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

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1

Notes

  1. 1.

    The direction of effects and their significance remained the same for all criteria (apart from the main effect of attractiveness similarity on attitude toward the product, which was no longer significant) when transforming the endorser attractiveness ratings perceived by participants into a binary endorser attractiveness variable and using this variable (instead of the experimental factor) as predictor in the analyses.

  2. 2.

    We examined whether it makes a difference if the consumer or the endorser is perceived as more attractive than the other. We ran an additional regression analysis with endorser attractiveness, attractiveness similarity, and a binary variable for the direction of the distance as predictors. Corroborating the relevance of our attractiveness similarity indicator, we obtained no significant effect for the direction of the distance. Thus, the buffering effect of attractiveness similarity only depends on the absolute distance, but not on the specific attractiveness constellation of consumer and endorser.

  3. 3.

    In general, people’s evaluation of their own attractiveness is in line with how their attractiveness is judged by others (Marcus and Miller 2003).

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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

  7. Bower, A. B., & Landreth, S. (2001). Is beauty best? Highly versus normally attractive models in advertising. Journal of Advertising, 30, 1–12.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Feingold, A. (1992). Good-looking people are not what we think. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 304–341.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Griskevicius, V., & Kenrick, D. T. (2013). Fundamental motives: how evolutionary needs influence consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23, 372–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Henss, R. (1991). Perceiving age and attractiveness in facial photographs. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21, 933–946.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Mussweiler, T. (2003). Comparison processes in social judgment: mechanisms and consequences. Psychological Review, 110, 472–489.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 123–162.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Rhodes, G. (2006). The evolutionary psychology of facial beauty. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 199–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Rosenbaum, M. E. (1986). The repulsion hypothesis: on the nondevelopment of relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1156–1166.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Weeden, J., & Sabini, J. (2005). Physical attractiveness and health in western societies: a review. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 635–653.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Witt, U. (2010). Symbolic consumption and the social construction of product characteristics. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 21, 17–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Magdalena Bekk.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bekk, M., Spörrle, M., Völckner, F. et al. What is not beautiful should match: how attractiveness similarity affects consumer responses to advertising. Mark Lett 28, 509–522 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-017-9428-3

Download citation

Keywords

  • Advertising
  • Endorsement
  • Congruence
  • Attractiveness
  • Attractiveness similarity