Print Advertising Endorsement in Hong Kong
Communication Effectiveness of Print Advertising Endorsement in
Hong Kong
by
Vivien S.Y. Leung
Communication Studies Department
School of Communication
Hong Kong Baptist University
Kowloon Tong
Hong Kong
Tel : 852-2339-5160
Fax : 852-2339-7890
e-mail: [log in to unmask]
A paper submitted for presentation of:
Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication
Aug, 4-7, 1999
New Orleans, LA
Communication Effectiveness of Print Advertising Endorsement in Hong Kong
Abstract
This study examined the communication effectiveness of advertising endorsement
on consumer purchase intention in Hong Kong. Two products, life insurance and
wholesome beverage, were chosen to represent product category with high and low
consumer involvement. Two of the eight print advertisements using three types
of advertising endorser, celebrity, typical consumer and expert, and a no-model
(control) advertisement, were randomly distributed to 120 Hong Kong Baptist
University students in April 1998. The Elaboration Likelihood Model (Petty &
Cacioppo, 1981) was used to test correlation between source effect of endorser,
including source credibility, trustworthiness and attractiveness, and consumer
purchase intention. Gender and involvement level, as intermediate variables,
were also being examined in the study. Results indicated that types of endorser
and source effect did not generate positive effect on consumer purchase
intention except endorser who was perceived to be attractive. Use of celebrity
endorser was proved to have greater effect on purchase intention in low product
involvement condition.
Communication Effectiveness of Print Advertising Endorsement in Hong Kong
Over the past three decades, the use of endorsers in advertising has been very
popular (Belch & Belch, 1990; McCracken, 1989; Petty & Cacioppo, 1981; Petty,
Cacioppo & Schumann, 1983; Stout & Moon, 1990). It is estimated that one out of
five commercials uses famous person to endorse a consumer product or services
(Motavalli, 1988) and over 20% of TV commercials were featured with celebrities
(Advertising Age, 1978). Celebrities were used in about half of endorsement ads
in magazines (Stout and Moon, 1990).
Past research has been emphasized on the use of endorsers in advertising of
different products and services. However, most of these researches are done in
the Western society. There is little research about the effectiveness of print
advertising endorsement in Chinese societies. The main purpose of this study is
to examine the communication effect and influence of three types of advertising
endorser with different levels of source effect of print advertising on
consumers' purchase intention in Hong Kong. Independent variables, high and low
product involvement level and gender, will also be tested under the scope of the
Elaboration Likelihood Model (Petty & Cacioppo, 1981).
Theoretical Background
Spielman (1981) found that advertising endorsers were believed to enhance the
subject's attentiveness to the ad and make the copy more memorable and credible.
This generates an interesting question. How likely is that testimonial ad
communicating its messages to the consumers? How does it influence consumer's
purchase intention?
Type of Ad Endorsers
According to Tobin and Charles (1975), an 'endorsement' means "any advertising
message ... which consumers are likely to believe reflects the opinions,
beliefs, findings, or experience of a party other than the sponsoring
advertiser. The party ... will be called the endorser." Three types of
endorser (celebrity, professional expert and typical consumer) are widely used
in advertising.
1. A celebrity endorser is an individual known to the public (actor, sports
figure, entertainer, etc.) for his or her achievements in areas unrelated to the
product class endorsed (Friedman, Friedman & Fireworker, 1977; Friedman &
Friedman, 1979; Friedman, Termini & Washington, 1976). For instance, Hong Kong
famous actor Leon Lai endorses Hutchinson Mobile Phone.
2. A professional expert endorser is an individual or group who possesses
superior knowledge or training regarding to a recognized authority on the
product class endorsed (Friedman, Friedman & Fireworker, 1977; Friedman &
Friedman, 1979; Friedman et.al., 1976). For instance, Daniel C.W. Tse, Ph.D.,
CBE, JP, President & Vice-Chancellor of Hong Kong Baptist University endorses
teaching in mother language in Hong Kong.
3. A typical consumer endorser is an individual who has no priority knowledge of
the product class endorsed except the normal use of the product. The typical
consumer endorser is a real person and usually, name or occupation may appear in
the advertisement (Friedman, Friedman & Fireworker, 1977; Friedman & Friedman,
1979; Friedman et.al., 1976). For instance, Mrs Chan, a typical housewife,
endorses Pampers in Hong Kong.
Foundation for advertising endorser effects
Two models, source-credibility model (Hovland, Janis & Kelly, 1953) and
source-attractiveness model (McGuire, 1985), which provide conceptual frameworks
for theorizing about endorser effects in advertising (McCracken, 1989) will be
used in defining the dimensions of source valence in the present study. The
source credibility model presumes that message effectiveness is based on the
"expertise" and "trustworthiness" of the source while the source attractiveness
model presumes that message effectiveness is based mainly on "familiarity,"
"likability," and "similarity" of the source (e.g., Hovland et al. 1953;
McGuire, 1973). These models hold that sources are persuasive when they are
perceived as credible and attractive. To this extent, source models are a
necessary part for understanding the endorsement process (e.g., Friedman et.al.,
1976; Friedman & Friedman, 1979; Kahle & Homer, 1985). However, there is doubt
whether the application of the source models can explain fully the process
underlying endorsement advertising effects. According to the two source models,
advertising endorsement has everything to do with the source but nothing to do
with the message or audience (cf. McCracken, 1989) and also, previous studies
about source models only pay attention on the characteristics of the endorsers
but ignore the relationship between the consumer and the product being
advertised (Atkin & Block, 1983; Friedman et.al., 1976; Mowen & Brown, 1981).
Some researches have discussed the relationship between source variables and the
consumer involvement under the effect of advertising endorsement. In contrast
to the traditional cognitive information processing theories, the peripheral
processing route of the Elaboration Likelihood Model (Petty & Cacioppo, 1981)
explains that consumers may base their agreement with a message on a rather
superficial assessment of a variety of persuasion cues such as communication
characteristics (e.g., attractiveness and expertise) and audience
characteristics (e.g., positive or negative attitude towards the message)
(Chaiken & Eagly, 1984). It is stated that consumers who are highly involved
with the message may employ systematic information processing strategy. For
consumers who are lowly involved with an issue, they may use peripheral
processing strategy such as simple decision rules to mediate persuasion. Based
on this assertion, this study proposes that involvement with a product category
has a significant moderating role in the process of how advertising endorser
works.
Source Characteristics in Persuasive Communication
Different types of endorser have different attributes in attracting attention
from consumers. We call those attributes as "source effect" in explaining their
persuasive effectiveness in advertising.
Source Credibility Model by Hovland, Janis and Kelly (1953)
Credibility of a source refers to its expertise and objectivity. Hovland, Janis
and Kelly (1953) argued that two aspects that underscore the source credibility
model were expertise and trustworthiness. They defined expertise as "the extent
to which a communicator is perceived to be a source of valid assertions," and
trustworthiness as "the degree of confidence in the communicator's intent to
communicate the assertions he considers most valid."
Expertise
Expertise, also named as "competence," "expertness," "authoritativeness," or
"qualification" (O'Keefe & Daniel, 1990), is commonly represented by scales such
as trained-untrained, qualified-unqualified. Usually, the source's perceived
expertise is represented by the change of the respondent's attitudes. Crano
(1970) manipulated the dimensions of expertise and found that respondents
exposed to an expert source tend to exhibit more agreement with the advocated
position than with a low expert source.
Trustworthiness
Trustworthiness, also named as "character," "safety," or "personal integrity"
(O'Keefe & Daniel, 1990), refers to the listener's degree of confidence in, and
level of acceptance of the speaker and the message. Giffin (1967) concluded
that what Aristotle called "ethos," and what Hovland, Janis and Kelley (1953)
called "source credibility," are the same concepts: a listener's trust in a
speaker. Numerous studies support that trustworthiness affects attitude change.
Research findings showed that when the communicator was perceived to be highly
trustworthy, a strong argumentated message was more effective than a weak
argumentated message in affecting attitude change. However, when
trustworthiness of the source is low, this relationship was in opposite
(Ohanian, 1990). Though there is a close relationship between the source's
trustworthiness and expertise, there is no absolute relationship between the
two. A communicator who is perceived to be trustworthy may not be an expert as
well. However, we know that in most of the time, source who is liked will also
be trusted.
Source Attractiveness Model by McGuire (1985)
The source attractiveness model or the McGuire model (1985) was originated in
social psychological research. It contends that the effectiveness of a message
depends on three source cues as: "familiarity," "likability," and "similarity."
"Familiarity" is defined as knowledge of the source through exposure.
"Likability" is defined as affection of the source as a result of the source's
physical appearance and behavior and "similarity" is defined as a supposed
resemblance between the source and receiver of the message (McCracken, 1989).
Attractiveness
Attractiveness is much more difficult to define since the term "attractiveness"
is subjective. For instance, Baker and Churchill (1977), Caballero and Solomon
(1984) and Patzer (1983) defined it in terms of facial and physical
attractiveness; Baker and Churchill (1977) and Kahle and Homer (1985)
operationalized the term as model attractiveness (attractive-unattractive);
Mills and Aronson (1965) defined as chicness; Steadman (1969) defined as
sexiness; and Maddux and Rogers (1980) defined as sexualness and likability
(cited in Ohanian, 1990). It is interested to noted that facial cue was widely
used as the focus in research of physical attractiveness. However, it may not
be the sole determinants of a person's physical attractiveness though it may be
an influential dimensions of source's attractiveness (Joseph, 1982). He
summarized that attractive (versus unattractive) communicators are liked more
and tended to be more successful in changing the attitudes of respondents.
To give a brief conclusion on the source effect, sources who are viewed as more
attractive and credible are more persuasive than are sources of low credibility
and attractiveness (Atkin & Block, 1983; Buhr, Simpson & Pryor, 1987; Caballero,
Lumpkin & Madden, 1989; Joseph, 1982; McGinnies & Ward, 1980; Ohanian, 1990).
Although it is commonly consistent to report that attractive source enhances
positive attitude change, it is important to note that high credible source are
not always be more persuasive than low credible source. Moderate and low
credible source may have greater persuasive power than high credible source in
some specific condition. It depends on the effect of initial brand attitude
(McGinnies, 1973; Sternthal, Dholakia & Leavitt, 1978), involvement level (Homer
& Kahle, 1990; McGinnies, 1973) and time of message recognition before or after
the identification of endorser in the ad (Homer & Kahle, 1990). Besides, all
the source attributes are correlated and each may affect the persuasiveness of
others. For instance, trustworthiness was highly correlated with the
respondent's perceived similarity to the source, the expertise level of the
source and the source's attractiveness (Ohanian, 1990). Table 1 summarized all
dimensions of source attributes of the above-named models.
[Insert Table 1 About Here]
Product Involvement in Advertising Research
Researches showed that communication effect are different according to personal
involvement level. Recently, researchers have recognized that involvement with
a product category has considerable impact on how advertising message affects
formation or change of attitude (Greenwald & Leavitt, 1984; Heesacker, Petty &
Cacioppo, 1983; Kahle & Homer, 1985; Park & Young, 1983; Zaichkowsky, 1985). As
product involvement concerns the extent to which the attitudinal issue under
consideration is of personal importance (Petty & Cacioppo, 1981), consumers are
required to make assessment on personal elements such as needs and relevance,
stimulus elements such as product alternatives and communication sources, and
situational elements such as use and occasion as antecedents of involvement
(Zaichkowsky, 1985). All assessments are cognitively judged and require
consideration on the relatedness of individuals and the object or issue.
There are several different definitions on dimensions of product involvement in
advertising research. Zaichkowsky (1985) defined it as "a person's perceived
relevance of the advertisement based on inherent needs, values, and interests."
Day (1970) defined it as "the general level of interest in the object or the
centrality of the object to the person's ego-structure." According to him,
product involvement occurs when a product is related to important values, needs
or the self-concept. Both of them agree that involvement is a direct outgrowth
of the potential benefits or rewards the product holds for the consumer.
In this study, product involvement is measured by the effort in evaluating the
true merits of issue or information from a given set of personal relevant choice
of product categories.
Relation of Source Variables and Product Involvement under the ELM
In contrast to the traditional information processing models of persuasion
which emphasizes the cognitive and message or issue-relevant information
processing, the peripheral route to persuasion (Petty & Cacioppo, 1981) explains
less elaborate processing and specify the relationship between involvement and
information processing related to source variables. Under the assumption of the
ELM by Petty and Cacioppo (1981), individuals do not fully process all the
information in the advertisement but instead, they use other cues such as source
attractiveness and credibility in the ad in evaluating the advertised product
(Alwitt & Mitchell, 1985).
The Elaboration Likelihood Model - Central and Peripheral Route
A theory that can explain the effect of change of brand attitude and its
persuasiveness of the source or message is the ELM (Elaboration Likelihood
Model) by Petty and Cacioppo (1981). It suggests that receivers vary in the
degree to which they are likely to engage in "elaboration" of information
relevant to the persuasive issue. "Elaboration" represents the degree of
engaging in issue-relevant thinking. According to Petty and Cacioppo (1981),
there are two distinct routes to attitude change : central and peripheral.
"Central" route emphasizes the information that a person has about the attitude
object or issue under consideration. "Peripheral" route refers to the situation
where the elaboration likelihood for people is low through the effect of various
persuasion cues such as source credibility or attractiveness. Persuasion cues
are factors or motives inherent in the persuasion setting that are sufficient to
produce attitude change without any active thinking about the attribute of the
issue or the object under consideration. Attitude change may occur when the
attitude issue or object is associated with positive or negative cues or because
the person makes a simple inference about the merits of the advocated position
based on cues in persuasion context rather than on individual perception of the
pros and cons of the issue (Petty, Cacioppo & Schumann, 1983).
What part does endorsement play in the ELM?
As stated by the ELM, endorser that served as persuasive arguments or
information to the central merits of an object or issue is taken as central
cues. On the other hand, endorser which mainly served as simple cues, allowing
favorable or unfavorable attitude formation in the absence of a diligent
consideration of the true merits of the object or issue is taken as peripheral
cues by consumers (Petty, Gleicher & Baker, 1991). For consumers who see the
endorser in an ad as a persuasion peripheral cue, they will examine the source
effect, such as credibility, attractiveness, similarity and other source
attributes possessed by that endorser in elaboration. Major arguments that
occurred in the ad may not be relevant to them under this condition. If the
endorser is perceived to be credible and attractive, favorable attitude will
result and vice versa. However, for consumers who either i) just pay attention
to the content of an ad or ii) regard the endorser in an ad as a cue in giving
them some information about its relation to the product that he/she endorsed.
In this case, people are regarded as taking the central route. Major argument
of the message in an ad will be examined extensively by consumers in relation to
the endorser. If the argument itself or its relation to the endorser is
perceived to be cogent and persuasive by consumers, favorable attitudes will
result and vice versa.
Product involvement level in the ELM
As the ELM contends, consumers take on central or peripheral route under the
persuasion of an advertisement. Under central route of advertising persuasion,
it is expected that consumers pay effort in thinking extensively on major
argument in the ad including the message and its relation to the endorser that
appeared in the advertisement. As the effort being spent in reasoning of the ad
increased, consumers' personal relevance increase as well. In this case,
consumers are regarded as engaging in high product involvement level. While
under peripheral route of persuasion context, consumers pay less attention in
reasoning of argument in the ad but affected by other persuasion cues such as
source attractiveness or credibility. As the effort being spent in reasoning of
the ad do not increase as much as under the central route, consumers are
regarded as engaging in low product involvement level in this condition. Hence,
it is commonly expected that consumers involving in high product involvement
level tend to engage in central information processing while consumers involving
in low product involvement level tend to engage in peripheral information
processing.
How does level of involvement relate to endorsement in the ELM?
Involvement, as a mediating role, is important in affecting consumers'
perception in evaluating an advertising endorsement. Research showed that
endorsement was more effective under low product involvement condition than high
product involvement condition (Chaiken, 1980; Heesacker, Petty & Cacioppo, 1983;
Park & Young, 1983; Petty & Cacioppo, 1985; Petty, Cacioppo & Goldman, 1981;
Rhine & Severance, 1970; Traylor, 1981; Zaichkowsky, 1985).
Some research showed that endorsers who are perceived to be credible or
expertise enhanced persuasion effect on brand name recognition (Petty, Cacioppo
& Schumann, 1983) and counterargument attitude (Heesacker, Petty & Cacioppo,
1983). That is to say, endorsers with different source attributes may exert
different effects under high or low product involvement level. Attractive
sources are usually best used under low product involvement condition as they
will increase brand awareness and favorable brand attitude (Caballero, Lumpkin &
Madden, 1989). On the other hand, expert sources are better used under high
product involvement condition as they help to increase credibility toward the
brand (Heesacker, Petty & Cacioppo, 1983, Petty & Cacioppo, 1985, 1986) and
ability to differentiate strong or weak arguments in the message or
advertisement (Heesacker, Petty & Cacioppo, 1983).
Based on the background provided, the present study aims at exploring the
relationship between the endorser, consumer and the product of an advertisement
and the extent of influence of advertising endorsement on consumers' purchase
intention of high and low product involvement levels under the scope of the ELM.
The following research hypotheses were tested.
H1a: An ad featuring a celebrity endorser will have more impact on consumer's
purchase intention than typical consumer and expert endorser under low than high
product involvement level.
1b: An ad featuring a typical consumer and expert endorser will have more
impact on consumer's purchase intention than celebrity endorser under high than
low product involvement level.
H2a: The physical attractiveness of the endorser featured in the print ad will
influence consumer's purchase intention.
2b: The physical trustworthiness of the endorser featured in the print ad
will influence consumer's purchase intention.
2c: The physical expertise of the endorser featured in the print ad will
influence consumer's purchase intention.
H3: Female consumers will react differently from male consumers to endorsers
featured in the print ad on source effect rating including source
attractiveness, credibility and trustworthiness.
Method
Subjects and Design
A total of 120 male and female undergraduates at the Hong Kong Baptist
University participated in the experiment. Two product categories, life
insurance (Canadian Eastern Life Assurance Limited, CELAL) and wholesome
beverage (Lucozade), are selected to represent product of high and low
involvement respectively. All participants were randomly assigned to view two
of eight different fictitious ads (six with celebrity endorsers and two with
no-model as control ad). The advertisements (see Appendix) were presented in
black and white color and in magazine format. The types of endorser (celebrity,
typical consumer and expert) were manipulated in the research. Product and the
celebrity endorsers that being used in the experiment were selected by five
students in a focus group while expert endorsers were chosen by lecturers and
professors in Marketing and Business Department. All subjects completed the
questionnaire independently in four different classes.
Procedure
Two different ads (one in high product involvement and one in low product
involvement) were distributed to each corresponding respondent. For instance,
respondents may receive one ad with celebrity endorser and one with no-model.
In sum, each product involvement category has three types of endorser and one
no-model ad shown.
Independent variables
Involvement. Each respondent has to respond to one high product involvement ad
and one low product involvement ad. Product involvement level has been tested
in a focus group. Thereafter, product categories of wholesome beverage
(Lucozade) and insurance (CELAL) were being chosen.
Type of endorser. There are three types of endorser provided for each product
involvement category. Each respondent was told to see different endorsers based
on random distribution. Hence, there is no replication of test ad in the sense
that each respondent will not view both the same type of endorsers in the
experiment and avoid bias.
Peripheral cue. The content, including the headline, the script and the
quotation of each ad, was the same (see Appendix).
Dependent Measures
Sixteen dependent variables were taken assessing subjects' impression on the
endorser, the ad and the product. Semantic differential scales (1 to 7) were
used on the rating of the impression. Unattractive-attractive,
unfriendly-friendly, unfair-fair, irresponsible-responsible,
inexperienced-experienced, subjective-objective, incompatible with the
product-compatible with the product, unfamiliar with the product-familiar with
the product, not useful-useful, dislike-like, unclear-clear,
meaningless-meaningful, inferior-superior, irrelevant-relevant. Besides, Likert
Scales were used to test the relation of the endorser and the product from
strongly disagree to disagree, neutral, agree and strongly agree in questions
of: whether the endorser in the ad can increase their understanding of the
product or upgrade the image of the product; whether the endorser in the ad is
deserved to be employed for future endorsement and whether the endorser in the
ad is compatible with the product. Lastly, concerning consumers' purchase
intention, subjects were asked to rate on a five point semantic differential
scale toward the test ad with 1-very low to 5-very high. Three questions were
asked. "I will definitely buy the brand in the ad," "The ad told about product
I think I would like to try," and "The ad made me think I might try the brand -
just to see if it is as good as they say". All dependent measures were assessed
on seven point scales and five point scales respectively which anchored with
appropriates descriptors. (Higher scales values indicate a more positive
rating).
Results
A total of 120 subjects completed the questionnaire. The test ad distributed to
the respondents was controlled as each endorser type of product category is
limited to 30 included the no-model test ad. Twelve combinations of test ad
were used.
Hypothesis 1a and 1b: ANOVA found no significant difference on the types of
endorser featured in an ad under high product involvement level but it is not
true under low product involvement level. Table 2a and 2b summarized the
result. Table 2a suggests that the mean of control ad in low product
involvement level was high. Three reasons may explain this phenomenon. First,
consumers may pay attention to the argument of the print ad when there is no ad
endorser. Their attention were diverted to the true merits of an issue rather
than the persuasion cues. Second, under the low involvement condition,
consumers were not motivated to take any elaboration thinking before they make
consumption decision. Advertising endorsement in this case is ineffective.
Third, consumers have their own initial positive brand attitude before the
identification of the print ad. Therefore, the use of ad endorser is
ineffective.
Table 2b shows significance of types of endorser on purchase intention under low
product involvement level. Hypothesis 1a predicted that an ad featuring a
celebrity endorser will have more impact on consumer's purchase intention than
typical consumer and expert endorser under low than high product involvement
level. Result indicates that celebrity endorser has the strongest impact on
purchase intention under low product involvement level (MS = 2.63; F = 2.68, p <
0.05) than under high product involvement level (MS = 0.40; F = 0.49, p < 0.69).
On the other hand, hypothesis 1b predicted that an ad featuring a typical
consumer and expert endorser will have more impact on consumer's purchase
intention than celebrity endorser under high than low product involvement level.
Result shows that under high involvement condition, purchase intention is higher
for ad using typical consumer (M = 2.0) and expert endorser (M = 2.0) than
celebrity (M = 1.8) while under low involvement condition, the use of typical
consumer (M = 2.9) and celebrity (M = 2.87) is better to generate purchase
intention. Hence, hypothesis 1a is only partially being rejected while
hypothesis 1b is not rejected. The result is interesting since there are so
many products using endorsement in the current market. But still, the effect on
consumer purchase intention is low. It seems important to re-consider the use
of endorsement for print advertising.
[Insert Table 2a and 2b About Here]
Result also showed that product involvement itself, being a moderating variable,
was significant on purchase intention. Table 2c and 2d summarizes the result.
It shows that respondents' purchase intention is higher for product with low
involvement (MS = 58.02; F = 63.47, p < .000).
[Insert Table 2c and 2d About Here]
To further examine the significance of product involvement on purchase
intention, statistics show that consumers think differently under different
product involvement level. Consumers were asked to rate their thinking patterns
on product in order to see whether consumers would buy the product with deep
thought or just on impulse. Results showed that there is a strong relationship
between them (MS = 80.50; F = 101.5, p <.000). For high product involvement
level, consumers tend to have deeper thinking when making purchase decision (M =
4.13) while for low product involvement level, consumers tend to be more
impulsive when making purchase decision (M = 2.97).
Hypothesis 2: Source effect was commonly used to test the relationship between
endorser and consumers' attitude. However, no absolute relation was found
between them. That means attractive, trustworthy or experienced endorser may or
may not guarantee a positive attitude change of consumer. ANOVA found no
significance of source effect on purchase intention except source
attractiveness. Table 3 summarizes the result. It shows that endorser who is
more attractive is perceived to have the strongest impact on consumer purchase
intention among the three dimensions of source valence (p < .003). Hence,
hypothesis 2a is not rejected. It is also interesting that if the image of the
endorser that appeared in the ad is compatible and familiar with the product,
consumers will increase their purchase intention as well (p < .001). However
for endorser who is trustworthy or expertise, consumers perceive them to have
low impact on their purchase intention respectively (p < .093) and (p < .290).
Hence, hypothesis 2b and 2c is rejected.
[Insert Table 3 About Here]
Hypothesis 3: Hypothesis 3 predicted that female and male will have different
perceptions on source effect including endorsers' attractiveness, credibility
and trustworthiness. Table 4a and 4b summarizes the result of the mean and the
significance level of the relation between two variables: gender and ad
endorsers' attributes. Result shows that not much difference between male and
female respondents except on the perception on the product congruence by the ad
endorser under high product involvement level (MS = 11.14; F = 5.2, p < .025).
This explains that male tends to engage more in extensive issue-relevant
thinking through the use of central route on the relationship of the argument to
the image of the endorser than just focuses on the effect of ad endorsement.
Hypothesis 3 is rejected.
[Insert Table 4a and 4b About Here]
Besides, results also show that female and male have different reasons for
buying the advertised product (MS = 12.36; F = 4.98, p < .027). All respondents
rate product's image and personal need as two major factors that affect their
purchase behaviors. However, male respondents considered that endorser's image
(4.4%) is important while female respondents consider argument presented in the
ad (7.5%) is important. It is interesting that genders engaged in difference
elaboration likelihood in evaluating the ad.
Discussion and Limitation
As noted earlier, there are numerous researches that emphasized the
communication effectiveness of an ad is the result of either the use of central
route with high elaboration likelihood or the use of peripheral route with low
elaboration likelihood. It is clearer now that advertising endorsement does not
guarantee a positive evaluation on the product or purchase intention. Types of
advertising endorser were shown to have low significance on consumers' purchase
intention. It means that consumers will not buy a product just based on the
image of the endorser. They will consider other factors, which are more
relevant such as personal need and the quality or image of the product.
Consumers are smart in terms of the selection on their routes of
information-processing. Results supported that people did not focus on one
route of the ELM but they took both together when making decision. Besides
relating, interpreting the image of the endorser (peripheral route), they also
consider the congruence of the image of endorser to the image of product,
arguments that presented in the ad and also their personal needs (central
route). As commended by Fishbein and Ajzen (1981):
The general neglect of the information contained in a message ... is probably
the most serious problem in communication and persuasion research. We are
convinced that the persuasiveness of a communication can be increased much more
easily and dramatically by paying careful attention to its content ... than by
manipulation of credibility, attractiveness ... or any of the other myriad
factors that have caught the fancy of investigators in the area of communication
and persuasion.
Besides, gender difference in perceiving advertising endorser also support that
endorsers' credibility and attractiveness vary little to their preferences.
This means that consumers also take the central route into their considerations
in making purchase intention decision such as the congruence image of the
product and the endorser, personal needs and even the arguments in the ad.
Though the use of ad endorser was usually regarded as a peripheral cue, it
should be clear to note that neither the source (endorser) or message (argument)
nor the visual or verbal dichotomy is isomorphic with the respected one.
According to Petty and Cacioppo (1981), a source variable might also induce
persuasion via the central route, which presented verbally, for instance,
providing a verbal description of a message source as an expert. On the other
hand, an argument manipulation might also be presented visually, for instance,
depicting a kitten in an advertisement for facial tissue to convey the
product-relevant attribute "softness". The result helped to make clear that
simple presentation of the endorser in the ad was not enough in driving
consumers' purchase intention even though the subjects were regarded as credible
and attractive. Besides of considering the central and peripheral route in
elaboration processing, consumers' involvement level is also important in
affecting the attitudes change.
The present study shows that product involvement has great impact on purchase
intention. For the high product involvement category, consumers tend to take
high elaboration likelihood which cause a high level of issue-relevant thinking.
That means individual pay attention mainly to the argument and the congruence
level of the ad, product and the endorser. They prefer to think more deeply in
purchase consideration. For the low product involvement category, they tend to
take low elaboration likelihood which base mainly on peripheral cues. Under
this condition, individual is affected more by the attraction of the endorser
and less influenced by message argument. In this case, consumers tend to buy
product on impulse. This is especially true when products not involve high
financial risk such as insurance or loan. Consumers seem to think more
comprehensively in high product involvement rather than low product involvement.
In addition, this study also supported that though the source effect of ad
endorser (Hovland et.al., 1953; McGuire, 1985) would affect the attitude of
consumers, different types of endorser whom having different credibility and
attractiveness would not definitely caused the change of their attitudes. For
instance, celebrity endorser would be no difference with typical consumer or
expert in high product involvement level regarding by the consumers unless the
product that advertised was relevant to their needs and memories. Current study
helps to generalize the situation that types of ad endorser and source valence
do not guarantee a positive effect on consumer purchase intention except
endorser who is perceived as attractive. However, further attention should also
be paid on the selection of endorser and the degree of source effect as it will
affect the likability and familiarty of the product and the advertisement.
The present study do not reveal fully on the relationship between the types
of endorser, the level of source effect and the product advertised which is a
critical factor in the endorsement process. Previous studies have revealed that
a certain kind of endorser may has impact on the perception of certain product
type (e.g. Friedman & Friedman, 1979). This relationship has been termed the
suggested match-up hypothesis or congruence relationship, which implies that the
characteristics of the endorser interact with the nature of the product
advertised (Kahle & Homer, 1985).
Besides, constructive recommendation should be driven by future research on the
condition of which types of endorser, of which level of source effect they
possessed, under which level of product involvement that consumers of different
values were engaged in. Cultural factors of individual emerge to be an
important variable in affecting endorsement process. An ad endorsement succeeds
when an association is fashion between the cultural meanings of the endorser and
the endorsed product (McCracken, 1989). Future research is needed to assess
these associate meanings.
REFERENCES
Celebrity in TV ads spotlighted as key trend. (1978). Advertising Age: 32.
Alwitt, L.F., & Andrew, A.M. (1985). Psychological processes and advertising
effects. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Atkin, C., & Block, M. (1983). Effectiveness of celebrity endorsers. Journal of
Advertising Research, 23 (1), 57-61.
Belch, G.E., & Michael, A.B. (1990). Introduction to advertising and promotion
management. Homewood, IL: Richard D. Erwin Co., 165-173.
Buhr, T.A., Simpson, T.L., & Pryor, B. (1987). Celebrity endorsers'expertise and
perceptions of attractiveness, likability and familiarity. Psychological
Reports, 60, 1307-1309.
Caballero, M.J., Lumpkin, J.R., & Madden, C.S. (1989). Using physical
attractiveness as an advertising tool: An empirical test of the attraction
phenomenon. Journal of Advertising Research, 29 (4), 16-22.
Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the
use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 39, 752-766.
_________, & Alice, H.E. (1983). Communication modality as a determinant of
persuasion: The role of communicator salience. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 45, 241-256.
Crano, W.D. (1970). Effects of sex, response order and expertise in conformity:
A dispositional approach. Sociometry, 33, 239-252.
Day, G.S. (1970). Buyer attitudes and brand choice behavior. NY: Free Press.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1981). Acceptance, yielding and impact: Cognitive
processes in persuasion. In Petty, R.E., Ostrom, T. and Brock, T.C. (Eds.),
Cognitive Responses in Persuasion (pp. 339-359). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Friedman, H.H., & Friedman, L. (1979). Endorser effectiveness by product type.
Journal of Advertising Research, 19, 63-71.
____________, Friedman, L., & Fireworker, R.B. (1977). The effects of
endorsements on product evaluation. Decision Sciences, 8, 576-583.
____________, Friedman, L., Termini S., & Washington, R. (1976). The
effectiveness of advertisements utilizing four types of endorsers. Journal of
Advertising, 5 (3), 22-24.
Giffin, K. (1967). The contribution of studies of source credibility to a theory
of interpersonal trust in the communication process. Psychological Bulletin, 68
(2), 104-119.
Greenwald, A.G., & Leavitt, C. (1984). Audience involvement in advertising: Four
levels. Journal of Consumer Research, 11, 581-592.
Heesacker, M., Petty, R.E., & Cacioppo, J.T. (1983). Field dependence and
attitude change: Source credibility can alter persuasion by affecting
message-relevant thinking. Journal of Personality, 51 (4), 653-666.
Homer, P.M., & Kahle, L.R. (1990). Source expertise, time of source
identification, and involvement in persuasion: An elaborative processing
perspective. Journal of Advertising, 19 (1), 30-39.
Hovland, C.I., Irving, L.J., & Harold, H.K. (1953). Communication and
persuasion. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Joseph, W.B. (1982). The credibility of physically attractive communicators: A
review. Journal of Advertising, 11 (3), 15-24.
Kahle, L.R., & Homer, P.M. (1985). Physical attractiveness of the celebrity
endorser: A social adaptation perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 11,
954-961.
McCracken, G. (1989). Who is the celebrity endorser? Cultural foundations of the
endorsement process. Journal of Consumer Research, 16, 310-321.
McGinnies, E. (1973). Initial attitude, source credibility and involvement as
factors in persuasion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 9, 285-296.
__________, & Ward, C.D. (1980). Better liked than right: Trustworthiness and
expertise as factors in credibility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
6 (3), 467-472.
McGuire, W.J. (1985). Attitudes and attitude change. In Gardner, L. and Elliot,
A. (Eds.), Handbook of Social Psychology, 2, (pp. 233-346). NY: Random House.
Motavalli, J. (1988). Advertising blunders of the rich and famous. Adweek's
Marketing Week: B.R. 18.
Mowen, J.C., & Brown, S.W. (1981). On explaining and predicting the
effectiveness of celebrity endorsers. In Kent, B.M. and Ann, A. (Eds.), Advances
in Consumer Research, 8, (pp. 437-441). MI: Association for Consumer Research.
Ohanian, R. (1990). Construction and validation of a scale to measure celebrity
endorsers' perceived expertise, trustworthiness and attractiveness. Journal of
Advertising, 19 (3), 39-52.
O'Keefe, D. J. (Ed.). (1990). Persuasion theory and research. Newbury Park,
Calif.: Sage Publications.
Park, C.W., & Young, S.M. (1983). Types and levels of involvement and brand
attitude formation. Advances in Consumer Research, 10, 320-324.
Petty, R.E., & Cacioppo, J.T. (1981). Attitudes and persuasion: Classic and
contemporary approaches. Dubuque, Iowa: W.C. Brown.
__________, & Cacioppo, J.T. (1985). Source factors and the elaboration
likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Consumer Research, 11, 668-672.
__________, & Cacioppo, J.T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and
peripheral routes to attitude change. NY: Springer-Verlag.
__________, Cacioppo, J.T., & Goldman, R. (1981). Personal involvement as a
determinant of argument-based persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 41, 847-855.
__________, Cacioppo, J.T., & Schumann, D. (1983). Central and peripheral routes
to advertising effectiveness: The moderating role of involvement. Journal of
Consumer Research, 10, 135-146.
__________, Gleicher, F., & Baker, S.M. (1991). Multiple roles for affect in
persuasion. Emotion and Social Judgments. UK: Pergamon. 181-200.
Rhine, R., & Severance, L.J. (1970). Ego-involvement, discrepancy, source
credibility and attitude change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
16, 175-190.
Spielman, H.M. (1981). The celebrity sell: Making it work. Marketing Times, 8,
13-14.
Sternthal, B., Dholakia, R., & Leavitt, C. (1978). The persuasive effect of
source credibility: Tests of cognitive response. Journal of Consumer Research,
4, 252-260.
Stout, P.A., & Moon, Y.S. (1990). Use of endorsers in magazine advertisements.
Journalism Quarterly, 67, 536-546.
Tobin, C.A., (1975). Federal trade commission. Guides concerning uses of
endorsements and testimonials in advertising. Federal Register, 40, 22127-22148.
Traylor, M.B. (1981). Product involvement and brand commitment. Journal of
Advertising Research, 21, 51-56.
Zaichkowsky, J.L. (1985). Measuring the involvement construct. Journal of
Consumer Research, 12, 341-352.
TABLES
Table 1. Dimensions of Source Attributes of Two Model
Author(s)
Model
Attribute(s)
Hovland, Janis & Kelly (1953)
Source Credibility Model
1.Trustworthiness
2.Expertise
McGuire (1985)
Source Attractiveness Model
3.Attractiveness
-Familiarity
-Likability
-Similarity
Table 2a. Mean of Types of Celebrity x Purchase Intention
High Product Involvement
Low Product Involvement
Type x Intention
Celebrity
Typical Consumer
Expert
No-model
Celebrity
Typical Consumer
Expert
No-model
Purchase Intention
1.80
2.00
2.00
2.07
2.87
2.90
2.67
3.37
Table 2b. Types of Celebrity x Purchase Intention (ANOVA): Between-subjects
Factors
High Product Involvement
Low Product Involvement
Types x Intention
SS
df
F
Sig.
SS
df
F
Sig.
Purchase Intention
1.20
3
0.5
NS
7.90
3
2.7
.05
Table 2c. Mean of Involvement x Consumer Purchase Intention
High Involvement
Low Involvement
Purchase Intention
1.97
2.95
Table 2d. Involvement x Consumer Purchase Intention (ANOVA) : Between subjects
Factors
Involvement x Purchase Intention
SS
Df
F
Sig.
Purchase Intention
58.02
1
63.5
.000
Table 3. Source Effect x Purchase Intention (ANOVA): Between-subjects Factors
Source Effect x Intention
SS
df
F
Sig.
Attractive
17.44
5
4.1
.003
Trustworthiness
11.34
6
1.9
NS
Expertise
7.93
6
1.3
NS
Compatible with the product
41.11
6
7.7
.000
Familiar with the product
48.54
6
9.5
.000
Table 4a. Mean of Gender x Source Effect
High Product Involvement
Low Product Involvement
Male
Female
Male
Female
Attractiveness
4.52
4.19
4.68
4.49
Trustworthiness
4.52
4.23
4.41
4.30
Expertise
4.47
4.17
4.27
4.09
Compatible with the product
4.48
3.67
4.64
4.70
Familiar with the product
4.04
3.45
4.50
4.06
Table 4b. Gender x Source Effect (ANOVA): Between-subjects Factors
High Product Involvement
Low Product Involvement
Gender x Source Effect
SS
Df
F
Sig.
SS
df
F
Sig.
Attractiveness
1.84
1
1.4
NS
.64
1
.4
NS
Trustworthiness
1.39
1
1.8
NS
.22
1
.2
NS
Expertise
1.53
1
1.1
NS
.57
1
.4
NS
Compatible with the product
11.14
1
5.2
.025
8.03
1
.03
NS
Familiar with the product
6.07
1
3.4
NS
3.24
1
1.5
NS
APPENDIX
(Fictitious Test Ad in Magazine Format)
Life Insurance - Canadian Eastern Life Assurance Limited
(Celebrity) (Typical Consumer)
1. Mrs. Sit Ka Yin 2. Mr. Lam Chi Boi
Famous HK Actress Customer Service Officer
Standard Chartered Bank
(Expert) (Control ad)
3. Prof. Lam Kin 4. No-model
Dept. Head of Finance and
Decision Sciences of HKBU
APPENDIX
(Fictitious Test Ad in Magazine Format)
Wholesome Beverage - Lucozade
(Celebrity) (Typical Consumer)
1. Gigi Leung 2. Ms. Ho Yek Sum
Famous HK Actress Year 3 student
Physical Education of
HKBU
(Expert) (Control ad)
3. Ms. Chung So San 4. No-model
Nutritian
|
