisements
themselves" (p. 110).
The research which followed not only traced attitudes towards
advertising over time, but also clarified several issues: social
versus economic aspects of advertising (Greyser and Reece 1971; Haller
1974; Larkin 1977; Reid and Soley 1982; Dubinsky and Hensel 1984;
Petroshius 1986; Muehling 1987; Triff, Benningfield and Murphy 1987;
Andrews 1989; Pollay and Mittal 1993), attitudes towards the
institution of advertising versus towards its instruments, e.g.,
content, practitioners, etc. (Sandage and Leckenby, 1980; Reid and
Soley 1982; Triff, Benningfield and Murphy 1987), personalized
(projective to self) versus generalized (projective to other people)
responses to advertising, attitudes of different population groups
(Greyser and Reece 1971; Haller 1974; Larkin 1977; Reid and Soley
1982; Dubinsky and Hensel 1984; Petroshius 1986; Andrews 1989), and
measurement of beliefs versus attitudes.
Studies of attitudes towards advertising in other nations, while
fewer in number, more or less addressed the same issues: social and
economic beliefs (Reader's Digest Association, 1970; Thorelli, Becker
and Engledow 1975; Anderson and Engledow 1977; Anderson, Engledow and
Becker 1978a and 1978b; Kwan, Ho and Cragin 1983; Ho and Sin 1986;
Semenik, Zhou and Moore 1986), advertising as an institution versus
its instruments (Andrews, Lysonski and Durvasula 1991), and
differences by group (Ryans and Wills 1979; Lysonski and Pollay 1990).
Several of these clarifications/issues are relevant to this
study. First, this study examines both economic and social beliefs
about advertising. Second, this study looks at advertising as an
institution and not in terms of its instruments. Third, the study uses
generalized belief statements but personalized interaction statements.
And finally, this study is international in character, focusing on
Malaysian students.
This Study
The three types of involvement used in this study are purchasing,
brand, and self. They are all conceptualized to be enduring
involvements. Following Tashchian and Slama (1984), purchasing
involvement is defined as a person's personal link with the task of
purchasing. Some people approach purchasing with a lot more
seriousness and expend a lot of energy and time in the activity to
ensure value for their money, others do not. Brand involvement is
defined as a person's propensity or lack thereof to buy branded
products. The concept is similar to product class involvement and
brand commitment which define a person's connectedness with a certain
product class and brand respectively (Lastovicka and Gardner 1979;
Cushing and Tate 1985). Finally, the concept of self involvement
refers to the connections one makes with oneself as opposed to a
group. Simply, it captures how individualistic as opposed to group
oriented a person is in making purchase decisions (Ramaprasad and
Hasegawa 1992).
The study asks whether these (trait) involvements are related to
respondents' reactions to advertising. The reactions refer to
respondents' cognitive, affective, and (reported) conative responses
to advertising: the attention they pay to advertising, the
entertainment and functional value they find in advertising, and the
influence they allow it to have on their purchases. This study also
assesses the relationship between the trait involvements and
respondents' beliefs about advertising. The beliefs refer to the
economic and social information (based on fact or opinion) respondents
have about advertising (Petty and Cacioppo 1981).
Testing the relationship between beliefs about and responses to
advertising and the three involvements is the analytic goal of this
paper.
The descriptive goal of this paper is to measure Malaysian
students involvement with purchasing, with branded products, and with
themselves as well as their responses to and beliefs about
advertising, by ethnic group.
Malaysia
Malaysia received its independence from colonial rule in 1957
(Milne and Mauzy 1986). Since then one of its major goals has been to
create unity among its three major ethnic groups, the Malay (long time
settlers), the Chinese, and the Indians (the latter two, immigrants as
workers for tin mines and rubber plantations under British rule).
These ethnic groups differ in appearance, language and religion as
well as in areas of residence and occupation. In fact, Milne and Mauzy
(1986) suggest that ethnic divisions are so strong that they preempt
class divisions. At the same time, these groups subscribe to some
common Malaysian values, such as humility, gentility, modesty, and
indirect communication (Omar 1985) which makes Malaysian culture stand
apart from Western culture (Frith and Frith 1989a). Also, Eastern
cultures are generally considered to be more group than individual
oriented (Kindel 1986; Midooka 1990).
The government's attempts to create unity among these groups
include a language and cultural policy which accords primacy to one
group, the Malay, but keeps a place for the others (Milne and Mauzy
1986). The government's New Economic Policy (NEP) of the early 1970s
seems to do likewise. Economically, Malaysia has grown more than most
developing countries, but this growth has been imbalanced across
ethnic groups. The NEP of the early 1970s attempts to create a Malay
(formerly primarily peasants) commercial and industrial community at
all levels. Advertising must reflect this NEP: "No particular race
should be identified with a particular occupation or activity" (as
cited in Burton 1984, p. 27).
The policies which are most relevant to advertising, however, are
the national Rukunegara ideology of the early 1970s (includes good
behavior and morality) and the "Look East" (to Japan and South Korea)
policy of 1982 to counter Western influence and promote values such as
loyalty, selflessness, efficiency, thrift, trustworthiness,
cleanliness, and discipline (Milne and Mauzy 1986).
Malaysian advertising has had a history of dominance by western
transnational agencies (Anderson 1984). More recently though, the
Malaysian government has required some restructuring of ownership
(Burton 1984) and has imposed control on advertising content because
of its inconsistency with the Rukunegara ideology; "its mindless aping
of bourgeois values and styles of the West" (Anderson 1984, p. 219).
The Radio Television Malaysia Code of Advertising (first issued on
December 27, 1972) specifies that advertising should reflect Malaysian
culture and values and have a Malaysian identity (Consumers'
Association of Penang 1986). It should also have a secondary message
relating to discipline, cleanliness, etc. (Frith 1989b; U.S.
Department of Commerce 1990). Such regulations, while irksome and
constraining to practitioners (foreign agencies in particular), are
inadequate according to the Consumer Association of Penang, a major
critic of advertising as a promoter of (Westernized) consumer culture,
egotism, individualism, and competition (Consumers' Association of
Penang 1986).
Malaysian cultural values along with the presence of a strong
consumer association in Penang (where the data were collected) may
create an aversion to advertising (particularly given the western
influence on their advertising despite government attempts to the
contrary). On the other hand, this very western influence combined
with the youth of the sample, may create a more positive response to
advertising. Also, despite the presence of shared values, the ethnic
groups may differ in their responses to advertising. Males and females
may differ similarly. Similarly, Malaysian culture, the consumer
association, the western influence, the youth of the sample, may all
also be factors which affect respondents' purchasing, brand and self
involvement, differently across ethnic groups. Hence the descriptive
research questions for this study were:
1. What are the levels of purchasing, brand, and self involvement
among Malaysian students?
2. What are the personalized interactions with and
generalized beliefs about advertising among Malaysian
students?
3. Do Malaysian students' purchasing, brand, and self
involvement levels differ by ethnic group and gender?
4. Do Malaysian students' advertising interactions and beliefs
differ by ethnic group and gender?
The analytic research question for this study was:
5. Do Malaysian students' purchasing, brand, and self
involvement explain their individualized
interactions with and generalized beliefs about
advertising?
Method
The method of study was survey; the design was cross-sectional.
The data collection instrument was a questionnaire which was
administered (in the tradition of many of the above studies on
involvement, responses to ads, and beliefs about advertising) to a
sample of students, this time at a Malaysian university in Penang.
The questionnaire, developed in English in the United States, was
finalized after several iterations based on pretests. In Malaysia, it
was translated into Bahasa Malay (the official national language) and
back translated (by a different person) into English. After several
other checks for adequacy of translation and cultural appropriateness,
it was administered in March 1993 (in Bahasa Malay).
The questionnaire first measured demographic variables such as
age, gender, ethnic group, year in college, place of residence,
employment status, and income using direct questions. Similar
questions measured media use. Next, the questionnaire used sets of
personalized (using "I") statements to measure respondents'
purchasing, brand, and self involvement. Similar statements measured
the attention paid to advertising, the entertainment and functional
value of advertising, and its influence on purchase. Two other sets of
statements measured generalized (not using "I") beliefs about
advertising, economic and social respectively. All statements\1\ were
followed by a five-point Likert scale.
The statements measuring respondents' responses to advertising
while not unique to this study (see for example, Pollay and Mittal,
1993) were generated by the author specifically for this study. While
Tashchian and Slama's (1984) measure was the basis for the concept,
this study's measure of purchasing involvement was more specific
attempting to place respondents on a cautious-impulsive continuum by
measuring the importance they placed on getting value for money spent.
[(Taschian and Slama (1984) included a few statements which this study
considers to be measures of brand involvement and responses to
advertising]. Similarly statements in the operationalization of brand
involvement in this study are similar to Cushing and Tate's (1985),
but the measure here is very specific in not mixing product and brand
involvement and at the same time macro in referring to branded
products not brands within a product class. Finally, the measure for
self involvement is similar to Ramaprasad and Hasegawa's (1992) group
orientation measure for brand choices, the difference being that the
one in this study refers to purchasing in general.
The data were screened for implausible answers and out of range
values.\2\ Data were also screened to see if they met the assumptions of
regression. Univariate normality was found for all variables, but the
presence of one univariate (for social beliefs) and one multivariate
outlier resulted in the removal of two cases. All independent
variables had acceptable tolerances indicating lack of
multicollinearity. An inspection of residuals scatterplots revealed
that the assumptions of linearity and homoscedasticity were also met
by the data. Reliability tests were done for the involvement measures
after data screening. Cronbach's alpha was .80 for purchasing
involvement, .70 for brand involvement, and .62 for self involvement.
Description of Respondents
A total of 387 useable questionnaires (after the deletion of two
outlying cases) was available. The mean age of the respondents was 25
years, the mode was 23. About 22% of the respondents did not indicate
their gender (the question was positioned somewhat obscurely\3\), 211
(55%) were female (probably an overrepresentation) and 92 (24%) were
male. Altogether, 199 (51%) of the respondents were Malay, 131 (34%)
were Chinese, 27 (7%) were Indian, and 9 (2%) belonged to other ethnic
groups. The 1990 (latest available) Malaysian population breakdown was
48% Malay, 30% Chinese, 22% Indian, and .5% other (Department of
Statistics 1993). Indians were somewhat underrepresented in the
sample.
A majority of the respondents (57%) were juniors; 21% were
seniors, and about 10% each were freshmen and sophomores. Most of the
students either lived in dorms (55%) or in rented accomodations (39%);
very few lived with parents (6%). Very few Malaysian students worked:
3% each worked full time and part time and 13% worked only in summer.
The mean income of students who worked was US $908 per year; their
mean disposable income from this source was $497 per year. The
sample's mean disposable income from other sources was $470 per year.
The respondents' media use included a per day average of 1.8
hours for television, 3.9 hours for radio, 1.3 hours for newspapers,
and .7 hours for magazines. Mean media use was 7 hours per day.
Demographic and Media Use Differences by Ethnic Group and Gender
The distribution of respondents for demographic and media
variables, by gender and ethnic group, is given in Tables 1a and 1b.
Since gender had many missing values, for variables other than year in
college and age which are presented for descriptive reasons (Table
1a), separate statistical analyses were done for ethnic group and
gender (Table 1b).
Malay and Indian students mostly lived in dorms, while Chinese
students mostly rented accomodations. Female students rented or stayed
with parents more than did male students. Since so few students
worked, analysis of employment status by ethnic group was impossible.
A larger proportion of males than females worked.
There was a significant difference in income (between Malays and
Chinese, with the Malays having a higher income) but not in disposable
income from work and other sources by ethnic group. There was no
difference in all three incomes by gender.
Differences were not found for newspaper use by ethnic group. The
groups, however, did differ in television, radio, magazine and total
media use. Malays used more TV and magazines than did the Chinese and
more radio than did both the Chinese and Indians. Altogether, Malays
used more (total) media than the Chinese. Malays were therefore the
largest and the Chinese the smallest users of media. Radio use
differed by gender, with females listening more than males.
Involvement, Interactions, and Beliefs
Involvement. Malaysian students were, on the whole, involved with
purchasing; means for the different demographic groups hovered just
below 4 (Table 2). It is possible that because of the gap in time in
the advent of consumer cultures between the East and the West with all
the accompanying differences in recency of disposable incomes,
consumer experience, and present versus future orientation, people in
eastern cultures tend to consider purchasing more seriously. Tse, Belk
and Zhou (1989) suggest that in the move towards consumer cultures,
societies go from cautious spending for need based products to
relatively carefree spending for want based products.
Also, the Malaysian students were somewhat neutral towards the
purchase of branded products; their scores hovered around 3. Given
their concern with making sure they get value for their money,
Malaysian students probably see buying branded products as somewhat
unnecessary. And finally, and somewhat surprisingly, Malaysian
students did not lean towards either a group or individualistic
orientation in their purchase decisions. Individualism among the youth
of a traditionally group oriented society has also been documented for
Japan and Malaysian may be moving in the same direction (Ramaprasad
and Hasegawa 1992).
In answer to the first research question, Malaysian students were
quite involved in purchasing, were somewhat neutral towards buying
branded products, and tended to fall just slightly on the
individualistic side in their purchasing decisions.
Interactions and Beliefs. Malaysian students paid about average
(2.9) attention to advertising, rated advertising as having average
entertainment (3.1) and functional (3.0) value, and allowed
advertising to have a less than average (2.4) influence on their
purchasing. They rated the economic value of advertising as average
(3.1) and the social aspects of advertising unfavorably (2.2). On the
whole, Malaysian students had average to small interactions with and
average to unfavorable beliefs about advertising.
Ordinally, for belief aspects, Malaysian students ranked the
social aspects of advertising low(est) and the economic aspects
higher(est). Such relative ranking of social and economic aspects of
advertising is similar to the findings of many other studies (Bauer
and Greyser 1968; Greyser and Reece 1971; Reid and Soley 1982;
Dubinsky and Hensel 1984; Petroshius 1986; Muehling 1987). Among the
response variables, Malaysian students' ranking of the entertainment
aspect was higher(est) and their ranking of the influence aspect was
lower. In fact, attention to and entertainment and functional value of
advertising were all average, but influence on behavior was
considerably smaller. The low reported influence of advertising on
behavior is typical; respondents generally tend to report minimal
effects of advertising on themselves.
To answer the second research question, Malaysian students paid
average attention to advertising, appeared to find it of average
entertainment, functional, and economic value, (believed) it did not
influence their purchase behavior, and rated its social impact
negatively. On balance, Malaysian students' responses to advertising
were more on the negative than positive side.
Together the high purchasing involvement, the smaller brand
involvement, and the average to negative responses to and beliefs
about advertising appear to form a pattern which may be explained by
the climate surrounding advertising in Malaysia and particularly
Penang. The Malaysian government regulates advertising given its
beliefs about the negative impact of (particularly western style)
advertising, and the Consumer Association of Penang is strong and very
active in its attempts to educate Malaysians about advertising's
deceptions and manipulations. Governments believe that consumers need
to be protected against manufacturers and themselves, and use that
argument as the rationale for regulation (Boddewyn 1982). Consumer
movements believe the same and similarly lobby for regulation.
Government restrictions (Andrews, Lysonski and Durvasula 1991) and
consumer movements (Zanot 1981) are often regarded as being
responsible for shaping thoughts about advertising.
However, even without such governmental and consumer groups'
efforts, consumers could have negative attitudes towards advertising
because of cultural reasons related to religion and social norms
(Burton 1984). Also, consumerism has not yet permeated many eastern
societies and its advance is often met with resistance directed
particularly at its most visible propagator, advertising.
Differences in Involvement, Interactions, and Beliefs, by Ethnic Group
and Gender
Differences in Involvement. Table 2 provides mean involvement,
interaction, and belief responses, by ethnic group and gender. Again,
separate statistical analyses were done for ethnic group and gender to
answer the third research question. Differences did not exist by both
ethnic group and gender in purchasing involvement indicating the
pervasive nature of this trait and lending strength to the argument
that the advertising climate might have something to do with it.
Ethnic group also did not make a difference in brand involvement, but
gender did; males were more involved with branded products. Meyers-
Levy (1989) hypothesized gender differences in information processing
with males processing information more heuristically as a result of
socialization. Since in this study brand involvement was measured in
terms of respondents' propensity to buy branded items over non-branded
ones, it is possible (using this hypothesis) to explain the higher
male scores by that fact that males may use brands as an easily
available and highly salient cue. However, if this were the case,
males should have also emerged as less involved in purchasing in terms
of assimilating all cues and making an effortful, comprehensive
analysis of these cues. That did not happen. A second possible
explanation then for the higher male involvement with brand may be
that males are more image conscious than females in Malaysia. Finally,
while no differences were found by gender for self involvement,
Indians differed from the Malays who were less individualistic.
In answer to the third research question, no uniform differences
emerged in the three types of involvement by ethnic group and gender.
While ethnic group is a major variable in Malaysian life, it is
possible that national characteristics dominate in certain aspects of
Malaysian life.
Differences in Interactions and Beliefs. Among the interactions
with advertising, the ethnic groups differed in perceived
entertainment and functional value of advertising and its influence on
behavior with the Chinese finding advertising more entertaining
(despite their lowest media use) than did Malays and more functional
than did Indians, and both the Chinese and Malays allowing it to
influence them more than did Indians. The Indians appeared to be the
least "susceptible" to these interactions. The groups did not however
differ in their attention to and beliefs on the economic and social
aspects of advertising. Except for the anomaly of attention paid to,
which is difficult to explain, the interaction variables separate out
from the belief variables. The lack of difference in belief variables
by ethnic group suggests a societal level phenomenon which cuts across
ethnic groups. It appears that the particular ethnicity may inform
interactions with advertising but national identity informs beliefs.
By gender, the only difference for interaction variables was in
attention paid to advertising, with females paying more attention. It
is commonly believed that females do pay more attention to
advertising; in fact much advertising is directed towards females
given their gatekeeping role in purchasing. The difference for belief
variables was in the social impact of advertising with females rating
it more negatively than males. Other studies have found similar
differences by gender in related variables such as offensiveness and
use of sexual appeals in advertising (see for example, Dubinsky and
Hensel 1984).
In answer to the fourth research question, beliefs and one
advertising response, attention to advertising, are more or less
consistent across ethnic groups but, with the exception of economic
beliefs, differ by gender, while the three other ad responses differ
by ethnic group but are consistent across gender.
Relationship between Involvement and Advertising Interactions and
Beliefs
To answer the fifth research question, regressions were run using
each of the responses to and beliefs about advertising as a dependent
variable and the the three involvements as the independent variables.
Interestingly, the attention paid to advertising was not related to
any one of the three involvements; given the high purchasing
involvement among Malaysian students, this was a surprising result. At
the same time, while research which has looked at the effects of
involvement on responses to particular ads has generally expected
positive responses from highly involved respondents, it has not always
found that to be the case (Tashchian and Slama 1984; Leigh and Menon
1987; Muehling and Laczniak 1988; Buchholz and Smith 1991). This might
particularly happen with the variables under consideration here,
purchasing involvement and general attention to all advertising, since
highly involved people may be rather utilitarian and therefore goal
directed (not diffuse) in their attention to advertising. The question
of lack of a relationship between attention and brand and self
involvement still remains; it would appear that high brand involvement
and an individualistic orientation should go with high attention to
advertising.
Even harder to explain however is the finding that the
entertainment value of advertising was related to self involvement
(Table 3a). Those who were group oriented were more apt to find
advertising enjoyable. Also, while the lack of a relationship between
entertainment value and purchasing involvement appears reasonable, the
absence of a relationship between entertainment value and brand
involvement is again hard to explain.
Easier to explain is the relationship between the functional
value of advertising and brand involvement (those who were involved
with branded products were more likely to perceive a function for
advertising) since highly brand conscious shoppers are more likely to
turn to advertising for brand and availabilty information (Table 3b).
This time though the lack of a relationship between functional value
and purchasing involvement appears hard to explain.
Finally, influence of advertising on purchase behavior was
related to both brand and self involvement (Table 3c). Those involved
with brands would be expected to let advertising influence their
purchase decision. The relationship with self involvement remains
puzzling though since it means that the more group oriented
respondents let advertising influence them. Similarly, the lack of a
relationship between influence and purchasing involvement is puzzling.
Economic beliefs were not influenced by purchasing, brand or self
involvement but social beliefs were negatively related to purchasing
involvement (Table 4). Those who were highly involved in purchasing
had negative social beliefs about advertising. These consumers, being
the careful shoppers they are, probably collect information from a
variety of sources. This enables them to spot advertising's sometimes
less than objective claims and the temptations it offers.
In answer to the fifth research question, purchasing, brand, and
self involvement were only modest predictors of advertising
interactions and beliefs.
Conclusion
The strong consumer association of Penang, the Malaysian
government's negative view about advertising and its attempts to
regulate it, and the lack of "rampant" consumerism as well as cultural
constraints rooted in religion and social norms in many eastern
cultures may all have a role to play in the generally unfavorable
rating of advertising's social impact by Malaysian students.\4\ The
presence of this belief across ethnic groups provides further support
for societal level factors as explanators for the beliefs. These
factors may also have affected Malaysian students' rating of
advertising's economic impact, which while higher was still average
and also present across ethnic groups. While particular national
conditions might affect the relative size of these ratings, the
consistent finding of lower ratings for social than economic impact,
in countries across the world, may be indicative of a large scale
perception of advertising as a necessary evil.
With the exception of (the low) reported influence of advertising
on purchase, Malaysian students' interactions with advertising were
also average. While societal level factors might keep these
interactions at a low to average level, these interactions did differ
by ethnic group indicating more micro level influences on them.
Purchasing and brand involvement were like beliefs in that they
also appeared to be more of a societal rather than demographic group
level phenomenon. The relatively high purchasing involvement and the
average brand involvement point to a society that is still on the road
towards a consumer culture, not at the destination. At the same time,
the fact that these youth were not clearly group oriented indicates
possibly that they may be at least halfway on this road towards
individualism.
Interestingly, brand involvement and self involvement were better
explanators of ad responses than purchasing involvement. Purchasing
involvement was not significantly related to any of the ad responses.
Its negative relationship with social beliefs might be the clue to an
explanation. Those highly involved in purchasing thought poorly of the
social effects of advertising in terms of its influence in making
people buy things they do not need, making exaggerated claims, and
such and that probably moderated their responses to advertising. On
the other hand, those who were highly brand conscious found
advertising useful and let it influence their purchase decisions. The
finding that the group oriented respondents enjoyed advertising and
let it influence their purchase remains an enigma.
Limitations and Future Research
The results of this study need to be interpreted keeping in mind
that the sample was students. While this is a common sample base in
most studies in this field, its lack of generalizability is a
limitation. This is also one of the first studies of its kind; its
measures may therefore need improvement. Sharper operational
definitions might have enabled clearer distinctions in the results
(for example) by ad responses and ad beliefs as being respectively
ethnic group and societal level phenonmena.
For an initial study, this study's scope was large, perhaps too
large. Future studies could focus on one involvement variable and one
level within the hierarchy of effects. Later studies can build on that
foundation. This will also help the development of models and even
theories about the influence of trait involvements on responses to
advertising in general. This study also looked at only one country;
comparative studies might be more useful since they would provide a
perspective on the responses (numbers), particularly if the comparison
is made between eastern and western countries.
Table 1a
Distribution of Respondents by Year in College and Mean Age,
by Ethnic Group and Gender
Malay Chinese Indian
Yr in CollegeMale Female Male Female Male Female
Freshman 9(17)a 7(6) 1(5) 8(10) 0 1(8)
Sophomore 6(11) 6(5) 5(26) 6(8) 0 2(15)
Junior 33(61) 86(78) 6(32) 41(53) 5(63) 7(54)
Senior 6(11) 12(11) 7(37) 22(29) 3(38) 3(23)
Total 54(19)111(39) 19(7) 77(27) 8(3) 13(5)
a%.
Mean Age 27 23 27 24 27 24
(n=55) (n=112)(n=19)(n=75) (n=8) (n=13)
Table 1b
Distribution of Respondents by Residence, Employment, Mean Income,
and Mean Media Use, by Ethnic Group and Gender Separately
Ethnic Group Gender
ResidenceaMalay Chinese Indian Male Female
Dorm 126 50 14 62 103
(64)b (38) (54) (68) (49)
W/ Parents 5 13 3 9 7
(3) (10) (12) (10) (3)
Rent 67 68 9 20 101
(34) (52) (35) (22) (48)
Total 198 131 26 91 211
(56) (37) (7) (30) (70)
aOther=1. b%. x2=24.94, p.=.00 by ethnic group; x2=20.16, p.=.00 by gender.
Employment
Full Time 6 0 2 6 2
(3) (0) (8) (7) (1)
Part T/Sum 15 35 3 18 20
(8) (28) (12) (21) (10)
No 163 92 20 61 179
(89) (72) (80) (72) (89)
Total 184 127 25 85 201
(55) (38) (7) (30) (70)
x2=15.65, p.=.00 by gender.
Incomec 1775 340 702 797 268
(n=17) (n=27) (n=4) (n=20) (n=11)
F=4.327, p.=.02 for ethnic group.
Disp Incc 946 157 478 273 128
(n=17) (n=27) (n=4) (n=20) (n=11)
Disp Incc/d 421 518 494 507 461
(n=142) (n=100) (n=23) (n=70) (n=155)
cMean US$/yr. dOthr sources.
Media Usee
Television1.9 1.5 1.5 1.9 1.7
(n=197) (n=131) (n=27) (n=92) (n=208)
F=3.7; p.=.03 for ethnic group.
Radio 5.2 2.3 3.2 3.2 4.4
(n=179) (n=131) (n=26) (n=90) (n=192)
F=28.39; p.=.00 for ethnic group; F=6.7, p.=.01 for gender.
Newspaper 1.3 1.3 1.6 1.4 1.2
(n=193) (n=128) (n=26) (n=91) (n=205)
Magazines .8 .5 .7 .7 .7
(n=194) (n=131) (n=26) n=92) (n=205)
F=4.1, p.=.02 for ethnic group.
Tot Med Use8.1 5.1 6.5 6.8 6.9
(n=159) (n=126) (n=25) (n=87) (n=173)
F=25.53, p.=.00 for ethnic group.
eMean hrs/day.
Table 2
Meana Purchasing, Brand, and Self Involvement, and Mean Personalized
Interactions With and Generalized Beliefs About Advertising,
by Ethnic Group and Gender Separately
Ethnic Group Gender
Malay Chinese Indian Male Female
Purc Inv 3.9 3.7 3.9 3.8 3.8
(n=199) (n=131) (n=27) (n=92) (n=211)
Brand Inv 3.0 2.8 2.8 3.1 2.8
(n=197) (n=131) (n=27) (n=92) (n=210)
F=7.96, p.=.01 for gender.
Self Inv 2.9 2.8 2.6 2.8 2.8
(n=199) (n=131) (n=27) (n=92) (n=211)
F=4.43, p.=.01 for ethnic group.
Ad Atten 2.9 3.0 2.8 2.8 3.0
(n=199) (n=131) (n=27) (n=92) (n=211)
F=4.3, p.=.04 for gender.
Ad Enter 3.0 3.2 2.9 2.9 3.1
(n=199) (n=131) (n=27) (n=92) (n=211)
F=3.79, p.=.02 for ethnic group.
Ad Function3.0 3.1 2.8 3.0 3.0
(n=199) (n=131) (n=27) (n=92) (n=211)
F=4.8, p.=.00 for ethnic group.
Ad Influen2.4 2.4 2.0 2.4 2.3
(n=199) (n=131) (n=27) (n=92) (n=211)
F=3.9, p.=.02 for ethnic group.
Econo Bels3.2 3.1 3.0 3.1 3.1
(n=199) (n=131) (n=27) (n=92) (n=211)
Soc Bels 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.3 2.1
(n=199) (n=131) (n=27) (n=92) (n=211)
F=5.17, p.=.02 for gender.
aLower scores indicate smaller purchasing and brand involvement, smaller group
(more self) orientation, and less favorable responses for interactions and
beliefs.
Table 3a
Standard Multiple Regression of Purchasing, Brand, and Self Involvement
on Entertainment Value of Advertising
Variables Ad Ent Purch IBrand I B Beta sr square
Purch Inv .09 .12 .10
Brand Inv .06 .03 .04 .04
Self Inv .13 -.09 .15 .18a .14 .02
Intercept = 2.0
R square = .03b
Adj R square = .02
R = .17c
ap.=.01; bunique variability = .02, shared = .01; cp.=.01.
______________________________________________________________________________
Table 3b
Standard Multiple Regression of Purchasing, Brand, and Self Involvement
on Functional Value of Advertising
Variables Ad Fun Purch IBrand I B Beta sr square
Purch Inv .00 .00 .00
Brand Inv .14 .03 .10a .13 .01
Self Inv .12 -.09 .15 .10 .10
Intercept = 2.4
R square = .03b
Adj R square = .02
R = .17c
ap.=.01; bunique variability = .01, shared = .02; cp.=.01.
______________________________________________________________________________
Table 3c
Standard Multiple Regression of Purchasing, Brand, and Self Involvement
on Influence of Advertising
Variables Ad Inf Purch IBrand I B Beta sr square
Purch Inv -.04 -.02 -.02
Brand Inv .16 .03 .12a .12 .01
Self Inv .27 -.09 .15 .32b .25 .06
Intercept = 1.2
R square = .09c
Adj R square = .08
R = .30d
ap.=.01; bp.=.00; cunique variability = .07, shared = .02; dp.=.00.
Table 4
Standard Multiple Regression of Purchasing, Brand, and Self Involvement
on Social Beliefs about Advertising
Variables Soc BeliefPurch IBrand I B Beta sr square
Purc Inv -.19 -.21a -.19 .037
Brand Inv .05 .03 .05 .06
Self Inv .02 -.09 .15 -.00 -.00
Intercept = 2.9
R square = .04b
Adj R square = .04
R = .20c
ap.=.00; bunique variability = .037; shared = .003; cp.=.00;
REFERENCES
Anderson, Michael H. (1984), Madison Avenue in Asia: Politics and
Transnational Advertising, London: Associated University Presses, Inc.
Anderson, Ronald and Jack Engledow (1977), "A Factor Analytic Comparison of
U.S. and German Information Seekers," Journal of Consumer Research, 3 (March),
185-196.
Anderson, Ronald D., Jack L. Engledow and Helmut Becker (1978a), "Advertising
Attitudes in West Germany and the U.S.: An Analysis Over Age and Time,"
Journal of International Business Studies, 9 (Winter), 27-38.
Anderson, Ronald D., Jack L. Engledow and Helmut Becker (1978b), "How
'Consumer Reports' Subscribers See Advertising," Journal of Advertising
Research, 18 (December), 29-34
Andrews, J. Craig (1989), "The Dimensionality of Beliefs Toward Advertising in
General," Journal of Advertising, 18 (1), 26-35.
Andrews, J. Craig, Srinivas Durvasula and Syed H. Akhter (1990), "A Framework
for Conceptualizing and Measuring the Involvement Construct in Advertising
Research," Journal of Advertising, 19 (4), 27-40.
Andrews, J. Craig, Steven Lysonski and Srinivas Durvasula (1991),
"Understanding Cross-Cultural Student Perceptions of Advertising in General:
Implications for Advertising Educators and Practitioners," Journal of
Advertising, 20 (June), 15-28.
Batra, Rajeev and Michael Ray (1983), "Operationalizing Involvement as Depth
and Quality of Cognitive Response," Advances in Consumer Research, Richard P.
Bagozzi and Alice M. Tybout (eds.), Ann Arbor: Association for Consumer
Research, 309-313.
Bauer, Raymond A. and Greyser, Stephen A. (1968), Advertising in America: The
Consumer View, Boston, MA: Harvard University, Graduate School of Business
Administration, Division of Research.
Bowen, Lawrence and Steven H. Chaffee (1974), "Product Involvement and
Pertinent Advertising Appeals," Journalism Quarterly, 51 (Winter), 613-621,
644.
Boddewyn, J. J (1982). "Advertising Regulation in The 1980s: The Underlying
Global Forces," Journal of Marketing, 46 (Winter), 27-35.
Buchholz, Laura M. and Robert E. Smith (1991), "The Role of Consumer
Involvement in Determining Cognitive Response to Broadcast Advertising,"
Journal of Advertising, 20 (1), 4-17.
Burton, Jack (1984), "Malaysia Clamps Down on TV Advertising," Advertising
Age, 55 (September 6), 26-27.
Colley, Russell H. (1961), Defining Advertising Goals for Measured Advertising
Results, New York: Association of National Advertisers.
Consumers' Association of Penang (1986), Selling Dreams: How Advertising
Misleads Us, Penang, Malaysia: Consumers' Association of Penang.
Cushing, Peter and Melody Douglas-Tate (1985), "The Effect of People/Product
Relationships on Advertising Processing," in Psychological Processes and
Advertising Effects: Theory, Research and Applications, Linda F. Alwitt and
Andrew A. Mitchell, eds., Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 241-259.
Department of Statistics (1993), The Europa World Year Book, II, London:
Europa Publications, 1851.
Dubinsky, Alan J. and Paul J. Hensel (1984), "Marketing Student Attitudes
Toward Advertising: Implications for Marketing Education," Journal of
Marketing Education, 6 (Summer), 22-26.
Frith, Katherine T. and Michael Frith (1989a), "Western Advertising and
Eastern Culture: The Confrontation in Southeast Asia," Current Issues &
Research in Advertising, 12 (1, 2), 63-73.
Frith, Katherine T. and Michael Frith (1989b), "Advertising as Cultural
Invasion," Media Asia, 16 (4), 179-184, 214.
Gill, James D., Sanford Grossbart and Russell N. Laczniak (1988), "Influence
of Involvement, Commitment and Familiarity on Brand Beliefs and Attitudes of
Viewers Exposed to Alternative Ad Claim Strategies," Journal of Advertising,
17 (2), 33-43.
Greenwald, Anthony G. and Clark Leavitt (1985), "Cognitive Theory and Audience
Involvement," in Psychological Processes and Advertising Effects: Theory,
Research and Applications, Linda F. Alwitt and Andrew A. Mitchell, eds.,
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 221-240.
Greyser, Stephen A. and Bonnie B. Reece (1971), "Businessmen Look Hard at
Advertising," Harvard Business Review, 49 (May-June), 18-20, 22, 24, 26, 157-
165.
Haller, Thomas F. (1974), "What Students Think of Advertising," Journal of
Advertising Research, 14 (February), 33-38.
Ho, Suk-ching and Yat-ming Sin (1986), "Advertising in China: Looking Back at
Looking Forward," International Journal of Advertising, 5 (), 307-316.
Kindel, Thomas I. (1986), "Chinese Consumer Behavior: Historical Perspective
Plus an Update on Communication Hypotheses," in Historical Perspective in
Consumer Research: National and International Perspectives, Jagdish Sheth and
Chin Tiong Tan, eds., Singapore: Association for Consumer Research, 186-190.
Krugman, Herbert E. (1966-67), "The Measurement of Advertising Involvement,"
Public Opinion Quarterly, 30 (Winter), 583-596.
Kwan, Y. K., Y. N. Ho and J. P. Cragin (1983), "Contemporary Advertising
Attitudes and Practices Among Executives in the People's Republic of China,"
Journal of the Market Research Society, 25 (January), 59-71.
Larkin, Ernest F. (1977), "A Factor Analysis of College Student Attitudes
Toward Advertising," Journal of Advertising, 6 (2), 42-46.
Lastovicka, John L. and David M. Gardner (1979), "Components of Involvement,"
in Attitude Research Plays for High Stakes, John C. Maloney and Bernard
Silverman, eds., Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association, 53-73.
Lavidge, Robert J. and Gary A. Steiner (1961), "A Model for Predictive
Measurements of Advertising Effectiveness," Journal of Marketing, 25 (6), 59-
62.
Leigh, James H. and Anil Menon (1987), "Audience Involvement Effects on the
Information Processing of Umbrella Print Advertisements," Journal of
Advertising, 16 (3), 3-12.
Lysonski, Steven and Richard W. Pollay (1990), "Advertising Sexism is
Forgiven, but not Forgotten: Historical, Cross-Cultural and Individual
Differences in Criticism and Purchase Boycott Intentions," International
Journal of Advertising, 9 (), 317-329.
Lutz, Richard J. (1985), "Affective and Cognitive Antecedents of Attitude
Toward the Ad: A Conceptual Framework," in Psychological Processes and
Advertising Effects: Theory, Research and Applications, Linda F. Alwitt and
Andrew A. Mitchell, eds., Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 45-63.
MacKenzie, Scott B. and Richard J. Lutz (1989), "An Empirical Examination of
the Structural Antecedents of Attitude Toward the Ad in an Advertising
Pretesting Context," Journal of Marketing, 53 (April), 48-65.
Meyers-Levy, Joan (1989), "Gender Differences in Information Processing: A
Selectivity Interpretation," in Cognitive and Affective Responses to
Advertising, Patricia Cafferata and Alice M. Tybout, eds., Lexington, MA:
Lexington Books, 219-260.
Midooka, Kiyoshi (1990), "Characteristics of Japanese-style Communication,"
Media, Culture and Society, 12 (4), 477-489.
Milne, R. S. and Diane K. Mauzy (1986), Malaysia: Tradition, Modernity, and
Islam, Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Muehling, Darrel D (1987), "An Investigation of Factors Underlying Attitude-
Toward-Advertising-In-General," Journal of Advertising, 16 (1), 32-40.
Muehling, Darrel D. and Russell N. Laczniak (1988), "Advertising's Immediate
and Delayed Influence on Brand Attitudes: Considerations Across Message-
Involvement Levels," Journal of Advertising, 17 (4), 23-34.
Muehling, Darrel D., Russell N. Laczniak and J. Craig Andrews (1993),
"Defining, Operationalizing, and Using Involvement in Advertising Research: A
Review," Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 15 (Spring), 21-
57.
Omar, Asmah Haji (1985), "Mass Communication and its Effect on Education and
Traditional Culture in Malaysia," Media Asia, 12 (1), 11-20.
Petroshius, Susan M. (1986), "An Assessment of Business Students' Attitudes
toward Advertising," in 1986 AMA Educators' Proceedings, Terence A. Shimp, et
al., eds., Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association, 127-131.
Petty, Richard E. and John T. Cacioppo (1981), Attitudes and Persuasion:
Classic and Contemporary Approaches, Dubuque, IA: William C. Brown Company.
Petty, Richard E. and John T. Cacioppo (1985), "Central and Peripheral Routes
to Persuasion: The Role of Message Repetition," in Psychological Processes and
Advertising Effects: Theory, Research and Applications, Linda F. Alwitt and
Andrew A. Mitchell, eds., Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 91-111.
Pollay, Richard W. and Banwari Mittal (1993), "Here's the Beef: Factors,
Determinants, and Segments in Consumer Criticism of Advertising," Journal of
Marketing 57 (July), 99-114.
Ramaprasad, Jyotika and Kazumi Hasegawa (1992), "American and Japanese Youth
as Consumers: Similarities and Differences," Paper presented to the
Advertising Division of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass
Communication, Montreal, Canada, August.
Readers Digest Association (1970), A Survey of Europe Today ,(London: The
Readers Digest Association, 186-7, cited in Anderson, Ronald D., Jack L.
Engledow and Helmut Becker (1978a), "Advertising Attitudes in West Germany and
the U.S.: An Analysis Over Age and Time," Journal of International Business
Studies, 9 (Winter), 27-38.
Reid, Leonard N. and Lawrence C. Soley (1982), "Generalized and Personalized
Attitudes Toward Advertising's Social and Economic Effects," Journal of
Advertising, 11 (3), 3-7.
Ryans, John K. and Wills, James R. (1979) , Final Report on Consumerism's
Impact on Advertising: A Worldwide Study, New York, NY: International
Advertising Association.
Sandage, C. H. and John D. Leckenby (1980), "Student Attitudes Toward
Advertising: Institution vs. Instrument," Journal of Advertising, 9 (2), 29-
32, 44.
Semenik, Richard J., Nan Zhou and William L. Moore, "Chinese Managers'
Attitudes Toward Advertising in China," Journal of Advertising 15 (1986), 56-
62.
Tashchian, Roobina O. and Mark E. Slama (1984), "Involvement and the
Effectiveness of Comparative Advertising," Current Issues & Research in
Advertising, 1, 79-92.
Thorelli, Hans B., Helmut Becker, and Jack Engledow (1975), The Information
Seekers: An International Study of Consumer Information and Advertising Image,
Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing Co.
Triff, Michael, Benningfield, Dana Beth and Murphy, John H. (1987),
"Advertising Ethics: A Study of Public Attitudes and Perceptions," in
Proceedings of the 1987 Conference of the American Academy of Advertising,
Florence G. Feasley, ed., Columbia, SC: American Academy of Advertising, R50-
R54.
Tse, David K., Russell W. Belk and Nan Zhou (1989), "Becoming a Consumer
Society: A Longitudinal and Cross-Cultural Content Analysis of Print Ads from
Hong Kong, the People's Republic of China, and Taiwan," Journal of Consumer
Research, 15 (March), 457-472.
U.S. Department of Commerce (October 1990), Marketing in Malaysia, Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Vaughn, Richard (1980), "How Advertising Works: A Planning Model," Journal of
Advertising Research, 20 (5), 27-33.
Zaichkowsky, Judith Lynne (1985), "Measuring the Involvement Construct,"
Journal of Consumer Research, 12 (December), 341-352.
Zajonc, Robert B. and Hazel Markus (1982), "Affective and Cognitive Factors in
Preferences," Journal of Consumer Research, 9 (2), 123-131.
Zanot, Eric (1981), "Public Attitudes Toward Advertising," in Proceedings of
the Annual Conference of the American Academy of Advertising, H. Keith Hunt,
ed., Brigham Young University: American Advertising Association, 142-146.
1. The statements were:
Ad Attention:I generally pay attention to advertising messages
I switch channels/turn pages when ads are present
I seek out advertising
I am indifferent to advertising
Ad Enter'ment:I enjoy attending to advertising messages
I think ad messages are entertaining
Ad Function:Ads provide me with information
I have confidence in advertised products
Ads help me select the products I buy
Ad Influence:Ads are a major influence on what I buy
I often buy advertised products
Economic Effs:Advertising increases prices of products
Advertising plays a useful role in marketing
Social Effects:Ads make people buy things they don't need
Most ads make exaggerated claims
Advertising corrupts people's morals
Purchasing In:I spend time to ensure that I get the best value for
my money
I usually check prices even for small things
I look into most of the choices I have
I consciously gather information before making a
purchase decision
I comparison shop
Brand Involve:For most purchases I make, the brand name is very
important to me
Faced with a choice between brand and non-brand items,
I am more likely to buy branded items even if
they cost more
In my purchase decisions, wanting to buy brands is
more important than liking the product
Self Involve:Belonging with a group is important to me in my
shopping decisions
I do not want to stand out as being very different
from others in my shopping decisions
I don't buy products I like if others disagree with my
choice
I am likely to make shopping decisions similar to
those made by my friends
I am rather individualistic in my shopping choices
2. Among other things, this resulted in the deletion of a 21 cases
with greater than 15 hours of media use per day for analysis relating
to total media use.
3. Since we have no reason to suspect that this non-response was
deliberate (ethnic identification, a more sensitive variable, had only
21 missing values), the distribution of the non-respondents for gender
is likely to be in proportion to the available distribution. Also,
ethnicity was of greater interest to this study than gender.
4. Females tend to be more negative in their views about advertising
and since females were a large percentage of this sample, they could
be a rival explanation for the finding. However, while their
comparative proportion was small, their numbers were reasonably large.
Also, the means were small enough that even if any skew due to the
large female presence is removed, the view about advertising would not
be overwhelmingly positive.
|
