Advertisement

Marketing Letters

, Volume 28, Issue 4, pp 509–522 | Cite as

What is not beautiful should match: how attractiveness similarity affects consumer responses to advertising

  • Magdalena Bekk
  • Matthias Spörrle
  • Franziska Völckner
  • Erika Spieß
  • Ralph Woschée
Article
  • 854 Downloads

Abstract

This study introduces the concept of attractiveness similarity, empirically examines its main effect and whether it moderates the effect of endorser attractiveness on consumer responses to advertising. The results show a positive main effect of attractiveness similarity over and above the mere effect of endorser attractiveness. In addition, a consistent moderating effect of attractiveness similarity on the effect of endorser attractiveness emerges: attractiveness similarity buffers against the less positive effects of lower levels of endorser attractiveness (i.e., it compensates for lower levels of endorser attractiveness). Overall, these findings reveal attractiveness similarity as a new variable in endorser advertising, which has important managerial implications. Advertising campaigns employing averagely attractive endorsers should pay special attention to attractiveness similarity.

Keywords

Advertising Endorsement Congruence Attractiveness Attractiveness similarity 

References

  1. Agthe, M., Spörrle, M., Frey, D., Walper, S., & Maner, J. K. (2013). When romance and rivalry awaken: attractiveness-based social judgment biases emerge at adolescence. Human Nature, 24, 182–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Agthe, M., Spörrle, M., Frey, D., & Maner, J. K. (2014). Looking up versus looking down: attractiveness-based organizational biases are moderated by social comparison direction. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 44, 40–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aguirre-Rodriguez, A., Bosnjak, M., & Sirgy, M. J. (2012). Moderators of self-congruity effect on consumer decision-making: a meta-analysis. Journal of Business Research, 65, 1179–1188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Becker, D. V., Kenrick, D. T., Guerin, S., & Maner, J. K. (2005). Concentrating on beauty: sexual selection and sociospatial memory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bekk, M., & Spörrle, M. (2010). The influence of perceived personality characteristics on positive attitude towards and suitability of a celebrity as a marketing campaign endorser. The Open Psychology Journal, 3, 54–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bekk, M., Spörrle, M., & Kruse, J. (2016). The benefits of similarity between tourist and destination personality. Journal of Travel Research, 55, 1008–1021.Google Scholar
  7. Bower, A. B., & Landreth, S. (2001). Is beauty best? Highly versus normally attractive models in advertising. Journal of Advertising, 30, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Breivik, E., & Thorbjørnsen, H. (2008). Consumer brand relationships: an investigation of two alternative models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36, 443–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Byrne, D., Clore, G. L., & Smeaton, G. (1986). The attraction hypothesis: do similar attitudes affect anything? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1167–1170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Caruso, J. C. (2004). A comparison of the reliabilities of four types of difference scores for five cognitive assessment batteries. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 20, 166–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Choi, S. M., & Rifon, N. J. (2012). It is a match: the impact of congruence between celebrity image and consumer ideal self on endorsement effectiveness. Psychology and Marketing, 29, 639–650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cialdini, R. B. (2001). Harnessing the science of persuasion. Harvard Business Review, 79(9), 72–81.Google Scholar
  13. Cialdini, R. B., & Rhoads, K. V. L. (2001). Human behavior and the marketplace. Marketing Research, 13(3), 9–13.Google Scholar
  14. Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  15. Durante, K. M., Li, N. P., & Haselton, M. G. (2008). Changes in womenʼs choice of dress across the ovulatory cycle: naturalistic and laboratory task-based evidence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1451–1460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Feingold, A. (1988). Matching for attractiveness in romantic partners and same-sex friends: a meta-analysis and theoretical critique. Psychological Bulletin, 104, 226–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Feingold, A. (1992). Good-looking people are not what we think. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 304–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Foos, P. W., & Clark, M. C. (2011). Adult age and gender differences in perceptions of facial attractiveness: beauty is in the eye of the older beholder. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 172, 162–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Griskevicius, V., & Kenrick, D. T. (2013). Fundamental motives: how evolutionary needs influence consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23, 372–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Henss, R. (1991). Perceiving age and attractiveness in facial photographs. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21, 933–946.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Janssen, D. M., & Paas, L. J. (2014). Moderately thin advertising models are optimal, most of the time: moderating the quadratic effect of model body size on ad attitude by fashion leadership. Marketing Letters, 25, 167–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kahle, L. R., & Homer, P. M. (1985). Physical attractiveness of the celebrity endorser: a social adaptation perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 11, 954–961.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kamins, M. A. (1990). An investigation into the ‘match-upʼ hypothesis in celebrity advertising: when beauty may be only skin deep. Journal of Advertising, 19, 4–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kressmann, F., Sirgy, M. J., Herrmann, A., Huber, F., Huber, S., & Lee, D.-J. (2006). Direct and indirect effects of self-image congruence on brand loyalty. Journal of Business Research, 59, 955–964.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lee, J.-G., & Thorson, E. (2008). The impact of celebrity-product incongruence on the effectiveness of product endorsement. Journal of Advertising Research, 48, 433–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Little, A. C., Jones, B. C., & DeBruine, L. M. (2011). Facial attractiveness: evolutionary based research. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 366, 1638–1659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Liu, M. T., Huang, Y.-Y., & Minghua, J. (2007). Relations among attractiveness of endorsers, match-up, and purchase intention in sport marketing in China. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 24, 358–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Marcus, D. K., & Miller, R. S. (2003). Sex differences in judgments of physical attractiveness: a social relations analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 325–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mussweiler, T. (2003). Comparison processes in social judgment: mechanisms and consequences. Psychological Review, 110, 472–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Muthen, B., & Kaplan, D. (1985). A comparison of some methodologies for the factor analysis of non-normal Likert variables. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 38, 171–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pechmann, C., & Stewart, D. W. (1990). The effects of comparative advertising on attention, memory, and purchase intentions. Journal of Consumer Research, 17, 180–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 123–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Schumann, D. (1983). Central and peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness: the moderating role of involvement. Journal of Consumer Research, 10, 135–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ratner, R. K., & Kahn, B. E. (2002). The impact of private versus public consumption on variety-seeking behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 29, 246–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rhodes, G. (2006). The evolutionary psychology of facial beauty. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 199–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rosenbaum, M. E. (1986). The repulsion hypothesis: on the nondevelopment of relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1156–1166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ryu, G., Park, J., & Feick, L. (2006). The role of product type and country-of-origin in decisions about choice of endorser ethnicity in advertising. Psychology and Marketing, 23, 487–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Taylor, L. S., Fiore, A. T., Mendelsohn, G. A., & Cheshire, C. (2011). “Out of my league”: a real-world test of the matching hypothesis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 942–954.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Till, B. D., & Busler, M. (2000). The match-up hypothesis: physical attractiveness, expertise, and the role of fit on brand attitude, purchase intent and brand beliefs. Journal of Advertising, 29, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Weeden, J., & Sabini, J. (2005). Physical attractiveness and health in western societies: a review. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 635–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Witt, U. (2010). Symbolic consumption and the social construction of product characteristics. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 21, 17–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Magdalena Bekk
    • 1
  • Matthias Spörrle
    • 2
  • Franziska Völckner
    • 1
  • Erika Spieß
    • 3
  • Ralph Woschée
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Marketing and Brand ManagementUniversity of CologneCologneGermany
  2. 2.Private University Seeburg Castle (Privatuniversität Schloss Seeburg)Seekirchen am WallerseeAustria
  3. 3.Department of Psychology, Chair of Economic and Organizational PsychologyUniversity of Munich (LMU)MunichGermany

Personalised recommendations