No Evidence for Persuasion Effects of Emotional Advertisement on Attitudes towards Social Groups The Case of Ageism

Transcription

1 No Evidence for Persuasion Effects of Emotional Advertisement on Attitudes towards Social Groups The Case of Ageism Valentin(Belentschikow,(Benny(Liebold,(Georg(Valtin,(&(Peter(Ohler The(8 th Conference(of the Media(Psychology Division 4C6(September,(Würzburg,(Germany

2 Introduction! Recent TV ads increasingly focus on attitudes towards social groups instead of asking for financial support which is conceptually different.! They often induce emotional reactions of positive or negative valence with the implicit goal to benefit from the viewers emotional involvement.! But: Stereotypes are rather robust dispositions 3

3 Research Questions. Does emotional storytelling of TV ads achieve changes in stereotypes/prejudices? 2. Does the potential effect differ regarding the valence of the induced emotion? 4

4 Literature Review! substantial body of research on emotional persuasion processes with mixed results, but favoring that effects do exist (Poels & Dewitte, 2006)! But: Research to date might not be applicable to social groups and social values.! It mainly focuses on attitudes towards brands and their products.! It frequently used emotionally arousing stimuli that are strongly tied to evolutionary stable reactions (e.g. sexual sensation; Reichert 2002)! It did not always account for emotional reactions of different valences.! It used incoherent dependent measures (behavior intentions, observed behavior, attitudes, affective reactions, ad evaluations, recall) 5

5 Emotional Ads and Prosocial Behavior! Negative emotions in ads were usually found to effectively induce prosocial behavior! Negative emotions in anti-smoking campaigns impact reported quitting attempts (Farrelly, Duke et al., 202) but do not promote quit-line calls (Farrelly, Davis et al., 20).! Sad faces increase the chance of a donation by facilitating sympathy (Small & Verrochi, 2009)! Negative emotions affect reported willingness to help abused children (Bagozzi & Moore, 994). 6

6 Hypotheses! H : Negative emotional ads have a stronger impact on stereotypes than positive emotional ads.! H : Experience with the social group predicts postmanipulation attitudes. 2! H : Affect intensity predicts post-manipulation attitudes. 3! H : Emotional Intelligence predicts post-manipulation 4 attitudes. 7

7 Method! task: repeatedly watching a 5 minute block of TV ads! between-subjects IV! DV! type of emotional spot (positive, negative, none)! attitude towards social group (post manipulation only)! controlling for! affect intensity! trait emotional intelligence! current & prior experience with the respective group! Big5 personality factors 8

8 Stimulus Materials! Two structurally similar ads eliciting either positive or negative emotional reactions were selected via a pretest of 4 spots.! differential emotion scale (Izard, 98, 992)! card-sorting/ordering according to valence! The spots were stripped from their cognitive appeal at the end and integrated into a randomized 5-minute/0 spot block of current TV ads. 9

9 Stimulus Materials Differential Emotion Scale Card Sorting (avg. points) positive 5 positive 4 2 negative 3 negative AXA Caritas AXA Caritas AXA Winterthur Caritas 0

10 Investigated Stereotype Ageism! personal revulsion to and distaste for growing old, disease, disability; and fear of powerlessness, uselessness, and death. (Butler, 969, p. 243)! Ageism includes at least! prejudicial attitudes! discriminating behavior 0,8 0,6 common 0,4 uncommon 0, Eurobarometer Special 296 (2008)

11 Measures (DVs)! Fraboni Scale of Ageism (FSA; Fraboni et al., 990, Rupp et al., 2005) in the German version from Grau and Zick (FSA-G; 2006); 3 items! stereotype α =.74! separation α =.76! affective attitude α =.62! Fiske Scale (Fiske et al., 2002); 6 items! sympathy α =.86! competence α =.65 2

12 Procedure! N = 86; group Sessions of up to three participants! 52 TV set! headphones! visually separated Questionnaires Presentation of Presentation of Presentation of Measurement( Measurement( (AIM,(TEIQueC TV(ad(block(() TV(ad(block(() TV(ad(block(() (t) (t2) SF,(NEOCFFI(2) week week 2 weeks 3

13 Results: Ageism t Effect Λ Pillai F df df2 sig. a η 2 part Affect intensity *.5 Emotional intelligence *.5 Present contact intensity Previous contact intensity *.5 Spot a * p <.05, ** p <.0, *** p <.00 4

14 Results: Ageism t 2 Effect Λ Pillai F df df2 sig. a η 2 part Affect intensity Emotional intelligence *.4 Present contact intensity Previous contact intensity Spot *.2 a * p <.05, ** p <.0, *** p <.00 5

15 Results: Ageism t Fiske Sympathy Fiske Competence positive negative neutral positive negative neutral Ageism Stereotype Ageism Separation Ageism Affective Attitude 0,8 0,8 0,8 0,6 0,6 0,6 0,4 0,4 0,4 0,2 0,2 0, positive negative neutral positive negative neutral positive negative neutral error bars represent 95% CIs 6

16 Results: Ageism t 2 Fiske Sympathy Fiske Competence positive negative neutral positive negative neutral Ageism Stereotype Ageism Separation Ageism Affective Attitude 0,8 0,8 0,8 0,6 0,6 0,6 0,4 0,4 0,4 0,2 0,2 0, positive negative neutral positive negative neutral positive negative neutral error bars represent 95% CIs 7

17 Results Ageism t & t 2 Ageism t Ageism t 2 Effect F(2,79) sig. a η 2 part F(2,79) sig. a η 2 part Fiske Sympathy *.08 Fiske Competence Fraboni Stereotype Fraboni Separation Fraboni Affective Attitude a * p <.05, ** p <.0, *** p <.00 β.36 criterion β =.80 η 2 part >.0 β.67 criterion β =.80 η 2 part >.0 8

18 Discussion I! H : Negative emotional ads have a stronger impact on stereotypes than positive emotional ads.! no observable effect of emotional TV ads on attitudes at t! only at t 2 participants who were watching the positive TV ad reported significantly less sympathy towards elderly people (!) Spearman Rank Correlations for Ageism Measures at t 2 Fraboni Ageism Scale Fiske Sympathy Fiske Competence Stereotype Separation.340 **.26 ** Affective Attitude.366 **.362 ** a * p <.05, ** p <.0, *** p <.00 9

19 Discussion II! Low Power at t, β.36; criterion η 2 part >.0! So why does the headline say no evidence!?! The isolated presentation of TV ads without a TV program should have increased the effect.! An increased number of presentations should not increase the effect by means of emotionality due to emotional habituation.! Looking at CIs of the DVs indicates that there might be an effect of negative emotions, but it is negligible (less than 0,5 scale points; less than 5%)! But: Maybe the experimental situation with no TV program induced deliberate processing of the TV ads but the required message was missing (Poels & Dewitte, 2006). 20

20 Discussion III! H 2 : Previous experience with the social group predicts attitudes.! Effect exists only for previous experience on Fiske Sympathy, not for present experiences! The effect of previous experience is selective for negative messages.! H 3 : Affect intensity predicts post-manipulation attitudes.! Effect exists for Fraboni Affective Attitudes! Recipients high in AI have more favorable attitudes towards elderly people.! The effect of affect intensity is selective for positive messages (Fraboni scales). 2

21 Discussion IV! H 4 : Emotional Intelligence predicts post-manipulation attitudes.! Effects exist for Fraboni Separation and for Fiske Sympathy! Emotionally more intelligent people have more favorable attitudes towards elderly people. Fiske Sympathy! It affects attitudes depending on the type of manipulation. Emotional Intelligence 22

22 Limitations! power-issues! few repetitions; but: experienced ad emotionality should decline upon repeated exposure (habituation)! focus on emotional experiences: no answers for cognitive persuasion strategies! What about eudaemonic experiences? 23

23 Conclusions! Stereotypes are rather robust dispositions rendering them insensible to persuasion attempts based on emotional messages in TV ads.! The emotional content alone is not self-explanatory and thus does not trigger meta cognition.! However, depending on the recipients personality they are more sensitive for! positive messages: affect intensity +, emotional intelligence +! negative messages: prior experience with the group +, emotional intelligence + 24

24 Implications! Planned research! interaction of emotional and cognitive messages! Does emotional TV ad content favor central processing?! more sensitive measures: IAT! Do effects occur with an increasing number of presentations?! The scale used as DV strongly determines results. 25

25 References I Bagozzi, R. P., & Moore, D. J. (994). Public service advertisements: Emotions and empathy guide prosocial behavior. Journal of Marketing, 58(), doi: /25225 Chaiken, S. (980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(5), doi: 0.037/ Chaiken, S. (987). The heuristic model of persuasion. In M.P. Zanna, J.M. Olson, & P. Herman (Eds.), Social influence: The Ontario symposium (vol. 5, pp. 3 39). Hillsdale, N.J.: Psychology Press. Chaiken, S., Liberman, A., & Eagly, A. (989). Heuristic and systematic information processing within and beyond the persuasion context. In J.S. Uleman & J.A. Bargh (Eds.), Unintended thought: Limits of awareness, intention, and control (pp ). New York, NY : Guildfold Press. DeSteno, D., Dasgupta, N., Bartlett, M. Y., & Cajdric, A. (2004). Prejudice from thin air: The effect of emotion on automatic intergroup attitudes. Psychol Sci, 5(5), doi: 0./j x Eurobarometer Special 296. (2008). TNS opinion & social. Retrieved from Farrelly, M. C., Davis, K. C., Nonnemaker, J. M., Kamyab, K., & Jackson, C. (20). Promoting calls to a quitline: quantifying the influence of message theme, strong negative emotions and graphic images in television advertisements. Tob Control, 20(4), doi: 0.36/tc Farrelly, M. C., Duke, J. C., Davis, K. C., Nonnemaker, J. M., Kamyab, K., Willett, J. G., & Juster, H. R. (202). Promotion of smoking cessation with emotional and/or graphic antismoking advertising. Am J Prev Med, 43(5), doi: 0.06/j.amepre Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Comptence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6), Frabonia, M., Saltstonea, R., & Hughes, S. (990). The Frabobi Scale of Ageism (FSA): An attempt at a more precise measure of ageism. Canadian Journal on Aging, 9(), doi: 0.07/S Grau, A., & Zick, A. (2006). Reliabilität und Validität einer deutschsprachigen Ageismskala. Unpublished manuscript. TU Dresden. Hovland, C., Janis, I.L., Kelley, H.H. (953). Communication and persuasion: Psychological studies of opinion change. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. 26

26 References II Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (vol. 9, pp ). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Poels, K., & Dewitte, S. (2006). How to capture the heart? Reviewing 20 years of emotion measurement in advertising. Journal of Advertising Research, 46(), 8. doi: 0.250/s Reichert, T. (2002). Sex in advertising research: a review of content, effects, and functions of sexual information in consumer advertising. Annual Review of Sex Research, 3, Rupp, D. E., Vodanovich, S. J., & Credé, M. (2005). The multidimensional nature of ageism: Contruct validity and group differences. Journal of Social Psychology, 45(3), Small, D. A., & Verrochi, N. M. (2009). The face of need: Facial emotion expression on charity advertisements. Journal of Marketing Research, 46(6), doi: 0.509/jmkr Stiff, J. (994). Persuasive Communication. New York/London: Guilford Press. Sweldens, S., Van Osselaer, Stijn M. J., & Janiszewski, C. (200). Evaluative Conditioning Procedures and the Resilience of Conditioned Brand Attitudes. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(3), doi: 0.086/

27 Thank you for listening! Benny Liebold 28