Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Effects of susceptibility to normative influence and type of testimonial on attitudes toward print advertising
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Effects of susceptibility to normative influence and type of testimonial on attitudes toward print advertising

7,330
views

Published on

Great presentation about an article with the same name. A good way to start understanding the power of testimonials on advertising.

Great presentation about an article with the same name. A good way to start understanding the power of testimonials on advertising.

Published in: Business, Design

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
7,330
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Effects Of Susceptibility To Normative Influence And Type Of Testimonial On Attitudes Toward Print Advertising BRETT A. S. MARTIN, DANIEL WENTZEL, AND TORSTEN TOMCZAK Apresentação: Gustavo Viegas
  • 2. Background  Testimonials in Advertising  3rd most used  “workhorse selling tool”  Susceptibility to Normative Influence (SNI)  “… readiness to conform to others' expectations regarding purchases, and the need to identify with others, or enhance one’s image by acquiring products or brands” (Bearden, Netemeyer, and Teel 1989).
  • 3. Research Hypotheses  Study 1 – typical person endorser  Effects of SNI, Testimonial Quality and Attribute Quality on Attitudes H1a – High SNI + Strong testimonial quality H1b – Low SNI + Strong attribute quality  Valence cognitions’ mediator effects H2a – High SNI -> valence of testimonial thoughts = mediator H2b – Low SNI -> valence of attribute thoughts = mediator  Study 2 – celebrity endorser  “Study 2 tests the generalizability of the results found in Study 1 using a celebrity endorser rather than a TP endorser.”
  • 4. Study 1 – Hypotheses 1a and 1b  Study design  2 (High SNI, Low SNI) x 2 (testimonial quality: strong, weak) x 2 (attribute quality: strong, weak)  Participants and product criteria  Independent variables  Dependent variables and covariates  Attitudes  Cognitive Responses  Covariates
  • 5. Study 1 – Results – H1a  Manipulation checks were ok
  • 6. Study 1 – Results – H1a  H1a check!
  • 7. Study 1 – Results – H1b  Significant for Attitude toward the brand  Marginally significant for PI (p = .06)
  • 8. Study 1 – Results – H1b  H1b partially check!
  • 9. Study 1 – Hypotheses 2a and 2b  Mediation tested using path analysis (Baron and Kenny, 1986)  Valence of Testimonial Cognitions (VTC)  Valence of Attribute Cognitions (VAC)  Positive – Negative testimonial/attribute thoughts  Valence cognitions’ mediator effects  H2a – High SNI -> valence of testimonial thoughts = mediator  H2b – Low SNI -> valence of attribute thoughts = mediator
  • 10. Study 1 – Results – H2a  “The effect of testimonial quality was reduced by 23% when VTCs were included in the model for Aad (β = .31, p < .01)”  H2a supported!
  • 11. Study 1 – Results – H2b  “The effect of testimonial quality was reduced by 23% when VTCs were included in the model for Aad (β = .31, p < .01)”  H2b partially supported!
  • 12. Study 1 - Discussion  Evaluations of a TP endorser are influenced by consumer’s level of SNI  High SNI respond more favorably to strong testimonial quality  Partially mediated by valenced testimonial cognitions  Low SNI respond more favorably to strong attribute quality  Partially mediated by valenced attribute cognitions  Cue to Study 2 – what if the endorser is a celebrity?  Authors believed that High SNIs would be more influenced by this factor
  • 13. Study 2 – Results  No significant interaction!
  • 14. Study 2 – Results – H1a/H1b  H1a and H1b confirmed also for celebrity endorser!
  • 15. Study 2 – Results – H2a  “The effect of testimonial quality was reduced by 25% when VTCs were included in the model for Aad (β = .24, p < .01)”  H2a also supported for celebrity endorser
  • 16. Study 2 – Results – H2b  “The effect of attribute quality on Aad was reduced by 21% when VACs were included in the model (β = .27, p < .01).”  H2b also supported for celebrity endorser
  • 17. Study 2 - Discussion  No hypothetical interactions revealed on MANCOVA  Analysis by SNI level confirmed previous hypotheses  High SNIs influenced by strong endorsements, but only for brand attitudes  Low SNIs influenced by attribute quality across all dependent variables
  • 18. General discussion  High SNIs elaborate more than Low SNIs  High SNIs do get impacted by endorser  Low SNIs focus on product attribute  Contributions  Linking Normative Susceptibility to Testimonial influence on ads  Showing the low SNIs do not care for endorsers  Shedding light on the importance of style to High SNIs  Managerial implications  Know your audience!  Don’t spend on a celebrity if your viewers are High SNIs  Don’t use testimonials if your viewers are Low SNIs  Further research  Investigate why High SNIs evaluated TP endorser better  Limitations  Which other individual differences affect responses to testimonials  Strong vs. very strong testimonials  Reaction if other elements of marketing mix are included in advertising