Attitude Toward a Comparative Advertisement: the Role of an Endorser

Citation:

Sekar Raju, Priyali Rajagopal, and H. Rao Unnava (2002) ,"Attitude Toward a Comparative Advertisement: the Role of an Endorser", in NA - Advances in Consumer Research Volume 29, eds. Susan M. Broniarczyk and Kent Nakamoto, Valdosta, GA : Association for Consumer Research, Pages: 480-481.

Advances in Consumer Research Volume 29, 2002     Pages 480-481

ATTITUDE TOWARD A COMPARATIVE ADVERTISEMENT: THE ROLE OF AN ENDORSER

Sekar Raju, Ohio State University

Priyali Rajagopal, Ohio State University

H. Rao Unnava, Ohio State University

Research has shown that comparative advertisements generate less favorable attitudes to the advertisement (A_ad) than non-comparative advertisements (Belch 1981; Gorn and Weinberg 1984; Grewal et al. 1997), but attitude to the advertised brand is more favorable with comparative advertisements than with non-comparative advertisements.

In this study, we focus on this inconsistency between A_ad and attitude toward the brand. We identify the factors that lead to less favorable evaluation of a comparative advertisement. We then report the results of an experiment that examined the effect of a positively rated endorser in mitigating the negative evaluation of a comparative advertisement.

Past research has identified that comparative ads are more offensive, impersonal, less friendly, less pleasant, more aggressive, and more intense (see Droge 1989) suggesting that negative feelings drive people’s unfavorable attitude toward a comparative advertisement.

Other findings indicate that comparative ads were less believable, appear to evoke lower source believability (Swinyard 1981), and generate more source derogations than noncomparative advertisement, suggesting that the unfavorable A_ad may be driven by cognitions. Thus, the literature on comparative advertising suggests that both affective and cognitive processes drive A_ad.

To reduce the negative affective and cognitive responses of a consumer to a comparative advertisement, we propose using an endorser (person) as the source of the information in the advertisement. The endorser’s credibility is expected to compensate for the lack of believability and reduce source derogations, while likability is expected to reduce the occurrence of negative feelings about the comparative advertisement. Overall, a positively rated source is expected to eliminate the inconsistency often found with comparative advertisements (source effect).

Further, if the change in A_ad is mainly because of the changes in the affective dimension of A_ad, then the use of a liked and credible endorser is expected to reduce the perceived level of aggression, etc., of comparative advertisements. If the change in A_ad is mainly due to changes in the cognitive dimension, then source derogation should reduce, believability of the advertisement and positive advertisement related thoughts should increase. Thus, by studying these changes we should be able to identify the cause for the change in A_ad.

An experiment was conducted to test the hypotheses. Athletic shoes was chosen as the target product category with a fictitious brand, Racer, as our target brand and a very well known brand, Adidas, as the comparison brand. Three different versions of a fictitious comparative advertisement were prepared (No Endorser; Strong Endorser; Weak Endorser). For the Strong Endorser we used a positively rated university basketball coach, while for the Weak Endorser we used a relatively unknown high school basketball coach. The Weak Endorser condition is included in our design to rule out the alternative explanation that the effects noticed are due to the mere presence of the endorser rather than due to a liked and credible endorser.

Eighty-nine students participated in the study. The study examined the differences between the three levels of the endorser (No Endorser, Weak Endorser, and Strong Endorser) in a comparative ad setting. Subjects read the target ad placed in between four filler ads and then answered a questionnaire. The dependent measures were A_ad, affective reactions to the ad, cognitive reactions to the ad, attitude to the brand, cognitive responses, and credibility of the message arguments.

Manipulation checks showed that the Strong Endorser was indeed rated significantly more attractive and credible than the Weak Endorser (p<0.001). Further, analysis showed that there were no significant differences between the No Endorser and the Weak Endorser conditions on any of the dependent measures, thereby ruling out the alternate explanation for our results. For all subsequent analyses, the Weak and No Endorser conditions (NE) were combined and contrasted with the Strong Endorser (SE) condition.

A test of the primary hypothesis that a liked and credible endorser will mitigate the negative A_ad was supported. Results indicate that subjects in the SE condition had a significantly greater A_ad (5.34) than subjects in the NE condition (4.13; t(86)=3.23; p<0.01).

To understand the underlying process, we analyzed the affective and cognitive dimension data. Planned contrasts on the affective dimension scale showed no significant differences between SE and NE conditions (p>0.45), suggesting that the change in A_ad was not accompanied by changes in the affective response.

Planned contrasts on the cognitive components showed a significant difference in the mean number of positive ad related thoughts (2.03; 1.08; p<0.01) and directionally correct but non significant difference in the mean number of negative thoughts (2.27; 2.6; p>0.25), thereby supporting the argument that the source derogations were mitigated. Further, subjects in the SE condition, rated the ad (4.92) marginally higher on believability than subjects in the NE condition (4.19; p<0.1). These two findings support the argument that the change in A_ad is a result of the change in the cognitive dimension.

The above analysis indicates that the introduction of an endorser in a comparative ad changes A_ad to become more favorable. The results also suggest that the cognitive components of A_ad change, but not the affective components. To understand the underlying process by which the endorser affects the cognitive components resulting in an increase in the A_ad, a mediation analysis was conducted. Since source derogation decreased, we expect the message arguments to be more credible and we tested if argument credibility was mediating endorser effects on A_ad.

The results of the mediation analysis indicate that argument credibility completely mediates the effects of the endorser on A_ad. The introduction of an endorser affects argument credibility, which in turn affects A_ad. This finding lends greater support to our findings that the endorser affects A_ad through changes in the cognitive dimension.

The primary objective of this study was to gain a better understanding of the antecedents of A_ad and to identify a method to mitigate the negative effects of a comparative ad on A_ad. In addition, we also set out to study the mechanism by which the change in A_ad is effected.

The results from this study indicate that a liked and credible endorser does make A_ad more favorable compared to the no endorser condition. Analyses also showed that just any endorser does not help, the endorser needs to be credible and liked.

Results on the process by which the A_ad changes clearly indicate that changes in the affective component do not account for the change in A_ad. The results suggest that the changes to the cognitive components drive A_ad. Further, the results of the mediation analysis show that changes in A_ad is mediated by the argument credibility. Argument credibility is a cognitive dimension and adds further support to the finding that the change in A_ad is mainly due to changes in the cognitive dimension of A_ad.

REFERENCES

Baron, Reuben. M., and David A. Kenny (1986), "The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic and Statistical Considerations," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51 (6), 1173-1182.

Belch, George E.(1981), "An Examination of Comparative and Noncomparative Television Commercials: The Effects of Claim Variation and Repetition on Cognitive Response and Message Acceptance," Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (August), 333-349.

Belch, George E., and Michael A. Belch (2001), Advertising and Promotion; An Integrated Marketing Communications Perspective Fifth Edition, New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Droge, Cornelia (1989), "Shaping the Route to Attitude Change: Central Versus Peripheral Processing Through Comparative Versus Noncomparative Advertising," Journal of Marketing Research, 26 (May), 193-204.

Golden, Linda L. (1979), "Consumer Reactions to Explicit Brand Comparisons in Advertisements," Journal of Marketing Research, 16 (November), 517-532.

Goodwin, Steven and Michael Etgar (1980), "An Experimental Investigation of Comparative Advertising: Impact of Message Appeal, Information Load, and Utility of Product Class," Journal of Marketing Research, 17 (May), 187-202.

Gorn, Gerald J. and Charles B. Weinberg (1984), "The Impact of Comparative Advertising on Perception and Attitude: Some Positive Findings," Journal of Consumer Research, 11 (September), 719-727.

Grewal, Dhruv, Sukumar Kavanoor, Edward F Fern, Carolyn Costley, and James Barnes (1997), "Comparative Versus Noncomparative Advertising: A Meta Analysis," Journal of Marketing, 61 (October), 1-15.

MacKenzie, Scott B. Richard J. Lutz, and George E. Belch (1986), "The Role of Attitude Toward the Ad as a Mediator of Advertising Effectiveness: A Test of Competing Explanations," Journal of Marketing Research, 23 (May), 130-143.

Miniard, Paul W., Sunil Bhatla, and Randall L. Rose (1990), "On the Formation and Relationship of Ad and Brand Attitudes: An Experimental and Causal Analysis," Journal of Marketing Research, 27 (August), 290-303.

Muehling, Darrel D.(1987), "Comparative Advertising: The Influence of Attitude-Toward-The-Ad on Brand Evaluation," Journal of Advertising, 16 (December), 43-49.

Muehling, Darrel D., Jeffrey J. Stoltman, and Sanford Grossbart (1990), "The Impact of Comparative Advertising on Levels of Message Involvement," Journal of Advertising, 19 (December), 41-50.

Ohanian, Roobina (1990), "Construction and Validation of a Scale to Measure Celebrity Endorsers’ Perceived Expertise, Trustworthiness, and Attractiveness," Journal of Advertising, 19 (Fall), 39-52.

Shimp, Terence A. and David C. Dyer (1978), "The Effects of Comparative Advertiing Mediated by Market Position Sponsoring Brand," Journal of Advertising, 3 (Summer), 13-19.

Swinyard, Williams R. (1981), "The Interaction Between Comparative Advertising and Copy Claim Variation," Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (May), 175-186.

Wilson, Dale R. (1976), "An Empirical Evaluation of Comparative Advertising Messages: Subjects’ Responses on Perceptual Dimensions," in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 3, Beverlee B. Anderson, ed. Cincinnati: Association for Consumer Research, 53-57.

----------------------------------------