Dissertation Proposal
Matching the advertising message to the behavior: Advertising message and imagery harmonized with consumer behavioral styles
Abstract:
Some researchers have hypothesized that consumers are more responsive to advertising claims tailored to a specific personality profile in product ads than to advertising claims not tailored to specific personality profiles in product ads. Consumers’ response tendencies to advertising claims when the source of such claims is identified as being tailored to a specific personality profile or not tailored to a specific personality profile are explored. Whether consumers’ action is affected by credibility information on advertisements tailored or not tailored to specific personality profile ads, and whether advertising claims that have been challenged by governmental or by consumer groups are more likely to affect consumers’ involvement than are unchallenged advertising claims, are also examined. The findings have implications for understanding the role of personality profiles in shaping visual imagery and message content of advertising claims.
Full Text:
Some researchers have hypothesized that consumer’s personality profiles affect decision making in their assessments of credibility in advertising content. As a result, consumers are more responsive to advertising claims tailored to a specific personality profile in product ads than to advertising claims not tailored to a specific personality profile. Therefore, the current research explores consumers’ response tendencies to advertising claims when the source of such claims is identified as tailored to a specific personality profile or not tailored to a specific personality profile. The study also examines the relative impact of tailoring the advertisement to a specific personality profile on consumers’ assessments of credibility in advertising content. This can be accomplished by examining whether consumers’ beliefs’, competency, or perceived goodwill are affected by credibility information when advertisements are tailored to a specific personality profile versus advertisements not tailored to a specific personality profile. Accordingly, advertising claims whose credibility has been challenged by governmental or by consumer groups are more likely to affect consumers’ action than are unchallenged advertising claims. The findings have implications for understanding the role of personality profiles in shaping visual imagery and message content of advertising claims.
In the field of advertising research, as it applies to exploratory correlation between personality and advertising message response, there is no dearth of literature and we have a long history surrounding the myriad of topics associated with this concept. (Holbrook, 1986; Plummer, 2000; Shimp, 1978; Wells, Burnett, and Moriarity, 1998; Wright, 1975) However, given the vast literature present, there is an absence of consensus in both theories and frameworks that address much of the often conflicting reasons of advertising’s interaction in consumer decision-making. Accordingly, there have been weak empirical relationships found between prediction of product use or choice with personality behavior. (Lastovicka, John L., Erich A., Joachimsthaler, 1988) Some researchers have, however, demonstrated and analyzed brand personality to the extent that effective designs can aid in their influence. (Aaker, 1997; Greengrove, 2002; Neal and Wurst, 2001). Attempts at segmenting markets on the basis of personality similarities and differences have not achieved researchers’ desired results. The main reason for disappointing results is that research efforts have primarily focused on profiling exercises rather than putting their endeavors into theories based on consumer personalities. (Plummer, 1984). Accordingly, empirical personality work has tended to be weak because trait measures often have questionable reliability, validity, and the traits investigated lacked the conceptual relevance to the behavior being studied. (Lastovicka, John L., Erich A., Joachimsthaler, 1988) Accordingly, there has been ample research on source effects that concentrated on the impact of the competence, believability, and trustworthiness of the spokesperson in the fields of psychology, advertising, and communication literature. (Bush, Moncrief, and Ziethaml 1987; Percy 1983). There is, however, little research on relative impact of personality profiles on consumers’ assessments of credibility in advertising content.
Personality classifications that focused on behavior and lifestyles explaining how consumers’ process information and make decisions (Lastovicka, John L., Erich A., Joachimsthaler, 1988) have provided a more theoretically rigorous approach. Advertisers might derive useful insights from Marston’s personality-type theory that describes individual behavior types for motivation in acquiring and using information. Marston developed a theory of measuring the personalities he was trying to describe. His solution was to develop his own personality test to measure four important personality factors. The factors he chose were Dominance, Influence, Steadiness and Compliance, from which the DISC theory takes its name. Similar to Carl Jung’s theory of individual differences where he broke the four categories down to Sensing, Intuitive, Feeling and Thinking, Jung’s theory has been operationalized by means of an assessment instrument, the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) [see Myers, 1987, for a detailed description of the personality dimensions measured by the MBTI]. The MBTI was developed during the 1940s and has become one of the most extensively used personality assessment instrument. Marston’s theory has also been operationalized by means of an assessment instrument, the Personal Profile System® is based on a two-axis, four dimensional model learning instrument that helps individuals assess to what degree they utilize each dimension of behavior in their particular situation. The instrument then provides feedback in several unique formats. The Personal Profile System®, the result of extensive field research and testing, is scaled to provide reliability and set a standard for behavioral-based learning. (The Personal Profile System 2800 Series Research Report, Item Number: 0-255, 1996)
The DISC theory, which Marston outlines as a system to understand and describe human behavior, is a methodology that acts as a cognitive and perceiving function and might be particularly useful in understanding how advertisers can communicate with consumers. However, it has received little attention from advertising researchers (Poczter, 1987, Plummer, 2000) According to Marston; the four dimensions of the DISC model represent how one behaves when reacting to environmental stimuli including objects, people, and ideas. Exploratory research suggests that congruence between the consumer behavior personality type perceiving function, i.e., the Dominance behavior, Influencing behavior, Steadiness behavior, and Conscientiousness behavior of consumers, and advertising copy can enhance advertising appeal (Lastovicka, John L., Erich A., Joachimsthaler, 1988). To date, however, advertising researchers have not investigated the implications of Marston’s theory for classifying visual imagery and using visuals that match the personality type of the target audience.
To extend our knowledge regarding the implications of Marston’s theory for advertisers, the present study explores the impact on effectiveness of matching consumers’ behavior type personality with imagery, i.e., a text message, an illustration, photographs, different fonts, or images of varying degrees used in print advertisements. The following sections review the relevant literature, including an explanation of Marston’s personality behavior type theory, the perceiving function, and research on the perceiving function and advertising appeals. The importance of the text message and visual imagery in advertising effectiveness is also reviewed. The study’s hypotheses and methodology are then discussed.
MARSTON’S BEHAVIOR TYPE THEORY AND THE PERCEIVING FUNCTION
Marston contends that human behavior is generally not random because 1). Psychonic motor impulses of motor self and motor stimulus are involved in relationships of mutual alliance or conflict and 2.) Motor self increases or decreases its intensity in response to inferior or superior intensity of motor stimulus. Accordingly, nodal points of emotion series, where relationships of alliance, conflict and increase or decrease of motor self reach maximum, and begin to change toward opposite type relationships. The primary emotions are termed conscientiousness, dominance, influence, and steadiness. These differences are due to certain basic motor stimulus and motor self-responses. (Marston, 1928, 2000). Marston’s behavior type theory assumes that individuals are born with a particular dominance behavior, and depending on the environmental stimuli and motor stimulus, this behavior is modified towards one of the other three types. Thus, people may be “typed” by this behavior, resulting in Marston’s function or psychological type theory. Marston’s dimensions of the basic behavior types represent a two axis aspect of the four behaviors: outgoing/direct oriented or extroversion versus reserved/indirect or introversion. D and I personality type behaviors tend to be more outgoing where S and C personality types are more reserved. Marston assumes that each aspect is valuable, and at times indispensable, and followed closely along parallel lines of the behavior. However, individuals will respond first or most often in their behavioral type personality because they are most comfortable with this preferred style.
Skiing can illustrate Marston’s theory. More often than not, an individual will approach and begin the process of skiing depending on personality preference. Dominate type individuals might quickly attack some of the harder runs fast paced, while conscientious type individuals have a greater probability of planning out each stage of their learning and progression. An influence personality behavior type would begin skiing seeking recognition and people involvement, thereby looking for some rewards associated with the process; and the steadiness individual would typically go skiing if he can be assured of a stable process involved in his activity. The key here is that we all demonstrate all four-behavior types, but with varying intensity. People tend to gravitate towards comfort. The overwhelming majority of individuals have their preferred ways of collecting information, making decisions, directing their energy, and living. Individuals can and do use other less-favored behaviors, but not with the same liking or skill. People grow to rely on their most comfortable behavior, which impacts the way that they interact with information in their environment.
Marston outlined his set of behavioral motivational patterns called personality profiles and theorized that everyone’s personality is a combination of four basic characteristic types: dominance (D), influence (I), steadiness (S) and compliance (C). Today, this concept is referred as the “DISC” theory. Although the DISC theory has wide acceptance in the field of psychology, marketers and consumer behaviorists are just beginning to understand the power of Marston’s behavior principles. Let me briefly explain these four qualities.
A person who exhibits a high “D,” or dominant, type behavior takes an aggressive, often demanding approach to problems. Dominant individuals undertake challenging assignments, and they are not afraid to confront people in situations that don’t suit them. This person is apt to say, “It’s my way, or the highway, or I hate to lose.”
Someone who displays a high “I,” could be called the interacting or “influencing of others” type. This individual tends to be friendly, relaxed, talkative, bubbly, and eager to please people and loves social recognition. These people love to be around other people and typically have a strong desire to be liked. These are the individuals who, if asked what time it is, will give you the history of clock making. Accordingly, these individuals are apt to say, “My friends think I can talk my way out of anything”
Individuals displaying steadiness style “S,” or steady, behaviors, have a high need for stability. They tend to be predictable and consistent and being with other people enjoyable. These people are typically patient and loyal. Statements that an “S” person would be comfortable with are “I can stick with things, no matter how boring it is,” “I take pride in keeping my temper when others often get mad,” and “ I dislike fighting and try to get along with others.”
The fourth behavior-style is the high “C,” cautious or compliant, individual. These individuals like things done the right way. They tend to be motivated by compliance to their own standards. These people want to do things right the first time, every time; and display this as “defensive” aggressiveness. They emphasize quality and accuracy and organizations usually count on their dependability in positions where exactness is important. These individuals fear criticism of their work and they would be characterized by the following statements, “I get attention by doing things perfectly,” “I like to know the exact answer all the time,” and “I keep my papers and ideas organized.”
The chart below outlines the four personality types and their major goal, fears, dislikes, and how they respond to pressure, as a buyer and the decision style related to buying behavior.
Dominance “D”
Influence “I”
Steadiness “S”
Conscientiousness “C”
Major Goals
Results
People involvement
Security
Accuracy
Control
Recognition
Stability
Order
Major Fears
Losing control of environment
Rejection
Sudden Change
Criticism of performance
Being taken advantage of
Loss of approval
Losing security
Unclear explanations
Dislikes
Being controlled by others
Handling complex details
Hostility, Conflict
Disorganization
Lack of results
Working alone
Unpredictability
Unclear explanations
Under Pressure
Domineering
Emotional
Conforming
Withdraws
Impatient
Disorganized
Indecisive
Stubborn
As a Buyer Responds To
Options
Testimonials
Assurance of stability
Evidence of quality and accuracy
Efficiency
Saving personal effort
Personal attention
Logical approaches
Decision Style
Quick
Emotional
Deliberate
Analytical
“Gut Feel”
The present research concentrates on how advertisers should appeal to a consumer’s preferred personality behavior of interpreting information and the consumer’s desire for this preference. While all of Marston’s personality dimensions play a role in the consumer decision-making process at varying intensities, the key is dealing directly with the perception of the highest intensity behavior type personality that guides a consumer’s evaluation of the structure of the advertisement (i.e., quick, emotional, deliberate, analytical). According to Marston, we take in information and react to that information from motor stimuli and environmental stimuli. (Marston, 1928, 2000) While everyone reacts to information through all four-personality behaviors, we typically do not use each behavior style equally. Individuals feel more comfortable and more rewarded relying on the behavior type they use with the most intensity to interpret information about their environment.
Given the different and potentially conflicting orientations, advertisers might achieve a greater effectiveness with their advertisements when they adapt their messages to the behavior type that characterizes the target market or correspondingly for the behavior type that describes an individual consumer. Advertisers have long understood the fact that the message sent is not always and necessarily the message received (Leonard and Straus, 1997). Exploratory research has demonstrated that advertisers are more effective when information is presented with “language” that is equal to type preferences of the audience (McBride, 1988). This suggests that advertisers who customize for the preferences of a particular type may be more successful than advertisers creating generic, “one-size-fits-all” advertisements.
The power of utilizing type theory when developing an advertising campaign was illustrated by McBride and Cline (1989) through a process of reporting on a company-sponsored competition surrounding college teams. Apple Computer Inc. sponsored a contest involving eight college teams, each of which developed campaigns to attract faculty, staff, and students to a computer fair. The objective was to enhance the attitudes toward Apple’s computer products. The Southwest Texas State University team collected information prior to the event from a sample of the targeted audience regarding types and preferences for alternative campaign and positioning themes and advertising appeals (McBride and Cline, 1989). The researchers found that different types were interested in different appeals.
What Myers and McCaulley found from this study was that, as is typically the case with individuals in the advertising industry that are creative, the majority members of the Southwest Texas State team were intuitive (Influencing I) types and accordingly, prior to the research, had favored positioning concepts of an influencing nature. (Myers and McCaulley, 1989), However, given that the majority of the target audience consisted of a different personality type, they were unenthusiastic about influencing type advertising position the team developed, and therefore worked towards a campaign-positioning theme and communications materials for the computer fair that matched the data rather than their “gut instinct.”
The outcome was that the Southwest Texas State team outperformed the event attendance records and the results of the other seven college teams that did not consider consumer type preference behavior in the development of their campaigns (McBride and Cline, 1989). They demonstrated that they not only achieved a 25 percent attendance by the university faculty, staff, and students to the fair at Southwest Texas State, but also surveys that were conducted before and after the event showed significant attitude shifts in favor of Apple Computer’s products. Prior to the event, IBM outscored Macintosh on most measures, but after the event, Macintosh was rated higher on most measures, including the “necessity” factor of owning a Macintosh computer. The suggestion here is that understanding the target’s personality type preference can guide advertisers in tailoring and thereby enhancing the appeal of advertising messages. It is important to note that the conclusions derived from this study represent only a single real-world case in contrast to a controlled experiment.
The usefulness of personality type theory in advertising is also supported from a study that examined the reactions of consumers to a set series of copy-only print advertisements (Yorkston and LaBarbera, 1997). Advertising copy that presented information consistent with the preferences of a behavior type consumer tended to receive higher ratings than copy that was inconsistent with their personality type preferences. Accordingly, a retailer that used message copy congruent with the consumers’ personality type received higher evaluations and often-higher purchase intentions than a retailer who advertised with a copy that was incongruent with the consumers’ personality type preferences (Yorkston and LaBarbera, 1997). In Yorkston and LaBarbera (1997), the subjects were asked to respond to true to type or print advertisements that contained copy that was written in a language intuitives, (Influencers I) they were comfortable seeing. This test illustrated not directly, but indirectly, the theory Marston is proffering. The results stemming from such research have been encouraging, yet to date a limited number of researchers has focused their attention on the impact of personality type in the classification and use of advertising message and imagery.
The current study explores the impact of congruency between consumer personality-type behaviors and the visual content of advertising. Although research has not dealt directly with the primary relationship between advertising message/visual content and personality behavior type, there is evidence that messages/visuals are interpreted differently depending on the behavioral styles of the viewer. There is a need to determine whether a message or visual image can be categorized according to behavior personality type and, if so, whether it will make a difference in the effectiveness of advertising. Individuals with Dominance personality type behaviors tend to concentrate on results and look for options and efficiency within the text or image seeking a quick decision. Conversely, Individuals with Conscientious personality behavior look for evidence of quality and accuracy seeking logical approaches attempting to make an analytical decision. Accordingly, Individuals with Influencing behavior types consider future possibilities and tend to make assumptions about information that may not be evident in the message or image (Russell, 1992). Finally, a Steadiness personality type looks for assurance of stability and personal attention seeking a deliberate decision style.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
While researchers have examined varying formats for presenting credibility information, they have not compared the relative impact of presenting the same information in advertisements tailored to personality profiles. The current study was designed to determine, if consumers are more responsive to advertising claims when the source is identified as credible, i.e. competent, believable or has some good will component in product advertisements tailored to a specific personality profile? Or, are there no differences in consumer perceptions when the source of the advertising claim is identified as credible but not tailored to a specific personality profile? Thus, to address this issue, the first research question is:
1. Do consumers’ beliefs about advertised products differ when the ad content of an advertising claim to which consumers are exposed is specifically tailored to a personality profile or not specifically tailored to a personality profile?
While advertisements often include information that cross cut all personality profiles, some consumers ignore some of this information and rely primarily on advertising claims and on personal experience in forming judgments about advertised products. On the other hand, some consumers defer decisions until the advertising claims have some credibility behind them before making product purchase decisions. Therefore, the current studies compares consumers’ beliefs about advertised products either when consumers are exposed to advertising claims, through ad content, specifically tailored to their personality profile or are exposed to advertising claims, through ad content, not specifically tailored to their personality profile.
There are distinct processing differences between dominant, influencing, steadiness and conscientiousness individuals. These differences should affect how consumers perceive and evaluate information provided by advertising message and imagery. The first question explores whether advertisements containing dominant, influencing, steadiness, conscientiousness type messages or visuals are more believable by those corresponding personality behavior consumers as compared to advertisements that contain incongruous type messages or visuals. The basic hypothesis is that advertisements containing ad content that is consistent with subjects’ perceiving/type behavior preferences will be viewed as believable compared to advertisements that contain ad content that is inconsistent with their perceiving-type preferences. Therefore:
1.) Response tendencies. Predictor (Independent)
2.) Believability of ad content Criterion (Dependent)
H1 Individuals will believe advertisements tailored to their specific response tendencies more (less) than advertisements tailored contrary to their response tendencies.
Response tendencies associated with the advertisement will also transfer to the product being advertised (MacKenzie, Lutz, and Belch, 1986). This will result in a direct effect on the response tendencies toward the brand being advertised and have an indirect effect on future predicted behavior. Formally:
H2 Individuals will believe advertisements tailored to their specific response tendency more (less) than advertisements tailored contrary to their response tendencies.
Thus, the second research question is:
2. Do consumers’ beliefs about advertised products differ when consumers are exposed to advertising claims specifically tailored to personality profiles that include credibility information versus when consumers are exposed to advertising claims that are specifically tailored to personality profiles that do not include credibility information? Therefore:
1.) Response tendencies. Predictor (Independent)
2.) Credibility of ad content Criterion (Dependent)
H1 Individuals will find advertisements more credible where belief supporting information is included in the ad that is tailored to their specific response tendencies more (less) than advertisements where belief supporting information is included in the ad that is tailored contrary to their response tendencies.
Formally:
H2 Individuals will believe advertisements tailored to their specific response tendency more (less) than advertisements tailored contrary to their response tendencies.
While consumers’ processing of credibility information and advertising claims specifically tailored to personality profiles will be examined previously, the credibility information may be consistent with the advertising claims presented to consumers. However, these studies do not shed much light on the problem of advertising claims that are perceived as potentially misleading. Therefore, the current study examines the impact on consumer beliefs of including credibility information along with advertising claims that have been contested by the Government or consumer groups. Thus, the third research question is
3. Do consumers’ beliefs about attributes that should be affected by “challenged” advertising claims differ when consumers are exposed to advertising claims that include credibility information versus advertising claims that do not include credibility information? Therefore:
1.) Response tendencies. Predictor (Independent)
2.) Credibility of challenged ad content Criterion (Dependent)
H1 Individuals will believe challenged advertisements (those ads where the challenge is placed in the advertisement) tailored to their specific response tendencies more (less) than advertisements tailored contrary to their response tendencies.
Formally:
H2 Individuals will believe challenged advertisements (those ads where the challenge is placed in the advertisement) tailored to their specific response tendency more (less) than advertisements (Ads with the challenged text inserted in the advertisement) tailored contrary to their response tendencies.
METHODOLOGY
Sample
One hundred and eighty adults who are their households’ primary shoppers will be recruited at two large regional shopping malls in a major metropolitan area on the West Coast. A quota sample will be used so that for each of the three treatments, half of the respondents selected will be between the ages of 21 and 35 years old and half of the respondents will be 35 years of age and older. This procedure will be used to ensure that there is sufficient representation of both younger and older respondents. Approximately 15 percent of the respondents will be African-American, Asian, or Hispanic. A lottery ticket will be offered as an incentive to participate.
Design
The design and procedure would include a between-group experimental design that would be used to pre-test four perceiving types (i.e., dominance, influence, steadiness, conscientiousness). The consumer’s four behavioral personality type preferences would then be assessed by using the Personal Profile System 2800 series type indicator test, a self-administered questionnaire designed to measure an individual’s type preferences based on the theory of Marston (1928/2000). The instrument has been shown to be a reliable measure of the dimensions of behavior functions. The Personality Profile system pre-test is comprised of twenty questions rating respondent’s answers to four words that each respondent rates as most like them and least like them. This amount of questions and scoring those answers are economized in order to decrease respondent’s fatigue. All one hundred and eighty adults would be given the personality profile pre-test and categorized by the four perceiving type profiles. Participants from each of the four categories will then be assigned randomly to receive information that is identified as emanating from three sources: a generic advertisement not tailored to any specific personality profile, an advertisement specifically tailored to personality profiles, and an advertisement with credibility information. In each condition, subjects will be exposed to twenty stimuli: ten “mock” generic advertisements and ten specifically tailored personality profile “mock” advertisements, depending on the condition to which the participant will be assigned. The order in which the stimuli will be presented would be rotated to avoid order bias. Actual product claims will be utilized in the study and the brand names will be constant across all three treatments. The Personality Profile test is structured so that all individuals taking the test will always fall into one of the four categories. If for any reason no individuals fall into one or more types of the four presented profiles, a new profile test will be given to them in an effort to stabilize any inherent misunderstandings as to the test. If after the second test is administered and a fallout of the four profiles is the result, these individuals will be isolated and reviewed as a separate group and analyzed for consistency among the original control group.
Products and Advertising Claims
Two brands from each of the following product categories will be selected: computers, automobiles, soup, clothing, and beverage. For each category, one of the brands will make an advertising claim that has been contested by a consumer group or the Government, and one of the brands will make an advertising claim that is uncontested.
A control brand with similar product characteristics and credibility information as the brand with the contested advertising claim will be selected for each of the products.
Advertisements and Personality Profile
The advertisements will be “mockups” of actual advertisements. The advertisements will be created from parts of actual ads. The advertisement credibility information will be taken from each industry represented and inserted in the “mock” advertisement. The credibility information will be attributed to a credible agency and will be placed in the mock advertisements that will challenge the credibility of the product or service and state the product is unsafe or not suitable for use. An example would be that “claims the product is unsafe.” “Advertisement” will be printed in large letters at the top and bottom of the ten ads and labels. Color copies of the “mock” advertisements will be used in the study. We could use a panel of five advertising professionals, consisting of two copywriters and three account planners, to create and select the advertisements using text and images containing psychological references judged by the panelists to be consistent with dominance, influence, steadiness, and conscientiousness types. Each professional on the panel would possess at least 10 years’ work experience in advertising and currently hold positions where the selection and approval of advertising images was a routine job requirement. The advertisement text and images selected for the pre-test would consist of twenty images in each of four personality categories: Dominate, Influencing, Steadiness, and Conscientiousness. The images selected would receive unanimous agreement from the panel with respect to the personality type represented. The personality categories would be selected a priori by the panel that believed that they are generally personality specific and may be used by virtually all consumers. The visuals selected would be relevant to the four personality profile categories chosen for the study. In the text and image set for each profile, one quarter of the images would be predicted by the advertising panel to be highly appealing to Dominance and one quarter would be predicted to be highly appealing to influence behavior types and one quarter would be predicted to be highly appealing to Steadiness behavior types and one quarter would be predicted to be highly appealing to Conscientiousness behavior types.
The design and procedure would also include a between-group experimental design that would be used for the pre-test with four perceiving types (i.e., dominance, influence, steadiness, conscientiousness). Each potential subject would rate the entire set of 20 text and images. The visuals would be shown in a one on one session in which each consumer would sit at a table in front of a binder containing the set of advertisements. The advertisements would be arranged in a double-page spread fashion, with the advertisement on the left-hand page and a multiple-choice list of words on the right-hand page of the binder. The list would contain 20 words based on the descriptive vocabulary used by experts to differentiate among the four behavior personality types. Four different lists would be used, each containing the pre-test vocabulary presented in a different random order with dominance, influence, steadiness and conscientiousness words interwoven among each other. The consumers would view and rate each advertisement sequentially.
Each of the consumers would be instructed to choose the word or words from the pre-test vocabulary list that best described the advertisement. Consumers would be informed that they could choose as many or as few words as they thought applied. They would further be instructed to consider the subject matter of the advertisement and indicate the degree of believability. The subjects would be encouraged to move quickly through the series of advertisements as if paging through a magazine or reading the newspaper.
I then think we could analyze the data on average. The Profile System could guide us in those words from the list of 20 words that would then describe each advertisement. T-tests could be run to identify the advertisements that best represented each of the four behavior types attributes. The advertisements that showed the greatest difference between their mean dominance, influence, steadiness and conscientiousness scores would be selected as the experimental stimuli. The advertisements selected for the four behavior types of the study, their mean scores, and significance levels based on a paired two sample t-test of the means could be outlined. These advertisements would then be used to test whether the consumers would give higher ratings using some scalable model of believable at one end and not believable at the other end to advertisements that contained text and visuals consistent with their preferences.
Procedure
Before data collection will begin, a pilot test will be conducted at one of the mall intercepts where the surveys will be administered. Ten subjects will be recruited and each subject will be taken to an office in the mall where the questionnaire can be administered. This will flush out any problems encountered with the subjects’ understanding or completion of the survey. Each respondent will be timed to complete the survey.
Each subject will be brought into an office and an explanation and purpose of the study and the procedure will be given as follows. “This study involves your reaction to information taken from a number of advertisements. We will be showing you these advertisements and asking you a number of questions about them. Please take as long as is necessary to become familiar with the information in these advertisements.”
Then, each participant will be given a copy of each stimulus and told to look at the material for as long as desired. Once the participant is finished looking at the stimulus, the information will be removed and a series of questions will be asked to measure their beliefs about the brand on nine credibility-related attributes: believability, competence, trustworthiness, reliability, acceptability, sureness, certainty, persuasion, and good will towards others. For example, the respondent will be asked, “Based on the information in the advertisement, tell me the number between one and seven that indicates how strongly you agree or disagree that the product in the ad is believable.” Accordingly, the same question for trustworthiness, reliability, etc.
Each respondent would be shown a card with the scale points listed from one (strongly disagree) to seven (strongly agree). This procedure could be repeated for each of the nine attributes. However, the statement could be reworded according to the attribute in question. For example, participants could be told to give a number between one and seven that indicated how strongly they agreed or disagreed that the advertisement, using soup as an example, “is low in fat” or “reduces the risk of heart disease.”
Next, the respondent could be shown a second stimulus (ad) and asked to rate the product on the same nine credibility-related attributes, using the same seven-point scale. The process would continue for the five product categories. After exposure to ten stimuli and after all belief ratings were obtained, a count would be done. Accordingly, each respondent would answer a series of questions about their shopping habits, such as the importance and use of credibility information. Demographic data would be collected at the end of the questionnaire.
Aaker, Jennifer L. Dimensions of Brand Personality. Journal of Marketing Research 34, 3 (1997): 347-56.
Bargh, John A., Losing consciousness: Automatic influences on consumer judgment, behavior, and motivation, Journal of Consumer Research; Gainesville; Sep 2002; pp. 280-285
Bush, Alan J., William C. Moncrief, and Valarie A. Ziethaml (1987), Source Effects in Professional Services Advertising, in Current Issues and Research in Advertising, Vol. 10, James H. Leigh and Claude R. Martin, Jr. (eds.), Ann Arbor, MI: Division of Research, Graduate School of Business Administration, University of Michigan: 153-172.
Campbell, Margaret C., Amna Kirmani, Consumers’ use of persuasion knowledge: The effects of accessibility and cognitive capacity on perceptions of an influence agent, Journal of Consumer Research; Gainesville; Jun 2000; pp. 69-83
Funkhouser, Ray G., Richard Parker, An action-based theory of persuasion in marketing, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice; Statesboro; Summer 1999; pp. 27-40
Greengrove, Kathryn, Needs-based segmentation: Principles and practice
International Journal of Market Research; Henley-on-Thames; Fourth Quarter 2002; pp. 405-421
Holbrook, Morris. Aims, Concepts, and Methods for the Representation of Individual Differences in Esthetic Responses to Advertising, Journal of Consumer Research 13, 3 (1986): 337-47.
Inscape Publishing, The Personal Profile System 2800 Series Research Report, Inscape Publishing Inc. 1996, Item Number: 0-255.
Lastovicka, John L., Erich A., Joachimsthaler, Improving the detection of personality-behavior relationships in consumer research, Journal of Consumer Research; Vol 14, March 1988, pp. 583-587
Leonard, Dorthy, and Susan Straus. Putting Your Company’s Whole Brain to Work, Harvard Business Review 75, 4 (1997), pp.110-22.
Loewenstein, George, The creative destruction of decision research, Journal of Consumer Research; Gainesville; Dec 2001; pp. 499-505
Marston, William Moulton, Emotions of Normal People. Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., Ltd. 1928, Reprinted by Routledge, Great Britain 1999, 2000, and 2001.
MacKenzie, Scott B., Richard J. Lutz, and George E. Belch, The Role of Attitude Toward Ad as a Mediator of Advertising Effectiveness: A Test of Competing Explanations, Journal of Marketing Research 23, 2 (1986)
McBride, Michael H. The Theory of Psychological Type Congruence for Advertisers Revisited. Atlantic Marketing Association, 4th Annual Conference, 1988.
McBride, Micheal H. and Carolyn G. Cline, Segmenting Audiences by Type and Temperament in a Marketing Campaign, Proceedings of the Association for Psychological Type III: Biennial International Conference. June 28,1989, pp.123-26.
Myers, Isabel Briggs. Introduction to Type. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1987, and Mary H. McCaulley. A Guide to the Development and Use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1989.
Meyers-Levy, Joan, Prashant Malaviya, Consumers’ processing of persuasive advertisements: An integrative framework of persuasion theories, Journal of Marketing; New York; 1999; pp. 45-60
Neal, William D., John Wurst, Advances in market segmentation, Marketing Research; Chicago; Spring 2001; pp. 14-18
Percy, Larry (1983), A Review of the Effect of Specific Advertising Elements upon Overall Communication Response, Current Issues and Research in Advertising, Ann Arbor, MI: Division of Research, Graduate School of Business Administration, University of Michigan: 77-118.
Petty, R.E., R.H. Unnava and A.J. Strathman (1991), Theories of Attitude Change, in T.S. Robertson and H.H. Kassarjian, eds., Handbook of Consumer Behavior, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 241-280.
Plummer, Joseph T. How personality makes a difference, Journal of Advertising Research; New York; Nov/Dec 2000; pp. 79-83
Poczter, Abram, Attitude Development Hierarchy And Segmentation, Review of Business, Jamaica; Summer 1987; Vol. 9, Iss. 1; pp. 17-20.
Pratap, Shailendra, JainDurairaj Maheswaran, Motivated reasoning: A depth-of-processing perspective, Journal of Consumer Research; Gainesville; Mar 2000; pp. 358-371
Russell, Anne, The MBTI and Responses to Photographs, A.A.P.T. Conference, Queensland, 1992.
Shimp, Terrence A. Application of the Personality Construct in Advertising Research, In Proceedings of the Annual Conference of American Academy of Advertisers, 1978: 78
Wells, William, John Burnett, and Sandra Moa. Advertising Principles and Practice. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Simon and Schuster Company, 1998.
Whittler, Tommy E., Eliciting consumer choice heuristics: Sales representatives’ persuasion strategies, The Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management; New York; Fall 1994; p. 41
Wright, Peter. Factors Affecting Cognitive Resistance to Advertising, Journal of Consumer Research 2,1 (1975): 1-9.
Yorkston, Eric A., and Priscilla A. LaBarsera. Personality-Related Cognitive Style and Advertising Strategy. New and Evolving Paradigms: The Emerging Future of Marketing. Chicago: AMA Conference Proceedings, June 1997, pp. 802-14.
Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment