Regulatory Focus and product character in consumers' response to advertising

Transcription

1 Università della Svizzera Italiana Faculty of Communication Sciences Regulatory Focus and product character in consumers' response to advertising Master's Thesis of Andrea U. Heller Thesis Supervisor: Prof. Kent Nakamoto Academic Year: 2012/2013 Handing Date: July 2013

2 Acknowledgements This thesis could not have been written without the support of many people. My special thanks go to my supervisor Professor Kent Nakamoto for his support and advice. Thanks go furthermore to Professor Peter Schulz for his advice and support for my data collection. I am also very grateful for the students who participated in my pretest and those who filled in my survey. A very warm thanks to Dr. Marco Bardus for answering my questions related to statistics. Last but not least my sincere thanks go to my family and friends who supported me through the development of this thesis but also throughout my years at the university. Michi, dankä für dini Liebi und dini Unterstützig. Du häsch mich ufbaut wenni nüme wiiter gwüsst han und du häsch d Freud mit mir teilt, wenni en Erfolg gfiiret han. Danke vielmal. Mami und Papi, danke unändlich Mal für oii Unterstützig, Geduld und Liebi. Ohni oi wär das alles nöd möglich xi und ich bin oi unglaublich dankbar für alles wo ihr für mich gmacht händ! I

3 Abstract This study tests the Regulatory Focus Theory for two different product categories in the context of Switzerland. The results reveal novel insight on whether the premises of the Regulatory Focus Theory hold for a Western European country as the results are partially contradicting the premises of the theory. According to the Regulatory Focus Theory, peoples' goal-pursuit strategies differ according to their regulatory focus. A promotion-focused person pursues ideal goals and is concerned with accomplishing hopes and aspirations, whereas a prevention-focused person pursues ought goals and is concerned with fulfilling duties and obligations. Following this distinction, people are persuaded by different advertising messages. This study tests the Regulatory Focus Theory with a 2 (regulatory focus: promotion versus prevention) by 2 (advertising message: eager message versus vigilant message) design. The design furthermore tests two different products. One is a typical consumer goods product with promotion character and the other is a medication product with a prevention character. The results of the study reveal novel insight which is interesting for both academia and marketers. Regarding the prevention product, participants are persuaded by the advertisement that is consistent rather than inconsistent with their regulatory focus. Regarding the promotion product, the findings are contrary and contradict the premises of the regulatory focus theory. Participants are persuaded by the advertising message that is inconsistent with their regulatory focus. Implications for marketers and advertisers are discussed. II

4 Table of Content Acknowledgements... I Abstract... II Table of Figures... V List of Tables... VI Chapter 1 Introduction... 1 Chapter 2 Theoretical Framework Regulatory Focus Theory Origin of the Regulatory Focus Theory Effects of Regulatory Focus Theory Regulatory Fit Regulatory Fit and Persuasion Regulatory Focus Theory and Health Product Advertisement Consumers' Response to Advertisement Consumer Decision-Making Process Consumer Perceptions of Advertisements Advertisement Believability Attitude Toward the Advertisement Behavioral Intention to Buy a Product Rationale and Contribution of this Research Chapter 3 Methodology Hypotheses Research Method Questionnaire Measures III

5 3.3 Procedures and Data Collection Incentives Pretest Sample Description Chapter 4 Results Data Analyses Measurements Factor Analyses Regulatory Focus Measure Opinion Toward Advertising Advertising Believability Attitude Toward Product Descriptives Descriptive Analyses of all Variables Manipulation Check Regression Analyses and Manual Calculations Hypothesis Hypothesis Chapter 5 Discussion Sample Hypothesis Prevention Product Actifen Promotion Product Energy Gum Overarching Discussion Hypothesis Hypothesis Prevention Product Actifen IV

6 5.3.2 Promotion Product Energy Gum Overarching Discussion Hypothesis Overarching Discussion Hypothesis 1 and Hypothesis Hypothesis Strengths and Limitations Future Research Chapter 6 Conclusion Premises of the Regulatory Focus Theory Regulatory Focus Theory and Product Character References Appendices Questionnaires Questionnaire Actifen Eager Frame Questionnaire Actifen Vigilant Frame Questionnaire Energy Gum Eager Frame Questionnaire Energy Gum Vigilant Frame Pretest questions Table of Figures Figure 1 Psychological variables with distinct relations to promotion focus and prevention focus (Higgins, 1998)... 6 Figure 2 Stages in the consumer decision-making process (Belch & Belch, 2004) Figure 3 Relevant internal psychological processes (Belch & Belch, 2004) Figure 4 Scree Plot regulatory focus Figure 5 Scree Plot opinion toward advertising Figure 6 Scree plot advertising believability V

7 Figure 7 Scree plot attitude toward product Figure 8 Intention to buy the Actifen product Figure 9 Intention to buy for the Energy Gum product Figure 10 Advertisement Believability for the Actifen product Figure 11 Advertisement Believability for the Energy Gum product List of Tables Table 1 Descriptive Statistics I Table 2 Descriptive Statistics II Table 3 Descriptive Statistics III Table 4 Means and Standard Deviations for the Actifen and Energy Gum eager messages Table 5 Means and Standard Deviations for the Actifen and Energy Gum vigilant messages 37 Table 6 ANOVA regression analysis hypothesis 1 for Actifen Table 7 Model Summary regression analysis hypothesis 1 Actifen Table 8 Unstandardized and standardized coefficients regression analysis hypothesis 1 Actifen Table 9 ANOVA regression analysis hypothesis 1 Energy Gum Table 10 Model Summary regression analysis hypothesis 1 Energy Gum Table 11 Unstandardized and standardized coefficients regression analysis hypothesis 1 Energy Gum Table 12 ANOVA regression analysis hypothesis 2 Actifen Table 13 Model Summary regression analysis hypothesis 2 Actifen Table 14 Unstandardized and standardized coefficients regression analysis hypothesis 2 Actifen Table 15 ANOVA regression analysis hypothesis 2 Energy Gum Table 16 Unstandardized and standardized coefficients regression analysis hypothesis 2 Energy Gum Table 17 ANOVA regression analysis hypothesis 3 & 4 for both products Table 18 Model Summary regression analysis hypothesis 3 & 4 for both products Table 19 Unstandardized and standardized coefficients regression analysis hypothesis 3 & 4 for both products Table 20 Results distributed by hypothesis and product character VI

8 Chapter 1 Introduction It is essential for marketers and advertisers to reach the target group for their product. As the number of advertisements increase it becomes more difficult to cut through consumer's sensory overload and to receive their attention for their advertisement. Only if the consumers perceive the advertisements the products that are advertised will be bought and healthy behaviors that are marketed be adopted. Werth and Foerster (2007) summarized the status quo very vividly: "The advertising industry would love nothing more than to be able to predict or influence what a consumer pays attention to, what moves him or her to make a purchase, or what prevents an individual from doing so" (p.33). The question of why people do or do not buy a product or adopt healthy behaviors has been widely discussed in the literature. A number of previous studies have dealt with the concept of self-efficacy. These studies argued that the main reason why people do not adopt healthy behaviors is that they do not believe in their ability to do so (Tudoran et al., 2012, p.249). Columbia University psychology professor Tory E. Higgins proposed the Regulatory Focus Theory (RFT) in 1998 which goes beyond the concept of self-efficacy. Regulatory Focus Theory is a goal pursuit theory which argues that people have different regulatory foci (RF). These foci arise from the simple assumption that the basic motivation of a person is to approach pleasure and avoid pain (Higgins, 1998, p. 1). Higgins states that individuals experience or anticipate experiencing some desirable or undesirable outcomes of successful or unsuccessful goal pursuit (Higgins, 2005). There are two different regulatory foci. A person who has a promotion focus is concerned with advancement, growth and accomplishment (approach pleasure). A person with a prevention focus is concerned with protection, safety and responsibility (avoid pain) (Higgins, 1998, p. 15). Lee and Aaker (2004) summarize the premises of the Regulatory Focus Theory as follows: The basic premise of regulatory fit is that promotion-focused consumers tend to be more sensitive to the presence or absence of positive outcomes, whereas prevention- 1

9 focused consumers tend to be more sensitive to the presence and absence of negative outcomes. An example of the promotion focus in action would be a consumer who wishes to purchase a particularly promising, luxurious or comfortable product. A prevention-focused consumer on the other hand would favor a product that is safe and reliable (Werth & Foerster, 2007). If consumers have different goal-pursuit strategies this means that advertisers and marketers have to addressed them with different advertising messages. Aaker and Lee (2001) point out that regulatory fit has a positive effect on persuasion. The authors summarize: "When benefits are aligned with self-regulatory focus under conditions of goal compatibility, more favorable persuasion effects are found" (Aaker & Lee, 2001). The authors furthermore found evidence that individuals pay more attention to and elaborate the advertisement more if the advertisement message is consistent with their regulatory focus (Aaker & Lee, 2001). The question remains about which consumer should be addressed with what kind of advertising message. Kees, Burton and Tangari (2010) as well as many other researchers found evidence in their studies that individuals with a prevention focus are more likely to be persuaded by an advertisement featuring a vigilant means frame (i.e., a message that is concerned with prevention and safety) and a promotion- focused individual is more likely to be persuaded by an eager means framed message (i.e., a message that is concerned with hopes and aspirations) (Cesario, Grant, & Higgins, 2004; Crowe & Higgins, 1997; Higgins, 1998; Higgins, 2005; Higgins et al., 2001; Kees et al., 2010; Keller, 2006; Kim, 2006). Tudoran and colleagues had contrary findings in their experiments. They state: "We found that the relationship prevention outcome expectations-intention was significantly attenuated at low levels of self-efficacy and strengthened at high levels of self-efficacy (eager frame), respectively; whereas, the relationship promotion outcome expectationsintention was unaffected by the perceived levels of self-efficacy" (p. 243). However as most of the studies found evidence that targeting a prevention-focused consumer with a vigilant advertisement and targeting a promotion-focused consumer with an eager advertisement bears the greatest potential for advertisement effectiveness, the hypotheses for this study are the following: 2

10 Hypothesis 1 states that if the advertising message is congruent versus incongruent with consumers' regulatory focus, greater persuasion effects will result. Hypothesis 2 states that if the advertising message is congruent versus incongruent with consumers' regulatory focus, advertisement believability will be greater. These hypotheses are in line with the premises of Regulatory Focus Theory that gives evidence for higher advertisement effectiveness if a promotion-focused consumer is presented with an eager framed message and a prevention-focused consumer is presented with a vigilant framed advertisement (Cesario et al., 2004; Higgins, 1998; Higgins et al., 2001; Kim, 2006). This study goes beyond simply testing the premises of Regulatory Focus Theory by comparing two different product categories and two different message types. Half of the participants were presented with the advertisement for Actifen, a hypothetical muscle cream product that has prevention character as it prevents the consumer from having muscle pain. There were two different advertising messages for the Actifen product: one was an eager framed message and one was a vigilant framed message. It was hypothesized that prevention-focused individuals generally show greater susceptibility towards the product with the prevention character regardless of the message frame. Hypothesis 3 therefore states: "Overall, the Actifen advertisement is more likely to persuade people with a chronic prevention focus due to the nature of the product, regardless of the message frame of the advertisement". This assumption was supported by the findings of Chernev (2004) who states that prevention-focused subjects are more inclined to choose products with utilitarian attributes like for example products that prevent them from experiencing something negative. The other half of the participants were presented with an advertisement for Energy Gum, a hypothetical consumer goods product that has promotion character as it promotes enhancing cognitive performance by natural Ginseng extract. There were two different advertising messages for the Energy Gum product: one was an eager framed message and one was a vigilant framed message. It was expected that promotion-focused participants would be more susceptible to the product with promotion character, regardless of the message frame. Hypothesis 4 therefore states: "Overall, the Energy Gum advertisement is more likely to persuade promotion focused participants due to the attributes of the product regardless of the message frame of the advertisement". These assumptions are in line with 3

11 the findings of Chernev (2004) who found that promotion-focused subjects tend to choose products having hedonic attributes. This study has the goal of adding to the body of literature in a way that gives further insight to advertisers and particularly to health advertisers, in how to market health products and health behavior more effectively. Boesen-Mariani and colleagues (2010) acknowledge the usefulness of the Regulatory Focus Theory for marketing and advertising by stating: "The notion of Regulatory Focus turns out to be useful in marketing because it can lead to a better understanding of what underlies consumer behavior and so can better match marketing methods to the subjects targeted or to the purchasing, communication or consumption context" (Boesen-Mariani et al. 2010, p. 88). Regulatory Focus Theory therefore has a big potential in creating more effective advertisements for consumer goods as well as for health products. Chapter 2 Theoretical Framework 2.1 Regulatory Focus Theory Regulatory Focus Theory (RFT) is a goal pursuit theory that was developed by E. Tory Higgins in RFT explains the relatedness of people's motivation to achieve a certain goal and their goal-pursuit strategy. It describes how people pursue their goals and what their perceptions in the decision making process are (Higgins, 1998; Keller, 2006). There is a distinction between two different personality traits that influence people's goal attainment. A promotion-focused person pursues ideal goals (things he or she wants to achieve) and is concerned with accomplishing hopes and aspirations. A prevention-focused person pursues ought goals (things he or she thinks of having to accomplish) and is therefore concerned with fulfilling duties and obligations. (Higgins, 1998). An ideal goal for example is someone's wish to buy a new sports car. An ought goal is for example someone's obligation to take care of his or her family (Higgins, 1998). These different strategies to achieve goals lead to different perceptions of the goal attainment process. A promotion-focused person is concerned with gain or non-gain situations where a gain means that the goal is achieved and a non-gain means that the goal was not achieved. A prevention-focused person is concerned with losses and non-losses where a loss means that a goal was not achieved and a non-loss 4

12 means that a goal was achieved (Crowe & Higgins, 1997). A promotion-focused person would therefore be eager to attain advancement and gains whereas a prevention-focused person would be vigilant to assure safety (Crowe & Higgins, 1997). Cesario and colleagues (2004) summarize the theory's premises as follows: "This theory distinguishes between two distinct regulatory orientations and the strategic means that best fit each. A promotion focus represents goal pursuit in terms of hopes and aspirations (ideals) and entails an orientation toward accomplishment and a sensitivity to the presence and absence of gain/non-gain outcomes. A prevention focus represents goal pursuit in terms of duties and obligations (oughts) and entails an orientation toward security and a sensitivity to the presence and absence of non-loss/loss outcomes (Regulatory focus is a state that can be investigated either as a chronic tendency or a situationally induced focus.)" (Cesario et al., 2004). Figure 1 clarifies the relation between the regulatory focus of an individual and the resulting psychological variables that were discussed above. 5

13 Figure 1 Psychological variables with distinct relations to promotion focus and prevention focus (Higgins, 1998) The following sections discuss the origins of the Regulatory Focus Theory as well as how the two foci were developed Origin of the Regulatory Focus Theory The Regulatory Focus Theory has basically three origins: the self-discrepancy theory by Higgins, the Hedonic principle which was established in ancient Greek philosophy and Social Psychology with leading researchers like Ajzen, Fishbein, Petty, Cacioppo, Hovland and many others. How these three origins influenced Regulatory Focus Theory will be discussed below Self-discrepancy Theory Self-discrepancy theory was developed by Tory E. Higgins in It distinguishes between two types of desired end-states: (a) ideal self-guides, which are individuals' representations of someone's (self or other) hopes, wishes, or aspirations for them; and (b) ought selfguides, which are individuals' representations of someone's beliefs about their duties, obligations, and responsibilities (Crowe & Higgins, 1997). These two types of desired endstates can be found as they are in Regulatory Focus Theory. A promotion-focused individual 6

14 is said to have ideal self-guides whereas a prevention-focused individual is defined as having ought self-guides (Freitas & Higgins, 2002; Higgins, 1998; Higgins, 2005; Higgins et al., 2001) Hedonic Principle Hedonism reaches back to ancient Greek philosophy, however research does not agree on who exactly developed the principle. The basic assumption of the hedonic principle is that individuals approach pleasure and avoid pain (Boesen-Mariani et al., 2010). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy summarizes the premise as follows: "One is always and only motivated by the greatest balance of pleasure over pain for oneself; that is by maximization of the net amount or value of pleasure minus pain for oneself" (SEP, 2004). Boesen-Mariani and colleagues (2010) however state that the hedonic principle is not sufficient for understanding the enactment of behavior since it does not explain how individuals proceed in approaching pleasure or avoiding pain Social Psychology Higgins proposes that each individual has a predominant regulatory focus which was socialized during childhood. Individuals have basic needs which they wish to fulfill. Maslow summarizes a human's needs in his widely acknowledged Hierarchy of Needs (Maslow, 1943). Two basic human needs are the needs for nurturance and security. These basic needs are manifested in humans from birth on. Children have to rely on their parents to fulfill these needs. If the basic needs are fulfilled, children experience pleasure. If they are not fulfilled, they experience pain. Children learn from the beginning of their lives how to approach pleasure and avoid pain. They learn to behave in a particular way, so that their parents fulfill their basic needs. Experiencing pleasure can be either the presence of positive outcomes or the absence of negative outcomes. Experiencing pain can be either the presence of negative outcomes or the absence of positive outcomes. Children experience the presence of positive outcomes when parents reward their children for a certain behavior or encourage them to engage in rewarding activities (Higgins, 1998). This caretaker-child interaction mode is called bolstering. The absence of positive outcomes appears in the absence of these bolstering methods. A child who experiences the presence of negative outcomes is confronted with parents who yell at them, behave roughly or criticize the child when he or she makes a mistake. A child experiences absence of negative outcomes when it is told to be alert to 7

15 potential dangers: for example crossing a street or being reminded to behave appropriately. This caretaker-child interaction is called prudence. Higgins states that these caretaker-child interactions either involve a promotion or a prevention focus. The author summarizes as follows: "A combination of bolstering and love withdrawal modes of caretaker-child interaction involves a promotion focus in which the child learns that to obtain nurturance in the world one needs to attain accomplishments and to fulfill hopes and aspirations (i.e., ideals) (...). In contrast, a combination of prudent and punitive/critical modes of caretaker-child interaction involves a prevention focus in which the child learns that to obtain security in the world one needs to insure safety, be responsible, and meet obligations (i.e., oughts)" (Higgins, 1998). While the Hedonic principle explains goal-attainment with the single assumption that individuals tend to approach pleasure and avoid pain, it does not explain why people have different feelings and strategies when attaining a desired end state (Higgins, 1998). RFT takes up on this topic and goes beyond the hedonic principle. Higgins (1998) argues that "regulatory focus can account for the variability across people and across situations that occurs within positive and within negative motivational states. Emotions, event sensitivity, problem solving, decision making, performance, and preferences all vary depending on whether self-regulation involves a promotion focus or a prevention focus" (p. 41). As discussed above, Higgins proposes that regulatory focus can either be a stable individual characteristic (chronic regulatory focus) or a motivational state that is induced by the context (temporary regulatory focus) (Boesen-Mariani et al., 2010). Furthermore Higgins argues that an individual can also maintain both types of regulatory focus. Depending on circumstances, interaction with others or specific situations, individuals use different foci. In a peer-to-peer situation they can for example use a promotion focus whereas in the work setting they might use a prevention focus (Higgins, 1998; Higgins et al., 2001). Higgins (1998) states that "regulatory focus is not only socialized but also varies according to situations as well as across individuals. It can vary chronically or momentarily" (p. 16). While RFT proposes that RF can be socialized or can also vary across situations, other researchers add that regulatory focus can also be induced by the culture an individual lives 8

16 in. Aaker & Lee (2001) for example showed in their study that individuals from collectivist cultures like for example China tend to be chronically prevention focused whereas people from individualist societies like for example the United States tend to be rather promotion focused Effects of Regulatory Focus Theory How these promotion and prevention foci influence an individuals' goal pursuit behavior has been discussed extensively in the literature. There is a considerable body of literature that deals with the effects of promotion and prevention, including information search (Pham & Higgins, 2005), information processing (Aaker & Lee, 2001; Bosmans & Baumgartner, 2005; Kirmani & Zhu, 2007; Pham & Avnet, 2004), preference formation (Briley & Wyer, 2002) and consumer satisfaction (Trudel, Murray, & Cotte, 2012) and the impact on attitudinal processes and consequences (Aaker & Lee, 2001) as well as post-purchase experienced emotions (Crowe & Higgins, 1997) Regulatory Fit Regulatory fit is a concept that is derived from Higgins' regulatory fit theory. It describes the condition where a person pursues a goal in a manner that sustains rather than disrupts their regulatory orientation (Cesario et al., 2004; Freitas & Higgins, 2002; Higgins, 2005). If regulatory fit is high, an individual experiences a feeling of "It just feels right" which encourages them in their goal-pursuit strategy (Freitas & Higgins, 2002). Regulatory fit makes an individual feel right about their experienced reactions, regardless of whether this reaction is positive or negative such as for example one's positive or negative response toward an advertisement. In other words, "when fit makes people feel right about their response to an object or event, this increases the strength of that response, whether the response is positive or negative" (Higgins, 2005). Crowe and Higgins (1997) state that "there is a natural fit between promotion focus concerns and pursuing goals with eager means (in signal detection terms, ensuring hits and ensuring against errors of omission, given that both are concerned with gains and nongains). There is also a natural fit between prevention focus concerns and pursuing goals with vigilant means (ensuring correct rejections and ensuring against errors of commission), given that both are concerned with non-losses and losses" (Crowe & Higgins, 1997). 9

17 As an example of regulatory fit, consider two students who have an exam the following morning. Both students have the goal of achieving a good grade in the exam. However they differ in their regulatory focus and therefore have a different goal pursuit strategy. The promotion-focused student considers the goal of getting a good grade as an accomplishment or aspiration and follows an eager strategy to achieve the goal. He or she will study more than is required for the test (for example during the night). A preventionfocused person considers the goal of getting a good grade as a responsibility or duty and pursues a vigilant strategy to achieve the goal that ensures against errors of commission. This student is likely to turn down an invitation from a friend to go out the night before a test (Cesario et al., 2004; Freitas & Higgins, 2002). Independently of how the outcome of a goal-attainment process is valued, people experience fit when their regulatory focus matches the manner in which the activity is pursued (Cesario et al., 2004). The effects of regulatory fit on "It just feels right"-experience is explained as follows. Cesario, Grant and Higgins (2004) found in their study that the "feeling right" is transferred to one's experience of the message, such that the feeling of rightness is used as evidence in one's evaluation of the message's perceived persuasiveness; in this case, perceived message persuasiveness would be enhanced under conditions of fit (Cesario et al., 2004). This means that regulatory fit in general increases persuasion (Cesario et al., 2004). It must be noticed that regulatory fit and value transfer theory state that feeling right transfers to the evaluation of the object, not to the object itself. The literature notes several effects of regulatory fit, amongst which are the positive effect on persuasion (Cesario et al., 2004), the positive effect on task enjoyment (see e.g., (Freitas & Higgins, 2002; Higgins et al., 2001), as well as task performance (Higgins, 2005), the positive effect on message responsiveness (Higgins, 2005), better recall (Aaker & Lee, 2001) and the strength of engagement and elaboration (Higgins, 2005). Spiegel et al. (2004) found furthermore evidence that fit helps to bridge the gap between intentions and actions. The following section discusses the effect of Regulatory Focus Theory on message persuasiveness Regulatory Fit and Persuasion If the frame of an advertising message is congruent with the regulatory goal of an individual, then greater persuasiveness results. Kim (2006) showed in his study The role of regulatory 10

18 focus in message framing in antismoking advertisements for adolescents, that when the regulatory goal and the antismoking message frame were congruent, participants reported lower perceived benefits of smoking and lower intentions to smoke. He states: "the way in which antismoking messages are framed affects adolescents' decisions about smoking if the saliency of their goals is compatible with the way the ad message is highlighted" (Kim, 2006). Kees, Burton and Tangari (2010) noted the same in their study The impact of regulatory focus, temporal orientation, and fit on consumer responses to health-related advertising. If prevention-focused participants were presented with an advertisement message that was framed in vigilant means, higher persuasiveness resulted. The same was true for promotionfocused participants who were presented with an eager means message. Kees and colleagues (2010) summarized as follows: "A fit between consumer's RF and the goal pursuit strategy in the advertising message results in increased evaluations of the advertisement and behavioral intentions (p. 31). Several studies confirm the assumptions of Regulatory Focus Theory that congruency rather than incongruence of regulatory focus and message frame leads to greater persuasive effectiveness of the message (Aaker & Lee, 2001; Cesario et al., 2004; Kees et al., 2010; Kim, 2006; Spiegel et al., 2004; Tudoran, Scholderer, & Brunsø, 2012). Aaker and Lee (2001) summarize as follows: "When benefits are aligned with self-regulatory focus under conditions of goal compatibility, more favorable persuasion effects are found" (p. 46). The next paragraph will discuss the implementations of RFT for health product advertisement Regulatory Focus Theory and Health Product Advertisement Regulatory Focus Theory has been widely used in the field of health, respectively in research for health product advertising and marketing or marketing of healthy behavior. Kees, Burton and Tangari (2010) tested the impact of regulatory focus and fit on consumer responses to health-related advertising in their study The impact of regulatory focus, temporal orientation, and fit on consumer responses to health-related advertising. The health context in their study was weight management respectively healthy eating and exercising behavior. The eager means condition promoted therefore seeking healthy foods and exercising to manage body weight. The vigilant means condition promoted avoiding unhealthy food and inactivity to manage body weight. The researchers found evidence that a fit between the 11

19 regulatory focus and the message frame of the advertisement resulted in increased evaluations of the advertisement and behavioral intentions (Kees et al., 2010). Spiegel and Grant-Pillow and Higgins (2004) found evidence for the hypothesis that prevention-focused participants have a greater behavioral intention to comply with an advertised behavior if they are confronted with a message that focused on the costs they might suffer through non-compliance (vigilant frame) in their study How regulatory fit enhances motivation strength during goal pursuit. Promotion-framed participants were found to have greater behavioral intention to comply with an advertised behavior if they were confronted with a message that focused on the benefits they might obtain through compliance (eager frame). The health context in their study was healthy eating behavior where the eager-framed message promoted the benefits of eating fruits and vegetables whereas the vigilant-framed message promoted effective body protection from cancer and heart-disease through a healthy diet (Spiegel et al., 2004). Cesario, Grant and Higgins framed participants with either an eager or vigilant frame in their study Regulatory fit and persuasion: Transfer from "feeling right". Regulatory focus was manipulated by describing different concerns associated with eating fruits and vegetables. They found in the four separate studies that regulatory fit increased perceived persuasiveness and opinion ratings (Cesario et al., 2004). 2.2 Consumers' Response to Advertisement Consumer's responses to advertisements are important to consider when testing advertising effectiveness. Many studies dealing with consumer's perceptions of advertisement, consumer behavior or advertising effectiveness discuss different measures that can be used to assess whether an advertisement had the desired persuasion effect on the consumer. The following sections discuss the important constructs found in advertising literature, their origins, and how they can be used to assess the effectiveness of the advertisements created Consumer Decision-Making Process The aim of advertising or marketing in general is to reach the consumer and to convince him or her to buy a product. Belch and Belch (2004) describe consumer behavior as "the process and activities people engage in when searching for, selecting, purchasing, using, evaluating, and disposing of products and services so as to satisfy their needs and desires" (p. 105). The consumer decision-making process is part of consumer behavior which is crucial for 12

20 marketers and advertisers. It is the process with the outcome of either buying or not-buying the product which is essentially the goal of the marketer and advertiser. The consumer decision-making process is described in different stages through which a consumer passes when deciding about or actually purchasing a good. Figure 2 shows the six stages of the consumer decision-making process: problem recognition, information search, alternative evaluation, purchase decision and post purchase decision (Belch & Belch, 2004). Problem recognition Information search Alternative evaluation Purchase decision Post purchase decision Figure 2 Stages in the consumer decision-making process (Belch & Belch, 2004) These stages underlie different internal psychological processes that anticipate or follow the six stages. As shown in Figure 3, the processes are the following: motivation, perception, attitude formation, integration and learning (Belch & Belch, 2004). Motivation Perception Attitude formation Integration Learning Figure 3 Relevant internal psychological processes (Belch & Belch, 2004) Perception is the process which anticipates attitude formation, an important factor for advertisement effectiveness. Therefore consumer perceptions of advertisements are discussed in the next section Consumer Perceptions of Advertisements An important factor in the consumer decision making process is consumer perceptions of advertisements. Harrell (1986) describes perception as "the process by which an individual receives, selects, organizes, and interprets information to create a meaningful picture of the world" (as cited in Belch & Belch, 2004, p. 113). Perception can therefore be described as the way in which a consumer sees the world and interprets what he or she sees. Marketers are interested in this because it helps them to understand the consumers and the way they 13

21 think. This information is needed to create advertisements that attract consumers. Belch and Belch (2004) summarize that marketers "are interested in (1) how consumers sense external information, (2) how they select and attend to various sources of information, and (3) how this information is interpreted and given meaning" (p. 113). Perception is a process that depends on internal and external factors. Internal factors such as moods, beliefs, expectations and experiences define perceptions as well as external factors such as the characteristics of the stimulus and the context (Belch & Belch, 2004). Of these external stimuli, not all are perceived by humans. An individual needs to "tune out" some stimuli in order to avoid being over-stimulated (Salomon et al., 2006, p. 36). Of the small number of stimuli an individual notices, an even smaller number is attended to. A person might, for example, notice that an advertisement is going on in TV but may not pay attention because he or she is talking to somebody at the same time. And even if the individual pays attention to the advertisement, he or she might interpret the message of the advertisement entirely differently from the person sitting next to him or her. Due to the sensory overload in today's world, it is becoming more and more difficult for marketers and advertisers to cut thorough to command a consumer's attention for their advertisement (Solomon, Bamossy, & Askegaard, 2010). It is therefore important to create specific and targeted advertisements in order to obtain the consumer's attention for the advertisement. The Regulatory Focus Theory, as mentioned above, describes how best to target the advertising messages to the consumers in order to receive the maximum advertising effectiveness. The next three sections will discuss three concepts that have been shown to measure advertising effect and how it leads to product buying intention Advertisement Believability One measure to assess a consumer's attitude toward the advertisement is advertisement believability. If the consumer believes the advertisement, it is more likely to be effective, which means that the consumer will buy the advertised product. Beltramini summarizes it as follows: Beltramini (2006): "It seems logical to assume that while some consumers report being aware of an ad, able to recall (in unaided or aided manner) an ad, having read most of the ad, or even understanding what the ad says, consumers need to believe the information contained in an ad for it to be considered having hit home (Beltramini, 2006). Advertisement 14

22 believability is therefore crucial when evaluating the effectiveness of an advertisement. Kamins confirms this by stating: "Quite simply, if the advertisement is not believed, research shows that its effectiveness is restricted" (Kamins, 1989). Beltramini found in his study about direct-to-consumer health advertising that advertisement believability is an important construct to measure that influences key outcome measures, like the intention to buy a product (Beltramini, 2006) Attitude Toward the Advertisement Attitude is a concept that is important for many disciplines. Research has been investigating the way in which attitudes are formed and the way they affect human behavior for many decades. Attitudes are explored in behavioral research, political sciences, psychology, consumer research and many more areas. Baron and Byrne define attitude as "a lasting general evaluation of people (including oneself), objects, advertisements or issues" (Baron & Byrne, 1984). The term "lasting" implies that once attitudes are formed external individuals can hardly change a person's attitudes, as they are usually steady and enduring over time. As attitudes are permanent or at least long lasting it is obvious why they are important to people selling things to other people (whether they are politicians, marketers or entrepreneurs): attitudes are important because they affect human behavior in a way that can influence an individual's decision on whether or not to perform a specific behavior (Solomon et al., 2010). Attitudes therefore influence whether a person likes a certain product or product category, whether he or she buys the product or adopts a (health) behavior. Anything towards which an individual has an attitude is called an attitude object. An attitude object, however, is not necessarily an object in the common sense, but can be generally any stimulus that can be judged on a positivity index by an individual, for example, a political orientation, an object or subject, an event or anything similar (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993). The Multicomponent Model of attitude supports the premise that attitudes have three components: affect, behavior and cognition (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993; Zanna & Rempel, 1988). The way an individual feels about an attitude object refers to the affective component of their attitude. The individual can experience positive feelings as evoked by the attitude object, such as being amused, delighted, affectionate or hopeful. Negative feelings include fear, offense, anger. The positive feelings evoked by an attitude object are more likely to 15

23 lead to a positive attitude towards the object. The negative feelings, on the other hand, are more likely to arouse a negative attitude toward the object (Stroebe, Jonas, & Hewstone, 2002). The second component of attitudes, cognition, refers to the belief an individual has about the attitude object and behavior involves the individual's intention to do something related to the attitude object (i.e. buying a product, adopting a health behavior, recycling) (Solomon et al., 2010). The behavior component of the attitude is therefore especially important for marketers and advertisers. Understanding the role that attitude toward the advertisement plays in the consumer's response to advertisements has been widely discussed in research. Advertisers and marketers believe that minor changes in the advertisement can heavily influence whether consumers like the advertisement or not. Marketing research is therefore exploring what influences consumer' attitudes towards advertisement and on the other hand what effects attitude toward advertisement has on consumers' intentions to buy a product or not (MacKenzie, Lutz, & Belch, 1986). Lutz (Lutz, 1985)defines attitude toward the ad as "predisposition to respond in a favorable or unfavorable manner to a particular advertising stimulus during a particular exposure occasion". It is obvious that advertisers and marketers would like to control the way in which consumers respond to their advertisement because this can decide whether or not the advertisement has the desired effect on the consumer. Haley and Baldinger confirm the importance of consumer's attitude by stating that liking of an advertisement may be the best indicator of advertising effectiveness (Haley & Baldinger, 2000). As demonstrated in this section of the paper, consumer attitude toward the advertisement is an important component to consider when creating advertisements. Fishbein and Ajzen have however shown in the "Theory of Reasoned Action" and its revised model, the "Theory of Planned Behavior", that attitude does not directly lead to behavior (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1977). Translated to marketing, this means that looking only at the positive attitude of a consumer towards the advertisement, we cannot assume that this will automatically lead to a consumer's purchasing the product. Moreover the "theory of planned behavior" suggests that attitude is a predictor of intention and that intention, together with the construct "perceived behavioral control", leads to behavior. For this 16

24 reason, it is important to assess a consumer's purchasing intention when measuring advertising effectiveness. The next section will discuss the purchasing intention Behavioral Intention to Buy a Product One way to measure advertising effectiveness is measuring behavioral intention. Probably the most famous theory that proposes the link between behavioral intention and behavior is Fishbein and Ajzen's Theory of Planned Behavior as discussed in the previous section. It is therefore not surprising that market research firms often use behavior intention measures to forecast sales of a new product (Bemmaor, 1995). Also other studies that tested the Regulatory Focus Theory used behavioral intention measures to assess advertisement effectiveness (Cesario et al., 2004; Chiu & Liu, 2012; Kim, 2006; Tudoran et al., 2012). The researchers Chiu and Liu used the concept intention successfully in their study about the influence of fitness between message framing and audience regulatory focus on green concern advertisements persuasion effect (Chiu & Liu, 2012). They measured participants' intentions how they felt about green concern after having seen the advertisement. Tudoran and colleagues measured participants' intention in order to represent an individual's motivation to buy healthy foods (Tudoran et al., 2012). Kim assessed the effectiveness of an anti-smoking advertisement by asking the participants whether they thought they might smoke in the near future (Kim, 2006). Kees and colleagues found in their study that regulatory fit between an individual's regulatory focus and the message frame of the advertisement results in more favorable evaluations of the advertisement and behavioral intentions of the consumer (Kees et al., 2010). These examples show that behavioral intention is widely used as a measure to predict future behavior. 2.3 Rationale and Contribution of this Research This study contributes to the existing body of literature in three ways. Firstly, academia disagrees on which advertisement message frame best fits with which regulatory focus, i.e. whether promotion-focused individuals perceive eager messages more persuasive, and prevention-focused individuals perceive vigilant framed messages more persuasive. Keller (2006) published her study, Regulatory Focus and Efficacy of Health messages, in which she performed two experiments to examine "whether promotionrelated eagerness and willingness to take risks fits better with self-efficacy appraisals on how easy it is for individuals to undertake the proposed action, whereas prevention-related 17

25 vigilance and lower tolerance toward making mistakes fit better with response efficacy appraisals on whether the proposed action will be effective" (p.109). She found that there is greater regulatory fit if a promotion focus is matched with self-efficacy (eager message). A prevention focus, on the other hand, should be matched with a response-efficacy appeal (vigilant message). Keller's (2006) findings were supported through various studies by different researchers (Cesario et al., 2004; Crowe & Higgins, 1997; Higgins, 1998; Higgins, 2005; Kees et al., 2010; Kim, 2006). Tudoran and colleagues (2012) had, however, contrary findings in their experiments. They argue that "when individuals focus is on promotion expectations, they are less sensitive to self- efficacy beliefs" (Tudoran et al., 2012, p. 249). They found that there is no use in focusing on self-efficacy (eager message) reinforcement when addressing people with a promotion focus in a persuasive (health) campaign. People with a prevention focus, on the other hand cannot be persuaded with a response-efficacy appeal. The authors state that: "An effective health communication strategy may be to first analyze the type of outcome expectations (promotion or prevention) associated with a particular behavior, product category or consumer segment. If the promotion outcome expectations predominate, a safe bet is to design a message focused on promotion focus; when a preventing focus is used, it should be backed by strong self-efficacyfocused information that reinforces relapse prevention outcome expectations" (p. 249). As research disagrees on this important point, there is further research needed to clarify this issue. Cesario and colleagues summarized it, stating that like all persuasion techniques, the conditions under which regulatory fit influences persuasion, and the different mechanisms that determine the strength and direction of its influence, need to be identified and investigated in future research (Cesario et al., 2004). Secondly, most of the studies that tested Regulatory Focus Theory were carried out in the field of health promotion. There has been no study comparing the premises of Regulatory Focus Theory across two products with different characters (promotion product versus prevention product). 18

26 Thirdly, all the studies that tested Regulatory Focus Theory have been carried out in the United States. It was therefore unclear whether the premises of Regulatory Focus Theory would also be true for a Western European country. Trudel and colleagues confirm this by stating that the principles of Regulatory Focus Theory are especially important for firms engaged in international marketing (Trudel et al., 2012). Chapter 3 Methodology In the following, the research design will be discussed including the hypotheses development, data collection, sample description, measures and data analysis. 3.1 Hypotheses Regulatory Focus Theory proposes that individuals with a promotion focus are concerned with hopes and accomplishments and therefore pursue growth goals. Contrarily, individuals who are prevention-focused are concerned with safety and responsibilities and therefore pursue safety goals (Crowe & Higgins, 1997). Various studies have found that advertisements are more persuasive if the message frame of the advertisement is in line with the regulatory focus of the target audience (Aaker & Lee, 2001; Cesario et al., 2004; Kees et al., 2010; Kim, 2006; Tudoran et al., 2012). Kees, Burton and Tangari (2010) found evidence in their research that individuals with a prevention focus are more likely to be persuaded by an advertisement featuring a vigilant means frame and a promotion- focused individual is more likely to be persuaded by an eager means framed message. It is therefore hypothesized that the persuasive effect of an advertising message is greater if the message frame is congruent with the regulatory focus of the target audience. Hypothesis 1, 1a and 1b are stated as follows: H1: If the advertising message is congruent (versus incongruent) with consumers' regulatory focus, greater persuasion effects will result. More specifically, H1a: Consumers with a chronic promotion focus will be more persuaded by the eager means message than by the vigilant means message. H1b: Consumers with a chronic prevention focus will be more persuaded by the vigilant means message than by the eager means message. 19

27 The same relation can be found regarding advertisement believability. If the message frame of an advertisement is congruent with the chronic regulatory focus of an individual, then greater advertising believability will result. Kees, Burton and Tangari (2010) summarize as follows: "When there is a fit between consumers' chronic regulatory focus and the goal pursuit strategy of the advertisement, the advertisement is evaluated more positively and consumers report higher intentions for compliance with the advertising message" (p. 31). Hypotheses 2, 2a and 2b are therefore formulated as follows: H2: If the advertising message is congruent versus incongruent with consumers' regulatory focus, advertisement believability will be greater. More specifically, H2a: The advertisement believability of consumers with a chronic promotion focus will be greater if they are presented with an eager means message than with a vigilant means message. H2b: The advertisement believability of consumers with a chronic prevention focus will be greater if they are presented with a vigilant means message rather than an eager means message. Chernev (2004) states that prevention-focused subjects are more inclined to choose products with utilitarian attributes; for example, products that prevent from something (as cited in Boesen-Mariani, 2010, p. 96). This suggests that prevention-focused people are more attracted to a product with health benefits like medications, as these products are useful in preventing them from something (for example, having sore muscles). Furthermore, Pham and Avnet state that prevention-focused individuals tend to perceive the substance of the message as more "diagnostic" (Pham & Avnet, 2004). Novak and Hoffman add to this by giving evidence that prevention-focused subjects make their assessments and decisions through a more logical and rational process than promotion-focused individuals (Novak & Hoffman, 2009). It is therefore hypothesized that prevention-focused people will be more persuaded by an advertisement for the muscle cream product Actifen than the promotionfocused individuals. Hypothesis 3 is therefore formulated as follows: H3: Overall, the Actifen advertisement is more likely to persuade people with a chronic prevention focus due to the nature of the product, regardless of the message frame of the advertisement. 20

28 Contrarily, Chernev (2004) states that promotion-focused individuals are more likely to choose a product with a hedonic attribute because it suits their general attitude towards gains and accomplishments (as cited in Boesen-Mariani, 2010, p. 96). It is therefore hypothesized that promotion-focused individuals are generally more persuaded by an advertisement of a consumer goods product like the Energy Gum than prevention-focused individuals. Hypothesis 4 is therefore formulated as follows: H4: Overall, the Energy Gum advertisement is more likely to persuade promotion focused participants, due to the attributes of the product regardless of the message frame of the advertisement 3.2 Research Method The research questions were tested by using a 2 (type of regulatory focus: promotion versus prevention) by 2 (type of message: eager versus vigilant) between subjects design. Four effects were tested: individual's attitude toward the advertisement; individual's attitude toward the product; persuasion effect of the advertisement on individuals, and behavioral intentions to buy the advertised product. Two products with two different messages each lead up to four different advertisement messsages. One of the products was a muscle cream named Actifen that is similar to Voltaren or Perskindol, which was assumed to have prevention attributes because a muscle cream is used to prevent a certain state (i.e., sore muscles). The other product was an energizing gum named Energy Gum similar to Guarana Swing, which was assumed to have promotion attributes as an energizing product is used to reach a certain state (i.e., alertness). The products, as well as the advertisements, were completely hypothetical and created for the purpose of this master's thesis only Questionnaire To test the abovementioned hypotheses, a questionnaire was created for the purpose of carrying out an online survey. One of the advantages of online surveys is the non-existent errors when transferring the data from the responses into a spreadsheet. When, for example, using a paper-pencil survey design, errors can happen when transferring the data from the answer sheets into the database. In an online survey, the danger of this sort of errors is non-existent, as the data can be extracted by electronically downloading the data into the statistic software. Another advantage of qualitative questionnaires in general is the standardized measures. All respondents answer exactly the same questions with the 21

29 standardized answer scales, making internal reliability very high. An important advantage of online surveys is the possibility to survey large populations at little cost. A disadvantage of online surveys is that the respondent usually fills them in alone, i.e. without the researcher. If questions appear the respondent has no possibility to ask them but is forced to make assumptions or to skip the question (Kumar, Aaker, & Day, 2002). For this research an online survey was the most appropriate tool because of the possibility of reaching a large population and because it was cost- and time effective compared to telephone surveys or paper-pencil questionnaires Measures To test the abovementioned hypotheses, various independent and dependent measures were taken. A full list of all the measures from the survey is available in appendix 8.1. Independent measures: Regulatory Focus To discover participants' regulatory focus, their focus was measured. Due to the large scale of the study, and given the two product categories, it was decided not to frame participants' focus, but only to measure it. There are various instruments that can measure the regulatory focus of an individual (for a review see Haws et al., 2010). One of the most frequently used measurement scales is the Regulatory Focus questionnaire (RFQ) developed by Professor Tory E. Higgins and colleagues in Validity and reliability of the measure was reported in Higgins and colleagues (Higgins et al., 2001). The RFQ consists of 11 items that take previous histories of individuals into consideration by asking questions about previous stories of success or failure like for example "Compared to most people, are you typically unable to get what you want out of life?" or "Do you often do well at different things that you try?". The past personal experience of an individual is then linked to the usage of a prevention or promotion strategy for each of the situations (Boesen-Mariani et al., 2010). Cesario, Grant & Higgins (2004) state furthermore that the RFQ is set up to "understand people's natural tendencies for future tasks and situations (as cited in Boesen-Mariani et al., 2010, p. 91). Items 1, 3, 7,9, 10, and 11 of the RFQ are promotion scale items, whereas items 2, 4, 5, 6, and 8 are prevention scale items (Higgins et al., 2001). In order to calculate whether an 22

30 individual is prevention or promotion focused, the items with a negative factor loading have to be reverse-scored for the scale calculations. A calculation instruction is provided by Higgins and colleagues that calculates the regulatory focus score for each participant by adding up the scores for every one of the eleven items. The RFQ has been applied in various studies. It has proved to be very effective in measuring the regulatory focus of individuals (i.e. Higgins et al., 2001, Boesen-Mariani et al., 2010). However, limitations have been noted. Semin et al. (2005) have, for example, mentioned difficulties of adapting the scale to other cultural contexts and other populations (as cited in Boesen-Mariani et al., 2010, p. 91). Haws and colleagues (2010) argue that the RFQ does not focus on affective aspects of regulatory focus, as it puts more emphasis on outcomes and cognitions about outcomes (p. 973). Despite these and other limitations, Haws and colleagues also highlight that the RFQ is unique among scales in focusing on past events, and that it includes a variety of more general and more specific instances. It can, therefore, be summarized that the RFQ is a valid and good questionnaire for measuring the regulatory focus of individuals Message Framing Participants were exposed to one (out of four) messages, regarding either the muscle cream Actifen or the energizing candy Energy Gum. According to Kim (2006), the messages were constructed to either promote the attainment of positive outcome or the prevention of negative outcomes. Great care was taken to create messages that differed only in the message frame. Each message was approximately 30 words in length. The messages with a promotion focus (eager frame) emphasized a concern with accomplishment, and the message with a prevention focus (vigilant frame) emphasized a concern with preventing a certain state. The Actifen eager message read: "Sore muscles? Try Actifen for instant muscle relaxation! Actifen will sooth your muscles and give them an energy boost so you can get right on with the next sports activity!". The Actifen vigilant message read: "Sore muscles? Try Actifen to avoid muscle pain! Actifen will prevent you from suffering painful muscle soreness and torn muscles so nothing stops you from the next sports activity!". The Energy Gum eager message read: "Tired? Try Energy Gum for an instant power boost! Ginseng Power Energy Gum contains natural Ginseng root extract which gives your body extra power for a long 23

31 day!". The Energy Gum vigilant message read: "Tired? Try Energy Gum to prevent fatigue! Ginseng Power Energy Gum contains natural Ginseng root extract which helps your body reduce the hormone Melatonin that makes you sleepy." The eager messages were created to stress the attainment of positive outcomes whereas the vigilant messages were created to stress the prevention of negative outcomes Timing The participants were asked to take as much time as they wanted to look at the advertisement in the survey. The time they took, from the first click to the last one on the question was measured without their noticing it Attitude Toward Advertising In this specific study, it was important to measure participants' general attitude toward advertising. Therefore the goal was to measure their attitude before they were exposed to the advertisement in the questionnaire. To measure participants' general attitude toward advertising, questions from the validated scale "Public opinion toward advertising" that was published by Richard Pollay and Banwari Mittal in 1993 were used (Pollay & Mittal, 1993). The original scale consists of 30 items. As the questionnaire for this study would have been too long if all the questions had been used, only 6 items of the scale were selected that fit with the research questions of the study. The questions were evaluated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from "strongly disagree" to "strongly agree". Salomon and colleagues state that single-item Likert scales are a good tool to measure consumer's attitudes (Solomon et al., 2010) Experience Measure Participants' experience with the product category was measured by asking them whether or not they had bought a product similar to the one in the advertisement before. The answer possibilities were yes or no. General health Health Status Participants' health statuses were evaluated, in order to exclude bias trough unhealthy people (e.g. a person with Arthritis would generally have a much higher intention to buy a muscle cream product like Actifen than a healthy person). General health was assessed by 24

32 asking participants how they would describe their general health. Answer possibilities ranged on a 5-point Likert scale from "very poor" to "very good". All health measured were extracted from the validated measurement "The Short Form 36 Health Survey" by Ware, Kosinski and Gandek (Ware, Kosinski, Dewey, & Gandek, 2000). Recent problems with health Participants were asked whether or not they had had problems with work or daily activities due to a health problem. The health problem indicated for participants who had seen one of the Actifen advertisements was "bodily pain". For participants who had seen one of the two Energy Gum advertisements, the health problem indicated was "fatigue". Health problem experience Participants were asked how much bodily pain or fatigue they had experienced during the last four weeks, depending on the product advertised. Answer possibilities ranged from "none" to "very severe" on a 6-point Likert scale. Health problems interfering with daily activities Participants were asked how much bodily pain (fatigue) had interfered with their work or other daily activities during the past four weeks. Answers were measured on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from "not at all" to "extremely" Age and Gender Participants were asked to indicate their age in years and gender Home Country Participants were asked to indicate the country they considered as their home country. The question was asked specifically in this way in order to assess which culture participants perceived themselves to be from. This question was asked in order to be able to draw conclusions about participants' culture in regard to their regulatory focus. Dependent measures: Advertisement Believability Advertisement believability was measured by seven semantic differential questions. The semantic differentials ranged on a 5-point scale and were the following: 25

33 Unbelievable/believable, untrustworthy/trustworthy, unconvincing/convincing, not credible/credible, unreasonable/reasonable, dishonest/honest, and unquestionable/questionable Attitude Toward Product To assess participants' attitudes toward the product they had seen in the survey, the following question was asked: "Please rate how you feel about the product in the advertisement you have just seen". Answers were evaluated by using the semantic differentials negative/positive, not at all favorable/very favorable and bad/good Intention to Buy the Product The intention to buy the specific product seen in the advertisement was assessed by asking the participants whether they would consider buying the product from the advertisement. The answer possibility was semantic differential on a 5-point scale from "I would not consider buying the product" to "I would consider buying the product" Expected Product Performance Participants expectations toward the product performance was measured by asking them whether they thought that the product would prevent them from suffering the health problems the product was supposed to act against (i.e., bodily pain or fatigue) and whether participants thought that the product would be pleasant to use. Both questions' answer categories ranged on a 7-point Likert scale from "strongly disagree" to "strongly agree" Intention to Buy the Product Category To measure the intention to buy the product that the participant had seen, the following question was asked: "Do you intend to buy energizing gum or candy like Energy Gum in the next 4 months?". The answer scale was a 7-point Likert Scale ranging from "very unlikely" to "very likely" Behavioral Intention in a Specific Situation Participants were asked to imagine that they suffered from a specific health status (i.e., muscle pain or fatigue). They were then asked if, under these circumstances, they would buy a product similar to the one from the advertisement. The answer category was a 7-point Likert scale ranging from "very unlikely" to "very likely". 26

34 Recall Recall of the advertisement and the product was measured with two questions. One question asked about what they remembered best about the advertisement. The answer categories were text, product, background image, colors or other. A second question evaluated whether the participants remembered the slogan they had seen in the advertisement. The answer categories were four slogans: one was the actual eager slogan from the product they had seen, another was the vigilant slogan from their product, and two slogans other were completely hypothetical Manipulation Check To assess whether the advertising messages were evaluated as intended, a manipulation check was made. Participants were given four different questions, asking whether they thought that the advertisement contained ideas about enhancement, about prevention, about reaching a certain state or about preventing a certain state. The answer categories were a 7-point Likert scale ranging from "strongly disagree" to "strongly agree". These questions were chosen, following the example for a studies by Kim (2006) as well as Lee and Aaker (2004) (Kim, 2006; Lee & Aaker, 2004). 3.3 Procedures and Data Collection The aim of this study was to test the Regulatory Focus Theory in the German speaking part of Switzerland so as order to compare the results to other studies conducted mostly in the Northern American context. For this purpose the University of Zurich was chosen to spread the survey with the abovementioned measures. This university was chosen because it is, according to the Federal Statistical Office in Switzerland (FSO), by far the largest university in Switzerland with the largest number of faculties (FSO, 2011). Furthermore the university furthermore includes students from all the cantons of Switzerland thus increasing the representativeness of the student sample for the population of Switzerland (FSO, 2013). The target population was composed of 4000 students (Bachelor, Master and PhD) from all faculties. The faculties of University of Zurich are theological faculty, jurisprudence faculty, faculty of economics, medical school, faculty of veterinary medicine, philosophical faculty and the faculty of mathematics and science. Including students from all the faculties ensured that there was no bias due to the study area. A questionnaire containing the measures mentioned above was programmed to the survey 27

35 software Qualtrics and spread via list to the sample. In order to reach 4000 students, the University of Zurich charged a fee of CHF 250. Participants were free to choose whether they wanted to participate in the survey or not. The link to the survey was included in the that was sent out to the participants; they could participate any time they thought was convenient for them. The language of the questionnaire was English, as the validated questionnaires were held in English as well. It was assumed that this posed no problems for the University of Zurich students because their level of English is relatively high, as they had at least five years of English in school. The four advertisements were randomly distributed among participants so that every participant saw only one advertisement using the Qualtrics randomization function. Qualtrics was programmed so that the advertisements were evenly distributed among participants to ensure that all the advertisements were seen at least by some students. The survey ran for approximately two weeks from Mai 22nd 2013 to June 3rd Incentives As an incentive for participation the students could win one of three vouchers for the clothing store H&M worth CHF 20 each if they decided to participate in the survey and lottery. The link to the survey was embedded in a covering in German that ensured the participants that their participation was absolutely voluntary and that they could decide to stop participating at any point. They were further assured that their data was treated completely anonymously Pretest Before running the survey, a pretest was made with German-speaking students who attended University of Zurich. The students ran the survey and were then asked questions about the flow, length and difficulty of the questionnaire. Problems with question wordings were assessed and minor errors indicated. The participants of the pretest reported no difficulties with the English language and reported that the advertisements were credible. After the pretest was run, the survey was updated and corrections implemented where needed. After this, the survey was tested several times by the author of this study and a post-doctoral student of the University of Lugano. The questionnaire of the pretest can be found in appendix

36 3.4 Sample Description The questionnaire for the study was sent out to a population of 4000 students. 596 surveys were recorded, giving a response rate of 14.9%. After the data cleaning however, only 372 participants' surveys were filled in completely so only they could be included in the analysis. Out of the sample of n= 372 persons, 56.7% (n=211) were female, 37.1% (n=138) were male and 6.2% (n=23) were missing. The average age of the sample was years (range=20-69, SD=5.37) where (n=23) were missing (i.e., did not complete the questionnaire). The majority of the participants (84.9%) perceived Switzerland as their home country (n=316), 3% (n=11) perceived Germany,.8% (n=3) Italy and.5% (n=2) France as their home county. 4.6% (n=17) were missing. Chapter 4 Results 4.1 Data Analyses The data collected through the Qualtrics survey tool were analyzed with the IBM SPSS statistics program. Several Factor analyses were conducted to see if the measures with more than one question could be reduced to one variable. Descriptive statistics have been analyzed for all the variables. Hypotheses 1 to 4 were then analyzed using regression analysis. For further clarification of the results for hypothesis 1 and 2, manual calculations of the two dependent variables intention to buy the product and advertisement believability have been carried out. Originally it was assumed that hypotheses 1a and 1b as well as hypotheses 2a and 2b would be true for both products (Actifen and Energy Gum) regardless of their attributes (prevention attributes of the product versus promotion attributes of the product). The data analysis, however, showed that this was not true, as the two products were perceived differently. It was therefore decided to analyze each product category separately. Accordingly, the results will be reported separately for all of the four treatment conditions (Actifen eager frame, Actifen vigilant frame, Energy Gum eager frame, Energy Gum vigilant frame). 29

37 4.2 Measurements In the following section, the measurements will be elaborated for their reliability. Factor analyses have been made for those four measures that consisted of multiple items. For all the variables, descriptive analyses have been made. The factor analysis and descriptive analysis are reported below. 4.3 Factor Analyses Regulatory Focus Measure The dimensionality of the 11 items from the regulatory focus questionnaire were analyzed using principal components factor analysis. Four criteria were used to determine the number of factors to rotate: (1) the a priori hypothesis that the measure was unidimensional, (2) the eigenvalue-greater-than-one rule, (3) the scree test, and (4) the interpretability of the factor solution. The scree plot indicated that the initial hypothesis of unidimensionality was incorrect. Based on the plot, two factors were rotated using a Varimax rotation procedure. The rotated solution, as shown in Figure 4, yielded two interpretable factors, promotion and prevention. The promotion factor accounted for 20.3 % of the item variance, and the prevention factor accounted for 18.7 % of the item variance. The promotion factor was reliable with Cronbach's alpha equaling.66. The prevention factor was moderately reliable with Cronbachs' alpha equaling

38 Figure 4 Scree Plot regulatory focus In order to analyze the data for the hypothesis of this study, a median split has been made to allocate participants either to the group of those who are prevention- respectively promotion-focused. Multiple analyses of variances (ANOVA) were run to test the hypothesis. However the results did not show significant results. It was suspected that the nonsignificant results were due to the median-split regulatory focus measure. A median split forces the participants in two groups, i.e., to be either prevention or promotion focused. In reality however, every individual has promotion and prevention characteristics and therefore has a value somewhere on the scale between prevention and promotion focus. Molden and colleagues state that "Even if one focus is chronically more accessible, both foci are present in all subjects" (Molden, Lee, & Higgins, 2008). Through the median-split all this information got lost, so the results turned out not to be significant. It was therefore decided to use the regulatory focus, computed as a single categorical variable equal to the difference of promotion score minus prevention score (scale ranging from -3.3 to 2.13 (see descriptives below). Due to the scale measure of the regulatory focus it was then decided to conduct regression analysis. 31

39 4.3.2 Opinion Toward Advertising The dimensionality of the 6 items from the Opinion toward advertising measure were analyzed using principal components factor analysis. Four criteria were used to determine the number of factors: (1) the a priori hypothesis that the measure was unidimensional, (2) the eigenvalue-greater-than-one rule, (3) the scree test, and (4) the interpretability of the factor solution. The scree plot indicated that the initial hypothesis of unidimensionality was plausible. The scree plot, as shown in Figure 5, yielded one interpretable factor, opinion toward advertising. The opinion toward advertising factor accounted for 27.3 % of the item variance. The factor was reliable with Cronbach's alpha equaling.66. Figure 5 Scree Plot opinion toward advertising Advertising Believability The dimensionality of the 7 items from the Advertising Believability measure were analyzed using principal components factor analysis. Four criteria were used to determine the number of factors: (1) the a priori hypothesis that the measure was unidimensional, (2) the eigenvalue-greater-than-one rule, (3) the scree test, and (4) the interpretability of the factor solution. The scree plot indicated that the initial hypothesis of unidimensionality was plausible. The scree plot, as shown in Figure 6, yielded one interpretable factor, Advertising 32

40 Believability. The Advertising Believability factor accounted for 62.4 % of the item variance. The factor was highly reliable with Cronbach's alpha equaling.89. Figure 6 Scree plot advertising believability Attitude Toward Product The dimensionality of the 3 items from the Attitude Toward Product measure were analyzed using principal components factor analysis. Four criteria were used to determine the number of factors: (1) the a priori hypothesis that the measure was unidimensional, (2) the eigenvalue-greater-than-one rule, (3) the scree test, and (4) the interpretability of the factor solution. The scree plot indicated that the initial hypothesis of unidimensionality was plausible. The scree plot, as shown in Figure 7, yielded one interpretable factor, Attitude Toward Product. The Attitude Toward Product factor accounted for % of the item variance. The factor was highly reliable with Cronbach's alpha equaling

41 Figure 7 Scree plot attitude toward product 4.4 Descriptives Descriptive Analyses of all Variables The following table (Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3) reports the means, median, mode, range, standard deviations, variance, minimum and maximum values as well as the Cronbach alphas for all the variables analyzed in this study. 34

42 Table 1 Descriptive Statistics I Descriptive Statistics I Age Gender Countr y Treatmen t Opinion toward advertisem ent Advertisem ent Believabilit y Attitude toward product N Valid Missing Mean Median Mode Std. Deviation Variance Range Minimum Maximum Cronbach's Table 2 Descriptive Statistics II Descriptive Statistics II Intentio n to buy product (Buy) Intententi on to buy product category Intention to buy product if situation demands it (Imagine) Experience with the product category RF RFxMess2 Prodx RF Mes sage 01 code d Valid N Missin g Mean Median Mode a Std. Deviation Variance Range Minimum Maximum Cronbach's a. Multiple modes exist. The smallest value is shown 35

43 Table 3 Descriptive Statistics III Descriptive Statistics III Health Recent Pain (Fatigue) Check_3 Check_4 Recall Slogan N Valid Missing Mean Median Mode Std. Deviation Variance Range Minimum Maximum Cronbach's Manipulation Check In order to evaluate whether the manipulation of the two products and the two messages worked, manipulation check measures were taken. Participants were asked whether they thought the advertisement they had seen contained ideas about enhancement respectively prevention (see method section for more details about this measure). Furthermore, T- Tests across messages (eager versus vigilant) were run. Manipulation check across the eager messages The manipulation check measure for the Actifen eager frame and Energy Gum eager frame condition was successful, as participants reported higher scores on the manipulation check scale for the Energy Gum eager frame (M= 5.29, SD = 1.37) than for the Actifen eager frame (M = 4.62, SD= 1.55) as shown in Table 4. This difference was significant t(175)= 3.05, p<.01. It represent a small effect size r =

44 Table 4 Means and Standard Deviations for the Actifen and Energy Gum eager messages Means and Standard Deviations for the Actifen and Energy Gum eager message groups Actifen Eager Message Energy Gum Eager Message N Valid Missing 7 5 Mean Std. Deviation Manipulation check across the vigilant messages The manipulation check measure for the Actifen vigilant frame and Energy Gum vigilant frame condition was successful, as participants reported higher scores on the manipulation check scale for the Energy Gum vigilant frame (M= 5.02, SD = 1.43) than for the Actifen vigilant frame (M = 4.646, SD= 1.48) as shown in Table 5. This difference was significant t(170)= 2.52, p<.05. It represent a small effect size r =.19. Table 5 Means and Standard Deviations for the Actifen and Energy Gum vigilant messages Means and Standard Deviations for the Actifen and Energy Gum vigilant message groups Actifen Vigilant Message Energy Gum Vigilant Message N Valid Missing 5 6 Mean Std. Deviation Overall it can be concluded that the message effect (eager versus vigilant) was significant. 4.5 Regression Analyses and Manual Calculations As mentioned above, regression analyses have been carried out to test the hypotheses of this study. As independent variables, the regulatory focus measure (scale), message, RFxMess2, a variable indicating the effect of regulatory focus in message 1 and demographics like age and gender. The dependent variables were intention to buy the product buy, intention to buy the product in a situation that requires the product imagine and advertisement believability. The variables "buy" and "imagine" were used as equivalent dependent variables, as they measure the same construct. 37

45 For hypotheses 1 and 2, the regressions turned out to be difficult to interpret in terms of clear distinction of the effects the independent variables had on the dependent variables for the two groups of foci (prevention versus promotion). It was therefore decided to calculate the intention to buy the product as well as the advertisement believability by hand for every focus, product and message. The regulatory focus scale was, for this purpose, split into two groups (prevention versus promotion). To receive the values for the promotion-focused participants, there was 1 standard deviation added to the scale mean. In order to receive the values for the prevention-focused participants, there was 1 standard deviation subtracted from the scale mean. These numbers were then inserted into the unstandardized regression equation to receive the calculated numbers for advertisement believability separately for each treatment group (Actifen eager frame, Actifen vigilant frame, Energy Gum eager frame, Energy Gum vigilant frame) and for every group of regulatory focus (promotion versus prevention). This procedure was repeated with the unstandardized regression equation of intention to buy the product. The results from these calculations are shown below Hypothesis 1 Hypothesis H1a and H1b were aimed at assessing whether the congruence or incongruence of the advertising message with consumer's regulatory focus has an impact on their response to the advertisement. H1 stated "If the advertising message is congruent versus incongruent with consumers' regulatory focus, greater persuasion effects will result". H1a stated that "Consumers with a chronic promotion focus will be more persuaded by the eager means message than by the vigilant means message". H1b stated that "Consumers with a chronic prevention focus will be more persuaded by the vigilant means message than by the eager means message". To test these hypotheses, several regression analyses were run. Furthermore, there were manual calculations carried out to assess the effect of the regulatory focus on the dependent variable for the products Actifen and Energy Gum. 38

46 Prevention Product Actifen A multiple regression analysis was conducted including all participants who had seen an Actifen advertisement (Actifen eager frame and Actifen vigilant frame), to evaluate how well, in the case of the prevention product Actifen, the advertisement believability, the message and the regulatory focus predict the likelihood that the participants would buy the product. The predictors were advertisement believability, advertisement message, regulatory focus and the effect variable "RFxMess2". The first independent variable, advertisement believability, was measured on a scale ranging from 1 to 4.86 (Mean=2.71, SD=.79). The second independent variable, message, had the two terms "eager message" and "vigilant message". The third independent variable, regulatory focus, was measured on a scale ranging from to 2.13 (Mean=.03, SD=.74), and the fourth independent variable "RFxMess2", measuring the effect of regulatory focus in message 1. This measure ranged from to The dependent variable "Buy" measured the participants' intention to buy the product. It ranged from "very unlikely" to "very likely". As shown in Table 6, the regression was significant F(4, 180)=13.53, p <.01, with approximately 23% (adjusted R 2 =.231) of the variance in intention to buy was accounted for by the advertisement believability, the advertising message, the regulatory focus and the interaction of the regulatory focus and the message as shown in Table 7. The predictor variables, advertisement believability t(4)= 7.15, p<.01 and regulatory focus t(4)=-2.09, p<.05 explained a statistically significant amount of unique variance in intention to buy the product as shown in Table 8.The advertisement message was, however, not significant t(4)= -.21, p=.83, nor was the RFxMess2 t(4)=1.61, p=.11. These findings suggest that as participants regulatory focus grows more promotional, the advertisement believability decreases regarding the Actifen eager frame message (message 1). This means that prevention-focused participants are susceptible to the Actifen eager framed message. With regards to the vigilant message (message 2), the findings show that there is no significant difference in advertisement believability. 39

47 Table 6 ANOVA regression analysis hypothesis 1 for Actifen ANOVA regression analysis hypothesis 1 for Actifen Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Regression b 1 Residual Total a. Dependent Variable: Buy b. Predictors: (Constant), Message 01 code, RFxMess2, Advertisement Believability, RF Table 7 Model Summary regression analysis hypothesis 1 Actifen Model Summary regression analysis hypothesis 1 Actifen Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate a a. Predictors: (Constant), Message 01 code, RFxMess2, Advertisement Believability, RF Table 8 Unstandardized and standardized coefficients regression analysis hypothesis 1 Actifen Unstandardized and standardized coefficients regression analysis hypothesis 1 Actifen Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig. B Std. Error Beta (Constant) Advertisement Believability 1 RF RFxMess Message 01 code a. Dependent Variable: Buy Manual calculation of the Intention to Buy the Product for Actifen As regressions are more difficult to analyze than ANOVAs, in terms of clear distinctions between the effects of the independent variable on the dependent variable for the two groups of promotion- and prevention-focused participants, it was decided to calculate, by hand, the intention to buy the product for every regulatory focus, product and message. The results of the manual calculations for the prevention product Actifen, are the following: For the promotion-focused participants, the intention to buy the product was 2.42, for the eager 40

48 message and 2.57, for the vigilant message. For the prevention-focused participants, the intention to buy the product was 2.68, for the eager message, and 2.72 for the vigilant message, as Figure 8 shows Promotion Focus Prevention Focus Eager Message Vigilant Message Figure 8 Intention to buy the Actifen product The results show that for the Actifen product (product 1), promotion-focused participants expressed a higher intention to buy the product if they had seen a vigilant framed advertisement than if they had seen the eager framed advertisement. This contradicts Higgins' suggestions from the Regulatory Focus Theory. The results furthermore suggest that for the Actifen-product (product 1), prevention-focused participants expressed higher intention to buy the product if they faced the vigilant framed advertisement than if they faced the eager framed advertisement. These findings are in line with what Higgins suggests in the Regulatory Focus Theory. All participants expressed higher intention to buy the product if they saw the vigilant advertisement of the Actifen product. This might be due to the product's vigilant attributes of the muscle cream in general. Further implications of these results will be evaluated in the discussion section. 41

49 Results Summary Actifen Hypothesis 1 Summarizing the findings from the regression analysis and the manual calculations for the Actifen product, hypothesis 1a has to be rejected, as promotion-focused participants showed greater susceptibility to the vigilant advertisement. Hypothesis 1b, on the other hand, was supported by the results, as they indicate that prevention-focused participants reported greater intention to buy the product if they had seen the vigilant advertisement. Overall, this means a partial evidence for hypothesis 1 for the Actifen product Promotion Product Energy Gum A multiple regression analysis was conducted to evaluate how well, in the case of the promotion product Energy Gum, the advertisement believability, the message and the regulatory focus predict the likelihood that the participants would buy the product if they imagined they were in a state when they needed it. The predictors were advertisement believability, advertisement message, regulatory focus and the effect variable "RFxMess2". The first independent variable, advertisement believability, was measured on a scale ranging from 1 to 4.86 (Mean=2.71, SD=.79). The second independent variable, message, had the two terms "eager message" and "vigilant message". The third independent variable, regulatory focus, was measured on a scale ranging from to 2.13 (Mean=.03, SD=.74). The fourth independent variable "RFxMess2", measuring the effect of regulatory focus in message 1, on a scale ranging from to The dependent variable "Imagine" measured whether participants would buy the product in circumstances where they would need this type of product. It ranged from "very unlikely" to "very likely". As shown in Table 9, the regression was significant F(4, 180)=8.23, p <.01, with approximately 16% (adjusted R 2 =.136) of the variance in intention to buy being accounted for by the advertisement believability, the advertising message, the regulatory focus and the interaction of the regulatory focus and the message as shown in Table 10. The predictor variables, advertisement believability t(4)= 4.74, p<.01, regulatory focus t(4)=-2.14, p<.05 and RFxMess2 t(4)=2.74, p<.01, explained a statistically significant amount of unique variance in intention to buy the product as shown in Table 11. The advertisement message was, however, not significant t(4)=.44, p<

50 Table 9 ANOVA regression analysis hypothesis 1 Energy Gum ANOVA regression analysis hypothesis 1 Energy Gum Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Regression b 1 Residual Total a. Dependent Variable: Imagine b. Predictors: (Constant), Advertisement Believability, Message 01 code, RF, RFxMess2 Table 10 Model Summary regression analysis hypothesis 1 Energy Gum Model Summary regression analysis hypothesis 1 Energy Gum Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate a a. Predictors: (Constant), Advertisement Believability, Message 01 code, RF, RFxMess2 Table 11 Unstandardized and standardized coefficients regression analysis hypothesis 1 Energy Gum Unstandardized and standardized coefficients regression analysis hypothesis 1 Energy Gum Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig. B Std. Error Beta (Constant) Message 01 code RF RFxMess Advertisement Believability a. Dependent Variable: Imagine The pattern of these results suggests that for the Energy Gum (product 2), participants who are prevention focused were more convinced by the eager message, and that participants who are promotion focused were more convinced by the prevention message. These findings are very interesting, because they show the exact opposite of what Higgins proposes in the Regulatory Focus Theory (see literature review). 43

51 Manual Calculation of the Intention to Buy the Product for Energy Gum As regressions are more difficult to analyze than ANOVAs, in terms of clear distinctions between promotion- and prevention-focused participants, it was decided to calculate the intention to buy the product by hand for every focus, product and message. The results of the manual calculations for the promotion product Energy Gum are the following: For the promotion-focused participants, the intention to buy the product was 2.11, for the eager message and 3.82, for the vigilant message. For the prevention-focused participants, the intention to buy the product was 2.8, for the eager message and 2.22, for the vigilant message as Figure 9 shows Eager Message Vigilant Message Promotion Focus Prevention Focus Figure 9 Intention to buy for the Energy Gum product The results show that for the Energy Gum (product 2), promotion-focused participants expressed a higher intention to buy the product when they had seen the vigilant advertisement than when they had seen the eager advertisement. Prevention-focused participants, on the other hand, expressed greater intention to buy the product if they were confronted with the eager advertisement than with the vigilant advertisement. These findings contradict the premises of the Regulatory Focus Theory which suggests that prevention-focused individuals are susceptible to vigilant messages and promotion-focused individuals susceptible to eager messages. 44

52 Results Summary Energy Gum Hypothesis 1 Summarizing the findings from the regression analysis and the manual calculations for the Energy Gum product, hypothesis 1a has to be rejected, as promotion-focused participants showed greater susceptibility for the vigilant advertisement. Hypothesis 1b has to be rejected as well, as prevention-focused participants indicated greater intention to buy the product if they had seen the eager framed advertisement. Overall this means that the findings for hypothesis 1 regarding the promotion product Energy Gum contradict the premises of the Regulatory Focus Theory. These findings are novel and highly interesting. Possible explanations for these results will be discussed in the discussion and conclusion section of this study Hypothesis 2 Hypothesis 2 proposed, based on the existing literature, that the advertisement believability would be greater if the advertising message is congruent rather than incongruent with the consumer's regulatory focus. Hypothesis 2a stated that "The advertisement believability of consumers with a chronic promotion focus will be greater if they are presented with an eager means message than with a vigilant means message". Hypothesis 2b stated that "The advertisement believability of consumers with a chronic prevention focus will be greater if they are presented with a vigilant means message rather than an eager means message". To test these hypothesis, multiple regression analysis were run Prevention Product Actifen A multiple regression analysis was conducted to evaluate whether the advertisement believability of a consumer will be greater if the advertising message is congruent rather than incongruent with the consumer's regulatory focus (the assumptions of H2a and H2b) The predictors were advertisement message, regulatory focus, the effect variable "RFxMess2" which measures the effect of regulatory focus in message 1 and gender. The first predictor, advertising message, had the two terms "eager message" and "vigilant message". The second independent variable, regulatory focus, was measured on a scale ranging from to 2.13 (Mean=.03, SD=.74) and the third independent variable, "RFxMess2" measured if the effect of the regulatory focus differs in the two message conditions. This measure ranged from to The fourth predictor gender had the two 45

53 expressions "male" and "female". The dependent variable advertisement believability, was measured on a scale that ranged from 1 to 4.86 (Mean=2.71, SD=.79). As shown in Table 12, the regression was significant F(4, 168)=2.49, p <.05, with approximately 3% (adjusted R 2 =.034) of the variance in advertisement believability being accounted for by the predictors as shown in Table 13. The predictor variable RFxMess2 was significant t(4)= , p<.05, and explained a statistically significant amount of unique variance in advertisement believability. The predictor variables, advertisement message t(4)= 1.493, p<.14, regulatory focus t(4)= 1.853, p<.06 and gender t(4)= , p<.08 were not significant as shown in Table 14. Table 12 ANOVA regression analysis hypothesis 2 Actifen ANOVA regression analysis hypothesis 2 Actifen Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Regression b 1 Residual Total a. Dependent Variable: Advertisement Believability b. Predictors: (Constant), Gender, RF, Message 01 coded, RFxMess2 Table 13 Model Summary regression analysis hypothesis 2 Actifen Model Summary regression analysis hypothesis 2 Actifen Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate R Square Change Change Statistics F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change a a. Predictors: (Constant), Gender, RF, Message 01 coded, RFxMess2 46

54 Table 14 Unstandardized and standardized coefficients regression analysis hypothesis 2 Actifen Unstandardized and standardized coefficients regression analysis hypothesis 2 Actifen Model 1 Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coeffici ents t Sig. 95.0% Confidence Interval for B B Std. Error Beta Lower Bound (Constant) Message 01 coded Upper Bound RF RFxMess Gender a. Dependent Variable: Advertisement Believability These results indicate that prevention-focused participants were susceptible to the vigilant message. As the results for message one were not significant, there was no significant difference in advertisement believability for the eager message. Manual Calculation of the Advertisement Believability for Actifen As regressions are more difficult to analyze than ANOVAs, in terms of clear distinctions between promotion- and prevention-focused participants, it was decided to calculate the advertisement believability by hand for every focus, product and message. The results of the manual calculations for the prevention product Actifen are the following: For the promotionfocused participants, the advertisement believability was 3.39, for the eager message and 3.29 for the vigilant message. For the prevention-focused participants, the advertisement believability was 3.07, for the eager message, and 3.48, for the vigilant message, as Figure 10 shows. 47

55 Eager Message Vigilant Message Promotion Focus Prevention Focus Figure 10 Advertisement Believability for the Actifen product As the results show, promotion-focused participants expressed greater advertisement believability if they saw the eager framed advertisement rather than the vigilant framed advertisement. Prevention-focused participants, on the other hand, expressed greater advertisement believability if they saw the vigilant advertisement, rather than the eager advertisement. These findings go along with what Higgins suggests in his Regulatory Focus Theory. Results Summary Actifen Hypothesis 2 The findings from the regression analysis showed a positive effect of the eager message on advertisement believability because the promotion-focused individuals reported greater advertisement believability if they had seen the Actifen eager frame advertisement. This message effect was, however, not significant. Nevertheless, directional findings from the manual calculations though, supported these findings, showing that promotion-focused participants were more susceptible to the eager message. It can therefore be concluded that there was support for hypothesis 2a. Both the regression results and the results from the manual calculations indicated that prevention-focused individuals were more susceptible to the vigilant advertisement. Hypothesis 2b was therefore supported as well. 48

56 Promotion Product Energy Gum A multiple regression analysis was conducted to evaluate whether the advertisement believability of a consumer would be greater if the advertising message used is congruent, rather than incongruent, with the consumer's regulatory focus. The predictors were advertisement message, regulatory focus and the effect variable "RFxMess2". The first predictor, advertising message, had the two terms "eager message" and "vigilant message". The second independent variable, regulatory focus, was measured on a scale ranging from to 2.13 (Mean=.03, SD=.74), and the third independent variable "RFxMess2", which measures the effect of regulatory focus in message 1, ranged from to The dependent variable advertisement believability, was measured on a scale that ranged from 1 to 4.86 (Mean=2.71, SD=.79). As Table 15 shows, the regression was not significant F(3, 183)=1.00, p =.39. This result suggest that, for the Energy Gum (product 2), there is no significance in regulatory focus predicting consumer's advertising believability as Table 16 shows. Table 15 ANOVA regression analysis hypothesis 2 Energy Gum ANOVA regression analysis hypothesis 2 Energy Gum Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Regression b 1 Residual Total a. Dependent Variable: Advertisement Believability b. Predictors: (Constant), RFxMess2, Message 01 code, RF 49

57 Table 16 Unstandardized and standardized coefficients regression analysis hypothesis 2 Energy Gum Unstandardized and standardized coefficients regression analysis hypothesis 2 Energy Gum Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig. B Std. Error Beta (Constant) Message 01 code RF RFxMess a. Dependent Variable: Advertisement Believability Manual Calculation of the Advertisement Believability for Energy Gum As regressions are more difficult to analyze than ANOVAs, in terms of clear distinctions between promotion- and prevention-focused participants, it was decided to calculate the advertisement believability by hand for every focus, product and message. The results of the manual calculations for the promotion product Energy Gum are the following: For the promotion-focused participants, the advertisement believability was 2.52, for the eager message and 2.60 for the vigilant message. For the prevention-focused participants, the advertisement believability was 2.46, for the eager message, and 2.35, for the vigilant message, as Figure 11 shows. 50

58 Eager Message Vigilant Message Promotion Focus Prevention Focus Figure 11 Advertisement Believability for the Energy Gum product These results suggest that promotion-focused participants showed greater advertisement believability if they were presented with a vigilant advertisement than if they were presented with a vigilant advertisement. Prevention-focused participants, on the other hand, expressed greater advertisement believability if they saw the eager advertisement rather than the vigilant advertisement. These findings contradict Higgins' Regulatory Focus Theory. Further implications will be evaluated in the discussion section. Results Summary Energy Gum Hypothesis 2 Summarizing the findings from the regression analysis and the manual calculations for the Energy Gum product, the pattern found was the same. Hypothesis 2a must be rejected, as promotion-focused participants showed greater susceptibility to the vigilant advertisement. Hypothesis 2b has to be rejected as well, as prevention-focused participants reported greater advertisement believability if they saw the eager framed advertisement. Possible explanations for these results are discussed in the discussion and conclusion section. 51

59 4.5.3 Hypothesis 3 and 4 Hypothesis 3 and 4 address the two different product categories by stating that participants' regulatory focus will have a significant effect on whether or not participants like a certain product category. Hypothesis 3 states that "Overall, the Actifen advertisement is more likely to persuade people with a chronic prevention focus due to the nature of the product, regardless of the message frame of the advertisement". Hypothesis 4 states that "Overall, the Energy Gum advertisement is more likely to persuade promotion focused participants, due to the attributes of the product regardless of the message frame of the advertisement". To test the assumptions of hypotheses 3 and 4, a regression analysis was conducted to evaluate whether the Actifen advertisement (product 1) was more likely to persuade people who are prevention focused rather than promotion focused, regardless of the advertisement's message frame. Furthermore, the regression was aimed at testing whether the Energy Gum (product 2) was more likely to persuade promotion focused people rather than prevention focused people, regardless of the advertisement's message frame. The predictors were product, regulatory focus and "ProductxRF", measuring the effect of regulatory focus in message 1. The independent variable product had two terms " Actifen" (product 1) and "Energy Gum" (product 2). The second independent variable, regulatory focus, was measured on a scale ranging from to 2.13 (Mean=.03, SD=.74) and the third independent variable "ProductxRF" measured if the effect of the product differs in the regulatory focus conditions. This measure ranged from to The dependent variable "Imagine" measured the participants' intention to buy the product in a condition where they would need the product. It ranged from "very unlikely" to "very likely". As Table 17 shows, the regression was significant F(4, 360)=30.94, p <.01, with approximately 25% (adjusted R 2 =.248) of the variance in intention to buy was accounted for by the predictor variables, as shown in Table 18. The predictor variables, advertisement believability t(4)= 8.06, p<.01 and Product t(4)=-4.97, p<.01 explained a statistically significant amount of unique variance in intention to buy the product as shown in Table 19. The regulatory focus was, however, not significant t(4)= -.82, p=.41, nor was the ProdxRF t(4)=.34, p=

60 Table 17 ANOVA regression analysis hypothesis 3 & 4 for both products ANOVA regression analysis hypothesis 3 & 4 for both products Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Regression b 1 Residual Total a. Dependent Variable: Imagine b. Predictors: (Constant), Advertisement Believability, RF, Prod01, ProdxRF Table 18 Model Summary regression analysis hypothesis 3 & 4 for both products Model Summary regression analysis hypothesis 3 & 4 for both products Mod el R R Square Adjusted R Square Change Statistics Std. Error of the Estimate R Square Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change a a. Predictors: (Constant), Advertisement Believability, RF, Prod01, ProdxRF Table 19 Unstandardized and standardized coefficients regression analysis hypothesis 3 & 4 for both products Unstandardized and standardized coefficients regression analysis hypothesis 3 & 4 for both products Model 1 Unstandardized Coefficients t Sig. 95.0% Confidence Interval for B B Std. Error Beta Lower Bound Upper Bound Standardized Coefficients (Constant) ProdxRF Prod RF Advertisement Believability a. Dependent Variable: Imagine Since the regulatory focus measure was not significant, the results suggest that the regulatory focus has no effect on the participant's intention to buy the product. Hypotheses 3 and 4 therefore must be rejected. The significance of the prediction variable "product" 53

61 however suggests that participants liked Actifen (product 1) better than the Energy Gum (product 2). Chapter 5 Discussion The purpose of this study was firstly to test the Regulatory Focus Theory in a Western European country, to see whether the premises of the theory were also true outside of the North American context. Secondly, the purpose was to apply the Regulatory Focus Theory to two different product categories (promotion versus prevention), in order to assess whether the premises of the theory differed in any way for the two products. Thirdly, with the product category of the promotion product, it was interesting to assess whether the Regulatory Focus Theory is also applicable outside the health field. In the following sections, the results of this study will be discussed by hypothesis. Table 20 shows a summary of the results that emerged from the data. Table 20 Results distributed by hypothesis and product character Results distributed by hypothesis and product character Hypothesis 1 Prevention Product Actifen Promotion product Energy Gum Hypothesis 1a Hypothesis 1b Hypothesis 2 Hypothesis 2a Hypothesis 2b Hypothesis 3 Hypothesis Sample With a sample of 372 participants one can state that the sample size was big enough to be reliable (see sample description section). The original idea was to have at least 200 participants in order to have a minimum of 50 participants in each treatment group (Actifen 54

62 eager frame, Actifen vigilant frame, Energy Gum eager frame and Energy Gum vigilant frame). By exceeding the originally targeted number of participants by 172, there was added reliability in regards to the sample. The sample represented the Swiss citizens well in terms of gender distribution and nationality. 84,9% (n=316) of the participants perceived Switzerland as their home country. The population of Swiss citizenships in Switzerland is 77,2 (n= ) according to the Federal Statistical Office (FSO, 2011); at the University of Zurich, the majority are Swiss students, namely 82% (n=21.123) (FSO, 2013). It can therefore be concluded that the Swiss citizens are a little over-represented in the sample, but not to a critical extent. In the sample, there were 56,7% female participants (n=211), 37.1% male (n=138) and 6.23% (n=23) were missing. In the Swiss population, 50,8% are female and 49,3% are male. At the University of Zurich, out of a total of 25'732 students, 56% are female, and 43,1% were male. The sample of this study is therefore comprised proportionately of more female participants than the population of Switzerland. This is, however, also due to the fact that the population of the University of Zurich is also a little disproportional to the Swiss population. Regarding the age of the participants, the sample was representative for Switzerland only to a limited extent. As the sample consisted of university students (Bachelor, Master and PhD), the age ranged from 20 to 69 with a mean of 27.65, a mode of 24, and a standard deviation of The mean age of the Swiss population is however 41.5 (FSO, 2013). This means that regarding the age distribution, the sample does not represent the Swiss citizens very well. Taking the gender, the place of origin and the age in consideration it can however be concluded that the sample of this study represents the citizens of Switzerland well enough. 5.2 Hypothesis 1 Hypothesis 1 assessed whether the persuasion effect of consumers was greater if they were presented with an advertising message that was congruent versus incongruent with their regulatory focus. Hypothesis 1a suspected that consumers with a chronic promotion focus would be more persuaded by the eager means message than by the vigilant means message. And hypothesis 1b suspected that consumers with a chronic prevention focus would be more persuaded by the vigilant means message than by the eager means message. The results will be discussed separated by product category. 55

63 5.2.1 Prevention Product Actifen As discussed in the results section, hypothesis 1a had to be rejected for the prevention product Actifen, as promotion-focused participants showed greater susceptibility to the vigilant advertisement rather than the eager advertisement. Hypothesis 1b found support as the prevention-focused participants reported greater intention to buy the product if they saw the vigilant advertisement. The results for hypothesis 1a contradict the premise of the Regulatory Focus Theory, which says that promotion- focused individuals are more susceptible to eager messages that focus on attaining a certain goal. The result of hypothesis 1b, on the other hand, validate the premise of the RFT that states that prevention-focused individuals tend to be persuaded by vigilant messages emphasizing an orientation towards security and sensitivity (Cesario et al., 2004; Crowe & Higgins, 1997; Higgins, 1998). Interestingly, all participants seemed to be persuaded by the vigilant message rather than the eager message. This result might be due to the product characteristics of the Actifen product. As it is a muscle cream, it has the purpose of preventing pain and muscle ache. This might be the reason why the vigilant message was more persuasive as a vigilant message is more expected in a health context than an eager message Promotion Product Energy Gum Hypothesis 1a and 1b had to be rejected for the promotion product Energy Gum. The participants did not react to the advertisement messages in the way that the Regulatory Focus Theory proposes. In fact, the results were exactly the opposite of what the RFT proposes. Promotion-focused participants reported greater intention to buy the product if they had seen the vigilant advertisement and prevention-focused participants showed greater intention to buy the product if they had seen the eager advertisement. This might be due to the fact that individuals are accustomed to seeing advertisements for products that have promotion character, like beauty products, food products and lifestyle products (Solomon et al., 2010). This product category is mostly advertised with eager messages that try to convince the customers of the benefits of the products that promise to reach a certain goal (for example, having beautiful skin, enjoying the taste of delicious food or having an exciting ride in the new sports car). Having seen many of these eager messages of promotion products, consumers do not really pay attention to them anymore. However, they do pay attention to something new and extraordinary, like a message that is incongruent with their focus. If a prevention-focused individual is faced with an eager message for a promotion 56

64 product, it is something that is not consistent with their focus and results in greater attention being paid to the product and, therefore, persuasion. If a promotion-focused person is faced with a vigilant message of a promotion product, it is something new, that attracts the consumer's attention. Subsequently, this attention leads then to a greater persuasion effect. This idea of feeling attracted to the unexpected is not new. It is also reported in the construct of persuasion knowledge, developed by Friestad and Wright in 1994 (Friestad & Wright, 1994; Friestad & Wright, 1995). The authors found that consumers discover the marketer's intention of persuasion if the persuasive elements are too obvious in the advertising message. This is the case if the consumer is exposed to the advertisement too often or if the consumer is too familiar with the persuasive elements of the message as they are similar in many advertisements. In the context of this study, it can be concluded that the consumers discover the persuasive intention of the advertising message if the message is congruent with their regulatory focus. Because they expect an advertisement to "serve" their regulatory focus, they identify the intention of the advertisement. As the construct of persuasion knowledge explains, the consumer is not persuaded by the advertisement anymore if he or she recognizes its intention (Friestad & Wright, 1994; Friestad & Wright, 1995). Persuasion knowledge shows hereby why the participants were persuaded by the advertisement message that was incongruent with their focus. Because the message was incongruent, the participants did not instantly recognize the persuasive intention, and expressed therefore a higher likelihood of buying the advertised product Overarching Discussion Hypothesis 1 Overall, there was not much support for hypothesis 1 that suspected that "If the advertising message is congruent versus incongruent with consumer's regulatory focus, greater persuasion effects will result". Only for the Actifen product, there was support for the Regulatory Focus Theory what regards hypothesis 1b. The pattern for the Actifen product that the data analysis results, as well as the manual calculations showed, was partially in line with the premises of Regulatory Focus Theory. As shown in Table 8 in the results section, the effect of the vigilant message was however not significant for the Actifen product. The results for the promotion product Energy Gum contradicted the premises of the Regulatory Focus Theory. Despite contradictious findings for hypothesis 1, the results emerging of the data show an interesting 57

65 pattern that is valuable for marketers and advertisers. Considering hypothesis 1, the results illustrate that if marketers advertise a product with a prevention character like for example an over-the-counter drug, they would do well with using a vigilant advertisement message because this is more likely to persuade consumers of the benefits of the products which will lead to greater intention to buy the product. If the marketers advertise a product with promotion attributes like a consumer good product, they would do well with serving the target group with an advertising message that is incongruent to their regulatory focus because this is likely to result in higher persuasion. 5.3 Hypothesis 2 Hypothesis 2 assessed whether consumers' advertisement believability is greater if the advertising message is congruent versus incongruent with the consumers' regulatory focus. Following the premises of the Regulatory Focus Theory, hypothesis 2a stated: "The advertisement believability of consumers with a chronic promotion focus will be greater if they are presented with an eager means message than with a vigilant means message" (Cesario et al., 2004; Higgins, 1998; Higgins, 2005). Hypothesis 2b stated: "The advertisement believability of consumers with a chronic prevention focus will be greater if they are presented with a vigilant means message rather than an eager means message" Prevention Product Actifen As shown in the results section, hypotheses 2a and 2b were supported by the data for the prevention product Actifen. It was shown that promotion-focused participants showed greater advertisement believability if they were presented with the eager message. Prevention-focused participants, on the other hand, showed greater advertisement believability if they saw the vigilant message. These findings are in line with what Higgins' Regulatory Focus Theory proposes (Freitas & Higgins, 2002; Higgins, 1998; Higgins et al., 2001). Fransen and colleagues second these results by giving evidence that individuals have a more positive attitude towards the advertised products when their regulatory focus is congruent with the advertisement message frame (Fransen, Reinders, Bartels, & Maassen, 2010). The results are also in line with the findings of Fransen and colleagues who found, in their study about genetically modified food, that participants with a promotion focus showed greater intention to buy genetically modified foods if they were presented with the message framed in promotion-related terms (Fransen et al., 2010). 58

66 This pattern shows that the premise of the Regulatory Focus Theory holds for the Actifen product. It can be assumed that the explanation for this is the prevention product character of Actifen. As Boesen-Mariani and collegues state, the RFT is especially valuable to set to predict health-related behavior (Boesen-Mariani et al., 2010) Promotion Product Energy Gum The results for hypothesis 2 for the promotion product Energy Gum show the same pattern as they showed in hypothesis 1. Both hypotheses 2a and 2b did not find support in the data. The findings that emerged from the data of this study were contrary to the premises of the Regulatory Focus Theory (Higgins, 1998). Prevention-focused participants reported greater advertisement believability if they were shown an eager advertisement and promotionfocused participants' advertisement believability was higher if they have seen the vigilant advertisement. These findings contradict the premises of the Regulatory Focus Theory that state that promotion-focused individuals are susceptible to advertisements with an eager framed message and prevention-focused individuals are susceptible to vigilant framed messages (Cesario et al., 2004; Crowe & Higgins, 1997; Higgins, 1998). These findings can be explained with the construct of persuasion knowledge. The construct was developed by the researchers Friestad and Wright in 1994 and assesses how persuasion works (Friestad & Wright, 1994; Friestad & Wright, 1995). The authors state that if a consumer identifies the advertisers' strategic intention, a loss of credibility results. The authors summarize: "Consumers observe a full spectrum of subtle craftsmanship and transparent heavyhandedness in tactic execution" (Friestad & Wright, 1994). This explains why participants of this study found the message that was inconsistent with their focus more persuasive. The intention of the persuasive message was not obvious to them if the message was not consistent with their regulatory focus. When they saw the advertisement message that was consistent with their regulatory focus they recognized the intention of the advertisement and were not persuaded by the message. However, if they received a message that was incongruent with their focus, the type of message was novel to them, and they did not recognize the intention of the advertisement. This again, then, resulted in higher persuasion Overarching Discussion Hypothesis 2 Interestingly, for the prevention product Actifen, the premises of the Regulatory Focus Theory found support in the data of this study. A reason for this result might be the fact that the Regulatory Focus Theory was mostly applied and tested in the field of health (Aaker & 59

67 Lee, 2001; Chiu & Liu, 2012; Fransen et al., 2010; Kees et al., 2010; Keller, 2006; Kim, 2006). Therefore, the premise of the Regulatory Focus Theory holds for the health product Actifen, which has a prevention character. However, for the promotion product Energy Gum, the premise of the Regulatory Focus Theory does not hold in hypothesis 2. This might firstly be due to the same reason, that the RFT was mainly tested in a health context and not in the context of consumer products. Secondly, the reason might lie within the construct of persuasion knowledge as discussed in the section above. Individuals are very familiar with advertisements of promotion products, which let them recognize their persuasive intention. If the advertisement message was, however, not consistent with their regulatory focus, they paid attention to the unusual message frame, which resulted in persuasion and therefore higher advertisement believability. 5.4 Overarching Discussion Hypothesis 1 and 2 Even though the evidence is preliminary, the results for hypothesis 1 and 2 (taking the results for both products into consideration), suggest that the products (respectively the product character), cue a regulatory focus. As shown in the results section, for the prevention product Actifen, it seemed that consistent messages were superior. It is therefore suspected that a product with prevention character naturally cues prevention. A consumer is thus persuaded by the message that is consistent with his or her regulatory focus because this is what a consumer expects and is therefore well-known and safe. The promotion product on the other hand is suspected to cue promotion. Promotion messages are typical but may not command much attention. It is a widely known phenomenon in marketing literature, that novel messages or unexpected advertisements get consumer's attention. Marketers and advertisers are thus competing for the most innovative marketing campaign that gets the greatest buzz (Belch & Belch, 2004; Harvard Business Essentials, 2006; Solomon et al., 2010). Therefore, as the results show, a promotion-focused individual prefers a vigilant message and a prevention-focused person prefers an eager message. The messages that are incongruent with the individuals' regulatory focus are unexpected and may be perceived to provide novel information and are therefore elaborated more throughout. This is also consistent with Petty and Cacciopo's Elaboration Likelihood Model (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). The authors state that if the elaboration likelihood is high, the person attempts to access relevant information from internal and 60

68 external sources and makes inferences about the message arguments. This leads to the overall evaluation of and attitude toward the information (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986; Petty, Wegener, & Fabrigar, 1997). 5.5 Hypothesis 3 Hypothesis 3 stated that "Overall, the Actifen advertisement is more likely to persuade people with a chronic prevention focus due to the nature of the product, regardless of the message frame of the advertisement". Regarding this hypothesis, all participants with a prevention focus were suspected to like the Actifen product generally better than the Energy Gum product. This hypothesis emerged from findings from Chernev (2004), who states that prevention-focused subjects are more inclined to choose products with utilitarian attributes, for example products that prevent them from something (e.g., from pain). As discussed in the results section, hypothesis 3 was not supported by the data. There was no significant effect of the participant's regulatory focus on the persuasiveness of the Actifen advertisement. These findings are surprising, as they contradict the findings from Chernev (Chernev, 2004). That Chernev's results could be replicated in this study might have something to with the fact that the Regulatory Focus Theory was mainly tested with participants from the United States. It might be that the premises of the theory, therefore, do not hold for Western European culture. For Western European consumers, it might be that preventionfocused participants do not generally like a prevention product better but rather that it depends on the kind of message they are presented with, as the results of hypotheses 1 and 2 for the Actifen product also show. The problem that the Regulatory Focus Theory was mostly tested with Northern American students was also raised by other studies that questioned whether the premises of the regulatory focus hold for other cultures (Boesen- Mariani et al., 2010; Semin et al., 2005). Semin and colleagues (2005) state that "the fact that these scales (the regulatory focus scales) were validated almost exclusively on samples of North American students raises problems of cultural adaptation" (p. 39). It is therefore suspected, as discussed for hypotheses 1 and 2, that Swiss consumers prefer advertisement 61

69 messages that are congruent with their regulatory focus, if a prevention product is advertised. 5.6 Hypothesis 4 Hypothesis 4 stated that "Overall, the Energy Gum advertisement is more likely to persuade promotion focused participants due to the attributes of the product regardless of the message frame of the advertisement". Regarding this hypothesis, all participants with a promotion focus were said to like the Energy Gum product generally better than the Actifen product. As discussed in the results section, hypothesis 4 was not supported by the data. There was no significant effect of the participant's regulatory focus on the persuasiveness of the Energy Gum advertisement. These results do not hold against the findings of Chernev who found that promotion-focused subjects tend to choose products having hedonic attributes (Chernev, 2004). These findings can be explained with the same arguments as reported in the section above. Boesen-Mariani and colleagues (2010), as well as Semin and colleagues (2005), mention the problem that the premises of the Regulatory Focus Theory might not hold in a culture which is different from the Northern American culture, as the Regulatory Focus Theory was mainly been tested with Northern American students. It might therefore be the case that promotion-focused Western European consumers do not generally prefer eager framed products but rather products that are advertised with a message incongruent to their regulatory focus (as discussed in the results section of hypotheses 1 and 2). 5.7 Strengths and Limitations While contributing to the current understanding of regulatory focus and its influence on persuasion and advertisement effectiveness, a number of limitations of this study must be mentioned. First of all, the regulatory focus of participants was measured and not induced. It would have been interesting to make two studies where in one, the regulatory focus of participants was measured and in the other, the regulatory focus was induced momentarily, such as in the study of Cesario, Grant and Higgins (Cesario et al., 2004). 62

70 Secondly, the advertisements were created by the author of this master's thesis who is a master's student and not a graphic designer, nor a certified advertiser or marketer. Due to valuable courses in marketing as well as the ambition to learn how to handle the imageediting software, the resulting advertisements were however good and satisfactory. The advertisement credibility has furthermore been assessed by manipulation check measures as reported in the results section of this study. The results showed that the advertisements were perceived as suspected and therefore the manipulation worked significantly. Furthermore, a pretest of the advertisements showed that the students who were pretesting the material reported finding them credible and well-made. A third challenge emerged from the design of the study. As four different advertisements (Actifen eager frame, Actifen vigilant frame, Energy Gum eager frame, Energy Gum vigilant frame) were used, the questions had to be split into four different questionnaires, as the questions had to be adapted to the advertisement the participants had seen. Participants who had seen the Actifen advertisement (prevention product) were, for example, asked if they had experienced recent muscle pain (for more details of this measure see methods section and appendix 8.1). Participants who saw the Energy Gum advertisement (promotion product) were asked whether they had experienced any unusual fatigue recently (for more details of this measure see methods section and appendix 8.1). The questionnaires therefore had to be computed to the survey software Qualtrics in a way that the software randomly distributed one out of four advertisements to the participants. The computation of the questionnaire to the software was therefore a challenge for the author that was overcome with help from extensive literature about the software and its randomization functions. A fourth limitation is the uncertainty as to whether the sample of 372 students from the University of Zurich reliably represents the population of Swiss citizens. It was chosen to draw the sample from the University of Zurich because, according to the Federal Statistical Office, it is the largest university in Switzerland (FSO, 2011). Furthermore, the population of the University of Zurich students is comprised by students from all the cantons of Switzerland, even though the students from Zurich are overrepresented due to the location of the university (FSO, 2013). Overall, it can however be assumed that the sample is at least moderately representative for Swiss citizens. 63

71 Whether the sample represents the Western European culture is difficult to assess; this can therefore be considered another limitation. Lastly, the relatively high drop-out rate can be mentioned as a limitation. Why respondents dropped out is difficult to assess. It was however visible from the data that many participants dropped out during the first five questions. The reasons for the drop-outs can therefore only be guessed and include possible difficulties with the English language or simply loss of motivation to respond to the survey. Having mentioned the limitations of this study, there are also some valuable strengths. Firstly, the sample size of 372 is relatively large and can therefore be considered reliable. Secondly, the comparison of four different advertisements (Actifen eager frame, Actifen vigilant frame, Energy Gum eager frame, Energy Gum vigilant frame) has beard great potential to receive valuable results for academia as well as for marketers and advertisers. The results showed that the findings were, indeed, interesting and valuable. Thirdly, this study contributes to the existing body of literature about the Regulatory Focus Theory in a valuable way, because it is one of only a few studies carried out in a Western European context. It can therefore contribute to improve marketing strategies for Western European consumers. Fourthly, to the best of the author's knowledge, it is, at this point, the first study to test the Regulatory Focus Theory in Switzerland. 5.8 Future Research Following the discussion of results, as well as the limitations and strengths of this study, suggestions for future research can be made. Firstly, it would be valuable, in general, to repeat a study that tests the Regulatory Focus Theory in Switzerland, as the Regulatory Focus Theory has been mostly tested in the Northern American context (Boesen-Mariani et al., 2010). 64

72 Secondly, it would be valuable to make another study testing the Regulatory Focus Theory in a Western European context and then analyzing the results together with the few studies carried out in Western Europe in a meta-analysis. Studies that could be included in the meta-analysis are Wert and Foersters (2007) study, How regulatory focus influences consumer behavior, that was carried out in Germany, Fransen and colleagues (2010) study, The influence of regulatory fit on evaluation and intentions to buy genetically modified foods: The mediating role of social identification, that was carried out in the Netherlands, as well as Tudoran and colleagues (2012) study, Regulatory Focus, self-efficacy and outcome expectations as drivers of motivation to consumer healthy food products, that included two studies. One was carried out in Denmark, the other in France, Spain and Poland. Thirdly, it would be valuable to repeat this study, dividing it into two parts. In one part, the regulatory focus of participants could be measured and in the second part the regulatory focus could be induced, as, for example, in the study of Cesario and colleagues (Cesario et al., 2004). A study like this would give the possibility to compare the results of the two studies. Furthermore, through the induction of the regulatory focus, reliable distinctions between prevention- and promotion-focused participants could be made. Chapter 6 Conclusion Higgins conceptualizes in the Regulatory Focus Theory that individuals have a predominant regulatory focus which influences their goal-attainment strategies (Higgins, 1998; Higgins, 2005; Higgins et al., 2001). Cesario and colleagues (2004) state that "a promotion focus represents goal pursuit in terms of hopes and aspirations (ideals) and entails an orientation toward accomplishment and a sensitivity to the presence and absence of gain/non-gain outcomes. A prevention focus represents goal pursuit in terms of duties and obligations (oughts) and entails an orientation toward security and a sensitivity to the presence and absence of non-loss/loss outcomes" (Cesario et al., 2004, p. 389). The Regulatory Focus Theory demonstrates that, due to self-regulatory functions, higher needs or goals such as safety and ideals have an important influence on consumer behavior which includes cognitive, motivational, and behavioral components (Werth & Foerster, 2007). 65

73 Academia widely agrees and acknowledges the value of Regulatory Focus Theory for marketing and advertising. The premises of Regulatory Focus Theory state that advertising effectiveness is given if a prevention-focused consumer is targeted with a vigilant message and a promotion-focused individual is targeted with an eager message (Cesario et al., 2004; Higgins, 1998; Werth & Foerster, 2007). If the advertising messages are targeted to the consumer, greater persuasion effects result. Boesen-Mariani and colleagues (2010) summarize as follows: "The notion of regulatory focus turns out to be useful in marketing because it can lead to a better understanding of what underlies consumer behavior and so can better match marketing methods to the subjects targeted or to the purchasing, communication or consumption context" (p. 88). The goal of this master's thesis was to test the premises of the Regulatory Focus Theory in the Western European context of Switzerland. Furthermore, two different product categories were compared to assess whether the premises of Regulatory Focus Theory holds for products with promotion character as well as prevention character. The following sections will draw conclusions from the results and discussion of this study. 6.1 Premises of the Regulatory Focus Theory As shown in the discussion section, there was support for hypothesis 1b for the Actifen product, as well as support for both hypotheses 2a and 2b for the Actifen product. Hypotheses 1a and 1b as well as hypotheses 2a and 2b had to be rejected for the promotion product Energy Gum. Hypotheses 3 and 4 had to be rejected, as well. Despite the fact that not all hypotheses have found support, the results of this study are very interesting and bear great value and potential for marketers and advertisers. The study has shown that regarding the Actifen product (prevention product), the consistent message seems to have the greatest success. Promotion-focused participants were persuaded by the eager message (with the exception of hypothesis 1a) and preventionfocused participants were persuaded by the vigilant message. It can therefore be concluded that for Swiss customers, a marketer is likely to have greatest success if a product with prevention character is advertised with messages that are consistent with the target audiences' regulatory focus. 66

74 As regards the promotion product Energy Gum, the result of this study contradicted the premises of the Regulatory Focus Theory. Prevention-focused participants were persuaded by the eager message and promotion-focused participants were persuaded by the vigilant message. As discussed in the previous section, this might be connected to the novel and unexpected information that an inconsistent message contains. This leads to greater attention and therefore to higher elaboration. It can therefore be assumed that marketers are likely to achieve the greatest advertising effectiveness if they advertise a promotion product with a message that is inconsistent to the target audience's regulatory focus. That the results did only partially support the premises of the Regulatory Focus Theory might also related to the fact that the regulatory focus was tested, assuming that that individuals are either promotion- or prevention focused (Cesario et al., 2004; Fransen et al., 2010). Various studies have shown, however, that individuals have both prevention and promotion characteristics (Boesen-Mariani et al., 2010; Higgins et al., 2001). It can therefore be stated that certain individuals are either on the upper half of the regulatory focus scale, meaning that they have some more promotion characteristics or that individuals are on the lower half of the regulatory focus scale, meaning that they have some more prevention attributes. Higgins (1998) seconds these findings, stating that individuals have both prevention and promotion attributes and that they use, depending on the situation, a different focus. He states that "Regulatory focus is not only socialized but also varies according to situations as well as across individuals. It can vary chronically or momentarily" (p. 16). 6.2 Regulatory Focus Theory and Product Character As illustrated in the results and discussion section of this study, hypotheses 3 and 4 did not find support in the data. Apparently, Swiss prevention-focused individuals did not show greater susceptibility to the product with prevention character (as suspected in hypothesis 3). Neither did promotion-focused participants show greater susceptibility to the product with promotion character (as suspected in hypothesis 4). As explained in the discussion section, the results might be explained by the fact that the Regulatory Focus Theory was mainly tested in a North American context. It is possible that the pattern is different for 67

75 Swiss consumers or consumers from a Western European context in general. It would be interesting to assess in a following study how this pattern differs for Swiss consumers. An explanation for the non-significant results for hypotheses 3 and 4 might be the finding that the products themselves (respectively the product character), cue a regulatory focus. As elaborated in the discussion section, the evidence for this assumption is preliminary but the data show an interesting pattern. If the assumption was true and the product character cues the regulatory focus, rather than the regulatory focus, influencing the perceived persuasiveness of a message, this would pave the way for a new route in consumer behavior literature. This would mean that marketers would need to adapt the advertising message to the product character rather than to the regulatory focus of the target audience. This preliminary evidence is very interesting, indeed, and may be subject of a next study in the context of consumer behavior and Regulatory Focus Theory. Overall, it can be concluded that this study contributes significantly to the existing body of literature regarding the Regulatory Focus Theory. As it is the first study carried out in Switzerland one can hope that this study will pave the way for future studies that test the Regulatory Focus Theory in the Western European context. 68

76 7 References References Aaker, J. L., & Lee, A. Y. (2001). "I" seek pleasures and "we" avoid pains: The role of selfregulatory goals in information processing and persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(1), Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychological Bulletin, 84(5), 888. Baron, R. A., & Byrne, D. E. (Eds.). (1984). Social psychology: Understanding human interaction Allyn and Bacon Boston. Belch, G., & Belch, M. (2004). Advertising and promotion: An integrated marketing communications perspective McGraw Hill, New York. Beltramini, R. F. (2006). Consumer believability of information in direct-to-consumer (DTC) advertising of prescription drugs. Journal of Business Ethics, 63(4), Bemmaor, A. C. (1995). Predicting behavior from intention-to-buy measures: The parametric case. Journal of Marketing Research,, Boesen-Mariani, S., Gomez, P., & Gavard-Perret, M. (2010). Regulatory focus: A promising concept for marketing research. Recherche Et Applications En Marketing (English Edition), 25(1),

77 Bosmans, A., & Baumgartner, H. (2005). Goal Relevant emotional information: When extraneous affect leads to persuasion and when it does not. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(3), Briley, D. A., & Wyer, R. S. (2002). The effects of group membership on the avoidance of negative outcomes: Implications for social and consumer decisions. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(3), Cesario, J., Grant, H., & Higgins, E. T. (2004). Regulatory fit and persuasion: Transfer from "feeling right". Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 86(3), doi: / Chernev, A. (2004). Goal orientation and consumer preference for the status quo. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(3), Chiu, Y., & Liu, W. (2012). The influence of fitness between message framing and audience regulatory focus on green concern advertisements persuasion effect. Chinese Business Review, 11(9), Crowe, E., & Higgins, E. T. (1997). Regulatory focus and strategic inclinations: Promotion and prevention in decision-making. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 69(2), Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers. Fransen, M. L., Reinders, M. J., Bartels, J., & Maassen, R. L. (2010). The influence of regulatory fit on evaluation and intentions to buy genetically modified foods: The 70

78 mediating role of social identification. Journal of Marketing Communications, 16(1), doi: / Freitas, A. L., & Higgins, E. T. (2002). Enjoying goal-directed action: The role of regulatory fit. Psychological Science (Wiley-Blackwell), 13(1), 1. Friestad, M., & Wright, P. (1994). The persuasion knowledge model: How people cope with persuasion attempts. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(1), Friestad, M., & Wright, P. (1995). Persuasion knowledge: Lay people's and researchers' beliefs about the psychology of advertising. Journal of Consumer Research, 22(1), Haley, R. I., & Baldinger, A. L. (2000). The ARF copy research validity project. Journal of Advertising Research, 40(06), Harvard Business Essentials (Ed.). (2006). Marketers toolkit. the 10 streategies you need to succeed. (1st ed.). Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press. Haws, K. L., Dholakia, U. M., & Bearden, W. O. (2010). An assessment of chronic regulatory focus measures. Journal of Marketing Research (JMR), 47(5), doi: /jmkr Higgins, T. E. (1998). Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as A motivational principle. Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 1-46) Academic Press. doi: /s (08) Higgins, T. E. (2005). Value from regulatory fit. Current Directions in Psychological Science (Wiley-Blackwell), 14(4), doi: /j x 71

79 Higgins, T. E., Friedman, R. S., Harlow, R. E., Idson, L. C., Ayduk, O. N., & Taylor, A. (2001). Achievement orientations from subjective histories of success: Promotion pride versus prevention pride. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31(1), Kamins, M. (1989). Celebrity and noncelebrity advertising in a two-sided context. Journal of Advertising Research, Kees, J., Burton, S., & Tangari, A. H. (2010). The impact of regulatory focus, temporal orientation, and fit on consumer responses to health-related advertising. Journal of Advertising, 39(1), Keller, P. A. (2006). Regulatory focus and efficacy of health messages. Journal of Consumer Research, 33(1), Kim, Y. (2006). The role of regulatory focus in message framing in antismoking advertisements for adolescents. Journal of Advertising, 35(1), Kirmani, A., & Zhu, R. (2007). Vigilant against manipulation: The effect of regulatory focus on the use of persuasion knowledge. Journal of Marketing Research,, Kumar, V., Aaker, D. A., & Day, G. S. (2002). Essentials of marketing research Wiley New York, NY. Lee, A. Y., & Aaker, J. L. (2004). Bringing the frame into focus: The influence of regulatory fit on processing fluency and persuasion. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 86(2),

80 Lutz, R. J. (1985). Affective and cognitive antecedents of attitude toward the ad: A conceptual framework. Psychological Processes and Advertising Effects,, MacKenzie, S. B., Lutz, R. J., & Belch, G. E. (1986). The role of attitude toward the ad as a mediator of advertising effectiveness: A test of competing explanations. Journal of Marketing Research (JMR), 23(2), Maslow, A. H. (1943). Theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50, Molden, D. C., Lee, A. Y., & Higgins, E. T. (2008). Motivations for promotion and prevention. (pp ) Novak, T. P., & Hoffman, D. L. (2009). The fit of thinking style and situation: New measures of situation specific experiential and rational cognition. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(1), Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Communication and persuasion (pp. 1-24) Springer. Petty, R. E., Wegener, D. T., & Fabrigar, L. R. (1997). Attitudes and attitude change. Annual Review of Psychology, 48(1), Pham, M. T., & Avnet, T. (2004). Ideals and oughts and the reliance on affect versus substance in persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(4), Pham, M. T., & Higgins, E. T. (2005). Promotion and prevention in consumer decisionmaking. 73

81 Pollay, R. W., & Mittal, B. (1993). Here's the beef: Factors, determinants and segments in consumer criticism of advertising. Journal of Marketing, 57(3), Semin, G. R., Higgins, T., de Montes, L. G., Estourget, Y., & Valencia, J. F. (2005). Linguistic signatures of regulatory focus: How abstraction fits promotion more than prevention. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(1), 36. Solomon, M. R., Bamossy, G., & Askegaard, S. (2010). Consumer behaviour: A european perspective Financial Times/Prentice Hall. Spiegel, S., Grant-Pillow, H., & Higgins, E. T. (2004). How regulatory fit enhances motivational strength during goal pursuit. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34(1), doi: /ejsp.180 Stroebe, W., Jonas, K., & Hewstone, M. R. (2002). Sozialpsychologie: Eine einführung Springer DE. Trudel, R., Murray, K. B., & Cotte, J. (2012). Beyond expectations: The effect of regulatory focus on consumer satisfaction. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 29(1), Tudoran, A. A., Scholderer, J., & Brunsø, K. (2012). Regulatory focus, self-efficacy and outcome expectations as drivers of motivation to consume healthy food products. Appetite, 59(2), doi: /j.appet Ware, J. E., Kosinski, M., Dewey, J. E., & Gandek, B. (2000). SF-36 health survey: Manual and interpretation guide Quality Metric Inc. 74

82 Werth, L., & Foerster, J. (2007). How regulatory focus influences consumer behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37(1), Zanna, M. P., & Rempel, J. K. (1988). Attitudes: A new look at an old concept. 75

83 8 Appendices 8.1 Questionnaires Questionnaire Actifen Eager Frame Master's Thesis Andrea Heller Survey Actifen eager frame Dear Participant Thank you for taking time to participate in my survey. Your response will provide valuable data for my master's thesis. I am a former student of the University of Zürich and am now graduating from the University of Lugano. My study has the purpose to gain information about different advertisement messages. Your participation in the survey is voluntary and you may refuse to participate at any time if you wish to do so. Please note that all of your data is kept strictly confidential. If you decide to participate in the study, please answer the questions honestly. There is no right or wrong answer. You will need approximately 5 minutes to complete the questionnaire. You will have the chance to win one out of three H&M vouchers worth CHF 20 each if you decide to participate in the lottery. Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact me at this address: andrea.ursula.heller@usi.ch Thank you for participating in my survey! Regulatory Focus 1. Compared to most people, are you typically unable to get what you want out of life? Never (1) Rarely (2) Sometimes (3) Often (4) All of the Time (5) 76

84 2. Growing up, would you ever cross the line by doing things that your parents would not tolerate? Never (1) Rarely (2) Sometimes (3) Often (4) All of the Time (5) 3. How often have you accomplished things that got you psyched to work even harder? Never (1) Rarely (2) Sometimes (3) Often (4) All of the Time (5) 4. Did you get on your parents nerves often when you were growing up? Never (1) Rarely (2) Sometimes (3) Often (4) All of the Time (5) 5. How often did you obey rules and regulations that were established by your parents? Never (1) Rarely (2) Sometimes (3) Quite Often (4) Very Often (5) 6. Growing up, did you ever act in ways that your parents thought were objectionable? Never (1) Rarely (2) Sometimes (3) Often (4) All of the Time (5) 77

85 7. Do you often do well at different things that you try? Never (1) Rarely (2) Sometimes (3) Often (4) All of the Time (5) 8. Not being careful enough has gotten me into trouble at times Never (1) Rarely (2) Sometimes (3) Often (4) All of the Time (5) 9. When it comes to achieving things that are important to me, I find that I don t perform as well as I ideally would like to do Strongly Disagree (1) Disagree (2) Neither Agree nor Disagree (3) Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5) 10. feel like I have made progress toward being successful in my life Strongly Disagree (1) Disagree (2) Neither Agree nor Disagree (3) Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5) 11. I have found very few hobbies or activities in my life that capture my interest or motivate Strongly Disagree (1) Disagree (2) Neither Agree nor Disagree (3) Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5) 78

86 Opinion toward advertising 12. Please indicate to what extent you agree with the following statements Advertising is essential (1) In general, advertising is misleading (2) Quite often, advertising is amusing and entertaining (3) Advertising persuades people to buy things they should not buy (4) Most advertising insults the intelligence of the average consumer (5) Advertising results in better products for the public (6) Strongly Disagree (1) Disagree (2) Neither Agree nor Disagree (3) Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5) 79

87 13. You will now see an advertisement. Please take the time you need to look at the advertisement and then click on the button below which forwards you to the next set of questions. 14. Timing First Click (1) Last Click (2) Page Submit (3) Click Count (4) 80

88 Advertisment believability 15. I consider the advertisement I have just seen as 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) Unbelievable:Believable (1) Untrustworthy:Trustworthy (2) Unconvincing:Convincing (3) Not credible:credible (4) Unreasonable:Reasonable (5) Dishonest:Honest (6) Unquestionable:Questionable (7) Attitude toward product 16. Please rate how you feel about the product in the advertisement you have just seen Negative:Positive (1) Not at all favorable:very favorable (2) 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) Bad:Good (3) Behavioral Intention Please indicate whether you would consider buying the product you have seen in the advertisement I would not consider buying the product:i would consider buying the product (1) 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 81

89 Expected product performance 18. Please rate how much you agree with the following statements The product would relieve my muscles after exercising (1) The product would be pleasant to use (2) Strongly Disagree (1) Disagree (2) Somewhat Disagree (3) Neither Agree nor Disagree (4) Somewhat Agree (5) Agree (6) Strongly Agree (7) Experience 19. Have you ever bought a muscle cream like Actifen before? Yes (1) No (2) Behavioral intention Do you intend to buy a muscle cream like Actifen in the next 4 months? Very Unlikely (1) Unlikely (2) Somewhat Unlikely (3) Undecided (4) Somewhat Likely (5) Likely (6) Very Likely (7) 82

90 Behavioral Intention Please imagine that you have a muscle pain. Considering this situation, would you buy a muscle cream like Actifen? Very Unlikely (1) Unlikely (2) Somewhat Unlikely (3) Undecided (4) Somewhat Likely (5) Likely (6) Very Likely (7) Health Measures 22. In general, would you say your health is Very Poor (1) Poor (2) Fair (3) Good (4) Very Good (5) 23. During the past 4 weeks, have you had any of the following problems with your work or other regular daily activities as a result of your physical health? Cut down the amount of time you spent on work or other regular daily activities as a result of your physical health (1) Accomplished less than you would like (2) Were limited in the kind of work or other activities you could perform (3) Had difficulties performing the work or other activities (4) Yes (1) No (2) 83

91 24. How much bodily pain have you had during the past 4 weeks? None (1) Very mild (2) Mild (3) Moderate (4) Severe (5) Very severe (6) 25. During the past 4 weeks, how much did pain interfere with your normal work? Not at all (1) A Little bit (2) Moderately (3) Quite a bit (4) Extremely (5) Recall Measures 26. What do you remember best about the advertisement? Text (1) Product (2) Background image (3) Colors (4) Other, please specify (5) 27. Please indicate the slogan of the advertisement that you have just seen Try Actifen for instant muscle relaxation! (1) Try Actifen to avoid muscle pain after sports! (2) Try Actifen for beautiful skin! (3) Try Actifen to avoid wrinkles! (4) 84

92 Manipulation Check Measures 28. Please rate how much you agree on the following statements The advertisement I saw contained ideas about enhancement (1) The advertisement I saw contained ideas about prevention (2) The advertisement I saw contained ideas about reaching a certain state (3) The advertisement I saw contained ideas about preventing a certain state (4) Strongly Disagree (1) Disagree (2) Somewhat Disagree (3) Neither Agree nor Disagree (4) Somewhat Agree (5) Agree (6) Strongly Agree (7) Demographics To finish the survey, some demographic questions: 29. Please indicate your age in years (e.g. 25) 85

93 30. Please indicate your gender Male (1) Female (2) 31. Please indicate the country that you perceive as your home country Switzerland (1) Germany (2) Italy (3) France (4) Other, please specify (5) Thank you very much for your participation in my survey! Please note that the advertisement you have seen was created for the purpose of this study only. Any similarity to an existing advertisement is unintentional. If you wish to participate in the lottery, please enter your address in the box below. In any case please click the button below to finish the survey. Thank you Questionnaire Actifen Vigilant Frame Master's Thesis Andrea Heller Survey Actifen vigilant frame 86

94 Dear Participant Thank you for taking time to participate in my survey. Your response will provide valuable data for my master's thesis. I am a former student of the University of Zürich and am now graduating from the University of Lugano. My study has the purpose to gain information about different advertisement messages. Your participation in the survey is voluntary and you may refuse to participate at any time if you wish to do so. Please note that all of your data is kept strictly confidential. If you decide to participate in the study, please answer the questions honestly. There is no right or wrong answer. You will need approximately 5 minutes to complete the questionnaire. You will have the chance to win one out of three H&M vouchers worth CHF 20 each if you decide to participate in the lottery. Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact me at this address: andrea.ursula.heller@usi.ch Thank you for participating in my survey! Regulatory Focus 1. Compared to most people, are you typically unable to get what you want out of life? Never (1) Rarely (2) Sometimes (3) Often (4) All of the Time (5) 2. Growing up, would you ever cross the line by doing things that your parents would not tolerate? Never (1) Rarely (2) Sometimes (3) Often (4) All of the Time (5) 3. How often have you accomplished things that got you psyched to work even harder? Never (1) Rarely (2) Sometimes (3) Often (4) All of the Time (5) 87

95 4. Did you get on your parents nerves often when you were growing up? Never (1) Rarely (2) Sometimes (3) Often (4) All of the Time (5) 5. How often did you obey rules and regulations that were established by your parents? Never (1) Rarely (2) Sometimes (3) Quite Often (4) Very Often (5) 6. Growing up, did you ever act in ways that your parents thought were objectionable? Never (1) Rarely (2) Sometimes (3) Often (4) All of the Time (5) 7. Do you often do well at different things that you try? Never (1) Rarely (2) Sometimes (3) Often (4) All of the Time (5) 8. Not being careful enough has gotten me into trouble at times Never (1) Rarely (2) Sometimes (3) Often (4) All of the Time (5) 88

96 9. When it comes to achieving things that are important to me, I find that I don t perform as well as I ideally would like to do Strongly Disagree (1) Disagree (2) Neither Agree nor Disagree (3) Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5) 10. feel like I have made progress toward being successful in my life Strongly Disagree (1) Disagree (2) Neither Agree nor Disagree (3) Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5) 11. I have found very few hobbies or activities in my life that capture my interest or motivate Strongly Disagree (1) Disagree (2) Neither Agree nor Disagree (3) Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5) 89

97 Opinion toward advertising 12. Please indicate to what extent you agree with the following statements Advertising is essential (1) In general, advertising is misleading (2) Quite often, advertising is amusing and entertaining (3) Advertising persuades people to buy things they should not buy (4) Most advertising insults the intelligence of the average consumer (5) Advertising results in better products for the public (6) Strongly Disagree (1) Disagree (2) Neither Agree nor Disagree (3) Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5) 90

98 13. You will now see an advertisement. Please take the time you need to look at the advertisement and then click on the button below which forwards you to the next set of questions. 14. Timing First Click (1) Last Click (2) Page Submit (3) Click Count (4) 91

99 Advertisment believability 15. I consider the advertisement I have just seen as 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) Unbelievable:Believable (1) Untrustworthy:Trustworthy (2) Unconvincing:Convincing (3) Not credible:credible (4) Unreasonable:Reasonable (5) Dishonest:Honest (6) Unquestionable:Questionable (7) Attitude toward product 16. Please rate how you feel about the product in the advertisement you have just seen Negative:Positive (1) Not at all favorable:very favorable (2) 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) Bad:Good (3) Behavioral Intention Please indicate whether you would consider buying the product you have seen in the advertisement I would not consider buying the product:i would consider buying the product (1) 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 92

100 Expected product performance 18. Please rate how much you agree with the following statements The product would relieve my muscles after exercising (1) The product would be pleasant to use (2) Strongly Disagree (1) Disagree (2) Somewhat Disagree (3) Neither Agree nor Disagree (4) Somewhat Agree (5) Agree (6) Strongly Agree (7) Experience 19. Have you ever bought a muscle cream like Actifen before? Yes (1) No (2) Behavioral intention Do you intend to buy a muscle cream like Actifen in the next 4 months? Very Unlikely (1) Unlikely (2) Somewhat Unlikely (3) Undecided (4) Somewhat Likely (5) Likely (6) Very Likely (7) 93

101 Behavioral Intention Please imagine that you have a muscle pain. Considering this situation, would you buy a muscle cream like Actifen? Very Unlikely (1) Unlikely (2) Somewhat Unlikely (3) Undecided (4) Somewhat Likely (5) Likely (6) Very Likely (7) Health Measures 22. In general, would you say your health is Very Poor (1) Poor (2) Fair (3) Good (4) Very Good (5) 23. During the past 4 weeks, have you had any of the following problems with your work or other regular daily activities as a result of your physical health? Cut down the amount of time you spent on work or other regular daily activities as a result of your physical health (1) Accomplished less than you would like (2) Were limited in the kind of work or other activities you could perform (3) Had difficulties performing the work or other activities (4) Yes (1) No (2) 94

102 24. How much bodily pain have you had during the past 4 weeks? None (1) Very mild (2) Mild (3) Moderate (4) Severe (5) Very severe (6) 25. During the past 4 weeks, how much did pain interfere with your normal work? Not at all (1) A Little bit (2) Moderately (3) Quite a bit (4) Extremely (5) Recall Measures 26. What do you remember best about the advertisement? Text (1) Product (2) Background image (3) Colors (4) Other, please specify (5) 27. Please indicate the slogan of the advertisement that you have just seen Try Actifen for instant muscle relaxation! (1) Try Actifen to avoid muscle pain after sports! (2) Try Actifen for beautiful skin! (3) Try Actifen to avoid wrinkles! (4) 95

103 Manipulation Check Measures 28. Please rate how much you agree on the following statements The advertisement I saw contained ideas about enhancement (1) The advertisement I saw contained ideas about prevention (2) The advertisement I saw contained ideas about reaching a certain state (3) The advertisement I saw contained ideas about preventing a certain state (4) Strongly Disagree (1) Disagree (2) Somewhat Disagree (3) Neither Agree nor Disagree (4) Somewhat Agree (5) Agree (6) Strongly Agree (7) 96

104 29. To finish the survey, some demographic questions: Please indicate your age in years (e.g. 25) 30. Please indicate your gender Male (1) Female (2) 31. Please indicate the country that you perceive as your home country Switzerland (1) Germany (2) Italy (3) France (4) Other, please specify (5) Thank you very much for your participation in my survey! Please note that the advertisement you have seen was created for the purpose of this study only. Any similarity to an existing advertisement is unintentional. If you wish to participate in the lottery, please enter your address in the box below. In any case please click the button below to finish the survey. Thank you Questionnaire Energy Gum Eager Frame Master's Thesis Andrea Heller Survey Energy Gum eager frame Dear Participant Thank you for taking time to participate in my survey. Your response will provide valuable data for my master's thesis. I am a former student of the University of Zürich and am now graduating from the University of Lugano. My study has the purpose to gain information about different advertisement messages. Your participation in the survey is voluntary and you may refuse to participate at any time if you wish to do so. Please note that all of your data is kept strictly confidential. If you decide to participate in the study, 97

105 please answer the questions honestly. There is no right or wrong answer. You will need approximately 5 minutes to complete the questionnaire. You will have the chance to win one out of three H&M vouchers worth CHF 20 each if you decide to participate in the lottery. Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact me at this address: andrea.ursula.heller@usi.ch Thank you for participating in my survey! Regulatory Focus 1. Compared to most people, are you typically unable to get what you want out of life? Never (1) Rarely (2) Sometimes (3) Often (4) All of the Time (5) 2. Growing up, would you ever cross the line by doing things that your parents would not tolerate? Never (1) Rarely (2) Sometimes (3) Often (4) All of the Time (5) 3. How often have you accomplished things that got you psyched to work even harder? Never (1) Rarely (2) Sometimes (3) Often (4) All of the Time (5) 4. Did you get on your parents nerves often when you were growing up? Never (1) Rarely (2) Sometimes (3) Often (4) All of the Time (5) 98

106 5. How often did you obey rules and regulations that were established by your parents? Never (1) Rarely (2) Sometimes (3) Quite Often (4) Very Often (5) 6. Growing up, did you ever act in ways that your parents thought were objectionable? Never (1) Rarely (2) Sometimes (3) Often (4) All of the Time (5) 7. Do you often do well at different things that you try? Never (1) Rarely (2) Sometimes (3) Often (4) All of the Time (5) 8. Not being careful enough has gotten me into trouble at times Never (1) Rarely (2) Sometimes (3) Often (4) All of the Time (5) 9. When it comes to achieving things that are important to me, I find that I don t perform as well as I ideally would like to do Strongly Disagree (1) Disagree (2) Neither Agree nor Disagree (3) Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5) 99

107 10. feel like I have made progress toward being successful in my life Strongly Disagree (1) Disagree (2) Neither Agree nor Disagree (3) Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5) 11. I have found very few hobbies or activities in my life that capture my interest or motivate Strongly Disagree (1) Disagree (2) Neither Agree nor Disagree (3) Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5) 100

108 Opinion toward advertising 12. Please indicate to what extent you agree with the following statements Advertising is essential (1) In general, advertising is misleading (2) Quite often, advertising is amusing and entertaining (3) Advertising persuades people to buy things they should not buy (4) Most advertising insults the intelligence of the average consumer (5) Advertising results in better products for the public (6) Strongly Disagree (1) Disagree (2) Neither Agree nor Disagree (3) Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5) 101

109 13. You will now see an advertisement. Please take the time you need to look at the advertisement and then click on the button below which forwards you to the next set of questions. 14. Timing First Click (1) Last Click (2) Page Submit (3) Click Count (4) 102