ASSOCIATION FOR CONSUMER RESEARCH

Transcription

1 ASSOCIATION FOR CONSUMER RESEARCH Labovitz School of Business & Economics, University of Minnesota Duluth, 11 E. Superior Street, Suite 210, Duluth, MN Attractive Versus Popular: Men and Women S Reactions to Male and Female Models in Advertising Even J. Lanseng, Norwegian Business School, BI Norway Maarten L. Majoor, Norwegian Business School, BI Norway Based on insights from evolutionary psychology and information processing research, this study examines differences in men and women s reactions to male and female ad models. It was found that men prefer female models and that women prefer male models coupled with female models. Differences are moderated by product category involvement. [to cite]: Even J. Lanseng and Maarten L. Majoor (2012),"Attractive Versus Popular: Men and Women S Reactions to Male and Female Models in Advertising", in AP - Asia-Pacific Advances in Consumer Research Volume 10, eds., Duluth, MN : Association for Consumer Research, Pages: [url]: [copyright notice]: This work is copyrighted by The Association for Consumer Research. For permission to copy or use this work in whole or in part, please contact the Copyright Clearance Center at

2 ABSTRACT Based on insights from evolutionary psychology and information processing research, this study examines differences in men and women s reactions to male and female ad models. It was found that men prefer female models and that women prefer male models coupled with female models. Differences are moderated by product category involvement. Men and women react differently to male and female models in advertising. One observation is that both men and women react more favorably to advertising featuring models of the opposite sex than to advertising featuring same-sex models. This opposite-sex effect is observed for ad evaluation (Baker and Churchill 1977; Dianoux and Linhart 2009) and product/brand evaluation (Peterson and Kerin 1977; Simpson, Horton, and Brown 1996). This opposite-sex effect if also more pronounced for men than women (Jones, Stanaland, and Gelb 1998). To date, no adequate explanation for how men and women can be expected to react to male and female models in advertising has been presented (see Wolin 2003 and Jones, Stanaland, and Gelb 1998 for reviews). To understand how both men and women react to male and female ad models we propose an account that draws on insights from evolutionary psychology and information processing research. The ad produces a particular context that exposes the viewer to an array of information cues including models, product attributes, logos, and product arguments. Men and women react in predictable ways differently to these cues. Exposure to a model alone can prime mating considerations in men and women (Hill and Buss 2008; Roney 2003), but the particular considerations differ between the sexes (Hill and Buss 2008). Men consider reproduction capacities whereas women consider the capacity for nurturing herself and her offspring. When little information about the potential mate is readily available (such as in an ad), men and women will rely on environmental cues (Hill and Buss 2008). A man will infer mating quality from the female model s physical attractiveness, since attractiveness is diagnostic for the reproduction capacities he seeks. In this context, he will associate a male model with unwanted rivalry. A woman will Even J. Lanseng, Norwegian Business School, BI Norway Maarten L. Majoor, Norwegian Business School, BI Norway infer quality from the male model s popularity since it is diagnostic for the nurturing capacity she seeks. The presence of one or several other female models is a sign of such popularity. This difference between men and women should be strengthened by inherent man-woman differences in information processing. The selectivity model states that men tend to process cues that are salient from the surface whereas women process a richer array of cues (Meyers-Levy and Sterntal 1991). Wood (1966) and Nowaczyk (1982) observed that women responded to nonverbal stimuli by evoking more associative, imagery-laced interpretations, and more elaborate descriptions than did their male counterparts. Attractiveness is readily available from surface cues (i.e. the models mere appearance) and should therefore be utilized by men. In contrast, popularity is not readily available from the ad, but a more complex cue that must be imagined. This would require a processing style consistent with that of a woman. These female-male differences in information processing also have implications for processing of the model relative to the other information cues. Verbal arguments (vs. models) are likely to provide more (vs. less) utility within the elaborate female processing style and models (vs. verbal arguments) are likely to provide more (vs. less) utility within the heuristic male processing style. Moreover, as a model can be a central product argument under high elaboration (Trampe et al. 2010), women are more likely than men to treat it as such. Men that are highly involved in the product category, however, are likely to react more like women as they will elaborate more than men with low involvement. To test these predictions, we examined tradeoffs between a female and a male model, a malefemale pair of models, and product arguments using literature in several ways. A novel explanation for men and women s reaction to models in advertising is examined, another highly relevant ad elements is considered (i.e. male-female pair), and more ad element tradeoffs are allowed for.

3 STUDY 1 Maui sunscreen lotion, featuring models. As this brand is not available in the participant s marketplace, avoided while realism is maintained. As previous research suggests that gratuitous men, it was important to secure that models were not perceived as gratuitous and that initial attitudes toward the models were not different across the sexes. Moreover, models can also serve as an central product argument cue. Also this necessitates that models are perceived as non-gratuitous and that men and women hold equally favorable attitudes toward male and female models. Eighty students participated in this study. RESULTS To check that models were perceived as non-gratuitous the ads brand-model congruency was measured and compared to a presumed less relevant display (the same models holding a surfboard). As expected, the depiction of the model was perceive as fairly brandcongruent in the sunscreen version (M sun = 3.33) and also more congruent than in the surfboard version (M surf = 4.45; p <.05). in terms of the model s inherent attractiveness. On =.82), the male and the female model were rated equally attractive (M male = 3.48; M female = 3.19, p >. in their rating of the female (t = -0.55, p >.10) and the male (t =.35, p >.10) model. Neither gratuitous sex associations nor inherent differences in model attractiveness should therefore interfere with the results. STUDY 2 Participants. Two hundred and ninety students participated in the study. Sixty students that failed to complete the experiment were not analyzed (n = 230). A 2 (Sex: men vs. women) x 2 (Elaboration: High vs. design was employed. The design also controlled two alternative explanations: involvement as a trait (measure by need for cognition) and perceived product gender identity. various ad elements. Ad elements with respective levels were model gender (male, female, male and female, or no model), number of product arguments (2, 3, or 4), and claim type (hedge, neutral, pledge) Thirty-six different professional looking versions of the ad (4 x 3 x 3) were developed. In an online experiment participants were exposed to these versions in sets of three, and asked to choose the ad they preferred. RESULTS female ad than for the male ad (M =.76 vs. M = -.66, p <. 05), supporting that a model s popularity yields more utility than it s attractiveness. Women also had more utility from the female than from the male model ad (M =.85 vs. M = -.66, p <. 05), which supports that women use the model as a central product cue. Women s trade-off between the male + female ad and the female ad shows an equal utility (M =.76 vs. M =.85, p <. 05). This indicates that either the model serves as a popularity cue or as a central product cue, it provides women with equal utility. As predicted, men have higher utility for the female ad than for the male + female ad (M = 1.59 vs. M =.97, p <. 05), indicating that men get the highest utility from attractiveness and that a male model reminds them about rivalry. Men also had more utility from the female model ad then from the male ad (M = 1.59 vs. M = -1.48, p <. 05), supporting that men do not use the model as a central product cue. Men s trade-off between the female ad, the male + female ad, and the male ad shows that attractivity is important, but reduced with competition (risk), but that a risky attraction has more utility than an central product cue (M = 1.59 vs. M =.97 vs. M = -1.48, p <. 05). marginally so (F(3, 215) = 2.47, =.07). Men s tradeoffs become more like women s as men s utility for the female model ad shifts downward (M = 1.79 vs. = 1.19, p <.05) and their utility for the male + female ad shifts upward (M =.78 vs. M = 1.46, p <.05).

4 DISCUSSION Consistent with previous research, it is observed that men prefer a female ad model over a male one. A novel observation is that women prefer a male model coupled with a female model over a single male model. This is explained by the evolutionary idea that men use attractiveness as a cue when mating considerations are primed by an opposite sex model, whereas women use popularity as a cue. These men-women differences are reduced with high elaboration, which suggests that highly involved men are more similar to women than less involved men. This interaction is more likely to be caused by men s use of the male model as central product argument cue, than by altered mating considerations. REFERENCES Baker, Michael J. and Gilbert A. Churchill Jr. (1977), The Impact of Physically Attractive Models on Advertising Evaluations, Journal of marketing research, 14 (November), Dianoux, Christian and Zdenek Linhart (2009), The Effectiveness of Female Nudity in Advertising in Three European Countries, International Marketing Review, 27 (5), Hill, Sarah E. and David M. Buss (2008) The Mere Presence of Opposite-Sex Others on Judgments of Sexual and Romantic Desirability: Opposite Effects for Men and Women, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35 (5), Jones, Marilyn Y., Andrea J. S. Stanaland, and Betsy D. Gelb (1998), Beef cake and Cheesecake: Insights for Advertisers, Journal of Advertising, 27 (2), Meyers-Levy, Joan and Brian Sternthal (1991), Gender Differences in the Use of Message Cues and Judgments, Journal of Marketing Research, 28 (1), Nowaczyk, Ronald (1982), Sex-Related Differences in the Color Lexicon, Lartguage artd Speech, 25 (July-September), Ohanian, Roobina (1990), Construction and Validation of a Scale to Measure Celebrity Endorsers Perceived Expertise, Trustworthiness, and Attractiveness, Journal of Advertising, 19 (3), Peterson, Robert A. and Roger A. Kerin (1977), The Female Role in Advertisements: Some Experimental Evidence, Journal of Marketing, 41 (4), Roney, James R. (2003) Effects of Visual Exposure to the Opposite Sex: Cognitive Aspects of Mate Attraction in Human Males, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29 (3), Simpson, Penny M., Steve Horton, and Gene Brown (1996), Male Nudity in Advertisements: A and Product Effects, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 24 (3), Trampe, Debra, Diederik A. Stapel, Frans W. Siero, and Henriëtte Mulder (2010), Beauty as A Tool: The Effect of Model Attractiveness, Product Relevance, and Elaboration Likelihood on Advertising Effectiveness, Psychology and Marketing, 27 (12), Wolin, Lori D. (2003), Gender Issues in Advertising-An Oversight Synthesis of Research , Journal of Advertising Research, 43 (March), Knowledge of Communication Effectiveness of Spontaneous Speech, Word, 22 (April-August- December),

5 FIGURES FIGURE 1 Utility of Different Ad Models by Audience s Sex FIGURE 2 Utility of Different Ad Models by Audience s Sex and Involvement Low Involvement High Involvement