The document summarizes a study that examined the effects of emotionally charged pet images (positive, negative, or a mix) on viewers' intentions to act. The study found that negatively charged images led to greater reported willingness to donate or contact an organization compared to positive or mixed images. However, positive images were rated as most liked. The results suggest negative images may be better for eliciting actions while positive images are preferred.

1. The Effects of
Emotionally Charged Pet
Images on Viewers’
Intentions to Act
By Katrin Haller
Department of Psychology
Lindenwood University

2. Overview
This presentation will include the following:
• Introduction
• My Study
Hypotheses
Participants
Materials
Results
Discussion
• Acknowledgement
• References

3. Introduction
• Advertisements today require much thought and
creativity (Alwitt, 2002)
• There are several methods to get the attention of the
viewers (Alwitt, 2002),
including
Emotional framing, either positively or
negatively (Zhang & Buda, 1999)
Negative framing seems to be used quite often and
there are several arguments for and against its usage

4. For Negativity
• There are more donations after negative associations
with a poster (Barnett & Hammond, 1999)
• Negative ads receive more attention from the viewer
(Bradley, Angelini, & Lee, 2007)
• Negative messages are remembered better (Bradley et
al., 2007)

5. Against Negativity
• Donation after negative associations was from
people who were least likely to donate overall
(Barnett & Hammond, 1999)
• Details of remembered negative ads are often lost
(Bradley et al., 2007)
• Information is added to remembered negative ads
which was not available (Bradley et al., 2007)
• Negative attitudes may be created in viewers if they
perceive the ad as untruthful, unfair, repulsive, and
disgusting (Bradley et al., 2007)
• The source of the ad may be perceived negatively
(Bradley et al., 2007)

6. Against Negativity
• Negative political ads:
There might be a relation to a
decrease in political
participation
Viewers show physiological
signs of wanting to move away
while watching negative ads
Viewers show and self-report
physiological arousal while
watching these ads
(Bradley, et al., 2007)

7. Combination?
Some studies have shown that a
combination of negative and positive instead of using just
either one may be beneficial:
• Better recall for ads which elicit positive and negative
emotions (Alwitt, 2002)
• Switch from evoking negative affect to positive affect may
be a win-win communcations strategy:
the negativity creates a perception of
seriousness, while the positivity allows hope (Olsen &
Pracejus, 2004)

8. Other Influences
Zhang and Buda (1999):
• Need for cognition: “The statistical tendency of and
intrinsic enjoyment individuals derive from engaging in
effortful information processing” (p. 3)
• Negative messages seem more influential for people
with a low need for cognition
• Many variables play into advertisements including the
mentioned ones, but also positioning, presentation, etc.

9. Aid Advertisements
• Aid advertisements often show images which would be
rated rather negatively (Kennedy & Hill, 2010)
• Animal welfare organizations especially, such as the
Humane Society, seem to use negative advertisements in
order to raise donations and find adopters
• But does it really work?

10. My Study
• The study focuses on the effects of emotionally charged
pet images on viewers’ impressions and intentions to act
• The results of the study could:
Be beneficial to animal welfare organizations;
so they may know what type of ads speak to the
audience and with which they are most likely to
achieve their goals, including receiving donations
Inspire future research in the topic and for other
organizations which also use advertisements for their
purpose

11. Hypotheses
1) Positively charged images or a mix of positively and
negatively charged images will elicit more
attention, donation, contact, and adoption than
negatively charged images
2) Negatively charged images will be rated the worst and
thus liked the
least

12. Participants
• 63 Lindenwood Undergraduate Students
• 44 women, 19 men
• Between 18-28 years; M=19.76, SD=1.97
• 26 Freshmen, 15 Sophomores, 13 Juniors, 9 Seniors
• 89% fond of pets, 5% not fond of pets, 6% other
• 44 own a pet/pets, 19 do not own a pet
• Exposed to ads mostly on TV
(M=4.1, SD=1.22), followed by the Internet
(M=3.6, SD=1.29)

13. Materials & Procedure
• Three PowerPoint slide shows were shown to each
participant in random order; each contained different
images with each image being shown for 5 seconds
8 positive images (4 cat images, 4 dog images)
8 negative images (4 cat images, 4 dog images)
8 positive and negative images (4 cat images, 4 dog
images)

14. Image Examples

15. Materials & Procedure
• Attitude Survey: was given to the participants after
watching each slide show
• Ranking Survey: was given to the participants once they
watched all three slide shows
• Demographic Survey: was
given to the participants at
the end of the study

16. Attitude Survey

17. Attitude Survey

18. Ranking Survey

19. Demographic Survey

20. Image Examples

21. Results Attitude Survey
The following two questions were analyzed using the Cochran’s Q analysis
because they were dichotomous but had more than two conditions
(emotional charge):
• Do people pay more attention to negative, positive, or mixed images?
Cochran’s Q: 2(2) = 1.448, p = .485
• Are people more likely to adopt after watching negative, positive, or mixed
images?
Cochran’s Q: 2(2) = 4.174, p = .124
 There were no significant differences between the three conditions and the
likelihood of paying attention/changing the channel and
willingness/unwillingness to adopt

22. Results Attitude Survey
The following two questions were analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA
as they were on a Likert scale with three conditions. The degrees of freedom
were adjusted according to the Greenhouse-Geisser correction due to the
data violating the assumption of sphericity.
• Are people more likely to donate after watching negative, positive, or mixed
images?
ANOVA: F(1.82, 112.84) = 12.25, p < .001
Post Hoc: Negative significantly different from both, positive (p<.001) and
mix (p=.001)
• Are people more likely to contact the organization after watching
negative, positive, or mixed images?
ANOVA: F(1.67, 102.11) = 3.75, p = .034
Post Hoc: Negative significantly different from both, positive (p=.039) and
mix (p=.008)
 Students were significantly more willing to donate/contact if negative images
were used compared to positive and a mix of positive/negative images

23. Results Ranking Survey
For the ranking a Friedman’s ANOVA was conducted because of it compares
frequencies and the repeated measures.
• Friedman’s ANOVA: 2(2) = 15.859, p < .001
Post Hoc: Positive ranked significantly higher than both, negative (p=.005)
and mix (p<.001)
 The positive images were ranked as liked the most significantly more than
were the negative and the mix of negative/positive images

24. Discussion
There are several reasons for the results:
• The first hypothesis, that students would indicate that
they were more likely to pay
attention, donate, contact, and adopt when positively or
a mix of images were to be used, was not supported:
Different emotions (negative is perceived as more
serious)
Need/Urgency for help more prevalent in negative
images
Exposure effect (negative is seen as more effective)
• The second hypothesis, that of the three slide shows the
negative one would be ranked worst, was supported:
People usually prefer happy over sad images

25. Limitations & Future
Research
These are limitations of the study which should be
addressed in the future:
• Convenience sampling
limits sample variability
• Self-made surveys
problems with reliability & validity
• Use of image slide shows instead of actual
advertisements
influence of other variables (i.e.
music)

26. Acknowledgement
My appreciation and thanks goes to Dr. Michiko Nohara-
LeClair from Lindenwood University who has supervised
and supported me throughout this study and has been a
tremendous help to me throughout my career at
Lindenwood.
Arigatou gozaimasu!

27. References
Alwitt, L.F. (2002). Suspense and advertisement responses. Journal of
Consumer Psychology, 12(1), 35-39.
Barnett, J. & Hammond, S. (1999). Representing disability in charity
promotions. Journal of Community & Applied Social
Psychology, 9(4), 309-314.
Bradley S.D., Angelini, J.R., & Lee, S. (2007). Psychophysiological and
memory effects of negative political ads. Journal of
Advertising, 36(4), 115-127.
Kennedy, S. & Hill, S. (2010). Global poverty, aid advertisements, and
cognition: Do media images of the developing world lead to positive
or negative responses in viewers. New Zealand Journal of
Psychology, 39(2), 56-66.
Olsen, G.D. & Pracejus, J.W. (2004). Integration of positive and
negative affective stimuli. Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 14(4), 374-384.
Zhang, Y. & Buda, R. (1999). Moderating effects of need for cognition
on responses to positively versus negatively framed advertising
messages. Journal of Advertising, 28(2), 1-15.