Advertisement

Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science

, Volume 17, Issue 3, pp 217–225 | Cite as

An empirical analysis of spokesperson characteristics on advertisement and product evaluations

  • Susan M. Petroshius
  • Kenneth E. Crocker
Article

Abstract

This article reports the results of an experimental investigation of the influence of a communicator’s characteristics on respondent’s evaluation of an advertisement when the communicator is in the role of a spokesperson. Specifically, the author assesses the impact of the physical attractiveness, sex and race of a spokesperson, the sex of the respondent and product advertised on respondent’s attitude toward the advertisement, and respondent’s perceptions of the advertised product.

The results presented indicate that the effectiveness of the factors mentioned are dependent on the specific objective of the communication. A main effect of physical attractiveness was noted on a subject’s attitude toward the advertisement, on perceptions of product quality and intent to purchase. The sex of the communicator impacted on a subject's perception of product quality and interacted with the race of the communicator to effect the intent to purchase variable. Race was shown to effect the subject’s perception of product quality. A main effect of the sex of the subject was noted for the cognition variable.

Keywords

Black Communicator Physical Attractiveness American Market Association Advertising Research White Communicator 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Baker, Michael J. and Gilbert A. Churchill, Jr. 1977. “The Impact of Physically Attractive Models on Advertising Evaluations.”Journal of Marketing Research XIV (November): 538–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barban, Arnold and Edward W. Cundiff 1964. “Negro and White Response to Advertising Stimuli.”Journal of Marketing Research 1 (November): 53–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barban, Arnold M. 1969. “The Dilemma of Integrated Advertising.”The Journal of Business of the University of Chicago 42 (October): 477–496.Google Scholar
  4. Benoy, Joseph W. “The Credibility of Physically Attractiveness Communicators: A Review.”Journal of Advertising 11: 15–24.Google Scholar
  5. Berscheid, E.K. and E. Walster 1974. “Physical Attractiveness.” In L. Berkowitz, ed.Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  6. Block, Carl E. 1972. “White Backlash to Negro Ads: Fact or Fantasy?”Journalism Quarterly 49 (Summer): 253–262.Google Scholar
  7. Bush, Ronald F., Joseph F. Hair, Jr., and Paul J. Solomon 1979. “‘Consumers’ Level of Prejudice and Response to Black Models in Advertisements.”Journal of Marketing Research 16 (August): 341–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Caballero, Marjorie and William M. Pride 1984. “Selected Effects of Salesperson Sex and Attractiveness in Direct Mail Advertisements.”Journal of Marketing (Winter): 94–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Caballero, Marjorie and Paul J. Solomon 1984. “Effects of Model Attractiveness on Sales Response.”Journal of Advertising 13 (1): 17–23.Google Scholar
  10. Cagley, James W. and Richard N. Cardozo 1970. “White Responses to Integrated Advertising.”Journal of Marketing Research 10 (April): 35–39.Google Scholar
  11. Cavior, N. 1970. “Physical Attractiveness, Perceived Attitude Similarity, and Interpersonal Attraction Among Fifth and Eleventh Grade Boys and Girls.” Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Houston.Google Scholar
  12. Clifford, M.M. and E. Walster. 1973. “The Effect of Physical Attractiveness on Teacher Expectations.”Sociology of Education 46: 248–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Debevec, Kathleen and Jerome B. Keman 1984. “More Evidence on the Effects of a Presenter’s Physical Attractiveness.”Advances in Consumer Research. Thomas Kinnear, ed., 11: 127–132.Google Scholar
  14. Dion, Karen K. and E. Berscheid 1972. “Physical Attractiveness and Social Perception of Peers in Preschool Children.” Unpublished Research Report available from the authors.Google Scholar
  15. Dion, Karen K., E. Berscheid, and E. Walster 1972. “What is Beautiful is Good.”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 24: 285–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Frieden, Jon B. 1984. “Advertising Spokesperson Effects: An Examination of Endorser Type and Gender on Two Audiences.”Journal of Advertising Research 24 (October/November): 33–41.Google Scholar
  17. Green, Paul 1978.Analyzing Multivariate Data. Hinsdale, Illinois: The Dryden Press.Google Scholar
  18. Guest, Lester 1979. “How Negro Models Affect Company Image.”Journal of Marketing Research 10 (April): 29–33.Google Scholar
  19. Hair Jr,, Joseph F. et al. 1979.Multivariate Data Analysis. Tulsa, Oklahoma: Petroleum Publishing Co.Google Scholar
  20. Horai, J., N. Naccari and E. Fatoullah 1974. “The Effects of Expertise and Physical Attractiveness Upon Opinion Agreement and Liking.”Sociometry 37: 601–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Humphrey, Ronald and Howard Schuman 1984. “The Portrayal of Blacks in Magazine Advertisements: 1950–1982.”Public Opinion Quarterly 48 (Fall): 551–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jacoby, Jacob 1978. “Consumer Research: A State of the Art Review”,Journal of Marketing 42 (April): 87–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kahle, Lynn R. and Pamela M. Homer 1985. “Physical Attractiveness of the Celebrity Endorser: A Social Adaptation Perspective.”Journal of Consumer Research 11 (March): 954–961.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kanungo, R.N. and S. Pang 1973. “Effects of Human Models on Perceived Product Quality.”Journal of Applied Psychology 57: 172–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kelly, Harold 1973. “The Processes of Causal Attribution.”American Psychologist 28: 107–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Landy, D. and H. Sigall 1974. “Beauty is Talent: Task Evaluation as a Function of the Performer’s Physical Attractiveness.”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 29: 299–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Miller, A.G. 1978. “Role of Physical Attractiveness in Impression Formation.”Psychonomic Science, 103–110.Google Scholar
  28. Muse, William W. 1971. “Product-Related Response to Use of Black Models in Advertising.”Journal of Marketing Research 8 (February): 107–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Olson, Jerry C. 1974. “Cue Properties of Price: Literature Review and Theoretical Considerations.” Paper No. 20, Working Series in Marketing Research, College of Business Administration, Pennsylvania State University.Google Scholar
  30. Patzer, Gordon L. 1983a. “Product Perception as a Function of Communicator Sex.” Educators’Proceedings. Patrick E. Murphy et al., ed., Chicago: American Marketing Association, 41–44.Google Scholar
  31. —, 1983b. “An Experiment Investigating the Influence of Communicator Physical Attractiveness on Attitudes,” Educators’Proceedings. Patrick E. Murphy et al., ed., Chicago: American Marketing Association, 25–29.Google Scholar
  32. Peterson, Robert A. and Roger A. Kerin 1977. “The Female Rose in Advertisements: Some Experimental Evidence.”Journal of Marketing (October): 59–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Richmond, David and Timothy P. Hartman 1982. “An Exploratory Study of Sex Appeal in Advertising.”Journal of Marketing Research 22: 5 (October/November): 53–61.Google Scholar
  34. Schlinger, Mary Jane and Joseph T. Plummer 1972. “Advertising in Black and White.”Journal of Marketing Research 9 (May): 149–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sibley, Stanley D., Ralph B. Weller and Eldon L. Little 1982. “An Exploratory Study of the Effect of the Female Model Upon Respondents’ Evaluations of Simulated Television Advertisements and Products”.Proceedings. Southern Marketing Association Annual Conference, John H. Summey et al., eds. 22–24.Google Scholar
  36. Smith, G.H. and R. Engel 1968. “Influence of a Female Model on Perceived Characteristics of an Automobile.”Proceedings. 76th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, 3: 681–682.Google Scholar
  37. Snyder, Mark and Myron Rothbart 1971. “Communicator Attractiveness and Opinion Change.”Canadian Journal of the Behavioral Sciences 3 (October): 377–387.Google Scholar
  38. Solomon, Paul J., Ronald F. Bush and Joseph F. Hair, Jr. 1976. “White and Black Consumer Sales Response to Black Models.”Journal of Marketing Research (November): 431–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Solomon, Paul J. and Ronald F. Bush 1977. “Effects of Black Models in Television Advertising on Product Choice Behavior.” InContemporary Marketing Thought. Bamett A. Greenberg and Danny N. Bellenger, eds., Chicago: American Marketing Association, 19–22.Google Scholar
  40. Stafford, James E., Al E. Birdwell and Charles E. Van Tussel 1970. “Integrated Advertising—White Backlash?”Journal of Advertising Research 10 (April): 15–20.Google Scholar
  41. Steadman, M. 1969. “How Sexy Illustration Affect Brand Recall.”Journal of Advertising Research 9 (February):15–19.Google Scholar
  42. Tolley, Stuart and John T. Goett 1972. “Reactions to Blacks in Newspaper Ads.”Journal of Marketing Research 11 (April): 11–17.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Academy of Marketing Science 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Susan M. Petroshius
    • 1
  • Kenneth E. Crocker
    • 1
  1. 1.Bowling Green State UniversityBowling GreenUSA

Personalised recommendations