.. :5: Ii? :5: I )J.1r!~.y...:t$b 1.. .1 2. £4.16. 13",» . 1.3...1: 3 1293 00908 This is to certify that the dissertation entitled The Roie of Affect in Advertising and Consumer Behavior: A Functiona] Approach to Attitude Expression presented by Richard J. Harnish has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degreein Psychoiogy Majo professor Date 6 Af‘f” i961; MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0- 12771 LIBRARY Michigan State University PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE Emmsms p H ..- W 36 2’80; _JUL@f ? int} 5 MSU Is An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution «humans-9| THE ROLE OF AFFECT IN ADVERTISING AND CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: A FUNCTIONAL APPROACH TO ATTITUDE EXPRESSION BY Richard J. Hamish A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Psychology 1992 700-7677 ABSTRACT THE ROLE OF AFFECT IN ADVERTISING AND CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: A FUNCTIONAL APPROACH TO ATTITUDE EXPRESSION BY Richard J. Hamish The functional theories of attitudes suggest that one possible solution to the problem of making advertising more involving for consumers is to focus on the motivational and affective conSequences the advertisement has for the consumer. It was hypothesized that individual differences in motivational orientations, products attributes, and situational factors would interact to affect product and advertisement evaluations and the affective consequences of product use. Because the attitudes Of high self-monitors serve mainly a social- adjustive function, high self-monitors should be attracted to and evaluate more favorably an advertisement and its featured product that addresses their concerns of appearing socially appropriate. Under conditions where the product fulfills a social-adjustive function for high self-monitors, the Opportunity to express Opinions about the product should be a positive experience. In contrast, because the attitudes Of low self-monitors serve mainly a value- expressive function, low self-monitOrs should be attracted to and evaluate more favorably an advertisement and its featured product that addresses their concerns Of expressing important Opinions and values that define themselves. Under conditions where the product fulfills a value-expressive function for the low self-monitor, the opportunity to express Opinions about the product should be a positive experience. Three experiments examining individual differences, product attributes, and situational factors were conducted. Results of Study 1a suggested that value expression needs may require an audience for their successful fulfillment; when the situation did not permit the fulfillment of personal needs, it created greater levels of negative affect. Results of Study 1b suggested that when given the Opportunity to choose a product that was advertised either emphasizing the image or quality attributes Of the product, neither high nor low self-monitors chose the product that was designed to fulfill their personal needs. Results of Study 2 suggested that additional cues were needed to convey the image and quality of the endorsed products. Results of these studies are encouraging, as they suggest that consumer preference can be predicted by taking into account motivational orientations Of individuals. Implications and directions for future research are discussed. Copyright by Richard J. Hamish 1992 L- ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to thank my Dissertation Committee for their suggestions, support and patience that they have demonstrated throughout the completion Of this project. Special thanks is extended to my Chair and advisor, Galen Bodenhausen. Not only has Galen been a Cheerleader, mentor, and critic Of this dissertation, he has also be instrumental in much of my other research conducted at Michigan State. NO matter how nebulous or concrete my proposals were, Galen always received them with enthusiasm and offered keen insight that no doubt improved the projects. It’s a rare but wonderful occurance to find an Opened, but disciplined-minded advisor who nurtures one’s own creativity rather than imposing his/or her own ideas upon the impressionable Student. I would be remiss if I did not extend my thanks and appreciation to the other members of my Committee for their time and effort devoted to this dissertation. Wlthout the suggestions of Tom Page, Linda Jackson and Ann Baumgardener this dissertation would not have been as fruitful an endeavor. I also wish tO thank Ken DeBonO and Toni Abbey. Both Toni and Ken provided much encouragement and support during my stay at Michigan State. Without their words of encouragement, I doubt that I would have persevered to attain this degree. Ken was the individual who first introduced me to the functional theories of attitudes. Toni and I have collaborated on other projects which have allowed me to expand my interests beyond attitudes and persuasion topics. I consider both to be my friends besides my teachers. My stay at Michigan State would not have been as enriching if it were not for the camaraderie of Keith Hattrup, Larry Marcy, Dave Sattler and Linda Sullivan. It is doubtful that I would have kept my sanity without trips to Hobbies, beach bar dreaming, the truly awful poet, Thanksgiving dinners, and 'PA trips. Many thanks also go to my colleagues at ARBOR for their understanding and patience while I completed the project. Chief among them are Wally Wallace for allowing me some time off to finish the discuSsion sections. Many thanks also go to the rest of the ARBOR staff: John Wittenbraker, Sam Zuckerkandel, Amy Potter, and Nancy Grisphover for taking on some of my responsibilities while I was off writing. Thanks also go to Scott Hecht for providing me with his expertise at the ARBOR mainframe. Of course, I could not have been able to go this far without the love and support of my family. I wish to thank my mom -- Alice, my sister -- Leslie; and my uncle John. Thank you with love. Finally, I thank God for my very good fortune for I am living a very blessed life indeed. u. TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables ...................................................................... Role of Affect in Advertising and Purchasing Decisions ..... Attitudes and Persuasion .................................................... Expectancy-Value Models .................................................. A Theory Of Reasoned Action .................................. xAttitude Toward the Ad ............................................ Cognitive Response Models ............................................... Functional Theories Of Attitudes ......................................... Self-monitoring: A Strategy for Investigating Attitude Functions ....................................................... Source Characteristics ............................................. Attitude Functions Inherent in Objects ................................ Implications for Advertising and Consumer Behavior ......... Functional Theories and Affect ........................................... Purchasing and Consumption as a Form of Attitude Expression ............................................................... xi 10 12 14 16 19 22 24 24 26 Advantages of Viewing the Purchasing/Consumption Experience as a Form of Attitude Expression .......... 29 Hypotheses 29 Study 1a 32 Hypothesis 1 32 Hypothesis 1a 32 Hypothesis 1b 32 Hypothesis 2 33 Hypothesis 2a 33 Hypothesis 2b 33 Hypothesis 3 34 Method 34 Participants and Design 35 Stimulus Materials 37 Visibility Manipulation 38 Dependent Measures 38 A Mood-related Measures ................................ 39 Ancillary Personality Measures ...................... 41 Preference-related Measures ........................ 41 Manipulation Check 41 Procedure 43 Results of Study 1a 43 Check on Visibility Manipulation .............................. 43 Primary Analyses ..................................................... Rating the Perfume ....................................... Advertisement Preference ............................. Product Preference ....................................... Mood Effects ................................................. Positive Affect ..................................... Negative Affect ................................... Rating Of the Product and Mood ................... Satisfaction With Life ..................................... Fear Of Negative Evaluation .......................... Analyses of Secondary Personality Variables .......... Fashion Innovativeness ................................. Self-consciousness ....................................... Private Self-consciousness ................. Categorization Procedure ........ Ratings of the Perfume ............ Advertisement Preference ........ Mood Effects ........................... Positive Affect ................ Negative Affect .............. Satisfaction With Life ................ Fear Of Negative Evaluation ..... Public Self-consciousness .................. vi t 47 48 48 52 55 Categorization Procedure ........ Advertisement Preference ........ Product Preference .................. Mood Effects ............................ Positive Affect ................ Negative Affect .............. Satisfaction With Life ................ Fear of Negative Evaluation ..... Social Anxiety ..................................... Categorization Procedure ........ Advertisement Preference ........ Mood Effects ............................ Positive Affect ................ Negative Affect .............. Satisfaction With Life ................ Fear Of Negative Evaluation ..... Discussion .......................................................................... Product and Advertisement Evaluations .................. Mood and Life Satisfaction ....................................... vii 71 73 73 73 73 76 76 76 76 79 79 79 82 82 82 82 Study 1b ............................................................................. Hypothesis 1 ............................................................ Hypothesis 1a ............................................... Hypothesis 1b ............................................... Method ................................................................................ Participants .............................................................. Stimulus Materials .................................................... Procedure ................................................................ Results of Study 1b ............................................................ Primary Analyses ..................................................... Perfume Choice ........................................... 0. Analyses Of Secondary Personality Variables .......... Discussion .......................................................................... Study 2 ............................................................................... Hypotheses .............................................................. Hypothesis 1 ................................................. Hypothesis 1a ..................................... Hypothesis 1b .................................... Hypothesis 2 ................................................. Hypothesis 2a ..................................... Hypothesis 2b .................................... Hypothesis 3 ................................................. Hypothesis 4 ................................................. viii Hypothesis 4a ..................................... Hypothesis 4b ..................................... Method ................................................................................ Participants ...................................................... Apparatus ................................................................ Pretesting ................................................................. Rating Of the Perfume ................................... Sources ......................................................... Stimulus Materials .................................................... VISibility Manipulation ............................................... Dependent Measures ............................................... Manipulation Check Measures ................................. Procedure ................................................................ Results Of Study 2 ............................................................... Manipulation Checks ................................................ Visibility .......................................................... Source Variables ........................................... Primary Analyses ..................................................... Rating the Perfume ........................................ Advertisement Preference ............................. Product Preference ....................................... Mood Effects ................................................. Positive Affect ..................................... Negative Affect ................................... Rating of the Product and Mood ................... Satisfaction WIth Life ..................................... Fear Of Negative Evaluation .......................... Analyses Of Secondary Personality Variables .......... Private Self-consciousness ............................ Categorization Procedure ................... Mood Effects ...................................... Positive Affect .......................... Negative Affect ......................... Satisfaction With Life ........................... Fear Of Negative Evaluation ................ Public Self-consciousness ............................. Categorization Procedure ................... Advertisement Preference ................... Mood Effects ...................................... Positive Affect ........................... Negative Affect ......................... Satisfaction With Life ........................... Fear Of Negative Evaluation ................ Social Anxiety ................................................ Categorization Procedure ................... Mood Effects ...................................... Positive Affect ........................... 135 Negative Affect ......................... 138 Satisfaction With Life ........................... 140 Fear of Negative Evaluation ................ 140 Discussion 140 General Discussion 144 Implications for Advertising Practioners ................... 146 Implications for Future Research ............................. 147 Appendices 148 Appendix A 149 Appendix B 151 Appendix C 158 Appendix D 174 Appendix E 178 List of References 184 Footnotes 200 xi LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1. Predictions for Study 1a 2. Mean Positive Affect Scores .................................... 3. Mean Negative Affect Scores ................................... 4. Mean Life Satisfaction Scores .................................. 5. Mean Ratings of the Perfume .................................. 6. Mean Likability Rating for Intrigue ............................ 7. Mean Fear of Negative Evaluation Scores ............... 8. Mean Likability Rating for Essence .......................... 9. Mean Likability Rating for Intrigue ............................ 10. Mean Rating Of Lisfe Satisfaction ............................. 11. Mean Advertisement PreferenCe .............................. 12. Mean Negative Affect Scores ................................... 13. Perfume Choice Proportions .................................... 14. Predictions for Study 2 15. Mean Positive Affect Scores .................................... 16.‘ Mean Negative Affect Scores ................................... 17. Mean Global Life Satisfaction Scores ....................... xii 51 65 68 70 72 75 78 81 95 121 123 127 18. Mean Positive Affect Scores .................................... 19. Mean Positive Affect Scores .................................... 20. Mean Negative Affect Scores ................................... xiii 137 139 ROLE OF AFFECT'IN ADVERTISING AND PURCHASING DECISIONS What is the role that affect plays in consumers’ reactions to advertising and their subsequent purchasing decisions? The proposed research is an attempt to investigate this question. In seeking to understand the role of affect in consumer psychology, I will review the research findings from the applied fields Of advertising and consumer behavior as well as more basic social psychological research. In reviewing this material, it is apparent that the trends in advertising and consumer research are Often dictated by the dominant perspectives in social psychology. AS in social psychology, affect was not a variable of interest to most advertising and consumer researchers until very recently. Indeed, most researchers interested in advertising and consumer behavior tended to focus their attention exclusively on decision-oriented models of information processing to understand the effects of advertisements on brand choices (Bettman, 1979). The information processing perspective views the individual as a decision maker who actively searches for, attends to, and processes information to make consumption choices (HolbrOOk & O’Shaughnessy, 1984). This cognitive perspective, which views the individual as a "thinking organism," has also been the prevalent view in social psychology. 2 Although social psychology has always leaned towards cognitive concepts (Fiske & Taylor, 1984), over the last 20 years, the cognitive view has become so prevalent and entrenched in social psychology that it is difficult to envision a practical alternative to it (Zajonc & Markus, 1980). Indeed, it has been argued that social psychology has always been cognitive in at least three ways. First, social psychological theorists have thought that social behavior is better understood as a function of persons’ perceptions of their environment rather than as a function of "objective" qualities of the environment (Manis, 1977; Zajonc, 1980). Secondly, not only are the antecedents of behavior viewed in I cognitive terms but so are the end results of perception and behavior (Fiske & Taylor, 1984). That is, Often researchers do not study behaviors and feelings per se but instead focus on individuals‘ thoughts or cognitions about their behavior and feelings (e.g., "How would you label your feelings?"). Lastly, individuals have always been viewed as "thinking organisms," in contrast to other subdisciplines in psychology that portray individuals as predominately emotional or mindless organisms (Manis, 1977). Recently, however, social psychology has been experiencing a renewed interest in motivational and affective processes, with an emphasis on their interfaces with social cognition (e.g., Showers & Cantor, 1985). As basic cognitive structures and processes are beginning to be understood, researchers are becoming more interested in analyzing behavior in more complex and personally involving situations with the aim of identifying how motivation is translated into strategies that individuals will use to guide their thinking and 3 behavior (Clark & Fiske, 1982; Isen & Hastorf, 1982; Kelley et al., 1983; Sorrentino & Higgins, 1984). Investigators are increasingly attending to motivational aspects associated with behavior, such as an individual’s goals, moods, and personal strivings, that produce positive and negative incentives for behavior and guide individuals' Interpretations and plans (Showers & Cantor, 1985). Because advertising and consumer behavior theory borrow heavily from developments in social psychology, it is not surprising that researchers in these fields are also mirroring this new interest in the motivational underpinnings of behavior. A number Of advertising and consumer researchers (e.g., Olshavsky & Granbois, 1979; Sheth, 1979) have begun to question the information- processing perspective for a number Of reasons. One Of the problems associated with the information-processing approach to consumer behavior is the assumption that the individual is motivated to seek out, attend to, and systematically process information to make a brand choice. This assumption may simply be wrong or unrealistic, because most advertising occurs under conditions that are not very involving. For this reason, any attention that does occur is likely to be brief and superficial. Information that has been processed in such a cursory manner is not likely to be available for recall at a later point in time (Petty, Cacioppo, Haugtvedt, & Heesacker, 1985, cited in Petty & Cacioppo, 1986b). To illustrate the aforementioned problem, consider the average length Of an advertisement and length of time individuals spend attending to and 4 processing information featured in the advertisement. Research has suggested that, on average, individuals spend approximately four seconds attending to advertisements in magazines (Batra & Ray, 1983). The average television or radio commercial is around thirty seconds in length (Batra & Ray, 1983). Messages featured on billboards are usually no longer than ten words (Batra & Ray, 1983). These findings suggest that any information that has managed to capture the attention of a consumer is processed in a cursory fashion because of an advertisement’s very nature. Another problem with the assumption that consumers are making rational decisions about purchases is that advertisements are processed in a "noisy" environment. That is, they are featured in cluttered, oversized newspapers and magazines, or are presented during televised or broadcasted programs (Batra & Ray, 1983). Regardless of the medium, they are generally unorganized so that they do not permit ordered information processing and retrieval (Batra & Ray, 1983). Lastly, and perhaps most importantly for consumer purchasing decisions, advertisements Offer little Opportunity for immediate or even current use of the information provided in them (Batra & Ray, 1983). Because of the many constraints Operating when consumers are exposed to advertisements, much of the learning that does take place is incidental and is therefore very limited. The typical family is exposed to well over 1000 advertising messages a day (Britt, Adams, & Miller, 1972). In such a saturated environment, only advertisements that are more salient (i.e., bigger, brighter, livelier), are novel but are not too different (or they will be rejected as 5 being strange and peculiar), and are Of interest have potential for receiving attention (Berlyne, 1967; Kahneman, 1973; Ray, 1973). Human information processing limitations reduce the amount of cognitive processing that occurs even if individuals were attentive to the advertisement and its persuasive appeal. According to prominent accounts, our short-term memory capacity is approximately five to nine information bits, and information is stored in short-term memory for no longer than 30 seconds (Miller, 1956; Simon, 1974). Furthermore, if information in short-term memory is to be transferred to long-term memory, the information in short-term memory will have to be rehearsed for 5 to 10 seconds per information bit before being stored in long-term memory (Bugelski, 1962; Newell 8. Simon, 1972; Norman, 1969). Thus, it is easy to understand why even an exemplary 30 second television commercial is accurately recalled after a one day delay by only 25% of a television audience (Batra & Ray, 1983). Finally, even if individuals are exposed to an advertisement repeatedly, there are limits to what is attended to and processed. Repetition has limitations in terms Of creating deeper processing of the advertisement. Krugman (1972) argues that three exposures to an advertisement is the Optimal number that will facilitate information processing. He suggests that the first exposure to an advertisement serves as a prompt for the individual that the product being advertised is something new. NO other processing is likely to occur during the initial viewing. Only in the second exposure to the advertisement, after the individual knows that the product is new, does deeper information processing 6 occur. The third and any subsequent exposures to the advertisement serve as prompts for the individual to recall the processed information. Thus, advertising and consumer researchers are now searching for ways in which they can inject motivational cues into their advertisements in the hope that the advertisement will become more personally involving for the audience. In such a manner, these researchers are hoping to capture the consumer’s interest in the advertisement and prompt a more systematic processing Of the information contained in the advertisement. The dominant strategy that has been employed has been to introduce emotional elements to all aspects Of an advertisement, including using upbeat background music, having likable spokespersons endorse the product, and employing emotional or comic story lines. In fact, researchers and practitioners in advertising and consumer behavior have become consumed with affect. For example, trade papers such as Advertising Age, Marketing News, and the New York Times have hailed the nineteen-eighties as the "Era Of Emotion" with advertisers striving to "hit a nerve", or to have more "heart and soul" in their advertisements (Holbrook & O’Shaughnessy, 1984). Indeed, all one needs to do is think about the recent advertising campaigns for his or her favorite beverage to see the new emphasis on affect. Coca-Cola attempted to invoke an emotional appeal with its “Have a Coke and a smile" slogan. Pepsi-Cola countered with their "Get that Pepsi feeling." Maxwell House coffee tried to elicit affective responses with “Get that good-to- the-last drop feeling." Automobile manufactures have also tried to uplift spirits. 7 General Motors had “Get that great GM feeling." Saub's entry: "One car you can buy where your emotions aren’t compromised by your intellect." Toyota proclaimed "Oh, what a feeling, Toyota." Perhaps the most notorious advertisements that blatantly tried to manipulate consumers' emotional states were those for AT&T and Gallo Wines. The AT&T advertisements featured "slices Of life"--an elderly man dressed in a sweater seated in a rocking chair beside a roaring fire. Outside his window the snow is flying. The phone rings and he is told the news about the birth of his first grandchild. This prompts him to recall the birth Of his own daughter. With a crack in his voice and a tear in his eye he says, "I remember it was the coldest day of the year, and then she was born. It just warms me up thinking about it." Another example of AT&T’s attempt to persuade us in using their long-distance service is a commercial that depicts a mother who seems to be in her mid-40’s who just received a telephone call from her son at college. She goes on to tell us, "My son just called and said that he now realizes all the things that I did for him while he was growing up and he had to call and say I love you." Almost on the verge of tears, she emotionally tells us, "Well, I got such a lump in my throat. . . And then he asked if I could send money." At the conclusion of these vignettes, AT&T'S logo comes on the screen and a voice says, "Reach out and touch someone." The real question to advertising researchers is: Has AT&T reached out and touched us, the consumers, with their melodramas, prompting us to call a loved one? 8 Gallo wines had a different but nevertheless effective approach by portraying in their advertisement a ceremony that is typically affect-laden. Their advertisement featured a young, handsome couple being married. The wedding was not a simple church wedding, but the kind of which storybook romances are made. The commercial is filmed in a great cathedral complete with an orchestra playing a Classical wedding march. After showing a portion of the ceremony, where the couple exchanges vows and the camera focuses on the expressions of the proud parents, the scene moves to the wedding reception that is being held in a great hall. The best man rises to make a toast to the lovely couple. The Classical music subsides and a voice is heard saying, "Only the best, from our family to yours. Gallo wines." What then are the designers of affective advertisements trying to accomplish by “tugging on the heart strings" of the consumer or by evoking a laugh or a smile? As noted earlier, they are attempting to influence purchasing decisions by capitalizing on how individuals search for, attend to, process, and recall information featured in the advertisement. Attitudes and Persuasign No area of social psychology has been Of more interest to advertising and consumer psychologists than that Of attitudes and persuasion. The connection between the disciplines is clear: How to convince individuals of one’s point of view. However, the focus taken by each discipline is somewhat different, with attitude researchers in social psychology placing more emphasis on the "mechanics" Of attitude change (e.g., cognitive processes, peripheral and 9 motivational factors), whereas consumer psychologists, serving the needs of retailers, are more interested in the end results of the persuasion process (e.g., "Will consumers buy my advertised product?" "How can I make the advertisement more appealing?", "How can I have a bigger market share?"). Often some factors (e.g., motivational and affective factors) identified by social psychologists as having an impact on attitude change are ignored or not given much attention by the consumer psychologist. Indeed, most attitude change research in the consumer psychology literature is grounded in expectancy-value models, which heavily emphasize rational thought processes and fail to address fully the impact of motivational and affective factors in the persuasion process. Ex tanC -Va| e M l Expectancy-value models of attitude change are probably the most established and popular models in consumer psychology (Bruno & Wildt, 1975). These models posit that an attitude (an evaluation of an attitude Object) is a function of the sum of the expected values of the attributes of the attitude object. The expectancy associated with an attribute of the attitude Object is considered to be the subjective probability that the attitude object does in fact possess the attribute, and the value Of an attribute is the evaluation of it. For example, if an individual believes a new car that has been introduced to the market is sporty yet lacks refinement in its details, these attributes would be represented by the subjective probability that the car has each attribute (i.e., the high probability that the car is sleek and fast and the low probability that the car was carefully built), as well as by the evaluation of each attribute (i.e., the 10 positive evaluation of the car’s styling and the negative evaluation of the car’s construction). To predict an individual’s attitude toward the car, the expectancy and value terms associated with each attribute would be multiplied together, and the products summed. A Thng of Reasoned Action. Within the expectancy-value framework, Fishbein and Ajzen (1975; Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980) have proposed a Theory of Reasoned Action. Like other expectancy-value theories, the theory is based on the premise that "humans are rational animals that systematically utilize or process the information available to them" and that "the information is used in a reasonable way to arrive at a behavioral decision" (Fishbein, 1980, p.66). Note the parallels between the assumptions in the Theory of Reasoned Action and the dominant perspective in consumer psychology: Both viewpoints assume that the individual is motivated to seek out, attend to and systematically process information to make a rational decision. According to Fishbein and Ajzen (1975), the primary determinant of a person’s overt behavior (B) is the person’s intention (l) to perform or not to perform that behavior. For example, if a retailer knew what a person’s intentions were concerning his or her product (e.g., does the person intend to buy product X), then the retailer could predict the consumer’s purchasing behavior. Thus, intentions are the single most important pieces of information concerning the prediction of eventual behavior. However, in most circumstances, we are not privileged to know the intentions of others. That is, Often we do not know how an individual intends to act or behave in a given 1 1 situation. To solve this problem, Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) have argued that a person’s intentions can be predicted if two things are known: the individual’s attitude toward a behavioral action (Am) and the individual's subjective norms (SN). The first component (Am) refers to an individual’s positive or negative feelings about engaging in the behavior. The second component (SN) refers to the individual’s perceptions Of the social pressures to perform or not to perform the behavior. Thus, we can conclude that people generally perform behaviors that they value highly and are popular with Others, and will not engage in behaviors that they do not value and are unpopular with others. AS previously noted, one Of the major problems with the Theory of Reasoned Action is that behavioral intentions are difficult to obtain because intentions are private thoughts usually not made known to others. As a result, there are perennial searches conducted for variables that have effects that are not mediated by behavioral intentions (Gorsuch & Ortberg, 1983; Budd & Spencer, 1984; Fisher, 1984; Bagozzi & Schnedlitz, 1985). To account for variables whose behavioral impact is not mediated by an individual’s intentions, researchers have suggested that new components be added to the model. Such suggestions have ranged from adding a single component (e.g., moral obligation, Gorsuch & Ortberg, 1983) to adding multiple components (e.g., successful accomplishment of the goal, trying but failing to accomplish the goal, and the process of striving toward the goal; Bagozzi 8. Warshaw, 1989). Another criticism that can be leveled at the theory is that Fishbein and Ajzen assume that individuals are motivated to process information 12 systematically to arrive at rational decisions. They assume that individuals will actively seek out alternatives and weigh each piece of information carefully to arrive at a decision. However, there is great deal Of research that has been conducted in social psychology indicating that rational decisions are dominated by a multitude of irrational considerations (Nisbett & Ross, 1980; Kahneman, Slovic 8- Tversky, 1985). With the various problems associated with the Theory of Reason Action, why does it remain so popular in consumer research? The answer probably lies in the fact that the theory is compatible with different theoretical orientations A prevalent in marketing (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980). Moveover, the theory Specifies the relationships among attitudes, objects and behavior in terms of mathematical equations which lend themselves to causal modeling. That is, the theory serves the needs of marketing managers who want answers about determinants Of sales and market share (Holbrook, 1985). Attitude toward the ad Recently, several researchers (e.g., Lutz, 1985) have argued that attitudes about an a’dvertisement can predict an individual's attitude toward a brand) Indeed, this notion that affective preferences (i.e., liking or disliking) in response to an advertisement might affect thwanvindividual responds to the brand itself is not new in consumer research (Lucas & Benson, 1929; Silk & Vavra, 1974). However, most present day research focuses on the mediating role of an individual’s attitude toward an advertisement (Am). 13 Lutz and his colleagues (Lutz, 1985; Lutz & MacKenzie, 1982; Lutz, MacKenzie, & Belch, 1983) have examined several models of the relationship between Aad and attitude toward the brand itself (AB). Their findings have demonstrated support for the hypothesis that\A.d affects/39mm in turn affects purchasing decisions They argue that A.d willgay moreFOf-a role under Coflfiio‘ns Characterized by low involvement on the part of the consumer and when he or she possesses limited knowledge about the advertised product. Under,sgughicircumstancesgw should serve as a prompt for heuristic or peripheral route processing. That is, no elaboration or extension of the advertisement’s message will occur (Chaiken, 1980, 1987; Petty & Cacioppo, 1981); rather one’s liking or disliking of the advertisement will determine liking for the brandjjndeed, their results (Lutz et al., 1983) support the contention ‘05 kt that Aad has stronger effects than brand cognitionsfinder low knowledge, low M involvement conditions. However, results from a; study by Park & Young (1983) indicate that under high knowledge, high involvement conditions, Aad also has strong effects towgglikingga gang-results which are contradictory to Lutz et al.'s predictions. bus, the processes underlying the effects of Aad are still not well understood, and revisions have been proposed (e.g., Mitchell, 1983; Edell & Burke, 1984). In any event, this research clearly implies that purely rational models of consumer choice, like Fishbein and Ajzen's Theory Of Reasoned Action, do not provide a complete picture of the determinants of purchasing behavior. WW Cognitive response models suggest that the thoughts, ideas, and associations that are generated in response to a persuasive message are the principal determinants of whether the persuasive appeal will be successful or not (Greenwald, 1968). Within social psychology, two models have received the most attention in recent years. Attitude change theories have noted that the defining characteristic of the first model--which Chaiken (1980, 1987) has called “systematic," and Petty and Cacioppo (1981, 1986a, 1986b) have termed the "central route to persuasion"--is its emphasis on processing the content of the Information contained in the message. In contrast, the second model--labeled "heuristic" processing by Chaiken (1980, 1987) or the "peripheral route" by Petty and Cacioppo (1981)--is Characterized by the use of non-message factors (e.g., communicator attractiveness) that, for whatever reasons, serve as indices of message validity. There are times when individuals actively process the content of a persuasive message and think critically about it. In this case, persons elaborate and extend the message arguments by evaluating them relative to personal beliefs and experiences--in other words, they are responsive to the guaflty of the message arguments. To the extent that such processing occurs, persuasion is thought to be a function of the valence of the thoughts generated in response to the message. Favorable thoughts (i.e., pro-arguments in support Of the position advocated) should enhance persuasion, whereas unfavorable thoughts (i.e., counterarguments) should inhibit persuasion. As noted, Chaiken refers to this 15 mode as a "systematic" processing approach and Petty and Cacioppo term the "central" processing approach.‘ In contrast, there are times when individuals are less thorough in evaluating the validity of a message. Instead of being systematic in the analysis of the message, individuals use simple decision rules related to non-message cues in the persuasion context. These decision rules, or heuristics, are beliefs about non-message factors (e.g., communicator trustworthiness) that are accepted as indices of information quality. Chaiken’s (1980, 1987) heuristic model proposes that people Often use simple decision rules when judging the validity of a persuasive message. For example, some of these simple decision rules are: "length implies strength," "experts can be trusted," and "consensus implies correctness." Without fully absorbing and processing the information presented, people might agree more with messages that contain many rather than few arguments, with expert rather than nonexpert communicators, or with messages with which many rather than few people agree (Chaiken, 1987). Studies have shown that source credibility (Ratneshwar & Chaiken, 1986), source Iikability (Chaiken, 1980), physical attractiveness (Chaiken, 1986), message length (Wood, Kallgren, & Preisler, 1985), number of arguments (Yalch & Elmore-Yalch, 1984), quality of arguments (Petty & Cacioppo, 1984), audience reaction (Axsom, Yates, & Chaiken, 1987), personal involvement (Petty, Cacioppo, & Goldman, 1981; Petty & Cacioppo, 1984), body posture (Petty, Wells, Heesacker, Brock & Cacioppo, 1983), and consensus information 16 (Chaiken, 1987) have their greatest impact on persuasion when people are not systematically processing message information. In addition, recent research also has shown that a large number of variables either motivate or enable the individual to engage in systematic processing of a persuasive message, including the personal relevance of a message (e.g., Howard-Pitney, Borgida, & Omoto, 1986; Petty & Cacioppo, 1984), the match between a message’s content and the recipient’s functional predispositions (Cacioppo, Petty, 8. Sidera, 1982; DeBonO, 1987; DeBono & Hamish, 1988), and the amount of exposure to the message (Cacioppo & Petty, 1985). Indeed, research on motivational variables and their effects on cognitive processing suggests that motivational factors have important and meaningful effects on a wide range of behaviors (Borgida & Howard-Pitney, 1983; Erber & Fiske, 1984; Harkness, DeBonO, & Borgida, 1985). Fn inlth ri fttit As part of the recent increase in attention, such motivational variables have been receiving, there has been a reawakening of interest in functional theories of attitudes (Katz, 1960; Katz & Stotland, 1959; Sarnoff & Katz, 1954; Smith, Bruner, & White, 1956). These theories assume that there are certain individualistic needs that are being met by one’s attitudes, and that these attitudes allow the individual to implement certain plans to attain certain goals. Four functions, in particular, have been proposed: ego-defensive, attitudes formed to protect oneself from undesirable truths; knowledge (Object appraisal), attitudes that are formed to give meaning to Objects; value-expressive, attitudes 17 that permit the individual to express his or her own beliefs or dispositions; and social-adjustive, attitudes that are formed on the basis of how well they permit the individual to fit into certain situations and permit him or her to behave in a socially appropriate manner in regard to various reference groups (Katz, 1960; Smith et al., 1956). Functional theories emphasize W as a peripheral route process. According to this perspective, to bring about a change in attitude, one only needs to demonstrate to an ihdividual that his or her present attitude is not Optimally serving its function and that a new and different attitude may better serve that function. This suggests that no extension or elaboration of the guaity of the arguments supporting thewnew‘attityg‘eflis necessary to; attitude change to -. , Ln...,»-aa», mamn‘g : n-L.fv‘i‘ '-‘ take MW 987). That is, any thoughts that may be generated by the recipient in response to a functionally relevant message may not be a function of the strength of the ideas presented but rather may be a function Of the thoughts. generated that are related to non-message factors (e.g., how approval of an attractive source can meet the individual’s goals or needsm There does, however, seem to be a fundamental difference between the functional approach to attitude change and the peripheral or heuristic route as defined within the cognitive response paradigm. Previous research investigating the peripheral route to attitude Change has focused almost exclusively on persuasion that is mediated by non-message factors, such as source expertise, source attractiveness, or source Iikability (Chaiken, 1980). In contrast, functional theories, by their definition, involve an individual’s needs, plans, or 18 goals. Previous research (e.g., Borgida, & Howard-Pitney, 1983; Erber, & Fiske, 1984; Harkness, et al., 1985) has indicated that information pertaining to one’s needs, plans, or goals tends to motivate individuals to focus their attention on all relevant information in the immediate environment, suggestive of a systematic or central route processing strategy. That is, most peripheral cues by their nature direct attention away from attitude-relevant arguments (but see Wood & Eagly, 1981), whereas, functional cues direct attention toward attitude-relevant arguments (e.g., DeBonO, 1987; DeBonO & Hamish, 1988). In a situation where both functional cues and attitude-relevant information are present, one might expect systematic processing of information to occur. That is, although attitude change could be brought about by a functional cue, individuals might also elaborate and extend the message-relevant arguments that have been presented. For example, if a person possesses an attitude on an issue that is serving a social-adjustive function, any information pertaining to the inappropriateness of the pre-existing attitude and the appropriateness of the new attitude for presenting oneself in a socially appropriate manner, in addition to facilitating attitude change, should also capture the attention of the individual. Further, in a functionally relevant context, the individual should systematically process and elaborate any other incoming information concerning the new attitude (DeBono, 1987; DeBonO & Harnish, 1988; Shavitt, 1985, 1987; Herek, 1987). 19 lf-mnitrinzAtr frinv ti tin ttit fnin Recently, DeBono and his colleagues (DeBono, 1986, 1987; DeBono 8- Harnish, 1988; DeBono & Telesca, 1987; Hamish, 1987; Snyder & DeBono, 1985) have examined individual differences in the functional bases of attitudes and their impact on persuasion. Specifically, they examined the role that self- monitoring (Snyder, 1974, 1987) plays in the persuasion process. High self- monitors are individuals who regulate their expressive self-presentation for the sake Of public appearance. These persons are highly responsive to social and interpersonal cues concerning situationally appropriate behaviors. High self- monitors are concerned with impression management issues and therefore strive to be the "right person in the right place, at the right time" (Snyder & Gangestad, 1986). In contrast, individuals low in the personality construct of self-monitoring lack the ability or motivation to regulate their expressive self. Instead, their behaviors are thought to reflect their own enduring or momentary inner states-- their own attitudes, traits, and feelings. Of prime concern to these individuals is that their behaviors reflect their internal states, regardless of their social environment (Snyder & Gangestad, 1986). In several investigations, (DeBono, 1986, 1987; DeBono & Hamish, 1988; DeBono & Telesca, 1987; Hamish 1987; Snyder & DeBono, 1985) DeBono and colleagues have shown that the social-adjustive function is of particular importance for high self-monitors. Specifically, high self-monitors experienced ' more attitude change after listening to a social-adjustive message presented by 20 a source that serves a social-adjustive function (e.g., possesses status). In contrast, DeBono and his colleagues found that the value-expressive function is particularly important to low self-monitors. That is, low self-monitors'showed more attitude Change after exposure to a value-expressive message that was presented by a source that serves a value-expressive function (e.g., possesses expertise). Source characteristics DeBono and his colleagues’ research is concerned with the content of persuasive messages and the functions that attitudes could serve individuals differing in their self-monitoring propensities. As such, their findings are consistent with the speculation that high self-monitors are especially responsive to the attractiveness that a source possesses, whereas low self-monitors are especially responsive to the expertise a source possesses. High self-monitors are especially responsive to a source that provides useful cues to socially appropriate or desirable attitudes. In other words, they would be likely to perceive positions advocated by an attractive source as helpful in achieving their social-adjustive goals. In contrast, low self-monitors are especially responsive to an expert source because the source provides useful cues to correct and valid attitudes. That is, the attitudes presented by an expert source assists low self- monitors in achieving valid self-expression. Under conditions that are personally involving for high and low self- monitors, we would expect that they would be motivated to process a persuasive appeal in a systematic fashion. In contrast, under conditions that 21 are not personally involving, high and low self-monitors should not be motivated to expend the cognitive energy to process the persuasive appeal in a systematic manner but rather should employ a heuristic process to. determine the validity Of the message. To test this idea, DeBono and Hamish (1988) had male undergraduates who were high or low in the personality construct of self- monitoring listen to either an attractive source (Le, a source high in status) or an expert source who presented a counterattitudinal message supported by either Strong or weak arguments. Results indicated that high self-monitoring participants agreed with the expert source regardless of the quality Of message arguments presented but agreed with the attractive source only when he delivered strong arguments. In contrast, low self-monitoring individuals agreed with an attractive source regardless of the quality of the message arguments presented but agreed with the expert source only when strong arguments were presented. Cognitive response and recall data suggested that high self- monitors were systematically processing the attractive source’s message arguments and heuristically processing the expert source’s persuasive appeal, whereas low self-monitors were systematically processing the expert source’s arguments and heuristically processing the attractive source’s message. These findings suggest that a persuasion attempt can be quite successful even when the source who presents the persuasive appeal does not provide cues relevant to the needs, plans and goals of the recipient. However, this success is likely to be very superficial, since heuristic-based attitude change is typically transitory (Petty, Cacioppo, Haugtvedt, & Heesacker, 1985, cited in 22 Petty & Cacioppo, 1986b) and unpredictive of behavior (Cialdini, Petty & Cacioppo, 1981; Petty, Cacioppo, & Schumann, 1983). If the goal of the attitude change agent is to engender long-term, behaviorally related attitude change, a source and message that can fulfill the recipient’s needs, plans, and goals are more likely to achieve success, provided that the source can provide strong, cogent reasons to support his or her position. Attit n in inhrntin ' Shavitt (1985, 1987) has argued that objects differ in their potentiality to serve as prompts for individuals to engage particular attitude functions. She argues that the characteristics Of an object put limitations on the types of functions that the object can serve for an individual. Simple objects can serve primarily only a single function whereas more complex objects can serve multiple functions for different individuals. For example, attitudes one possesses about coffee primarily serve only a knowledge function. That is a consumer knows that coffee can provide him or her with a pleasant tasting beverage and alertness. Typically, it does not serve a social-adjustive or value-expressive function for a consumer but this is not to say that attitudes about coffee cannot fulfill these functions. For example, gourmet coffee may serve a social-adjustive function for some individuals by permitting them to attain or project an air of sophistication to company that they may be entertaining. More complex objects such as automobiles typically can serve more than one function. For example, a car does serve a knowledge function by providing transportation for individuals but it can also serve social-adjustive or value-expressive functions. 23 Expensive or sports cars can serve a social-adjustive function by providing an individual with a means to express status and identity or it can serve a value- expressive function by providing an individual with a means to express important values such as "quality is important to me." Shavitt (1987) also suggests that the functions that are inherent in Objects are not permanent and unchangeable. The functions that Objects serve are not tied to their physical components but rather society and the consumers of the Object or product also determine its functional relevance. For example, a fine wine may serve primarily a social-adjustive function for persons not knowledgeable of wine. The only function other than a knowledge function that a fine wine could serve for a novice is to permit him or her to project an air of culture about him or herself to guests that he or she may be entertaining. By contrast, for an oenophile, a fine wine may also be serving a value-expressive function. Because of prior experience and knowledge of wines, the oenophile may be attracted to the product because Of the wine’s characteristics--its bouquet, structure, taste, or body. By consuming a fine wine, the oenophile may be stating to others that the characteristics or quality of the wine is of importance to him or her rather than the social status attached to it. Interestingly, the impact that personal knowledge has on the functional relevance of objects suggests that novices and users of certain products may be attracted to them for vastly different reasons. Advertisers and consumer psychologists should first consider what type of consumer is most likely to 24 purchase and use their product and then orient their advertising campaigns to reflect the consumer’s needs. lmplisstigns er sdvsrtising and sgnsumsr bshavigr The studies of DeBono and Hamish (1988) and Shavitt (1985, 1987) suggest that an advertising campaign will be successful to the extent that the product, Spokesperson, and message address consumers’ needs, plans, and goals. The advertising practitioner would be well advised to develop a strategy that addresses and impinges on these underlying motivational factors if and only if the advertising practitioner can provide Strong, cogent arguments in support Of the advertised product. If the practitioner cannot provide strong, cogent arguments in support of his or her product, then adopting a strategy that does not impinge on the consumers’ interpersonal and social needs, plans, and goals may be more successful, albeit any attitude Change engendered by such a strategy would likely be Short-lived. If an advertising practitioner is faced with the latter case, theoretically, repetition of the advertisement would reintroduce attitude change and may solve the prOblem of short-lived attitude change associated with a heuristic or peripheral strategy. Although theoretically feasible, such a heavy repetition of the advertisement to engender attitude Change might be impractical because of the enormous costs involved in advertising. Are there, then, possible solutions to the problem of making advertising ' more involving for the consumer? One fruitful avenue for research would be to 25 focus on the motivational and affective consequences that an advertisement and the endorsed product have for the consumer. We need to begin to ask the question, if an attitude is serving a function for an individual, what are the affective consequences associated with expressing the attitude? The functional theories of attitudes suggest that an Opportunity to express an attitude should be a relatively positive experience for the individual as it permits the individual to express his or her needs, goals, or plans. However, the affect elicited by expressing an attitude may well depend on individual differences and situational factors. For example, low self-monitors may experience positive affect when expressing an attitude irrespective of their audience, given the importance that they place on the value-expressive function of attitudes. By contrast, high self- monitors Should experience positive affect when expressing an attitude only if they know that their audience will agree with or approve of their point Of view. In a series of studies, Bodenhausen and his colleagues (i.e., Bodenhausen & Hamish, 1989; Bodenhausen, Hamish, Kramer, & Ervin, 1989) have examined the conditions necessary for positive affect to be experienced by high and low self-monitors when expressing an attitude. For example, Bodenhausen & Hamish (1989) had high and low self-monitors write a paragraph summarizing their attitudes on one of four topics and then complete a mood adjective checklist, and a global life satisfaction scale. Conditions were such that the participants did not know who would be reading their attitude positions. Results indicated that attitude expression had generally positive effects for low self- mOnitorS. Low self-monitors experienced more positive affect which seemed to 26 generalize to higher ratings of general life satisfaction. In contrast, high self- monitors who expressed an attitude reported more negative affect and less global life satisfaction. Thus, it seems that for low self-monitors, expressing an attitude is a positive experience because it provides them with an opportunity to express and reaffirm important aspects of themselves. For high self-monitors, expressing an attitude when they are not sure who their audience is (and hence how to present themselves) is problematic. Should they express their own attitudes or should they "play it safe" by expressing a normative attitude? Regardless of the Choice that high self-monitors make, they run the risk Of offending and alienating their audience if the audience holds the Opposite point of view. Thus, for high self-monitors such a situation where they do not know who their target audience is, is a lose-lose situation. It is not surprising, therefore, that if given the opportunity, high self-monitors will, at considerable cost to themselves, Obtain information about Others in a situation (Elliott, 1979). Purchasing and consumptign as a form of attituds expression If we think Of purchasing and using a product as an expression of one's self, the findings of Bodenhausen and Hamish (1989) have considerable implications for consumer research. For example, consider the old adages, "you are what you eat,“ "the car you drive says a lot about you," and "clothes make the man (or woman)." These expressions seem to suggest that the products we purchase and use reflect our self-concepts. Indeed, there seems to be some empirical support for the assertion that we select and use products that reflect our self-concept. For example, a number of researchers drawing on 27 theories of symbolic interaction have argued that there is a relationship between people’s conceptions of themselves and the attitudes that they possess toward clothing. These researchers (e.g., Stone, 1962; Buckley & Roach, 1974) have focused on the relationship between the symbolic image of clothing and its relationship to an individual’s self-concept. Results of these studies suggest that individuals like, select, and wear clothing that they feel reflects their self- concepts. Because individuals seem to be attracted to and purchase products that reflect their underlying dispositions, the act of purchasing and using many kinds of products can be viewed as an exercise in attitude expression that has affective consequences for the consumer. If we approach attitude expression from a functional perspective, making a purchase can be thought of as a form of expressing a value (i.e., value- expressive function) or it can be viewed as a way of attaining social status (i.e., social-adjustive function). For example, individuals who possess strong pro- environmental attitudes Should be attracted to and buy products that do not harm the environment (e.g., aerosol products that do not contain fluorocarbons, low phosphate soaps, biodegradable plastic products). Individuals whose attitudes help them to express socially appropriate behaviors should be attracted to and purchase goods that will help them create desired impressions (e.g., perfumes, sport cars, fine wines). Given the previous research using the self-monitoring construct as a means of identifying which functions attitudes serve for high and low self- monitoring individuals (e.g., DeBono, 1987; DeBono & Hamish, 1988), it can be 28 predicted that low self-monitors should be attracted to and purchase products that express their values, beliefs and dispositions and, as a result of the purchase, experience positive affect. The experiencing of positive effect could in turn be thought of as a reinforcing agent, perhaps leading to repeat purchases Of the same product (brand) in the future. By contrast, high self-monitors Should be attracted to and purchase products that provide a means of attaining social desirability (e.g., status, popularity) and as a result of purchasing such products, high self-monitors should come to experience positive affect. Once again, the positive affect experienced by purchasing the product could act as a reinforcing agent prompting repeat purchases in the future. . Note that the different attitude functions that are being met in purchasing a product have implications for the repeat buying behavior of low and high self- monitors. Low self-monitors may become brand loyal because the product is an accurate reflection of their need to express important attitudes; that is, it is a way to be true to one’s self. As long as the product successfully meets this need, repeat buying Should occur. By contrast, because high self-monitors may be attracted to products that will assist them in attaining status or popularity, as long as the brand name is "in," repeat buying should occur. However once the brand becomes passé and another brand becomes the "hot" item, we should no longer expect high self-monitors to continue to purchase the previous brand. 29 A nt fviwinth rhin nmtinxrin fr f it x r i n The advantages of approaching advertising and consumer behavior from a functional perspective that suggests purchasing and consumption of a product is an exercise in attitude expression are numerous. First, the perspective suggests that we can begin to predict which individuals are most likely to be attentive to and process information in an advertisement because such a strategy impinges on an individual’s needs, plans, or goals. Secondly, by addressing the needs, plans or goals Of an individual we can demonstrate to the consumer that his or her strivings can be attained by purchasing and using the product. This demonstration of goal attainment should increase the purchasing and use of the endorsed product by the targeted group. Lastly, because the product impinges and meets the needs Of the individual, positive effect should be elicited by the purchase and use of the product, which in turn, should act as a reinforcing agent that will prompt repeat buying so long as the product continues to serve a function for the consumer. W The purpose of the present research is to examine how advertisements which impinge on an individual’s needs, plans, and goals make the advertisement more attractive to a consumer, which in turn may lead to the purchasing of the advertised product. Specifically, the present research will examine the affective responses to purchasing and using an advertised product 30 that serve different functions for individuals high and low in the personality construct of self-monitoring. Because the attitudes of high self-monitors serve mainly a social-adjustive function, high self-monitors should be attracted to and evaluate more favorably an advertisement and its featured product that addresses their concerns of appearing socially appropriate. As such, when presented with an Opportunity to choose and then evaluate a product, high self-monitors should be attracted to and use products that assist them in meeting their social desirability goals. Because the social-adjustive product is meeting a need or goal for the high self- monitor, they should evaluate the product more favorably. By using such a product, high self-monitors should feel good about themselves because the product is helping them achieve their desired goal. Under conditions where the product does not fulfill a social-adjustive function for high self-monitors, such as when they are not given or do not have a choice in using a product (e.g., because Of availability, its cost, or it is a gift) they should experience less positive affect. In contrast, because the attitudes of low self-monitors serve mainly a value-expressive function, low self-monitors should be attracted to and evaluate more favorably advertisements and featured products that address their need to hold and express important values and beliefs. As such, when presented with an Opportunity to choose and then evaluate a product, low self-monitors should be attracted to and use products that assist them in meeting their need to express important values and beliefs. Because the value-expressive product is 31 meeting a need or goal for low self-monitors, they should evaluate the product more favorably. By using such a product, low self-monitors should feel good about themselves because the product is helping them achieve their desired goal. Under conditions where low self-monitors have either purchased or are using a product that does not serve a value-expressive function, low self- monitors should experience significantly less positive effect. The intensity of the effective response that an individual will experience may well depend upon situational constraints. Under conditions that are not personally involving, individuals may come to experience weak affective responses when choosing and using a product that either serves or does not serve a function for the individual. That is, under conditions where high self- monitors are not motivated to present themselves in a socially desirable manner (e.g., where others in the situation cannot provide rewards for engaging in socially appropriate behavior), affective intensity should be quite weak. Under these circumstances, high self-monitors should experience neutral affect. In contrast, low self-monitors Should experience neutral affective responses when purchasing and using a product under conditions where it is not important for them to express their oWn value system (e.g., on topics that they do not have strong viewpoints). Negative affect may be experienced when conditions are personally in- volving and high or low self-monitors are purchasing or are using a product that does not serve a function or meet the needs Of the individual. Specifically, under conditions where high self-monitors are motivated to present themselves 32 in a socially desirable manner (e.g., where others in the situation can provide them with rewards), but they have to use a product that does not serve a social- adjustive function, high self-monitors should experience greater negative affect. In contrast, under conditions where low self-monitors are motivated to express an important attitude by using a product, but the product in use does not serve a value-adjustive function, low self-monitors should experience greater negative affect. Study 1A Hyppthssis 1 Evaluations Of products and advertisements will be affected by the extent to which a particular product appears to facilitate the fulfillment of a person’s underlying needs, plans, and goals. Hypothesis 1a. Low self-monitors, who are motivationally oriented toward value expression, Should prefer products that help them assert valid opinions (e.g., quality-oriented products). They will rate these products and quality- oriented advertisements about them more positively. Hyppthssis 1p. High self-monitors, who are motivationally oriented toward social adjustment, should prefer products that help them project a desirable social image (e.g., status-oriented products). They will rate these products and status-oriented advertisements about them more positively. Hyppthssis 2 The type of emotional reaction elicited by expressing attitudes about a product will depend on the type of person (high versus low self-monitor), the 33 type of product (Status- versus quality-oriented), and the type of situation in which the attitude is expressed (public versus private). Heightened positive effect will result only when there is a match between the individual’s motivational needs and the extent to which the product and the Situation allow satisfaction of those needs. uyppmesisga. Low self-monitors should feel most positive after evaluating a quality-oriented product’s advertising, regardless of whether they do SO in public or private circumstances. This is because the product is most likely to serve a value-expressive function that is of particular importance to them. Regardless Of whether this affirmation is made to Others (public conditions) or to themselves (private conditions), they should feel good about it. Hyppthesis 2p. High self-monitors should feel most positive after evaluating a status-oriented product’s advertising, but only when doing so in public. This is because it is under public conditions that they are able to project a favorable image to others, fulfilling the social-adjustive function that is of paramount importance to them. Although they will still evaluate status-oriented products favorably in private conditions, doing so will not facilitate their immediate impression formation goals, so their emotional reactions should be more neutral under the private condition. H th i Positive emotional reactions generated by the act of expressing opinions about products and their advertising (under conditions outlined in Hypotheses 34 2a and 2b) will generalize to a greater global sense of life satisfaction compared to other conditions. Predictions made under the second and third hypotheses are presented visually in Table 1, Showing predicted affective reactions after expressing attitudes about consumer products as a function of the type of person, type of product, and type of situation. Table 1 Prediction of Mood Effects for Study 1a Hi h lf-M nitor pr Sslf-Mpnitprs Public Private Public Private Status Product + 0 0 0 Quality Product 0 0‘ + + Npts: + indicates a significantly more positive emotional reaction (and a sense of life satisfaction) than under other conditions. Method Partip‘ ipants and Design Ninety-six Michigan State University female undergraduates participated for extra credit toward their grade in introductory psychology. On the basis of a 35 tripartite split of their scores on the 18-item Self-monitoring scale (Snyder & Gangestad, 1986) obtained as part of a screening study conducted earlier in the term, 48 participants were classified as high self-monitors and 48 participants were Classified as low self-monitors. High and low self-monitors were randomly assigned to the conditions of a 2(Visibility; public, private) x 2(Perfume Given; Intrigue, Essence) between-subjects factorial design. tim l M t ri l Perfume was chosen as the stimulus to be advertised because it lends itself well to both the product dimension (e.g., its quality, such as its scent and special ingredients) and the image dimension (e.g., its status appeal, such as the image Of romance associated with using the product). Previous research (e.g., Snyder & DeBono, 1985, 1987; DeBono & Snyder, 1989; Attridge & Snyder, 1989) has examined the mediating effect of self-monitoring differences in response to advertised products by emphasizing the product dimension and the image dimension. This research suggests that individuals who are concerned with the impression that they make (i.e., high self-monitors) are more persuaded by advertisements that provide information relevant to creating desirable social images (i.e., image-oriented advertisements), whereas those individuals who are concerned that their behavior reflects their own inner dispositions and values (i.e., low self-monitors) are more persuaded by advertisements that provide information about a product’s quality and function. Two advertisements were created emphasizing either the "image" or "prOduct" dimension of perfume. The advertisements were adapted from the 36 previous work Of Snyder and his colleagues (Snyder & DeBono, 1985, 1987; DeBono & Snyder, 1989; and Attridge & Snyder, 1989). In their research, the image-oriented ad typically presented the perceiver with an attractive spokesperson and the written copy emphasized the role that the perfume plays in romance. The product-oriented ad typically presented the perceiver with a bottle of the perfume and the written copy emphasized the quality of the product’s ingredients. Using the manipulations of image and quality developed by Snyder and his colleaguesas a guide, the image-oriented advertisement featured a photograph of the fashion model, Cindy Crawford. The copy read, "Romance Begins With Intrigue. Intrigue Perfume." The product-oriented advertisement featured a photograph of a bottle of perfume. The copy read, "The Essence Of A Soft Floral Scent With A Hint of Musk. Essence Perfume“ (See Appendix A). Once the ads were created, they were pretested to determine if they had the desired effects. Results of the pretesting indicated success. A series Of t- tests were performed on the pretest measures to determine the status- and quality-orientation of the advertisements. Participants perceived the image- oriented ed (M = 4.71, based on a 7-point scale) to be significantly more status- oriented than the product-oriented ad (M = 1.78), t(40) = 14.73, p < .001. Participants also perceived the product-oriented ad to be significantly more quality-oriented (M = 4.15) than the image-oriented ad (M = 1.61), t(40) = 11.77,p < .001. 37 TO examine whether image and quality were confounded within each advertisement, another series of t-tests was conducted on the pretest measures. Results were consistent with the intended manipulations. The status-oriented ad was perceived as being image-oriented (M = 4.71) but not product-oriented (M = 1.61), t(40) = 17.81, p < .001. The quality-oriented ad was perceived as being product-oriented (M = 4.15) but not image-oriented (M = 1.78), t(40) = 9.60, p < .001. Visibility Manipulatipn Because specific predictions were made concerning the effect that an audience would have on the affective reaction of high and low self-monitors, a manipulation had to be devised to increase the likelihood that participants would understand that their evaluation of the perfume would remain anonymous, or would become known to others. A manipulation used by Baumgardner and her colleagues (Baumgardner, Kaufman, & Levy, 1989) to accomplish this feat was employed in the present study. To develop the sense that participants’ evaluation of the product would be known to others (i.e., public condition), participants were instructed to write their full names on the response questionnaires and present it to the experimenter for inspection. To develop the feeling that participants’ evaluations would remain anonymous (i.e., private condition), participants were instructed to seal the dependent measures in an envelope and drop it into a ballot box which was stationed away from the experimenter. DEW M -th Me r All participants completed the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988). The PANAS is a self-report measure that assesses positive and negative affect. The measure consists of ten positive emotions (e.g., excited, proud, inspired) and ten negative emotions (e.g., distressed, upset, hostile), each rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = not at all, 5= extremely) (See Appendix C). The PANAS yields two factors: a positive affect score and a negative affect score. These dimensions have consistently emerged in previous studies of affective structure and have been demonstrated to be highly distinctive, orthogonal dimensions (Diener & Emmons, 1984; Diener, Larsen, Levine, & Emmons, 1985; Russell, 1980). Participants also completed the Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS; Diener et al., 1985) as it was expected that the positive affect experienced by expressing an attitude should generalize to a feeling of global life satisfaction. The SWLS is a narrowly focused self-report that assesses global life satisfaction and does not measure related constructs such as positive affect or loneliness. The scale consists of five items, each rated on a seven-point scale (1 = SILQDQN disagree, 7: W) (See Appendix C). An ancillary measure that participants completed was the Brief Fear of Negative Evaluation scale (Brief-FNE; Leary, 1983). The Brief-FNE was included because high and low self-monitors might react differently to the experimental conditions. Specifically, it was expected that high self-monitors would 39 experience greater fear of being evaluated negatively when evaluating a quality- orient product publicly. The Brief-FNE scale is a self—report measure that assesses the degree to which individuals experience apprehension over being evaluated negatively by others. The scale consists of 12-items selected from the FNE scale developed by Watson & Friend (1969) that correlated at least .50 with the FNE scale total (Leary, 1983). instead of a true-false format, which is used in the original, the Brief-FNE uses a 5-point scale anchored by "not at all characteristic of me" and "extremely characteristic of me" (See Appendix C). Aneillag Personality Measeres Several ancillary personality measures were administered in the experimental session because they might help elucidate any obtained self- monitoring effects. Specifically, the Self-Consciousness Scale (SCS; Fenigstein, Scheier, & Buss, 1975), and the Fashion Awareness Scale (FAS; Hirschman & Adcock, 1979) were completed by participants. Although not highly correlated with the self-monitoring construct, the subscales of the SCS measure personality variables conceptually similar to Self- monitoring. Thus, it was expected that similar results should be observed for the constructs measured by the SCS. The SCS assesses individual differences in self-consciousness. The scale consists of three components: public self-consciousness, private self- consciousness and social anxiety. Public self-consciousness is defined as ”a general awareness of the self as a social object that has an effect on others“ 4o (Fenigstein et al., 1975, p. 523). Private self-consciousness is defined as "attending to one’s inner thoughts and feelings“ (Fenigstein et al., 1975, p. 523). Social anxiety is defined as “discomfort in the presence of others“ (Fenigstein et al., 1975, p. 523). The scale consists of 23 items each based on a 5-point scale anchored by "extremely characteristic" of me and "extremely uncharacteristic" of me. The Fashion Awareness Scale was included to examine if high and low self-monitors might act in ways that suggest they react differently in their willingness to try new products. The FAS assesses individual differences in fashion innovative communication and fashion opinion leadership. The scale identifies four categories of consumers: innovative communicators, opinion leaders, innovators, and the general population. Innovative communicators are defined as "individuals who rank high on both innovativeness and fashion leadership (Hirschman & Adcock, 1975, p. 309). "Individuals who rank highly on fashion innovativeness but not on opinion leadership" (Hirschman & Adcock, 1975, p. 309) are defined as fashion innovators. Opinion leaders are defined as individuals "who score high on opinion leadership but not on innovativeness“ (Hirschman & Adcock, 1979, p. 309). Individuals "who do not score high on either construct" (Hirschman & Adcock, 1975, p. 309) are defined as the general population. The scale consists of 6 items each based on a 4-point scale anchored by “often" and "never." 41 MW Participants completed several questions that assessed their preferences for the perfumes and advertisements. Among these measures were questions that asked participants which product they thought was better, and to what extent they like each advertisement. (See Appendix C). M hi I ti n h k The effectiveness of the visibility manipulation was assessed by the following question: "How likely is it that the experimenter and others will know how I evaluated the perfume." The response scale was a 7-point scale anchored by "not at all likely" and "very likely". (See Appendix C). Pr r 1 Participants tested the product individually such that only one participant was scheduled for any given experimental session. Upon arrival, the participant was greeted by an experimenter and informed that for this experiment we would be obtaining her reactions to several consumer products. We told her that “a marketing firm has asked us to help them with some market research. Because we are interested in the psychological processes involved in consumer decision- making, we have agreed to their request. The marketing firm is interested in obtaining student opinion about some new products that will soon be on the market. Because the undergraduate population represents a large proportion of consumers of these products, they would like you to evaluate the relative merits of the advertisement and test the product.“ 42 After the cover story was relayed to participants, they were presented with the image-oriented and product-oriented advertisements. They were then told that "the advertisements that you're now going to examine are mock ads. That is, these advertisements are currently being designed for the print media and may not be of the quality that you are accustomed to from your favorite magazine." Participants were told to spend the next minute examining both ads. After examining the advertisements, subjects were presented with either Intrigue or Essence perfume (depending on which experimental condition they had been assigned). Regardless of which advertised perfume they were given to evaluate (i.e., Intrigue or Essence), participants were presented with an identical inexpensive, store-brand perfume that was decanted to a nondescript tester bottle. After trying the product, participants were told that we would now like to get their evaluations of the product along with some general demographic information. Participants were given the ratings form that was used to record their evaluations. After participants made their evaluations of the perfume, those assigned to the public visibility condition were asked to write their full name on the ratings form and present it to the experimenter for inspection. Participants in the anonymous condition were told not to make any identifying marks on the form and to seal their completed ratings form in the envelope provided by the experimenter and drop it into the ballot box. Once the rating task was complete, participants were given a questionnaire booklet and were asked to complete it. The booklet consisted of 43 all the measures detailed earlier in the dependent measure section of this chapter. The first measure in the booklet was the PANAS. After completion of the mood measure, participants were asked to rate which of the advertisements they preferred most in response to various aspects of liking for the product and completed the manipulation check item. Then, participants were asked to complete the Brief-FNE, the SCS, the FAS and the SWLS. Results of Study 1A h k nViiiIi Mni Itin To examine if writing one’s name on the rating form or sealing the rating form in an envelope and dropping it off in the ratings box had the desired effect of making participants feel that their ratings would be known to others or remain anonymous, a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted on the primary dependent variable used to assess this manipulation. (Recall the measure was a 7-point scale anchored by "not at all likely" that the experimenter and others will know how I evaluated the perfume and "very likely" that the experimenter and others will know how I evaluated the perfume.) There was no evidence that the visibility manipulation had its desired effect. Participants who were instructed not to write their names on the rating form and seal it in an envelope and then drop it off in the ratings box were just as likely to believe that the experimenter and others would know how they rated the perfume compared to participants who were instructed to write their names on the rating form and present it to the experimenter (Ms = 3.00, 3.17; respectively, F(1,96) < 1). 44 The failure of the visibility manipulation check is surprising because this procedure has been used extensively in the past with success. One speculative explanation is that these participants were not "naive subjects” but had already participated in several experiments before participating in this study. Coupled with the fact that most participants are usually suspicious of guarantees of anonymity when participating in psychological experiments, they may have come to believe that even if they did not sign their name to the rating form, there must be some way to trace the rating form to them. Perhaps a more likely scenario regarding this null result is that the manipulation did in fact have an effect (as will be borne out by subsequent analyses) but this particular dependent measure did not adequately assess the manipulation. Primag Analyses Rating the Pefieme It was expected that evaluations of products and advertisements would be affected by the extent to which a particular product appears to facilitate the fulfillment of a person’s underlying needs, plans, or goals. More specifically, Hyeethesis 1a stated that low self-monitors, who are motivationally oriented toward value expression, should prefer products that help them assert valid opinions (e.g., quality-oriented products). They should rate these products and quality-oriented advertisements about them more positively. In contrast, Hyeethesis 1b posited that high self-monitors, who are motivationally oriented toward social adjustment, should prefer products that help them project a 45 desirable social image (e.g., status-oriented products). They will rate these products and status-oriented advertisements about them more positively. To determine whether or not these hypotheses were supported, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted on the overall liking measure of perfume. The analysis revealed no support for Hyeethesis 1a such that low self-monitors did not rate Essence perfume (the quality-oriented product) significantly more favorably than intrigue perfume (the status-oriented product) (Ms = 4.16, 3.75; respectively), F(1,95) < 1. Hypethesis 1b was also not supported, as the analysis revealed that high selfomonitors did not evaluate Intrigue perfume (M = 4.25) significantly more favorably than Essence perfume (M = 3.50), F(1,96) < 1. These null results are surprising as previous research has demonstrated the tendency for high self-monitors to evaluate status-oriented products more favorably than quality-oriented products and for low self-monitors to evaluate quality-oriented products more favorably than status-oriented products. One explanation of these null results might be that the ads did not convey their intended manipulations. However, the ads were pretested and results indicated that the ads did convey their intended manipulations. The analysis did reveal an unexpected main effect of perfume given to participants to evaluate, F(1,96) = 7.51, p < .01, such that those given Essence perfume evaluated it more favorably than those given intrigue perfume (Ms = 4.13 vs 3.42). This effect, coupled with the null results, suggests that participants liked the Essence ad more that the Intrigue ad. Recall that the 46 perfume was the identical, inexpensive, store-bought perfume that all participants evaluated regardless of which brand name they were told they would evaluate. To further explore this explanation, participants’ evaluations of the advertisements will be examined next. A rti m nt Pr f r n Participants’ preference for the advertisements and products were analyzed. A series of 2(Self-monitoring; high, low) x 2(Visibility; public, private) x 2(Perfume Given; Intrigue, Essence) ANOVA’s were conducted on participants’ liking of the Essence and Intrigue perfume advertisements. Recall that Hyeethesis 1a predicted that low self-monitors would evaluate the quality- oriented advertisement (Essence) more favorably than the status-oriented advertisement (Intrigue). In contrast, Hyeethesis 19 predicted that high self- monitors would evaluate the status-oriented advertisement (Intrigue) more favorably than the quality-oriented ad (Essence). The ANOVA revealed mixed support for these hypotheses. Examining the ratings of Iikability for the Essence ad, low self-monitors did not indicate liking the Essence ad (M fl= 3.08) significantly more than did high self-monitors (M = 2.79), F(1,95) < 1. Although the means are in the predicted direction, this analysis provides little support for L-I_yp_o_th_esis_1a. More encouraging was the result for the ratings of Iikability for the Intrigue ad. The ANOVA conducted on ratings of Iikability for the Intrigue ad revealed a main effect of self-monitoring, F(1,95) = 7.08, p < .01, such that high self-monitors indicated a greater liking for‘the Intrigue ad (M = 3.08) as compared to low self-monitors (M = 2.38). 47 This latter finding yields support for Hypethesis 1b which predicted that high self-monitors would like the status-oriented ad more than low self-monitors because the ad would be presenting information that would help fulfill high self- monitors’ social adjustment needs. As previously noted, these results yielded mixed support for the hypotheses. One possible explanation of the null finding for the quality-oriented product would be that despite the ads’ differing motivational orientations, low self-monitors did not find something especially appealing (likable) about the quality-oriented ad. Although the ads were carefully pretested to determine their motivational orientations, they were not pretested to determine their Iikability. It was assumed that both ads were similar in terms of their Iikability and that whatever initial Iikability differences there were between them would be reduced by the motivating properties of the ads. From these results, it appears that low self-monitors did not like the quality-oriented ad enough to produce a significant finding. (Note that the mean rating of iikability for the Essence ad among high self-monitors (M = 2.79) was below the scale midpoint for this item.) One indicator of how strong the liking effect may be can be found in the product preference data, as it is assumed that liking of the ad will transfer to preference for the product. This hypothesis will be examined next. Pr Pref ren Participants were asked to choose which product they thought was better--Essence or intrigue. An ANOVA conducted on this dependent measure (a five-point response scale ranging from definitely Intrigue to definitely Essence 48 with lower scores indicating greater preference for Intrigue and higher scores indicating greater preference for Essence) revealed a marginally significant main effect of self-monitoring, F(1,95) = 3.46, p < .10. As predicted, low self- monitors showed a stronger preference for Essence (M = 3.42) than did high self-monitors (M = 3.10). This finding provides some support for ,liypetlleses 1a and 1b which stated when there is a match between a product and high and low self-monitors’ motivational needs, this product will be preferred mismatches. magma Pesitive affeg. To examine the combined effects of self-monitoring, product assignment and the visibility manipulation on participants’ mood, separate analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were conducted for the positive mood dimension and the negative mood dimension of the Positive And Negative Affect Scale (PANAS). To attain the positive mood score, the positive mood adjectives were summed to form a total positive mood score (minimum score = 15, maximum score = 47, where greater scores indicated greater positive affect). A 2(Self-monitoring; high, low) x 2(Visibility; public, private) x 2(Perfume Given; Intrigue, Essence) ANOVA conducted on the total positive mood score indicated a marginally significant three-way interaction among self-monitoring, visibility condition and perfume given to evaluate, F(1,95) = 2.52, p < .11. Means pertaining to this interaction are shown in Table 2. Simple effect tests indicated that low self-monitors had generally similar levels of happiness in all conditions except for less happiness when publicly evaluating the status- oriented product. In contrast, high self-monitors had generally similar levels of 49 happiness in all conditions except for less happiness when privately evaluating the status-oriented product. As can be seen in Table 2, participants were uniformly happy after testing and evaluating the quality-oriented product (Essence) regardless of their self- monitoring proclivities or the visibility of their responses. However, reactions to the status-oriented product (Intrigue) showed a more complex pattern. Happiness levels of high self-monitors were comparable to those obtained from participants rating the "quality" product only when the evaluations had been made publicly. Private evaluation of the status-oriented productresulted in significantly less happiness, consistent with expectations. In contrast, low self- monitors’ reported happiness after evaluating the status-oriented product was lower when the evaluation was made publicly, as opposed to privately. This lack of an effect for the quality-oriented product may be due to the nature of the quality-oriented ad. It seems that the quality-oriented manipulations in the advertisement may have been too subtle for these participants to fully appreciate. The weakness of the quality-oriented manipulations are apparent from the previous null results examining advertisement iikability and product preference. it is disturbing that the pretesting appeared to indicate that the quality-oriented ad was strong enough to convey the intended effects. However, it is clear that for participants in the present study, the manipulation was not strong enough to evoke the desired effects. 50 In sum, the positive affect results for the ads indicate only partial support for W in terms of affect elicited by the status- and quality- oriented ads. Encouragement can be drawn, however, from the results for the status-oriented ad. Under the visibility condition, for the status-oriented ad, participants did experience more happiness as predicted by their self-monitoring proclivities. 51 Table 2 Mean Positive Affect Scores High self-monitor Low self-monitor Public Private Public Private intrigue 28.83‘ 26.83b 25.50b 29.42" (12) (12) (12) (12) Essence 28.92‘ 30.42" 30.33‘ 29.00‘ (12) (12) (12) (12) Note: Cell sizes are denoted in parentheses. Means that do not share a common superscript differ at p < .05. 52 Negat_Ne_afjeqt. The negative adjectives on the PANAS were summed to form a total negative mood score (minimum score = 10, maximum score = 40, where greater scores indicated greater negative affect). A 2(Self-monitoring; high, low) x 2(Visibility; public, private) x 2(Perfume Given; Intrigue, Essence) ANOVA was conducted on the total negative mood score. The analysis revealed a two-way interaction between self-monitoring and perfume given to evaluate, F(1,95) = 4.78, p < .05. This (two-way interaction was qualified by the presence of a significant three-way interaction among self-monitoring, visibility condition and perfume given to evaluate, F(1,95) = 3.74, p = .05. Means pertaining to this interaction are presented in Table 3. Simple effect tests indicated that under conditions of public response, neither high self-monitors nor low self-monitors showed any difference in levels of negative affect as a function of the product they evaluated. However, when responding privately, high self-monitors showed greater negative affect after testing and evaluating the status-oriented product than the quality-oriented product. Low self-monitors, on the other hand, showed greater negative affect after testing and evaluating the Quality-oriented product privately. These results indicate that high self-monitors felt less negative affect when evaluating the quality-oriented (Essence) perfume privately. This may be because privacy, provides a less problematic situation for high self-monitors when evaluating a product that does not satisfy a motivational need. That is, when evaluating a product that does not fulfill a motivational goal for high self- monitors, they did not have to be concerned with self-presentation issues of 53 what others might think of them. No one would know how they evaluated the quality-oriented perfume and this may have lowered any apprehensions high self-monitors may have had about evaluating Essence perfume. Although self-monitoring theory states that low self-monitors are not concerned with the image that they project to others, it appears from this data that these low self-monitors were upset at the loss of an opportunity to express an attitude about a product that fulfills a motivational orientation. Thus, it seems that low-self monitors, like their high self-monitoring counterparts, take an active role in creating the social self that their wish to project to others. Mean Negative Affect Scores Table 3 High self-monitor Low self-monitor Public Private Public Private Intrigue 13.00” 14.08‘ 12.50‘” 11.42” (12) (12) (12) (12) Essence 12.92" 1 1 .50" 12.83“ 15.58‘ . (12) (12) (12) (12) Note: Cell sizes are denoted in parentheses. Means that do not share a common superscript differ at p < .05. 55 R tin fth Pr n M Hyeethesis 2 predicted that a specific pattern of affective reactions would be elicited by expressing attitudes about the product, independent of what the valence of the attitude would be (i.e., positive or negative). For example, the hypothesis predicted that high self-monitors given a status-oriented product to evaluate publicly would experience greater positive affect because this situation allows for the satisfaction of high self-monitors’ motivational goals to appear to be socially desirable. As previously noted, this hypothesis was not supported. Perhaps one reason why Hypothesis 2 was not supported was the fact that a less than sublime perfume was chosen as the product that participants would evaluate. Recall that ratings of the product confirmed participants’ displeasure with the product. Such an unfavorable rating could be interpreted as expressing a negative attitude about the product. Thus, in hindsight, it could be hypothesized that positive affect should be elicited only when an individual has expressed a positive attitude about the product and that negative affect should be evoked when an individual has expressed a negative attitude about the product. To examine this notion, participants’ rating of the product were correlated with mood. Results indicated that more favorable ratings of the product were positively correlated with positive affective scores on the PANAS, r = .27, p < .01, whereas unfavorable ratings of the product were not correlated with negative affective scores on the PANAS, r = .02, p > .05. Thus, these results suggest that an individual may need to express a positive attitude about the product for the experience to be a positive experience for the individual. ti i n With Lif Hypethesis a posited that positive mood generated by congruency between personal motive and situational characteristics would generalize to participants’ overall perceptions of life satisfaction. Although hypotheses (2a and 2b) about mood effects were not confirmed, the life satisfaction data were still examined to see if a meaningful pattern emerged. To examine participants’ perceptions of life satisfaction, the Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS) items were summed to form a general life satisfaction total score (minimum score = 10, maximum score = 34, where high scores indicated more satisfaction with life). A 2(Self-monitoring; high, low) x 2(Visibility; public, private) x 2(Perfume Given; Intrigue, Essence) ANOVA was conducted on the total life satisfaction score. Analysis revealed no significant affects, all Fs < 1. The means for the predicted three-way interaction are presented in Table 4. Perhaps the reason why these null results were observed was that the positive mood effect experience by participants may have been very short-lived or was not strong enough to carry over to perceptions of general life satisfaction. To explore more fully the relationship between mood and life satisfaction, a series of correlations was undertaken. Results indicated that higher positive mood scores on the PANAS were positively correlated with higher life satisfaction scores, r = .27, p < .01. Results also indicated that overall mood (i.e., positive mood score minus negative mood score) was also positively correlated with life satisfaction, r = .35, p < .01. In contrast, greater negative 57 mood scores on the PANAS were negatively correlated with higher life satisfaction scores, r = .26, p < .01. Thus, these results suggest that mood and perceptions of life satisfaction are related but the experimental manipulations did not produce the hypothesized effects. Table 4 Mean Life Satisfaction Scores High self-monitors Low self-monitors Public Private Public Private intrigue 23.67 23.50 23.75 23.67 (12) (12) (12) (12) Essence 27.83 25.25 22.69 23.25 (12) (12) (12) (12) Note: Cell sizes are denoted in parentheses. Fear ef Negative Evaluatien To examine if high and low self-monitors differed in terms of their fear of being evaluated negatively, the items of the Brief Fear of Negative Evaluation scale were summed (minimum score = 14, maximum score = 56) and then * submitted to a 2(Self-monitoring; high, low) x 2(Visibility; public, private) x 2(Perfume Given; Intrigue, Essence) ANOVA. The ANOVA revealed no effect for self-monitoring, F(1,96) < 1. The visibility manipulation did have an effect on participants. The analysis revealed a significant main effect of visibility, F(1,95) = 6.52, p s .01, such that participants who were in the public visibility condition reported more fear of being evaluated negatively than those who were in the private visibility condition (Ms = 35.98 vs. 30.88). There were no other significant effects for this analysis. Anl fecnd Pr nli Varil The primary dependent variables were also analyzed as a function of the eXploratory personality variables that were collected. To avoid redundancy, only main and interactive effects involving the secondary personality variables will be presented and discussed. Fashien lnnevativeness The Fashion Awareness Scale (FAS; Hirschman 8 Adcock, 1978) was included in the dependent measures to examine if high and low self-monitors would differ in terms of their willingness to try new products. As previously detailed, the FAS assesses individual differences in Fashion Innovativeness and Fashion Opinion Leadership. 60 The three items from the FAS that assessed Fashion Innovativeness were summed across items to form a mean Fashion Innovativeness score. To determine if high and low self-monitors differed in their scores on Fashion innovativeness, a one-way analysis of variance was conducted. The analysis revealed a main effect of self-monitoring, F(1,96) = 5.08, p < .05, such that high self-monitors scored higher on this measure (M = 4.88) than did low self- monitors (M = 4.18). This result suggests that high self-monitors are more likely to try new fashions and fashion-related products than are low self- monitors. To determine if high self-monitors would also be fashion leaders, the three items from the FAS that assessed individuals’ Fashion Opinion Leadership were summed across items to form a mean Fashion Opinion Leadership score. A one-way analysis of variance was conducted on the Fashion Opinion Leadership score. The ANOVA revealed a marginally significant effect of self- monitoring, F(1,96) = 2.80, p < .10, such that high self-monitors tended to score higher on Fashion Opinion Leadership (M = 9.19) than did low self- monitors (M = 8.37). 5 These results suggest that high and low self-monitors do vary in terms of their willingness to try new fashions and fashion-related products. Thus, it appears that high self-monitors may be less discriminating consumers, at least initially, willing to give new products a try. This may explain why high self- monitors were happy evaluating the quality-oriented product. Perhaps, if high self-monitors were told that they had to use the product over several weeks or 61 even months rather than just once, results may have been observed which were more consistent with Study 1A’s hypotheses. If- n i n As detailed earlier, the self-consciousness construct was included in the study because it measures constructs that are conceptually similar to self- monitoring such that individuals high in public self-consciousness appear to be similar in motivational orientation to high self-monitors. in contrast, individuals high in private self-consciousness appear to be similar in motivational orientation to low self-monitors. Thus, it was expected that the hypotheses posed concerning self-monitoring may hold for individuals varying in public and private self-consciousness. Priv t if- n i n W The items from the Self-Consciousness Scale (Fenigstein, Scheier, & Buss, 1975) that assessed the Private Self-consciousness construct were summed across items to form a Private Self-consciousness score. A median split procedure was then employed to classify those who scored high on Private Self-consciousness (23 or higher) and those who scored low on Private Self- consciousness (22 or lower). Ratings ef the Perfume An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted on the rating measures of perfume (i.e., overall rating of the perfume). Results of the ANOVA revealed a significant three-way interaction among Private Self-consciousness, perfume 62 given to evaluate and visibility condition, F(1,96) = 4.58, p < .05. Means are presented in Table 5. Simple effects indicated that in the public visibility condition, those who scored high in Private Self-consciousness and were given Essence perfume to evaluate rated the perfume more favorably than those who scored high in Private Self-consciousness and given Intrigue perfume to evaluate. Simple effects also indicated that in the private visibility condition, those who scored low in Private Self-consciousness and were given Essence perfume to evaluate rated it more favorably than those who score low in Private Self- consciousness and were given Intrigue perfume to evaluate. Table 5 Mean Ratings of the Perfume High Private Low Private Self-consciousness Self-consciousness Public Private Public Private intrigue 3.82‘ 3.57"” 4.00“ 3.10‘ (17) (14) (7) _ (10) Essence 4.77” 3.73"b 4.08"” 4.15” (13) (11) (12) (13) Note: Cell sizes are denoted in parentheses. Means that do not share a common superscript differ at p < .05. Avrti mntPrfrn High and low PrivateSelf-consciousness individuals’ preference for the advertisements and products were analyzed. A 2(Private Self-consciousness; high, low) x 2(Visibility; public, private) x 2(Perfume Given; Intrigue, Essence) ANOVA was conducted on high and low Private Self-conscious individuals’ perceptions of the Essence and intrigue perfume advertisements. Examining the ratings of iikability for the Essence ad, the analysis revealed no significant effects, F(1,96) < 1. Examining the ratings of liking for the Intrigue ad, the ANOVA revealed a two-way interaction between Private Self-consciousness and visibility condition, F(1,96) = 4.03, p < .05. Simple effects indicated that those who scored low in Private Self-consciousness and were in the public visibility condition liked the Intrigue ad more than those who scored low in Private Self-consciousness and were in the private visibility condition (See Table 6). 65 Table 6 Mean Likability Rating for Intrigue High Private Low Private Self-consciousness Self-consciousness Public 2.87"” 3.21‘ (30) (19) Private 2.80‘b 2.09” (25) (23) Note: Cell sizes are denoted in parentheses. Means that do not share a common superscript differ at p < .05. ‘ Mam Pesitive affem. To examine the effect that product assignment and the visibility manipulation had on high and low Private Self-conscious individuals’ mood, separate analyses of variance (ANOVA) were conducted for the positive mood dimension and the negative mood dimension of the Positive And Negative Affect Scale (PANAS). A 2(Private Self-consciousness; high, low) x 2Msibility; public, private) x 2(Perfume Given; Intrigue, Essence) ANOVA conducted on the total positive mood score revealed no significant effects for this analysis. Negative affect. A 2(Private Self-consciousness; high, low) x 2(Visibility; public, private) x 2(Perfume Given; Intrigue, Essence) ANOVA was conducted on the total negative mood score. Results revealed a marginally significant main effect of Private Self-consciousness, F(1,96) = 2.72, p < .10, such that those who scored low in Private Self-consciousness experienced less negative affect (M = 12.24) than those who scored high in Private Self-consciousness (M = 13.49). There were no other significant effects for this analysis. Satisfaggien With Life A 2(Private Self-consciousness; high, low) x 2(Visibility; public, private) x 2(Perfume Given; Intrigue, Essence) ANOVA conducted on the total life satisfaction score revealed a marginally significant main effect of Private Self- consciousness F(1,96) = 2.97, p < .10, such that those who scored low in Private Self-consciousness were somewhat more satisfied with their lives (M = 25.36) than those who scored high in Private Self-consciousness (M = 23.29). 67 Fear ef Negative Evaluatien To examine how perfume assignment and the visibility manipulation affected Private Self-consciousness” fear of being evaluated negatively, a 2(Private Self-consciousness; high, low) x 2(Visibility; public, private) x 2(Perfume Given; Intrigue, Essence) ANOVA was conducted. The ANOVA revealed a main effect of Private Self-consciousness, F(1,96) = 10.72, p < .002, such that those low in Private Self-consciousness were less fearful of being evaluated negatively (M = 29.62) than those high in Private Self-consciousness (M = 36.31).) The analysis also revealed a two-way interaction between Private Self- consciousness and perfume given to evaluate, F(1,96) = 8.97, p < .004. Simple effects indicated that those high in Private Self-consciousness and who were given Intrigue perfume to evaluate were more fearful of being evaluated negatively than those high in Private Self-consciousness and who were given Essence perfume to evaluate, and those low in Private Self-consciousness who were given either intrigue or Essence to evaluate (See Table 7). Table 7 Mean Fear of Negative Evaluation Scores High Private Low Private Self-consciousness Self-consciousness Intrigue 39.32" 27.35” (17) (25) Essence 32.42b 31 .16” (31) (24) Note: Cell sizes are denoted in parentheses. Means that do not share a common superscript differ at p < .05. P ii if- n i n W. The items from the Self-Consciousness Scale (Fenigstein, Scheier, & Buss, 1975) that assessed the Public Self-consciousness construct were summed across items to form a Public Self-consciousness score. A median split procedure was then employed to classify those who scored high on Public Self-consciousness (19 or higher) and those who scored low on Public Self-consciousness (18 or lower). Aevertisement Preferenee High and low Public Self-conscious individuals’ preference for the advertisements and products were analyzed. A series of 2(Public Self- consciousness; high, low) x 2(Visibility; public, public) x 2(Perfume Given; Intrigue, Essence) ANOVA’s were conducted on participants’ liking of the Essence and Intrigue perfume advertisements. Examining the ratings of iikability for the Essence advertisement, the analysis revealed a significant two-way interaction between Public Self-consciousness and perfume given to evaluate, F(1,96) = 4.24, p < .05. Simple effects indicated participants high in Public Self-consciousness who were given Intrigue perfume liked the Essence ad more (M = 3.50) than high Public Self-consciousness individuals who were given Essence perfume to evaluate (M = 2.95). 70 Table 8 Mean Likability Ratings for Essence Advertisement High Public Low Public Self-consciousness Self-consciousness Intrigue 3.50" 3.10"” (28) (20) Essence 2.95” 3.30"” (19) (30) Note: Cell sizes are denoted in parentheses. Means that do not share a common superscript differ at p < .05. 71 Prmegz Preferenee Participants were asked to choose which product they thought was better -- Essence or Intrigue. An ANOVA conducted on this dependent measure (a five-point response scale ranging from definitely Essence to definitely Intrigue) revealed a main effect of Public Self-consciousness, F (1 ,96) = 4.43, p < .05. Individuals high in Public Self-consciousness showed a stronger preference for Essence (M = 3.46), than those low in Public Self-consciousness (M = 3.04). This main effect is qualified by a two-way interaction between Public Self- consciousness and perfume given to evaluate, F(1,96) = 5.72, p < .01. Simple effects revealed that those low in Public Self-consciousness who were given Essence perfume to evaluate thought Essence was the better product as compared to those low in Public Self-consciousness who were given Intrigue perfume to evaluate or those high in Public Self-consciousness who were either given Intrigue or Essence perfume to evaluate (See Table 9). 72 Table 9 Mean Likability Ratings for Intrigue High Public Low Public Self-consciousness Self-consciousness Intrigue 3.13" 3.20" (28) (20) Essence 2.84” 3.63" (19) (30) Note: Cell sizes are denoted in parentheses. Means that do not share a common superscript differ at p < .05. 73 Mmdjflests Pesitive affeg. To examine the effect that product assignment and the visibility manipulation had on high and low Public Self-consciousness individuals’ mood, separate analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were conducted for the positive mood dimension and the negative mood dimension of the Positive And Negative Affect Scale (PANAS). A 2(Public Self-consciousness; high, low) x 2(Visibility; public, public) x 2(Perfume Given; Intrigue, Essence) ANOVA conducted on the total positive mood score revealed no significant effects, all Fs < 1. Negative affeet. A 2(Public Self-consciousness; high, low) x 2(Visibility; public, public) x 2(Perfume Given; intrigue, Essence) ANOVA conducted on the total negative mood score revealed no significant effects for this analysis, all Fs < 1. ' Satisfagtien With Life To examine high and low Public Self-consciousness individuals’ perceptions of life satisfaction, the Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS) items were summed and submitted to a 2(Public Self-consciousness; high, low) x 2(Visibility; public, public) x 2(Perfume Given; intrigue, Essence) ANOVA. The analysis revealed a main effect of Public Self-consciousness, F(1,96) = 7.82, p < .006, such that those low in Public Self-consciousness were more satisfied with their lives (M = 25.62) than those high in Public Self-consciousness (M = 22.66). The ANOVA also revealed a marginally significant two-way interaction between Public Self-consciousness and perfume given to evaluate F(1,96) = 74 3.44, p < .10. Simple effects revealed that those low in Public Self- consciousness who were given Intrigue perfume to evaluate rated their general life satisfaction higher (M = 26.55) than did those high in Public Self- consciousness who were given Intrigue perfume to evaluate (M = 21.57). 75 Table 10 Mean Ratings of Life Satisfaction High Public Low Public Self-consciousness Self-consciousness Intrigue 21 .57” 26.55" (23) (20) Essence 24.26"” 25.00"” (19) (30) Note: Cell sizes are denoted in parentheses. Means that do not share a common superscript differ at p < ..05 76 Fear ef Negative Evaluatien To examine the effect that perfume assignment and the visibility manipulation affected Public Self-consciousness" fear of being evaluated negatively, the items of the Brief-Fear of Negative Evaluation scale were summed and then submitted to a 2(Public Self-consciousness; high, low) x 2(Visibility; public, public) x 2(Perfume Given; intrigue, Essence) ANOVA. The analysis revealed a significant main effect of Public Self-consciousness, F(1,96) = 32.73, p < .001, such that high Public Self-consciousness individuals indicated greater fear of negative evaluation than did low Public Self- consciousness individuals (M3 = 39.04 vs 28.12). There were no other significant results for this analysis. Seeial Anxiety t rization r r The items from the Self-Consciousness Scale (Fenigstein, Scheier, & Buss, 1975) that assessed Social Anxiety were summed across items to form a Social Anxiety score. A median split procedure was then employed to classify those who scored high on Social Anxiety (11 or higher) and those who scored low on Social Anxiety (10 or lower). Advertisement Preferenee High and low Socially Anxious individuals’ preference for the advertisements and products were analyzed. A series of 2(Social Anxiety; high, low) x 2(Visibility; public, public) x 2(Perfume Given; Intrigue, Essence) ANOVA’s were conducted on high and low Social Anxious individuals’ liking of the 77 Essence and Intrigue perfume advertisements. Examining the ratings of Iikability for the Essence advertisement, the analysis revealed a marginally significant three-way interaction among Social Anxiety, perfume given to evaluate, and visibility condition, F(1,96) = 3.39, p < .10. Simple effects indicated that those in the private visibility condition who were low in Social Anxiety and given Intrigue perfume to evaluate like the Essence ad more (M = 3.71) than those in the private visibility condition who were high in Social Anxiety and given Intrigue perfume to evaluate (M = 2.90). 78 Table 11 Mean Advertisement Preference High Social Anxiety Low Social Anxiety Public Private Public Private Intrigue 3.27"” 2.90” 3.33"” 3.71" (15) (10) (9) (14) Essence 3.00"” 3.63"” 3.20"” 3.06"” (15) (3) (10) (16) Note: Cell sizes are denoted in parentheses. Means that do not share a common superscript differ at p < .05. 79 M915 Pesitive affegz. To examine the effect that product assignment and the visibility manipulation had on high and low Socially Anxious individuals’ mood, separate analyses of variance (ANOVA) were conduct for the positive mood dimension and the negative mood dimension of the Positive And Negative Affect Scale (PANAS). A 2(Social Anxiety; high, low) x 2(Visibility; public, public) x 2(Perfume Given; Intrigue, Essence) ANOVA conducted on the total positive mood score revealed a main effect of Social Anxiety, F(1,96) = 7.44, p < .01, such that those low in Social Anxiety experienced more positive affect (M = 30.45) as compared to those high in Social Anxiety (M = 26.67). Negati_veaff_eet. To form a negative mood score, the negative adjectives were summed to form a total negative mood score and submitted to a 2(Social Anxiety; high, low) x 2(Visibility; public, public) x 2(Perfume Given; intrigue, Essence) ANOVA. Results revealed a main effect of Social Anxiety, F(1,96) = 4.13, p < .05, such that those low in Social Anxiety experienced less negative affect (M = 12.22) as compared to those high in Social Anxiety (M = 13.69). This main effect is qualified by a three-way interaction among Social Anxiety, perfume given to evaluate and visibility condition, F(1,96) = 5.01, p < .05. Simple effects indicated that high socially anxious individuals were less happy when evaluating the quality-oriented product privately than publicly (Ms = 17.00, 12.20; respectively). Simple effects also indicated that high socially anxious participants who evaluated the quality-oriented product privately were less happy (M = 17.00) than low socially anxious participants who evaluated the 80 status-oriented product publicly (M = 11.44) or privately (M = 12.21) or compared to low socially anxious participants who evaluated the quality-oriented product privately (M = 11.81). 81 Table 12 Mean Negative Affect Scores High Social Anxiety Low Social Anxiety Public Private Public Private Intrigue 13.53"” 13.50"” 11.44” 12.21 ” (15) A (12) (9) (14) Essence 12.20"” 17.00" 13.60"” 11.81 ” (15) (8) (10) (16) Note: Cell sizes are denoted in parentheses. Means that do not share a common superscript differ at p < .05. 82 Satisfaggign With Lfle’ To examine high and low Socially Anxious individuals’ perceptions of life satisfaction, the Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS) items were summed and submitted to a 2(Sociai Anxiety; high, low) x 2(Visibility; public, public) x 2(Perfume Given; intrigue, Essence) ANOVA. Results revealed a main effect of Social Anxiety, F(1,96) = 26.42, p < .001, such that those low in Social Anxiety were more satisfied with their lives (M = 26.63) than those high in Social Anxiety (M = 21.69). ‘ Fear ef Negative Evaleatien To examine the effect that perfume assignment and the visibility manipulation affected high and low Socially Anxious individuals’ fear of being evaluated negatively, the items of the Brief-Fear of Negative Evaluation scale were summed and then submitted to a 2(Social Anxiety; high, low) x 2(Visibility; public, public) x 2(Perfume Given; intrigue, Essence) ANOVA. The analysis revealed a significant main effect of Social Anxiety, F(1,96) = 14.53, p < .001, such that high Socially Anxious Individuals indicated greater fear of negative evaluation than did low Socially Anxious individuals (Ms = 37.50 vs. 29.41). Discussion Pr nAvrtimn vltin It was expected that evaluations of products and advertisements would be affected by the extent to which a particular product appeared to facilitate the fulfillment of a person’s underlying needs, plans, or goals. Results of Study 1A did not support this hypothesis. Low self-monitors did not rate the quality- 83 oriented product significantly more favorably than the status-oriented product. Similarly, high self-monitors did not rate the status-oriented product significantly more favorably than the quality-oriented product. Results examining the evaluation of the ads revealed mixed support for the hypothesis. Low self-monitors did not indicate liking the quality-oriented ad significantly more than high self-monitors although the means were in the predicted direction. More encouraging, however, were the iikability ratings of the status-oriented product. High self-monitors indicated a greater liking for the status-oriented ad than did low self-monitors. Additional support for the hypothesis can be found when examining the preference ratings of the products. When asked to choose between the quality- and status-oriented product, low self-monitors tended to show a stronger preference for the quality-oriented product and high self-monitors showed a stronger preference for the status-oriented product. Although none of these findings separately lend strong support for the hypothesis, overall, these findings provide some support for the notion that individuals prefer products and advertisements that emphasized attributes that will satisfy their motivational needs. Clearly, these results do not fully replicate those of Snyder and his colleagues (Snyder & DeBono, 1985, 1987; Snyder & Attridge, 1989). In Snyder’s research, participants only examined the advertisements and did not have an opportunity to try the product. This key difference between the two studies demonstrates the power and limitations of advertising. Snyder’s and the 84 current research suggests that motivationally-oriented ads addressing differential needs of high and low self-monitors exert an effect for preference for the product that satisfies a motivational goal. However, the present research suggests that the advertisement may be limited in its effectiveness by the characteristics of the product. That is, no matter how good the advertising, if the product lacks important characteristics which define a product class, preference for the product will be lacking. M n if ti f i n It was further hypothesized that the type of emotional reaction elicited by using a product would be a function of the type of person (i.e., high versus low self-monitor) type of product (i.e., status- versus quality-oriented), and type of situation (publicly versus privately). It was expected that heightened positive affect would result only when there was a match between the individual’s motivational needs and the extent to which the product and situation allow satisfaction of those needs. The positive affect results indicated that participants were uniformly happy after testing and evaluating the quality-oriented product regardless of their self-monitoring propensities or the visibility of their responses. However, for the status-oriented product, high self-monitors were significantly less happy when they evaluated the quality-oriented product privately. In contrast, low self- monitors were significantly less happy after they evaluated the status-oriented product publicly rather than privately. 85 The negative affect results indicated that low self-monitors were significantly less happy when they evaluated the quality-oriented product privately as compared to high self-monitors who evaluated the quality-oriented product privately or as compared to low self-monitors who evaluated the status- oriented product privately. Finally, it was hypothesized that positive emotional reactions generated by the act of expressing opinions about the products and their advertising would generalize to a greater global sense of life satisfaction. Results indicated no support for the expected three-way interaction among self-monitoring, visibility, and perfume. However, correlations conducted on mood and life satisfaction scores indicated that higher positive mood scores on the PANAS were positively correlated with higher life satisfaction scores. Results also indicated that overall mood (positive mood minus negative mood) was also positively correlated with life satisfaction. In contrast, negative mood scores were negatively correlated with higher life satisfaction scores. Thus, these results suggest that mood and life satisfaction are significantly related. The mood results also provided effects not anticipated by earlier research. The study’s results seem to indicate that participants were uniformly happy after testing and evaluating the quality-oriented product regardless of their self-monitoring propensities or the visibility of their responses. For the status-oriented product, high self-monitors were significantly less happy when they evaluated the quality-oriented product privately. In contrast, low self- 86 monitors’ reported happiness after evaluating the status-oriented product was lower when evaluations were made publicly rather than privately. Examining the negative affect results, low self-monitors were significantly less happy when they evaluated the quality-oriented product privately as compared to their high self-monitoring counterparts who evaluated the quality- oriented product privately or as compared to low self-monitors who evaluated the status-oriented product privately. Although these results seem at odds with predictions derived from self- monitoring and functional attitude theories, the obtained results can be explained using both theories as a post-hoe guide. Examining the positive affective results, we find that the only condition in which high self-monitors experienced heightened negative affect was when their evaluations of the status- oriented product were made privately. This finding is consistent with predictions as under these conditions high self-monitors cannot reap the social rewards gained by evaluating a product that fulfills their social-adjustive motivations. Similarly, low self-monitors’ motivational goals of expressing valid self-opinions could not be fulfilled. A somewhat complimentary pattern is observed for the negative affective responses. Low self-monitors who evaluated the quality-oriented product privately experienced the greatest negative affect as compared to low self- monitors who evaluated the status-oriented product privately or high self- monitors who evaluated the quality-oriented product privately. These findings 87 i suggest that negative affect will be experienced when a product’s motivational orientation satisfies a low self-monitors’ needs but cannot express the attitude. This pattern of results suggest a "frustration effect" in which it appears individuals become frustrated when they are unable to express important attitudes. Although low self-monitors experienced the greatest negative affect when not being able to express opinions about the quality-oriented product, high self-monitors also experienced the least positive affect under conditions where they could not express opinions about the status-oriented product. The results of this study seem to suggest that a baseline positive mood is experienced when using products that fulfill the personal needs of individuals. It is only when situations do not permit the fulfillment of personal needs that a shift in affect occurs and creates negative affect among individuals. The affect results also indicate, contrary to expectations, that value- expression needs may in fact require an audience for their successful fulfillment. It may not be sufficient for an individual to express opinions to him or herself for the successful fulfillment of value expression. Rather, like the social adjustive attitude function, an audience is required for the fulfillment of this need. Perhaps this finding should come as no surprise because attitudes -- especially important attitudes that serve functions for individuals -- define our social selves. They not only provide insight into who we are for ourselves but for others. What may be more surprising about this finding is that low self-monitors take a more active role In creating their social selves than was previously thought. 88 One other finding that seems to be at odds with previous self-monitoring research is the use of quality cues by high self-monitors. Recall that high self- monitors did not experience greater negative affect when evaluating the quality- oriented product publicly. One explanation is that the quality-oriented ad was fulfilling a goal for the high self-monitor. It is possible that the quality-oriented product was serving a status-oriented goal for the high self-monitor. One of the biggest trends in advertising recently has been to advertise status-oriented product as being high in quality. A good example of this is the current advertising theme of BMW. The ultimate yuppie car of the 80’s that represented social standing and new money now wants its image to be that of a high quality, meticulously crafted car. Other companies advertise their high status products by mentioning customer satisfaction surveys (e.g., Lincoln Mercury uses JD. Power and Associate rankings in their ads) and awards given for quality (i.e., Cadillac uses the Malcolm Baldrige Award). Perhaps high self- monitors were fulfilling their social-adjustive need through quality-oriented messages. A direction for future research would be to determine if this hypothesis is correct. It would be interesting to uncover the reasons why individuals liked the products. If this line of reasoning is correct, one would assume that high self-monitors would indicate liking for the quality-oriented product for social-adjustive reasons (e.g., "Others will be impressed by my discriminating taste") rather than for value-expressive reasons (e.g., Quality is important to me"). 89 One other finding deserves some attention as it may also help to explain these mixed results. High self-monitors, as compared to low self-monitors, scored higher in terms their willingness to try new products. Analysis conducted on the Fashion Awareness Scale indicated the high self-monitors were more likely to be Fashion Innovators and Fashion Opinion Leaders than were low self-monitors. These findings suggest that high self-monitors may be more likely to try new products than low self-monitors. This willingness to try new products to be a Fashion Innovator and Fashion Opinion Leader may also explain why high self-monitors were happier evaluating products publicly regardless of the products motivational orientation. Thus, these findings also suggest that the quality-oriented product may have been fulfilling a social- adjustive need for high self-monitors. That is, by trying new products, high self- monitors could be considered a leader in fashions setting the styles and could reap social rewards for such behavior. One preliminary way of examining the strength that the advertisement had on participants would be to present the ads to participants and then ask them which one they would like to evaluate. If the ads’ image and quality manipulations are strong enough to cancel out the need to be a Fashion Innovator and Fashion Opinion Leader among high self-monitors, participants should choose the product that is fulfilling a motivational goal for the individual. This hypothesis will be further explored in the next study. However, before moving onto the next study, a brief discussion about the results of the self-consciousness construct is warranted. It was expected that a 90 similar pattern of results would emerge for the self-consciousness constructs as compared to the self-monitoring constructs. Although self-monitoring and self- consciousness are not highly correlated, they appear to measure similar constructs. Results Indicated that self-monitoring was the better predictor of products and advertisement preferences than was self-consciousness. The noteworthy results for self-consciousness centered on global satisfaction with life and fear of negative evaluation responses. The affective results appeared to be consistent with self-consciousness theorizing. For example, persons low in public self-consciousness reported a greater sense of satisfaction with life and were less fearful of negative evaluation than those who scored high in public self-consciousness. A similar pattern of results was observed for social anxiety such that individuals who scored low in social anxiety were more satisfied with life and less fearful of negative evaluation than those who scored high in social anxiety. In sum, comparing both the self-monitoring and self-consciousness construct, it appears that self-monitoring is more compatible with the functional theories of attitudes conceptual framework and, thus, is a more powerful tool for predicting product and advertisement preference. 91 Study 18 The prior study assigned products to participants as a way of comparing the reactions people have to products that are relevant to their motivational orientations versus those that are not. This manipulation is somewhat analogous to presenting someone with a gift. That is, the receiver did not choose the product but will most likely have to use it because of social politeness norms. Thus, it could be argued that Study 1A did not create an actual purchasing decision where consumers are forced to choose among many competing products. in the second study, participants had the opportunity to choose which perfume they would like to evaluate. In this way, a demonstration was conducted to examine whether people do in fact choose the motive-satisfying product. Hypethesis 1 As detailed earlier in Study 1A, it was expected that evaluations of products and advertisements will be affected by the extent to which a particular product appears to facilitate the fulfillment of a person’s underlying needs, plans, and goals. Thus, it is expected that in a forced behavioral choice situation, people will tend to choose the product that is most likely to fulfill their personal goals (because such products will be more favorably evaluated and choosing and endorsing such products tends to elicit positive affect). Hypethesis 1a. In a forced choice situation, low self-monitors will more often choose a quality-oriented product. 92 H th i 1 . In a forced choice situation, high self-monitors will more often choose a status-oriented product. Method Partieipants Forty-eight Michigan State University female undergraduates participated for extra credit toward their grade in introductory psychology. On the basis of a tripartite split of their scores on the 18-item Self-monitoring scale (Snyder & Gangestad, 1986) obtained as part of a screening study conducted earlier in the term, 24 participants were classified as high self-monitors and 24 participants were classified as low self-monitors. Stimeles Materials The ads created for Study 1A were employed as the stimulus materials for the present study. As previously detailed, two advertisements were created emphasizing either the "image" or "product" dimension. This was accomplished by manipulating the copy and visual information. The photograph used in the advertisements were taken from actual advertisements and the copy, written by the author, was added to the bottom of the advertisement. The image-oriented advertisement featured a photograph of the fashion model, Cindy Crawford. The copy read, "Romance Begins With Intrigue. Intrigue Perfume." The product-oriented advertisement featured a photograph of a bottle of perfume. The copy read, 'The Essence Of A Soft Floral Scent With A Hint of Musk. Essence Perfume" (See Appendix A). Recall that the ads were pretested and that they had the desired effect, such that the intrigue advertisement was 93 perceived to be image-oriented and the Essence advertisement was perceived to be quality-oriented. The reader is directed to Study 1A for the detailed results of the pretesting of these advertisements. Pr r Participants tested the product individually such that only one participant was scheduled for any one particular session. Upon arrival, the participant was greeted by a male or female experimenter and informed that for this experiment, we would be obtaining her reactions to several consumer products. We told her that "a marketing firm has asked us to help them with some market research. Because we are interested in the psychological processes involved in consumer decision-making, we have agreed to their request. The marketing firm is interested in obtaining student opinion about some new products that will soon be on the market. Because the undergraduate population represents a large proportion of consumers of these products, they would like you to evaluate the relative merits of the advertisement and test the product." Participants were then presented with the image-oriented and product- oriented advertisements. They were then told that "the advertisements that you’re now going to examine are mock ads. That is, these adVertisements are currently being designed for the print media and may not be of the quality that you are accustomed to from your favorite magazine.” Participants were told to spend the next minute examining both ads. After examining the advertisements, participants were asked to select which product they would like to test. Regardless of which advertised perfume 94 they choose to evaluate (i.e., intrigue or Essence), participants were given an identical inexpensive, store-brand perfume that was decanted to a nondescript tester bottle. After trying the product, participants were told that we would now like to obtain their evaluations of the product along with some general demographic information. Participants were then given the ratings form that was used to record their evaluations. Once the ratings task was complete, participants were asked to complete the demographic questionnaire. Then participants were thanked for their participation and debriefed. R It f t 1 Primary Analyses Pe_rf_ume eheiee. To examine whether high self-monitors chose the perfume that was depicted as projecting a socially desirable self (i.e., intrigue perfume) and whether low self-monitors chose the perfume that was depicted emphasizing its attributes (i.e., Essence perfume), an overall and two separate Chi-square analyses were conducted on the perfume choices of high and low self-monitors (i.e., the frequency of choosing one perfume over another). The overall Chi-square conducted revealed no support for the hypotheses which predicted that participants would choose the product that would fulfill a need for the user, x2 (1, N = 49) = .34, p > .10. The proportions are presented in Table 13. To further examine product choice among high and low self-monitors, separate Chi-quare analyses were conducted. The first separate Chi-square 95 analysis was conducted to examine if low self-monitors chose Essence perfume over Intrigue perfume revealed no support for Hypethesis 1a which predicted that low self-monitors, when given a choice, would select Essence perfume, )(2 (1, N = 24) = 2.67, p > .10. The second separate Chi-square analysis conducted to examine if high self-monitors chose Intrigue perfume over Essence perfume revealed no support for Hypeflesisib which posited that, when given a choice, high self-monitors would select Intrigue perfume, x" (1, N = 24) = .167, p > .10. Table 13 Product Choice Proportions Low Self-monitors High Self-monitors Intrigue 45% 55% 40 . 8% Essence 55 . 2% , 44.8% 59. 2% 51% 49% 100% Anl f n Pr nli Varil Perfume choice was also analyzed as a function of the exploratory personality variables. No significant effects or marginally significant effects were obtained. 96 Discussion it was expected that in a forced behavioral choice situation, people will tend to choose the product that will most likely fulfill their personal goals because such products will be more favorably evaluated and choosing and endorsing such products will elicit less negative affect. Results of Study 1b did not support this hypothesis. Low self-monitors were not more likely to choose the quality-oriented product than the status-oriented product. Similarly, high self-monitors were not more likely to choose the status-oriented product over the quality-oriented product. These findings are rather disappointing given the previous success Snyder and his colleagues (e.g., Snyder & DeBono, 1985, 1987; DeBono & Snyder, 1989; Attridge & Snyder, 1989) have had using very similar stimulus materials. Their research suggested that high self-monitors are more persuaded by advertisements that provide information relevant to creating desirable social images, whereas low self-monitors were more persuaded by advertisements that provided information informing the consumer about the product’s quality and function. Indeed, the findings are perplexing giving the successful results obtained from pretesting the advertisements. Pretesting revealed that the image-oriented ad was significantly more status-oriented than the product-oriented ad. The product-oriented ad was also perceived to be more quality-oriented than the image-oriented ad. Results of Study 16 also confirm the successful manipulation of status and quality in the advertisements. Results indicated that 97 high self-monitor tended to prefer the status-oriented ad and low self-monitors tended to prefer the quality-oriented ad. Despite the pretest results and Study 1a advertisement preference results, high and low self-monitors did not choose the product that was hypothesized to fulfill a motivational need. This result may have been foreshadowed by the fact that advertisement preference did not transfer into preference for the product in Study 1a. High self-monitors did not prefer the status-oriented product over quality-oriented product and low self-monitors did not prefer the quality-oriented product over the status-oriented product. Given the fact that the ads were successful in conveying status and quality to participants, why did advertisement preference not transfer into product choice? One explanation is that product quality was interpreted as a status cue by high self-monitors. Recall that I have argued that status objects are also touting their quality in current advertisement campaigns for such status symbols as the BMW and Cadillac. Thus, perhaps high self-monitors believe that an object that possess quality also possess status by its very nature. It may be the case that high self-monitors, although preferring the image-oriented advertising, believed the product endorsed in the quality-oriented ad was a status object. A second plausible explanation is that because high self-monitors are more likely to be Fashion Innovators and Fashion Opinion Leaders, they were more likely to choose a different product in which to experiment. This explanation seems to explain why advertisement preference did not transfer into 98 product choice. Perhaps if participants would have been required to use the product over a longer period of time (e.g., a month), the willingness to try "something different" may have been attenuated. What may be needed to produce the desired effect are more cues to convey to the participants that Intrigue perfume is in fact a status-oriented product and will satisfy social-adjustive goals, and that Essence perfume is a quality-oriented product and will satisfy value-expressive goals. In order to present more cues to participants to convey the motivational-orientation of the product, source cues were Introduced to bolster the status-oriented and quality; oriented cues in the next study. 99 Study 2 The purpose of Studies 1A and 1B was to examine the affective consequences of selecting and using products that serve social-adjustive or value-expressive functions for Individuals differing in the personality construct of self-monitoring. It was hypothesized that purchasing and consumption experiences can be viewed as a form of attitude expression that has affective consequences for the consumer. By purchasing and using products that fulfill the needs, plans or goals of an individual, positive affect would be experienced, whereas purchasing and using products that do not meet the needs, plans or goals of an individual, less positive affect would be experienced by the consumer. However, Studies 1A and 16 only considered part of the product selection and consumption experience, as other purchasing cues were not examined. Often, selection and evaluation of consumer goods are influenced by the social pressures exerted by important reference groups (e.g., friends, family members). As previously noted, within the framework of the Theory of Reasoned Action (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975), the social pressures exerted by important reference groups [termed subjective norms (SN)] are-considered to be one determinant of whether an individual will or will not perform a behavior. Hence, it can be concluded that we usually select, evaluate, and purchase products that are valued highly and popular with important others and avoid products that are not valued and are unpopular with important others. 100 To illustrate the importance that reference groups have on the evaluations that we make about products, consider the findings of the following studies. In an investigation conducted by Venkatesan (1966), subjects were asked to choose from among three suits the one that was the best in overall quality. Unbeknownst to the participants, all three suits were identical; that is, they were manufactured by the same maker and tailored in an identical fashion. Venkatesan found that subjects’ evaluations of the suits were influenced by prior ratings made by confederates of the experimenter, who had made unanimous decisions regarding which suit was superior in terms of craftsmanship. In a similar study, Stafford (1966) examined the influence that important others in a group (i.e., a group leader) have on the selection of a product made by group members. Stafford had female subjects nominate four friends, relatives or neighbors with whom "she likes to or would be willing to go shopping" (p. 70). With this information in hand, Stafford contacted each person that the subject had nominated and inquired if she would assist them with a research project that would examine "how women go about choosing a brand of bread from several about which they knew nothing" (p. 71). After assembling the small groups of women, each group was shown four identical loaves of thin sliced white bread. Each loaf of bread was assigned a letter ("H", "",L "",M or "P"), which acted as a brand identifier. Then group members were asked which loaf of bread they would select to give to their own family. Results indicated that the group members’ brand choices were affected by choices 101 made by the group leader, that is, members tended to conform to the choice made by the leader in each group. What effects, then, do reference groups have on the decisions that we make? From the previously discussed studies, it can be concluded that under conditions where there is no objective standard upon which to base a decision, individuals will be Influenced by the decisions of others present in the situation. Deutsch and Gerard (1955) have distinguished between two types of influence that produce conformity: normative social influence, and informational social influence. Normative social influence is based on an individual’s desire to be accepted by another person or group in order to reap social rewards. The Stafford study described earlier illustrates the effect of normative social influence. Group members conformed to the evaluations made by the leader of their social groups in order to be accepted by the leader and others in the group. Informational social influence is based on accepting information from another as an index of reality in order to make valid judgments. An illustration of the power of informational social influence is demonstrated by the aforementioned Venkatesan study in which participants conformed to the cpinions of three others who made unanimous decisions regarding which of the three suits was superior in terms of craftsmanship. Building on Deutsch 8: Gerard’s distinction, Kelman (1958, 1961) proposed a theory of attitude change based on three processes: compliance, identification, and internalization. Like the functional theories of attitudes, Kelman (1961) proposed that source factors can, under certain conditions, 102 make a persuasion situation more personally involving for an individual than it may otherwise be. According to Kelman, for those individuals who define themselves by the people with whom, and situations in which they interact, who are concerned that they play socially appropriate roles, and who are concerned that their relationships remain satisfying, a situation that involves an attractive source (e.g., a source who possesses high status) should become motivating and personally involving. Under such conditions, attitude change will occur either through the process of compliance or identification, in which individuals will agree with the source because they want to define themselves through their relationship with the attractive source, in order to attain certain rewards or to avoid certain punishments. That is, these individuals should be especially sensitive to normative social influence processes. In contrast, he proposed that for those individuals who are concerned that their behaviors and beliefs remain consistent with important values, a situation that involves an expert source should become motivating and personally involving for the individual. Under such conditions, attitude change will occur through the process of internalization, in which individuals will agree with the source because they perceive the persuasive appeal as being congruent with their own value system. That is, these individuals should be especially sensitive to informational social influence processes. Given that high self-monitors typically strive to be the type of person called for in each situation in which they find themselves and, therefore, are adept at tailoring their behavior to be socially appropriate, high self-monitors 103 should be more likely than low self-monitors to be sensitive to normative (e.g., an attractive source) rather than informational (e.g., an expert source) social influence (cf. Ajzen, Timko, & White, 1982) when buying a product. Note that in this context, the use of the term normative social influence refers to the need to be liked and accepted and does not refer to the frequency of preferences and beliefs. In contrast, low self-monitors do not attempt to tailor their behavior to fit every social situation in which they find themselves, but instead use their values as a guide in their behavioral actions. Thus, low self-monitors claim to value the congruency between their behaviors and important values (DeBono & . Edmonds, 1989) and, therefore, they should be more likely than high self- monitors to be sensitive to informational (e.g., an expert source) rather than normative (e.g., an attractive source) social influence (cf. Ajzen, et al., 1982) when purchasing a product. By basing their consumption decisions on such factors present in the situation, the underlying needs, plans, or goals of high and low self-monitors are met; that is, by complying with an attractive source, high self-monitors are able to attain rewards that the attractive source may be able to provide, whereas by complying with an expert source, low self-monitors find their behavior rewarding because it provides information for validating attitudes. This fulfillment of needs should result in a positive purchasing expenence. 104 81293116333 Hypethesis 1 Evaluations of products and advertisements will be affected not only by the type of person making the evaluation but also by the type of social cue present in the situation. Hypethesis 1a. Low self-monitors, who are motivationally oriented toward value expression, should prefer products that are endorsed by an expert source (i.e., an informational cue). They will evaluate the products and advertisements endorsed by an expert source more positively.‘ . Hyeethesis 19. High self-monitors, who are motivationally oriented toward social adjustment, should prefer products that are endorsed by a high status source (i.e., a normative cue). They will evaluate the products and advertisements endorsed by a high status source more positively. Given the mixed support of the results for Study 1A and Study 13, the following self-monitor interactional hypotheses are offered with some reservation. However, it was hoped that the use of additional cues (i.e., normative and informational cues) would enhance the probability of observing the desired self-monitoring interactions. Hyeethesis 2 The type of emotional reaction elicited by expressing attitudes about a product will depend on the type of person (high versus low self-monitor), the type of social cue presented [normative (high status) versus informational (expert) cue], and the type of situation in which the attitude is expressed (public 105 versus private). Heightened positive affect will result only when there is a match between the individual’s motivational needs and the extent to which the social cue and situation allow satisfaction of those needs. Hypethesis 2a. Low self-monitors should feel most positive after evaluating a product endorsed by an expert source regardless of whether they do so in public or private circumstances. This is because the product which is endorsed by an expert source is most likely to serve a value-expressive function that is of particular importance to them. Regardless of whether this affirmation is made to others (public conditions) or to themselves (private conditions), they should feel good about it. Hypethesis 29. High self-monitors should feel most positive after evaluating a product endorsed by a high status source, but only when they do so in public. This is because it is under public conditions that they are able to project a favorable image to others, fulfilling the social-adjustive function that is of paramount importance to them. Although they will still evaluate products endorsed by a high status source favorably in private conditions, doing so will not facilitate their immediate impression formation goals, so their emotional reactions should be more neutral under private conditions. H th i Positive emotional reactions generated by the act of expressing opinions abbut products and their advertising (under conditions outlined in Hypotheses 23 and 2b) will generalize to a greater global sense of life satisfaction compared to other conditions. 106 Predictions made under the second and third hypotheses are presented visually in Table 14, showing predicted affective reactions after expressing attitudes about consumer products as a function of social cue type (high status versus expert source), type of person (high versus low self-monitor), and type of situation (public versus private). W Table 14 Affective Predictions for Study 2. High Self-monitors Low Self-monitors Public Private Public Private EADIQESJQLI Expressien W Expressien informational Cue 0 0 + + Normative Cue + 0 0 0 Note: + indicates a significantly more positive emotional reaction (and a sense of life satisfaction) than under other conditions. Hypethesis 4 Eiaborating on Hypotheses 1 and 2, it is expected that the role of the type of product will also effect the type of emotional response elicited in the participants. That is, the type of affective reactions elicited by expressing attitudes about a type of product will depend on the type of person (high versus 107 low self-monitor), the type of social cue presented (normative versus informational), the type of situation in which the attitude is expressed (public versus private), and the type of product (status- versus quality-oriented). Heightened positive affect will result only when there is a match between the individual’s motivational needs and the extent to which the social cue, situation, and product allows satisfaction of these needs. Hypethesis 4a. Low self-monitors should feel most positive after evaluating a quality-oriented product that was endorsed by anexpert source regardless of whether they do so in public or private circumstances. This is because the quality-oriented product endorsed by an expert source is most likely to serve a value-expressive function that is of particular importance to them. Regardless of whether the affirmation is made to others (public condition) or to themselves (private conditions), they should feel good about it. Hyeethesis 4:). High self-monitors should feel most positive after evaluating a high status-oriented product endorsed by a high-status source, but only when doing so in public. This is because it is under public conditions that ‘ they are able to project a favorable image to others, fulfilling the social-adjustive function that is of paramount importance to them. Although they will still evaluate high status-oriented products endorsed by a high status source favorably in private conditions, doing so will not facilitate their immediate impression formation goals, so their emotional reactions should be more neutral under the private conditions. 108 Method Partieieants One hundred and ninety-two Michigan State University female undergraduates participated for extra credit toward their grade in introductory psychology. On the basis of a tripartite split of their scores on the 18-item Self- monitoring scale (Snyder & Gangestad, 1986) obtained as part of a screening study conducted earlier in the term, 96 participants were classified as high self- monitors and 96 participants were classified as low self-monitors. High and low self-monitors were randomly assigned to the conditions of a 2(Source; status, expert) x 2(Visibility; public, private) x 2(Perfume; Intrigue, Essence) between- subjects factorial design. 82m Product evaluations were recorded on a specially created product evaluation board. The board, modeled after one used by Cohen and Golden (1972), consisted of a large piece of heavy white cardboard divided into seven major categories. This resulted in an equal-appearing interval scale varying from one (1) labeled, "Worst I’ve Ever Tried," to seven (7) labeled, "Best l’ve Ever Tried." Under each of these intervals was a column of short finishing nails evenly spaced so as to accommodate small tags that participants used to indicate their evaluation of the product. * Pretesting The perfumes, sources, and advertisements that were used as stimulus materials for Study 2 were pretested on introductory psychology students to 109 determine if they had their desired effects. The details of this pretesting is presented in the sections below. Rating ef the Perfume Before participants made their ratings on the evaluation board, they were confronted with some prior ratings that had been left on the product evaluation board. These ratings were highly consistent, having a mean of 5.92 on a 7- point scale and a variance of 0.862. Pretesting of the perfume (See Appendix B) indicated that the perfume was not evaluated positively (pretest liking of the perfume, M = 3.81, based on a 7-point scale). This result is consistent with the intended manipulation because to examine the effect that the source factors had on individuals’ ratings, it was necessary to present higher evaluations of the perfume to participants. $9132.33 To determine whether participants would attribute high status to the intended high status source (i.e., engineering students) and expertise to the intended expert source (Michigan Junior Miss contestants), the sources were pretested by 40 participants who did not participate in the studies comprising this dissertation research. A series of t-tests was conducted on pretest measures of perceived high status and expertise. Results were consistent with the intended manipulation. Participants perceived engineering students (M = 5.10, based on a 7-point scale) and Michigan Junior Miss contestants (M = 3.20) to differ significantly in terms of their perceived status t(39) = 6.64, p < .001. Participants also perceived engineering students (M = 3.20) and Michigan 110 Junior Miss contestants (M = 5.35) to differ significantly in terms of their perceived expertise at judging the merits of a perfume, t(39) = 7.05 p < .001. To examine whether status and expertise were confounded within each source, another series of t-tests was conducted on the pretest measures. Once again, results were consistent with the intended manipulations. Engineering students were perceived as having high status (M = 5.10) but possessing low expertise at judging the merits of perfume (M = 3.20), t(39) = 6.35, p < .001, and Michigan Junior Miss contestants were perceived as having low status (M = 3.20) but high expertise at judging the merits of perfume (M = 5.35), t(39) = 7.78, p < .001. 5 tim l M t ri l Perfume was once again chosen as the stimulus to be advertised because it lends itself well to both the product dimension and image dimension. The advertisements created for. Study 1A and used in Studies 1A and 18 were employed for the present study. Recall that the image-oriented ad featured fashion model Cindy Crawford and the written copy read, "Romance Begins with Intrigue. intrigue Perfume." The quality-oriented ad featured a photograph of a bottle of perfume. The copy read, "The Essence of a Soft Floral Scent with a Hint of Musk. Essence Perfume." Remember that pretesting revealed that the ads conveyed their intended manipulations of image or quality. The reader is directed to Study 1A for the detailed results of pretesting performed on the ads. 1 1 1 Visieilgy' Manipulatieg Because specific predictions were made regarding the effect that an audience would have on effective reactions of high and low self-monitors, a manipulation had to be devised to increase the likelihood that participants would understand that their evaluations would remain anonymous or would become known to others. To accomplish this, a variation of the procedure employed in Study 1A was used. After trying the perfume, those in the public visibility condition were asked to write their name on a blank tag with a red felt-tipped marker (provided by the experimenter) and asked to place the tag on the product evaluation board in the position that corresponds to their evaluation of the perfume. After testing the perfume, those in the private visibility condition, were asked to take a blank tag and place the tag on the product evaluation board in the position that corresponds to their evaluation of the perfume. W All mood-related and personality measures employed in Study 1A were retained for use in the present study. This included the Positive and Negative Affect Scale (PANAS; Watson, Clark, & Tellegan, 1988), the Satisfaction Wlth- Life Scale (SWLS; Diener et al. 1985), the Brief Fear of Negative Evaluation scale (Brief-FNE; Leary, 1983). Manipulatien Cheek Measures The manipulation check questionnaire consisted of three items (See Appendix D). The effectiveness of the visibility manipulation was assessed by the following question: "The students who follow me in the testing will know 1 12 how I evaluated the perfume." The response scale was a 7-point scale anchored by "not at all likely" and "very likely". The effectiveness of the source manipulation was determined by the following items: "Engineering students (Michigan Junior Miss contestants) are experts at judging perfume," and "Engineering students (Michigan Junior Miss contestants) possess high status." Each of these items were responded to on a 7-point scale, where 1 = net at all t_ru_e, 7 = veg true. Pr r Each participant tested the product individually such that only one participant was scheduled for any given experimental session. Upon arrival, the participant was greeted by a male or female experimenter and informed that for this experiment, her reactions to several consumer products would be obtained. She was told that "a marketing firm has asked us if we would be willing to help them out with some marketing research that they are presently conducting. Because we are interested in the psychological processes involved in consumer decision making we agreed to their request. The marketing firm is interested in obtaining student opinion about some new products that will soon be on the market. Because the undergraduate population represents a large proportion of consumers of these products, they would like you to evaluate the relative merits of the advertisement and test the product." After the cover story was relayed to participants, they were presented with the image-oriented and quality-oriented advertisements (these ads were the same ones that were created for and used in Studies 1A and 1B). They were 113 told that "the advertisements that you’re now going to examine are mock ads. That is, these advertisements are currently being designed for the print media and may not be of the quality that you are accustom to from your favorite magazine." Participants were told to spend the next minute examining the ads. After examining the advertisement, they were told that "for this session, we would like you to evaluate Intrigue (Essence) Perfume" and were given the perfume to try. Regardless of which perfume they were given to evaluate, participants were presented with an identical, inexpensive, store-brand perfume that was decanted to a nondescript tester bottle. After trying the product, . participants were told that we would like to get their evaluations of the product along with some general demographic information. Participants were then given a tag that they used to make their rating. Depending on the visibility condition in which they had been assigned, they were either asked to write their name on the tag or this instruction was not given. Then, depending on the source condition in which they had been assigned, participants were told that the ratings that were on the product evaluation board were made a few days ago by engineering students (Michigan Junior Miss contestants). After these manipulations were read, participants placed the tag on the rating board to indicate their evaluation of the perfume. Once this task was completed, participants were given a questionnaire booklet. The first measure in this booklet was the PANAS. After completion of the mood measure, participants were asked to rate which of the advertisements they preferred most 1 14 in response to various aspects of liking for the product and then completed some manipulation check items. Then, participants were asked to complete the Brief-FNE scale, the SWLS, and the SOS. Results of Study 2 Manipulatien Cheeks To examine if writing one’s name on the tag presented to participants (which they used to indicate their rating of the perfume) had the desired effect of making participants feel that their ratings would be known to. others, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted on the primary dependent variable used to assess this manipulation. However, this check was nonsignificant, (Ms = 2.11, 2.19), F(1,150) < 1. The failure of the visibility manipulation check may not be surprising because the experimenter knew how all participants rated the perfume regardless of whether or not the participant wrote her name on the tag. It was expected, however, that there would be a difference in measurement such that those who wrote their names on the tag would report more strongly that others would know how they evaluated the perfume. Despite the failure of this measure to adequately assess the manipulation, the manipulation seemed to have an effect on participants (as will be borne out by subsequent analyses). r v ri l Participants rated the expertise and status of the sources responsible for the previous ratings of the perfume on a 7-point Likert scale (where 1 = year 1 15 Me, and 7 = very mueh). To examine if the source variables had the desired effect, (i.e., that Michigan Junior Miss contestants were perceived as being experts at rating the merits of perfume but possessing little status, and that engineering students were perceived as having little expertise at rating the merits of perfume but possessing high status), a series of t-tests were conducted comparing the ratings of Michigan Junior Miss contestants and engineering students. The first set of t-tests examined participants" perceptions of the sources’ expertise. Consistent with the intended manipulation, the t-test was significant, t(188) = 9.82, p < .001, such that engineering students were perceived as having less expertise at judging the merits of perfume (M = 3.03) than Michigan Junior Miss contestants (M = 4.09). The second t-test examined participants perceptions of status that the sources possessed. Consistent with the intended manipulation, the t-test was significant, t(188) = 6.23, p < .001, such that engineering students were perceived as having more status (M = 4.56) than Michigan Junior Miss contestants (M = 3.81). P im An Ratings ef the Pemme A 2(SeIf-monitoring; high, low) x 2(Visibility; public, private) x 2(Perfume Given; Intrigue, Essence) x 2(Source; expert, status) analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted on the rating measure of perfume (i.e., rating made by placing a tag on the product evaluation board). Recall that the product evaluation board was a graph depicting previous ratings, where the horizontal 116 axis was a 7-point Likert scale and the vertical axis showed the frequency of the response. The analysis revealed no support for uymtjesisja which predicted that low self-monitors would evaluate products endorsed by an expert source more positively than those endorsed by a high status source, F(1,178) < 1. Low self- monitors did not evaluate the perfume more positively when an expert source endorsed the product (M = 3.93) as compared to when a high status source endorsed the product (M = 3.84). Results also failed to support Hypethesis 1e, which predicted that high self-monitors would evaluate products endorsed by a high-status source more favorably than a product endorsed by an expert source, F(1,178) < 1. High self-monitors did not evaluate the product endorsed by the high status source more favorably (M = 3.53) than the product endorsed by an expert source (M = 4.11). Avrti mntPrfrn A series of 2(Self-monitoring; high, low) x 2Msibility; public, private) x 2(Perfume; Intrigue, Essence) x 2(Source; expert, status) ANOVA’s were conducted on participants’ liking of the Essence and intrigue perfume advertisements. Recall that Hyeot_h_esis_1a predicted that low self-monitors would evaluate advertisements endorsed by an expert source more favorably than an advertisement endorsed by a high status source. In contrast, Hymthesis 1e predicted that high self-monitors would evaluate advertisements 1 17 endorsed by a high status source more favorably than an advertisement endorsed by an expert source. Examining the iikability ratings for the Essence ad, the ANOVA revealed no support for Hypethesis 1a, F(1,178) < 1. Low self-monitors did not like the Essence ad more when it was endorsed by an expert source (M = 3.35) than when the Essence ad was endorsed by a high status source (M = 3.39). The ANOVA did, however, reveal a main effect of perfume given to evaluate, F(1,150) = 4.48, p < .05, such that those given Essence perfume to evaluate liked the EsSence perfume advertisement more (M = 3.38) than those given Intrigue perfume to evaluate (M = 3.05). This main effect is qualified by a two-way interaction between self- monitoring and perfume given to evaluate, F(1,150) = 7.79, p < . 01. Simple effects indicated that low self-monitors given Essence perfume to evaluate liked the Essence ad more (M = 3.87) than low self-monitors given intrigue perfume to evaluate (M = 2.91) or high self-monitors given intrigue perfume to evaluate (M = 3.15) or high self-monitors given Essence perfume to evaluate (M = 3.15). These findings suggest that the quality-oriented ad was liked better by low self- monitors as the ad was satisfying a need for the low self-monitor. However, this effect was obtained only when the participant evaluated the advertised perfume. Perhaps participants were uneasy about the evaluation task and found reassurance when given the product that matches their motivational goals. Examining the iikability ratings for the Intrigue ad, the ANOVA revealed no support for Hypethesis 1e, F(1,178) < 1. Although the means are in the 118 predicted direction, high self-monitors did not like the Intrigue ad more when it was endorsed by the high status source (M = 3.09) than when it was endorsed by the expert source (M = 2.91). Pr Pr f r n Participants were asked to choose which product they thought was better--Intrigue or Essence. An ANOVA was conducted on this dependent measure (a five-point response scale ranging from definitely Intrigue to definitely Essence, such that a lower score indicated a greater preference for Intrigue and a higher score indicated a greater preference for Essence) revealed a marginally significant main effect of self-monitoring, F(1,150) = 2.60, p < .10, such that low self-monitors tended to show a greater preference for Essence perfume (M = 3.35) than did high self-monitors (M = 3.13). Some support can be derived from this finding for the general hypothesis that products that satisfy a motivational orientation are preferred over those that do not. mm Pesitive affega. To examine the effect that product assignment and the visibility manipulation had on participants" mood, separate analyses of variance (ANOVA) were conducted for the positive and negative mood dimensions of the Positive And Negative Affect Scale (PANAS). To attain the positive mood score, the positive mood adjectives were summed to form a total positive mood score (minimum score = 16, maximum score = 44, where greater scores indicated greater positive affect). 1 19 A 2(Self-monitoring; high, low) x 2(Visibility; public, private) x 2(Perfume Given; Intrigue, Essence) x 2(Source; expert, status) ANOVA conducted on the total positive mood score indicated a significant two-way interaction between self-monitoring and perfume given to evaluate, F(1,178) = 4.61, p < .05. Simple effects indicated that high self-monitors given Intrigue perfume were happier (M = 31.89) than low self-monitors given Intrigue perfume to evaluate (M = 28.00), low self-monitors given Essence perfume to evaluate (M = 28.64), or high self-monitors given Essence perfume to evaluate (M = 28.44). The ANOVA also revealed a two-way interaction between self-monitoring and source, F(1,178) = 3.65, p < .05. Simple effects indicated that high self- monitors who were told the perfume was endorsed by the high status source were happier (M = 31.06) than high self-monitors who were told the perfume was endorsed by an expert source (M = 29.19), low self-monitors who were told the perfume was endorsed by a high status source (M = 27.57), or low self-monitors who were told the perfume was endorsed by an expert source (M = 29.07). This finding provides some support for W, as heightened positive affect was reported when there was a match between high self- monitors" motivational needs and the extent to which available social cues allowed satisfaction of those needs. The expected three-way interaction between self-monitoring, source, and situation was not observed, F(1,178) < 1. The means for this interaction are presented below. Although the interaction is not significant, the means are in the predicted direction. High self-monitors were happier when they evaluated 120 the product endorsed by a high status source publicly rather than privately or when they evaluated the product endorsed an expert source publicly or privately. in contrast, low self-monitors were happier when they evaluated the product endorsed by the expert source regardless of the visibility of their responses than when they evaluated the product endorsed by a high status SOUfCB. 121 Table 15 Mean Positive Affect Scores High self-monitors Low self-monitors Public Private Public Private Expert 29.52 28.82 28.50 29.58 (25) (22) (22) (24) Status 32.59 29.72 27.96 27.10 (22) (25) (25) (21) Note: Cell sizes are denoted in parentheses. 122 Negayiyeafiea. To form a negative mood score, the negative adjectives were summed to form a total negative mood score (minimum score = 10, maximum score = 29, where greater scores indicated greater negative affect). A 2(Self-monitoring; high, low) x 2(Visibility; public, private) x 2(Perfume; Intrigue, Essence)x 2(Source; expert, status) ANOVA was conducted on the total negative mood score. The analysis revealed a nonsignificant three-way interaction between self-monitoring, visibility and source, F(1,178) < 1. As can be seen in Table 16 presented below, although the interaction is not significant, the pattern of means is relevant to evaluating the mood-related hypotheses. High self-monitors exhibited less negative affect when they evaluated the perfume endorsed by the high status source publicly rather than privately or when they evaluated the perfume endorsed by the expert source publicly or privately. The pattern of means is more complex for low self-monitors. Low self- monitors exhibited less negative affect when they evaluated the product endorsed by the high status source publicly or when they evaluated the product endorsed by the expert source privately as compared to when they evaluated the product endorsed by the expert source publicly or when they evaluate the product endorsed by the high status source privately. 123 Table 16 Mean Negative Affect Scores High self-monitors Low self-monitors Public Private Public Private Expert 13.84 13.18 13.27 12.33 (25) (22) (22) (24) Status 12.55 12.88 12.00 14.00 (22) (25) (25) (21) Note: Cell sizes are denoted in parentheses. 124 R 'n fth Pr n M Hypethesis 2 predicted that a specific pattern of affective reactions would be elicited by expressing attitudes about the product, independent of what the valence of the attitude would be (i.e., positive or negative). For example, the hypothesis predicted that high self-monitors given a high status-oriented product to evaluate publicly would experience greater positive affect because this situation allows for the satisfaction of high self-monitors" motivational goals to appear to be socially desirable. As previously noted, this hypothesis was not supported. Perhaps one reason why Hyeethesis 2 was not supported was the fact that a less than sublime perfume was chosen as the product that participants would evaluate. Recall that ratings of the product confirmed participants’ displeasure with the product. Such an unfavorable rating could be interpreted as expressing a negative attitude about the product. Thus, in hindsight, it could be hypothesized that positive affect should be elicited only when an individual has expressed a positive attitude about the product and that negative effect should be evoked when an individual has expressed a negative attitude about the product. To examine this notion, participants’ rating of the product were correlated with mood. Results indicated that more favorable ratings of the product were positively correlated with positive affective scores on the PANAS, r = .16, p < .05, whereas unfavorable ratings of the product were not correlated with negative affective scores on the PANAS, r = -.01, p > .05. Thus, these 125 results suggest that an individual may need to express a positive attitude about the product for the experience to be a positive experience for the individual. Satisfaggien With fie’ It was also thought that mood would generalize to participants’ overall perceptions of life satisfaction. To examine participants’ perceptions of life satisfaction, the Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS) items were summed to form a general life satisfaction total score (minimum score = 10, maximum score = 39, where high scores indicated more satisfaction with life). A 2(SeIf-monitoring; high, low) x 2(Visibility; public, private) x 2(Perfume Given; Intrigue, Essence) x 2(Source; expert, status) ANOVA conducted on the total life satisfaction score revealed a marginally significant main effect of the visibility condition, F(1,178) = 3.22, p < .10, such that those in the public visibility condition reported less general life satisfaction (M =-- 23.76) than those in the private visibility condition (M = 25.26). Hyeethesis 3. which posited that positive emotional reactions generated by the act of expressing opinions about products and their advertising will generate to a greater global sense of life satisfaction, was not supported, F(1,178) < 1. Perhaps this null result is not surprising because of the null positive affect results. High and low self-monitors did not significantly differ in terms of the positive affect they experienced regardless of the source and visibility manipulations. Even though the construct of global life satisfaction does not 126 measure positive affect, without a sense of happiness, it may be that a sense of life satisfaction could not be generated. To more fully explore the relationship between mood and life satisfaction, a series of correlations were undertaken. Results indicated that higher positive mood scores on the PANAS were positively correlated with higher life satisfaction scores, r = .22, p < .01. Results also indicated that overall mood (i.e., positive mood score minus negative mood score) was also positively correlated with life satisfaction, r = .22, p < .01. However, negative mood scores on the PANAS and life satisfaction scores were not correlated r = -.07, p. > .05. Thus, these results suggest that positive mood and perceptions of life satisfaction are related but the experimental manipulations did not produce the hypothesized effects. 127 Table 17 Mean Global Life Satisfaction Scores High self-monitors Low self-monitors Public Private Public Private Expert 24.64 24.73 22.77 24.46 (25) (22) (22) (24) Status 23.45 25.64 24.00 26.29 (22) (25) (25) (21) Note: Cell sizes are denoted in parentheses. 1 28 Fear ef Negative Evaluatien To examine the effect that assigning the perfume to be evaluated and the visibility manipulation had on participants" fear of being evaluated negatively, the items of the Brief-Fear of Negative Evaluation scale were totaled (minimum score = 17, maximum score = 59) and then submitted to a 2(SeIf-monitoring; high, low) x 2(Visibility; public, private) x 2(Perfume Given; Intrigue, Essence) x 2(Source; expert, status) ANOVA. The analysis revealed a main effect of source, F(1,178) = 4.95, p < .05, such that participants who were told that the expert source had made the previous ratings were more fearful of being evaluated negatively (M = 35.44) than those who were told that the high status source had made the previous ratings (M = 32.45). There were no differences between high and low self-monitors being fearful of negative evaluation, F(1,178) < 1, (Ms = 3.79 vs. 34.11; respectively). An I f n P r n Ii V ri i To prevent repetition, when examining the secondary personality variables, only findings that involve main and interactive effects of these variables will be presented. W W The items from the Self-Consciousness Scale (Fenigstein, Scheier, & Buss, 1975) that assessed the Private Self-consciousness construct were 129 summed across items to form a Private Self—consciousness score. A median Split procedure was then employed to classify those who scored high on Private Self-consciousness (23 or higher) and those who scored low on Private Self- consclousness (22 or lower). Megs Pesitive affeet. To examine the effect that product assignment and the visibility manipulation had on high and low Private Self-consciousness individuals’ mood, separate analyses of variance (ANOVA) were conducted for the positive mood dimension and the negative mood dimension of the Positive And Negative Affect Scale (PANAS). . A 2(Private Self-consciousness; high, low) x 2(Visibility; public, private) x 2(Perfume Given; intrigue, Essence) x 2(Source; expert, status) ANOVA was conducted on the total positive mood score. The analysis revealed a main effect of Private Self-consciousness, F(1,172) = 6.59, p < .01, such that those high in Private Self-consciousness were happier (M = 30.33) than those low in Private Self-consciousness (M = 27.74). The analysis also revealed a three-way interaction between Private Self- consciousness, visibility condition, and source, F(1,172) = 10.09, p < .005. As can be seen in Table 18, simple effects indicated that those high in Private Self- consciousness who evaluated the perfume publicly and told that the prior ratings were made by a high status source were happier (M = 33.32) than those high in Private Self-consciousness who evaluated the perfume publicly and told that the prior ratings were made by an expert source (M = 29.59) or 130 those high in Private Self-consciousness who evaluated the perfume privately and told that the prior ratings were made by the high status source (M = 27.69). Simple effects also indicated that those high in Private Self-consciousness who evaluated the perfume publicly and were told that the prior ratings were made by the expert source were happier (M = 31.74) than those high in Private Self-consciousness and evaluated the perfume privately and were told that the prior ratings were made by the high status source (M = 27.69).. 131 Table 18 Mean Positive Affect Scores High Private Low Private Self-consciousness Self-consciousness Public Private Public Private Expert 29.59” 31 .74"” 28.00"” 26.75"” (29) (23) (17) (20) Status 33.32" 27.69” 26.91"” 31.20"” (22) (29) (23) (10) Note: Cell sizes are denoted in parentheses. Means that do not share a common superscript differ at p < .05. 132 Negat_iv_e_Lifeg. A 2(Private Self-consciousness; high, low) x 2(Visibility; public, private) x 2(Perfume Given; Intrigue, Essence) x 2(Source; expert, status) ANOVA was conducted on the total negative mood score. The analysis revealed a main effect of Private Self-consciousness, F(1,180) = 5.21, p < .05, such that those who scored low in Private Self-consciousness experienced less negative affect (M = 12.24) than those who scored high in Private Self- consciousness (M = 13.52). Satisfagien With Life To examine high and low Private Self-consciousness individuals" perceptions of life satisfaction, the Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS) items were summed to form a general life satisfaction total score (minimum score = 5, maximum score = 39, where high scores indicated more satisfaction with life). A 2(Private Self-consciousness; high, low) x 2(Visibility; public, private) x 2(Perfume Given; Intrigue, Essence) x 2(Source; expert, status) ANOVA revealed no significant effects, all Fs < 1. Fear ef Negative Evaluatien To examine the effect that perfume assignment and the visibility manipulation had on high and low Private Self-consciousness individuals’ fear of being evaluated negatively, their Brief-FNE scores were submitted to a 2(Private self-consciousness; high, low) x 2(Visibility; public, private) x 2(Perfume Given; Intrigue, Essence) x 2(Source; expert, status) ANOVA. The ANOVA revealed a main effect of Private Self-consciousness, F(1,180) = 10.96, p = .001, such that those low in Private Self-consciousness 133 were less fearful of being evaluated negatively (M = 31.25) than those high in Private Self-consciousness (M = 35.66). P II If n i n t riz ti n r r The items from the Self-Consciousness Scale (Fenigstein, Scheier, & Buss, 1975) that assessed the Public Self-consciousness construct were summed across items to form a Public Self-consciousness score. A median split procedure was then employed to classify those who scored high on Public Self-consciousness (19 or higher) and those who scored low on Public Self- consciousness (18 or lower). Avrti mntPrfrn A series of 2(Public Self-consciousness; high, low) x 2(Visibility; public, public) x 2(Perfume Given; intrigue, Essence) x 2(Source; expert, status) ANOVA’s were conducted on participants’ liking of the Essence and Intrigue perfume advertisements. Examining the iikability ratings of the Intrigue ad, the ANOVA revealed a marginally significant main effect of Public Self- consciousness, F(1,186) = 4.43, p < .10. Participants who scored high In Public Self-consciousness tended to like the Intrigue ad more (M = 2.95) than those low in Public Self-consciousness (M = 2.58). mam Pesitlve affeg. To examine the effect that product assignment and the visibility manipulation had on high and low Public Self-consciousness individuals’ mood, separate analyses of variance (ANOVA) were conducted for the positive 134 mood dimension and the negative mood dimension of the Positive And Negative Affect Scale (PANAS). A 2(Public Self-consciousness; high, low) x 2(Visibility; public, public) x 2(Perfume Given; intrigue, essence) x 2(Source; expert, status) ANOVA conducted on the total positive mood score revealed no significant effects, all Fs < 1. Negative affeet. To form a negative mood score, the negative adjectives were summed to form a total negative mood score (minimum score = 10, maximum score = 29, where greater scores indicated greater negative affect). A 2(Public Self-consciousness; high, low) x 2(Visibility; public, public) x 2(Perfume Given; Intrigue, Essence) x 2(Source; expert, status) ANOVA was conducted on the total negative mood score. The analysis revealed a main effect of Public Self-consciousness, F(1,184) = 4.21, p < .05, such that those low in Public Self-consciousness were happier (M = 12.54) than those high in Public Self-consciousness (M = 13.64). satisfagien With Life To examine high and low Public Self-consciousness individuals’ perceptions of life satisfaction, the Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS) items were summed and submitted to a 2(Public Self-consciousness; high, low) x 2(Visibility; public, public) x 2(Perfume Given; intrigue, Essence) x 2(Source; expert, status) ANOVA. The ANOVA revealed a main effect of Public Self- consciousness, F(1,184) = 9.68, p < .005, such that those low in Public Self- consciousness were more satisfied with their lives (M = 25.58) than those high in Public Self-consciousness (M = 22.96). 135 F fN tiv l tin To examine the effect that perfume assignment and the visibility manipulation had on high and low Public Self-consciousness individuals’ fear of being evaluated negatively, the items of the Brief-FNE were summed and then submitted to a 2(Public Self-consciousness; high, low) x 2(Visibility; public, public) x 2(Perfume Given; Intrigue, Essence) x 2(Source; expert, status) ANOVA. The analysis revealed a significant main effect of Public Self- consciousness, F(1,184) = 113.40, p < .001, such that high PUblic Self- consciousness individuals indicated greater fear of negative evaluation than did low Public Self-consciousness individuals (Ms = 40.69 vs 29.12; respectively). Seeial Anxiety t riz ti n r r The items from the Self-Consciousness Scale (Fenigstein, Scheier, & Buss, 1975) that assessed Social Anxiety were summed across items to form a Social Anxiety score. A median split procedure was then employed to classify those who scored high on Social Anxiety (10.51 or higher) and those who scored low on Social Anxiety (10.51 or lower). MM Pesitive effect. To examine the effect that product assignment and the visibility manipulation had on high and low Socially Anxious individuals’ mood, separate analyses of variance (ANOVA) were conducted for the positive mood dimension and the negative mood dimension of the Positive And Negative Affect Scale (PANAS). To attain the positive mood score, the positive mood adjectives 136 were summed to form a total positive mood score (minimum score = 16, maximum score = 44, where greater scores indicated greater positive affect). A 2(Social Anxiety; high, low) x 2(Visibility; public, public) x 2(Perfume Given; Intrigue, Essence) x 2(Source; expert, status) ANOVA was conducted on the total positive mood score. The analysis revealed a marginally significant main effect of Social Anxiety, F(1,180) = 3.23, p < .10, such that those low in Social Anxiety tended to be happier (M = 30.26) than those high in Social Anxiety (M '= 26.67). This main effect is qualified by a two-way interaction between Social Anxiety and visibility, F(1,180) = 9.97, p < .005. Simple effects indicated that participants low in Social Anxiety who evaluated the product publicly were happier (M = 32.44) than those low in Social Anxiety who evaluated the product . privately (M = 27.70) or those high in Social Anxiety who evaluated the product 'publicly (M = 27.52) or privately (M = 29.51). 137 Table 19 Mean Positive Affect Scores High Social Low Social Anxiety Anxiety Public 27.52” 27.70" (40) (32) Private 29.51” 32.44" (54) (55) Note: Cell sizes are denoted in parentheses. Means that do not share a common superscript differ at p < .05. 138 Negauyefleet. To form a negative mood score, the negative adjectives were summed to form a total negative mood score (minimum score = 10, maximum score = 29, where greater scores indicated greater negative affect). A 2(Social Anxiety; high, low) x 2(Visibility; public, public) x 2(Perfume Given; Intrigue, Essence) x 2(Source; expert, status) ANOVA conducted on the total negative mood score revealed a main effect of Social Anxiety, F(1,181) = 5.55, p < .05, such that those low in Social Anxiety were happier (M = 12.22) than those high in Social Anxiety (M = 13.56). The analysis also revealed a three-way interaction between Social Anxiety, visibility condition, and source, F(1,181) = 4.34, p < .05. Simple effects indicated that those high in Social Anxiety who evaluated the perfume publicly and told that the ratings were made by the high status source were happier (M = 12.16) than those high in Social Anxiety who evaluated the perfume publicly and told that the ratings had been made by the expert source (M = 14.52) or those high in Social Anxiety who evaluated the perfume privately and told that the ratings were made by the high status source (M = 14.54). 139 Table 20 Mean Negative Affect Scores High Social Low Social Anxiety Anxiety Public Private Public ‘ Private Expert 14.52" ‘ 12.93” 12.00” 12.56"” (29) (29) (19) (16) Status 12.16" 14.54” 12.43” 11.88"” (25) (26) (21) (17) Note: Cell sizes are denoted in parentheses. Means that do not share a common superscript differ at p < .05. 140 Sajjsfaegien With Life To examine high and low SociallyAnxious individuals’ perceptions of life satisfaction, the Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS) items were summed to form a general life satisfaction total score (minimum score = 5, maximum score = 39, where high scores indicated more satisfaction with life). A 2(Social Anxiety; high, low) x 2(Visibility; public, public) x 2(Perfume Given; Intrigue, Essence) x 2(Source; expert, status) ANOVA conducted on the total life satisfaction score revealed a main effect of Social Anxiety, F(1,180) = 8.70, p < .005, such that those low in Social Anxiety were more satisfied with their lives (M = 25.90) than those high in Social Anxiety (M = 23.41). Fear ef Negative Evaluatign To examine the effect that perfume assignment and the visibility manipulation had on high and low Socially Anxious individuals’ fear of being evaluated negatively, the items of the Brief-Fear of Negative Evaluation scale were totaled (minimum score = 17, maximum score = 59) and then submitted to a 2(Social Anxiety; high, low) x 2(Visibility; public, public) x 2(Perfume Given; Intrigue, Essence) x 2(Source; expert, status) ANOVA. The analysis revealed a significant main effect of Social Anxiety, F(1,180) = 40.12, p < .001, such that high socially anxious individuals indicated a greater fear of negative evaluation than did low socially anxious individuals (M3 = 37.17 vs 28.96). Discussion It was expected that evaluations of products and advertisements would be affected by the type of social cue present in the situation. Low self-monitors 141 would prefer products endorsed by an expert source and evaluate products and advertisements endorsed by the expert source more favorably. In contrast, high self-monitors would prefer products endorsed by a high status source and evaluate products and advertisements endorsed by the high status source more favorably. It was also hypothesized that the type of emotional reaction elicited by expressing attitudes about a product will be a function of the type of person (high versus low self-monitor), the type of social cue [normative (status) versus informational (expert) cue], and the type of situation in which the attitude is expressed (public versus private). Results of Study 2 revealed mixed support for the hypotheses. Low self- monitors who evaluated the quality-oriented perfume indicated greater liking of the quality-oriented ad than other low self-monitors given the status-oriented perfume to evaluate or high self-monitors. This finding provides some support for the notion that ads that address motivational goals for individuals are preferred over those that do not. This finding also suggests that participants may have felt some apprehension over evaluating the products as it was only under conditions where participants were given the perfume to evaluate that the result was observed. Perhaps by presenting the participant with a product, they felt more at ease about the task. Additional support of the general hypotheses that products that satisfy a motivational goal will be preferred over those that do not can be found in results of the product preference measure. Low self-monitors tended to prefer the quality-oriented product as it was helping them satisfy their value-expressive 142 needs, whereas high self-monitors tended to prefer the status-oriented product as it was helping them satisfy their social-adjustive needs. Thus, general support of the hypotheses confirm that products that fulfill the motivational goals of high and low self-monitors tend to be preferred over those that do not. Support for hypotheses concerning affect was mixed but nevertheless encouraging. The expected two-way interactions of self-monitoring and source, and of self-monitoring and product supported the general notion that positive affect can be experienced by using a product that satisfies a need for the individual. The expected three-way interaction between self-monitoring, situation, and source failed to materialize, although, the means are in the predicted direction. High self-monitors were happier when they evaluated the product endorsed by a high status source publicly rather than privately, or when they evaluated the product endorsed by an expert source publicly or privately. In contrast, low self-monitors were happier when they evaluated the product endorsed by the expert source regardless of the visibility of their responses than when they evaluated the product endorsed by a high status source. Thus, these results suggest that by basing their consumption decisions on the cues present in the situation, the underlying needs, plans or goals of high and low self-monitors are met and the fulfillment of these needs result in a positive purchasing experience. One short coming of this research is the reliance on self-report measures of affect. Perhaps greater support could have been found for the hypotheses if physiological measures were taken. Measures such as facial electromyography 143 may have been able to detect differences in mood states that fail to be detected by self-report measures of mood. A brief discussion of the self-consciousness results Is merited, as it was expected that similar results would be observed for this construct as it measures something akin to self-monitoring. Results of the self-consciousness construct suggest that high and low self-monitors act in ways vastly different from individuals high in public self-consciousness and individuals high in private self- consciousness. The only noteworthy effect to emerge for the self-consciousness constructs focused on feelings of life satisfaction and fear of being evaluated negatively. Individuals who scored low in public self-consciousness were more satisfied with life and less fearful of negative evaluation. Low socially anxious Individuals were also more satisfied with life and less fearful of negative evaluation. Comparing the results observed for self-monitoring and self- consciousness, it appears that self-monitoring is a better predictor of product and advertisement preference using the functional theories of attitudes as a theoretical guide. However, this does not mean that self-monitoring is the only construct that can be used to make predictions of product and advertisement preference. Further research should examine other possible constructs that are compatible with functional theories of attitudes approach. 144 General Discussion The results of these studies, although not entirely supportive of the hypotheses, are encouraging as they suggest that consumer preference can be predicted by taking Into account motivational orientations of individuals. Generally, high self-monitors tended to prefer advertisements of products that satisfied their need to appear socially desirable. in contrast, low self-monitors tended to prefer advertisements of products that satisfied their need to express valid opinions. Despite high and low self-monitors’ preference for advertisements that addressed their differing motivational goals, the quality- and status-oriented products were not evaluated differently by high and low self-monitors. High self- monitors did not prefer the status-oriented product more than the quality- oriented product. Similarly, low self-monitors did not prefer the quality-oriented product more than the status-oriented product. In addition, when given a choice of products to evaluate, high self-monitors were not more likely to choose the status-oriented product over the quality-oriented product and low self-monitors were not more likely to choose the quality-oriented product over the status-oriented product. One possible explanation for these null results may be because high self- monitors tend to be more likely to try new fashions and fashion related- products. That is, high self-monitors scored higher on Fashion Opinion Leadership and Fashion Innovativeness -- constructs used to measure the willingness to try new fashions. Because the participants only had to use the 145 product once during a product test, high self-monitors’ need to be a fashion leader (and thus, appear socially desirable) perhaps caused them to choose a perfume that the normally would not have. If participants were told that the product that they would choose to evaluate would be used over a two-week (or longer) period, perhaps, high self-monitors would have chosen the product that more directly addressed their motivational needs. One other likely explanation is that high self-monitors were using quality cues as indices for the product’s status. Indeed this seems to be a popular strategy for advertising practitioners who are beginning to advertise status objects as exemplars of quality craftsmanship. This effect, however, was minimized by introducing additional cues in Study 2. The mood results, although not definitive, were encouraging. Under conditions where the situation and product, and situation and source addressed high and low self-monitors’ motivational orientations, positive affect was experienced after evaluating the product. These findings suggest that the use of a product may be thought of as an exercise in attitude expression and that the affect generated may be the reason why an individual uses a product. Perhaps, the expected mood effects that were not supported would have been supported if the advertisements would have more clearly addressed the differing motivational goals of high and low self-monitors. Clearly, these results suggest that this avenue of research may be particularly fruitful to the extent that “fine- tuning" of the advertisements and conditions under which the product is used can be accomplished. 146 The self-consciousness constructs were not predictive of product and advertisement preferences, or of the type of affect generated by using the product. Comparing the self-monitoring and self-consciousness results, it appears that self-monitoring is a better predictor of these concerns. However, future research is needed to examine other constructs that may be predictors of purchase intention. In addition, further research is needed to clarify the conditions under which high and low self-monitors will evaluate products more favorably and when given a choice which products they will choose to use. Implications for advertising practitioners Advertising practitioners may well be advised that their current strategy of emphasizing the quality of status objects further enhances the product in the eyes of high self-monitors, thus making it more competitive with purely status objects. Indeed results from Study 13 and 1b suggest that high self—monitors may have been using a heuristic that equates quality with status. Care, however, must be taken with this approach because, as demonstrated in Study 2, normative and informational sources can minimize the effectiveness of this "quality = status" heuristic. Once normative cues are present, high self- monitors rely on these sources to base their decision about the product. Thus, the age old practice of employing "beautiful people" to endorse a product may be a better alternative than trying to make an established product something it is not, at least for high self-monitors. 147 Implications for future research Further research is needed to better understand why advertisement preference may not lead to product choice. Is it because of the willingness of participants to try the product once (an artifact of the experimental design of this study) or do the functional theories of attitudes, like value-expectancy theories, have a problem in predicting consumer choice? Given previous successful research (e.g., Snyder & DeBono, 1985; 1987, Attridge & Snyder, 1989) that has found an attitude-behavior link, is the failure to demonstrate the attitude-behavior link in these studies due to the object used in these studies served one attitude function (social adjustive) better than another (value expression)? A starting point would be to better understand the attitude function inherent in the product. Shavitt (1987) argues that objects put limitations on the types of functions that the object can serve for an individual. Perhaps, perfume is one product that can only serve one function -- a social-adjustive function. After all, the reason we use perfumes and colognes is to enhance our social desirability. If by using the perfume we are able to fulfill another motivational need (a value expressive need), so much the better. For the functional theories of attitudes to be a powerful tool in predicting consumer behavior, more must be known about the primary function that the product serves for an individual. 148 APPENDICES 149 APPENDIX A.1 ESSENCE THE" ESSENCE OF A SOFT FLORAL SCENT WITH A HINT OF MUSK. ESSENCE PERFUME. APPENDIX A. 2 INTRIGUE ROMANCE BEGINS WITH INTRIGUE. INTRIGUE PERFUME. 151 APPENDIX 8.1 SUBJECT NO. Pretest of Sources and Perfume In the spaces provided below please list "student roles" (that is, any role that students like yourself play at MSU) that you believe possesses a high degree of 513.05- 152 APPENDIX 8.2 SUBJECT NO. _ In the spaces provided below please list "student roles" (that is, any role that students like yourself play at MSU) that you believe possesses a high degree of 9592mm. «saga-y , 153 APPENDIX 8.3 SUBJECT NO. _ Below are a number of "student roles." Please indicate the extent to which you believe the individual is an am at evaluating the merits of a new perfume. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 very little very much RATING The captain of the MSU swimteam. Engineering students. A MSU freshman. The fashion editor for the Detroit Free Press. The student government president. A MSU football player. ' A foreign exchange student. ‘ A student representative to academic affairs. Michigan Junior Miss contestants. A member of the MSU marching band. A resident hall assistant. A MSU cheerleader. The president of the gay/lesbian council. The State News chief editor. A manager for the MSU football team. A member of the "Delts" fraternity. 154 APPENDIX 8.4 SUBJECT NO. Below are a number of "student roles." Please indicate the extent to which you believe the individual possesses fiaus when evaluating the merits of a new perfume. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 very little very much RA'ITN The captain of the MSU swimteam. Engineering students. A MSU freshman. The fashion editor for the Detreit Free Press. The student government president. A MSU football player. A foreign exchange student. A student representative to academic affairs. Michigan Junior Miss contestants. A member of the MSU marching band. A resident hall assistant. A MSU cheerleader. The president of the gay/lesbian council. The State News chief editor. A manager for the MSU football team. A member of the "Delts" fraternity. 155 APPENDIX 8.4 SUBJECT NO. Pretest Perfume Rating Scale 1. To what extend did you like the perfume? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 very much disliked very much liked 2. Please rate the perfume on the following scale: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 worst I’ve best I’ve ever tried ever tried 156 APPENDIX 8.5 Personal Reaction Inventory The statements below concern your personal reactions to a number of different situations. No two statements are exactly alike so consider each statement carefully before answering. If a statement is true or mostly true as applied to you, fill in the "0" under the "T" (for True) column. If the statement is false or mostly false as applied to you, fill in the "1" under the "F" (for False) column. TRUE FA E (0) (1) 1. I find it hard to imitate the behavior of other people. (0) (1) 2. At parties and social gatherings, i do not attempt to do or say things that others will like. (0) (1) 3. I can only argue for ideas which I already believe. (0) (1) P I can make impromptu speeches on topics about which I have almost no information. (0) (1) I guess I put on a show to impress or entertain others. (0) (1) (0) (1) (0) (1) I would probably make a good actor. In a group of people I am rarely the center of attention. 90.95.01 In different situations and with different people, I often act like very different persons. (0) (1) 9. I am not particularly good at making other people like me. (0) (1) 10. I’m not always the person I appear to be. (0) (1) 11.l would not change my cpinions (or the way I do things) in order to please someone or win their favor. (0) (1) 12.l have considered being an entertainer. (0) (1) 13.l have never been good at games like charades or improvisational acting. (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) 157 14.I have trouble changing my behavior to suit different people and different situations. 15. At a party I let others keep the jokes and stories going. 16.I feel a bit awkward in public and do not show up quite as well as I should. 17. I can look anyone in the eye and tell a lie with a straight face (if for a right end). 18.l may deceive peOple by being friendly when i really dislike them. 158 APPENDIX C.1 Perfume Rating Scales 1. Please rate the perfume of the following scale: 1 2 3 4 5 worst I’ve ever tried 2. To what extent did you like the perfume? 1 2 3 4 5 worst I’ve ever tried 7 best I’ve ever tried 7 best I’ve ever tried 159 APPENDIX 02 SUBJECT NO. _ PANAS This scale consists of a number of words that describe different feelings and emotions. Read each item and then mark the appropriate answer in the space next to that word. Indicate to what extent you feel this way right now, that is, at the present moment Use the following scale to record your answers. 1 = very slightly or not at all 2 = little 3 = moderately 4 = quite a bit 5 = extremely interested irritable distressed alert excited ashamed upset _ inspired strong nervous guilty determined _ scared __ attentive __ hostile __ jittery _ enthusiastic _ active _ proud __ afraid 160 APPENDIX C.3 SUBJECT NO. Brief-FNE Read each of the following statements carefully and Indicate how characteristic It is of you according to the following scale: 1 Not at all characteristic of me. 2 Slightly characteristic of me. 3 = Moderately characteristic of me. 4 = Very characteristic of me. 5 = Extremely characteristic of me. Babes: 1. I worry about what other people will think of me even when I know It doesn’t make any difference. 2. I am unconcerned even If i know people are forming an unfavorable impression of me. 3. I am frequently afraid of other people noticing my shortcomings. 4. I rarely worry about what kind of impression I am making on someone. . I am afraid that others will not approve of me. 5 6. i am afraid that people will find fault with me. 7. Other peOple’s opinions of me do not bother me. 8 . When I am talking to someone, I worry about what they may be thinking about me. 9. I am usually worried about what kind of Impression i make. 10. If I know someone is judging me, it has little effect on me. __ 11. Sometimes I think I am too concerned with what other people think of me. 12. I often worry that I will say or do the wrong things. 161 APPENDIX C.4 SUBJECT NO. _ Below are a number of questions that ask for your opinion about the two perfumes featured In the advertisements that you have examined. Please circle the brand name to indicate your choice of perfumes in response to each of the questions. 1. Which product do you think is better? Essence Intrigue 2. Which product appeals to you the most? Intrigue Essence 3. Which product would you pay more for? Essence Intrigue 4. Which product would you be most likely to purchase? Intrigue Essence 5. Which ad appealed to you the most? Essence Intrigue 6. Which ad is better at making you want to use the product? Intrigue Essence 7. Which ad was focused more on the product and Its ingredients? EssenCe intrigue 8. Which ad was focused more on the product’s image? Intrigue Essence 162 APPENDIX C.5 SUBJECT NO. _ Below are a number of questions that ask for your opinion about the two perfumes featured In the advertisement that you have examined. Please answer every question by circling the number which most accurately describes your opinion. 1. To what extent did you like the Essence advertisement? 1 2 3 4 5 not at all very much 2. To what extent did you like the Intrigue advertisement? 1 2 3 4 5 not at all very much 3. To what extent do you think the Essence advertisement will be successful? 1 2 3 4 5 not at all very much 4. To what extent do you think the Intrigue advertisement will be successful? 1 2 3 4 5 not at all very much 5. To what extent do you think the Essence advertisement was "Image-oriented", that Is oriented toward a glamorous, socially desirable Image? 1 2 3 4 5 not at all very much 6. To what extent do you think the Intrigue advertisement was "image-oriented", that Is oriented toward a glamorous, socially desirable image? 1 2 3 4 5 not at all very much 163 7. To what extent do you think the Essence advertisement was "product- oriented", that is oriented toward useful Information about the product’s attributes? 1 2 3 4 5 not at all very much 8. To what extent do you think the Intrigue advertisement was "product- oriented", that is oriented toward useful Information about the product’s attributes? 1 2 3 4 5 not at all very much 164 APPENDIX 06 SUBJECT NO. __ Below are a number of statements about the two perfumes featured In the advertisement that you have examined. Please circle the response that best corresponds to your opinion for each of the questions. 1. Which is the better product? Definitely Probably Both are Probably Definitely Intrigue Intrigue equally Essence Essence good 2. Which perfume appeals to you the most? Definitely Probably Both are Probably Definitely Intrigue Intrigue equally Essence Essence good 3. Which perfume would you pay more for? Definitely Probably Either Probably Definitely Intrigue Intrigue Essence Essence 4. Which perfume would you purchase? Definitely Probably Either Probably Definitely Intrigue Intrigue Essence Essence 5. Which ad appeals to you the most? Definitely Probably Both are Probably Definitely Intrigue Intrigue equally Essence Essence good 6. Which ad makes you want to use the product most? Definitely Probably Either Probably Definitely Intrigue Intrigue Essence Essence 165 APPENDIX C.7 SUBJECT NO. __ Please answer every question by circling the number which most accurately describes your opinion. 1. How likely Is it that the experimenter and others will know how I evaluated the perfume. 1 2 3 4 5 not at all likely very likely 2. In general, other people’s tastes in perfumes are similar to my own. 1 2 3 4 5 not at all true very true 3. To what extent did you have a choice in the perfume you evaluated? 1 2 3 4 5 no choice I chose the perfume 4. How likely Is it that you would buy the perfume featured In the advertisement? 1 2 3 4 5 not at all likely very likely 5. Engineering students are experts at judging perfume. 1 2 3 4 5 not at all true very true 6. Michigan Junior Miss contestants are experts at judging perfume. 1 2 3 4 5 not at all true very true 166 7. Engineering students possess high status. 1 2 3 4 5 not at all true very true 8. Michigan Junior Miss contestants possess high status. 1 2 3 4 5 not at all true very true 9. To what extent do engineering majors possess status when evaluating the merits of a perfume? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 very little very much 10. To what extent do Michigan Junior Miss contestants possess stems when evaluating the merits of a perfume? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 very little very much 11. To what extent do engineering majors possess expertise when evaluating the merits of a perfume? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 very little very much 12. To what extent do Michigan Junior Miss contestants possess expertise when evaluating the merits of a perfume? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 very little very much 167 APPENDIX 08 SUBJECT NO. _ SWLS Below are five statements with which you may agree or disagree. Using the 1-7 scale below, Indicate your agreement with each Item by placing the appropriate number on the line preceding the item. Please be open and honest in your responding. 1. in most ways my life is close to my ideal. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 strongly neither agree 'strongly disagree nor disagree agree 2. The conditions of my life are excellent. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 strongly neither agree strongly disagree nor disagree agree 3. I am satisfied with my life. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 strongly neither agree strong'Y disagree _ nor disagree agree 4. So far I have gotten the important things i want In life. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 strongly neither agree strong'Y disagree nor disagree agree 5. If I could live my life over, I would change almost nothing. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 strongly neither agree strong'y disagree nor disagree agree 168 APPENDIX C.9 SUBJECT NO. _ FAS 1. Are you willing to try new ideas about clothing fashion? Often Sometimes Seldom Never Don’t Know 2. Do you try something new in the next season’s fashions? Often Sometimes Seldom Never Don’t Know 3. Are you usually among the last to try new clothing fashions? Often Sometimes Seldom Never Don’t Know 4. How often do you influence the types of clothing fashions your friends buy? Often Sometimes Seldom Never Don’t Know 5. How often do others turn to you for advise on fashion and clothing? Often Sometimes Seldom Never Don’t Know 6. How many of your friends and neighbors regard you as a good source of advise on clothing fashion? Almost everyone I know More than half About half Less than half Almost no one Don’t know 7. Do you usually wear perfume? YES NO (circle one). 169 8. How often do you wear perfume? Often Sometimes Seldom Never Don’t Know 9. Do you have more than one perfume that you wear (for example, an "everyday" perfume and an another for special occasions)? YES NO (circle one) 10. If you answered YES to question 9, how many perfumes do you use? A total of 2 A total of 3 A total of 4 A total of 5 A total of 6 A total of 7 More than 7 170 APPENDIX C.1O SUBJECT NO. SCS 1. I’m always trying to figure myself out. 0 1 2 3 4 Extremely Extremely uncharacteristic characteristic 2. I’m concerned about my style of doing things. 0 1 2 3 4 Extremely Extremely uncharacteristic characteristic 3. Generally, I’m not very aware of myself. 0 1 2 3 4 Extremely Extremely uncharacteristic characteristic 4. It takes me time to overcome my shyness in new situations. 0. 1 2 3 4 Extremely Extremely uncharacteristic characteristic 5. l reflect about myself a lot. 0 1 2 3 4 Extremely Extremely uncharacteristic characteristic 6. I’m concerned about the way I present myself. 0 1 2 3 4 Extremely Extremely uncharacteristic characteristic 171 7. I’m often the subject of my own fantasies. 0 1 2 Extremely uncharacteristic 3 4 Extremely characteristic 8. I have trouble working when someone Is watching me. 0 1 2 Extremely uncharacteristic 9. I never scrutinize myself. 0 1 2 Extremely uncharacteristic 10. I get embarrassed very easily. 0 1 2 Extremely uncharacteristic 11. I’m self-conscious about the way I look. 0 1 2 Extremely uncharacteristic 12. I don’t find It hard to talk to strangers. 0 1 2 Extremely uncharacteristic 13. I’m generally attentive to my Inner feelings. 0 1 2 Extremely uncharacteristic 3 4 Extremely characteristic 4 Extremely characteristic 4 Extremely characteristic 4 Extremely characteristic ‘ 4 Extremely characteristic 4 Extremely characteristic 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 172 I usually worry about making a good Impression. 0 1 2 3 4 Extremely Extremely uncharacteristic characteristic I’m constantly examining my motives. 0 1 2 3 4 Extremely Extremely uncharacteristic characteristic I feel anxious when I speak In front of a group. 0 1 2 3 4 Extremely Extremely uncharacteristic characteristic One of the last things i do before I leave my house Is look in the mirror. 0 1 2 3 4 Extremely Extremely uncharacteristic characteristic I sometimes have the feeling that I’m off somewhere watching myself. 0 1 2 3 4 Extremely Extremely uncharacteristic characteristic I’m concerned about what other people think of me. 0 1 2 3 4 Extremely Extremely uncharacteristic characteristic . l"m alert to changes In my mood. 0 1 2 3 4 Extremely Extremely uncharacteristic characteristic 173 21. I’m usually aware of my appearance. 0 1 2 3 4 Extremely Extremely uncharacteristic characteristic 22. I’m aware of the way my mind works when I work through a problem. 0 1 2 3 4 Extremely Extremely uncharacteristic characteristic 23. Large groups make me nervous. 0 1 2 3 4 Extremely Extremely uncharacteristic characteristic 174 APPENDIX D.1 SUBJECT NO. Please answer every question by circling the number which most accurately describes your opinion. 1. The students who follow me in the perfume testing will know how i evaluated the perfume. 1 2 5 not at all likely very likely 2. To what extent did the people who evaluated the perfume before you agree with each other? 1 2 3 4 5 agreed not at all completely agreed 3. Engineering students are experts at judging perfume. 1 2 3 . 4 5 not at all true very true 4. Michigan Junior Miss contestants are experts at judging perfume. 1 2 3 4 5 not at all true very true 5. Engineering students possess high status. 1 2 3 4 5 not at all true very true 6. Michigan Junior Miss contestants possess high status. 1 2 3 4 5 not at all true very true 175 7. In general, other people’s tastes in perfumes are similar to my own. 1 2 3 4 5 not at all true very true 8. To what extent did you have a choice in the perfume you evaluated? 1 2 3 4 5 no choice i chose the perfume 9. To what extent do you think the Intrigue advertisement was "image-oriented", that Is oriented toward what the product can do for you? 1 2 3 4 5 not at all very much 10. To what extent do you think the Intrigue advertisement was "product- oriented", that Is oriented toward its attributes? 1 2 3 4 5 not at all very much 11. To what extent do you think the Essence advertisement was "image- oriented", that is oriented toward what the product can do for you? 1 2 3 4 5 not at all very much 12. To what extent do you think the Essence advertisement was "product- orIented", that is oriented toward its attributes? 1 2 3 4 5 not at all very much 13. How likely Is it that you would buy the perfume featured in the advertisement? 1 2 3 4 5 not at all likely very likely 176 14. To what extent do you agree with the prior judgments made about the perfume? 1 2 3 4 5 not at all ' very much 177 APPENDIX 02 Experimenter Check-list _ attached PRI. Visibility condition was: PUBLIC PRIVATE Perfume chosen was: lNTRIGUE ESSENCE All questionnaires stapled together ‘\ 178 APPENDIX E.1 Consent Form for Study 1A Michigan State University Department of Psychology Research Consent Form 1. l have freely consented to participate in the scientific research being conducted by Rick Harnish and supervised by Dr. Galen Bodenhausen, Assistant Professor of Psychology. 2. The research has been explained to me and I understand the explanation and what my participation will involve. 3. I understand that I am free not to participate at all and that I am free to withdraw my participation at any time without prejudice. 4. I understand that my responses will be kept strictly confidential and that the results of this study will be reported as aggregate data and no individual participant will be identified. I further understand that I will not write my name on any of the materials I receive here today. 5. i understand that my participation does not guarantee any beneficial results to me. 6. I understand that I will receive additional information about this study after my participation Is complete. 7. I understand that my participation will require about 60 minutes and that i will be asked to evaluate a new perfume and then complete some questionnaire about my impressions of the product. Title of research project: Consumer Evaluations Signed Date 179 APPENDIX E.2 Consent Form for Study 1B Michigan State University Department of Psychology Research Consent Form 1. I have freely consented to participate in the scientific research being conducted by Rick Harnish and supervised by Dr. Galen Bodenhausen, Assistant Professor of Psychology. 2. The research has been explained to me and i understand the explanation and what my participation will involve. 3. I understand that I am free not to participate at all and that i am free to withdraw my participation at any time without prejudice. 4. I understand that my responses will be kept strictly confidential and that the results of this study wIll be reported as aggregate data and no individual participant will be identified. I further understand that I will not write my name on any of the materials i receive here today. 5. I understand that my participation does not guarantee any beneficial results to me. 6. I understand that I will receive additional information about this study after my participation is complete. 7. I understand that my participation will require about 60 minutes and that I will be asked to evaluate a new perfume and then complete some questionnaire about my impressions of the product. Title of research project: Consumer Choices Signed Date 180 APPENDIX E.3 Consent Form for Study 2 Michigan State University Department of Psychology Research Consent Form 1. I have freely consented to participate in the scientific research being conducted by Rick Harnish and supervised by Dr. Galen Bodenhausen, Assistant Professor of Psychology. 2. The research has been explained to me and I understand the explanation and what my participation will Involve. 3. i understand that i am free not to participate at all and that I am free to withdraw my participation at any time without prejudice. 4. I understand that my responses will be kept strictly confidential and that the results of this study will be reported as aggregate data and no individual participant will be identified. I further understand that I will not write my name on any of the materials I receive here today. 5. I understand that my participation does not guarantee any beneficial results to me. 6. I understand that i will receive additional information about this study after my participation Is complete. 7. I understand that my participation will require about 60 minutes and that i will be asked to evaluate a new perfume and then complete some questionnaire about my impressions of the product. Title of research project: Product Evaluations Signed Date 181 APPENDIX E.4 ‘ Debriefing Form for Study 1A Debriefing for Consumer Evaluations The research that you participated in was concerned with the affective consequences in choosing a consumer good. Previous research has shown that some individuals are more attracted to products that emphasize the Image associated with its use, whereas, others are more attracted to products that emphasize its attributes. The former type of individual is known as a high self- monitor and the latter is a low self-monitor. High self-monitors strive to be the type of person called for In every social situation that they find themselves. In contrast, low self-monitors are less concerned with the Impressions that they make but rather use their own values and beliefs as a guide to their behavior. Thus, it can be hypothesized that high self-monitors (HSM) are more attracted to image-oriented products and low self-monitors (LSM) are more attracted to attribute-oriented products. It is our belief that If given a choice, HSM should select and use image-oriented products whereas, LSM should select and use attribute-oriented products. In the experiment, we asked you for your opinion toward two ads. These ads were systematically varied so that the product, and message was image or attribute oriented. After examining the ads we asked you which perfume you would like to evaluate. Then we asked you to complete a mood measure after you had tested the perfume. We believe that because the product was fulfilling some type of need for you (i.e., helping you attain social desirability or helping you validate self-opinions) you experienced some positive affect. If you would like to learn more about consumer behavior and affect, you can read the following: Snyder, M., & DeBono, K. G. (1985). Appeals to images and claims about quality: Understanding the psychology of advertising. ueurnal ef Personally and Seclal Psychelegy, fl, 586-597. if you should still have some questions concerning this experiment, or If you would like to examine the results from this study, you can contact Rick Hamish, 440 Baker Hall, 353-9164. Thanks once again for your participation. 182 APPENDIX E.5 Debriefing From for Study 1B Debriefing for Consumer Choices The research that you participated In was concerned with the affective consequences in choosing a consumer good. Previous research has shown that some Individuals are more attracted to products that emphasize the image associated with its use, whereas, other individuals are more attracted to products that emphasize its attributes. The former type of individual is known as a high self-monitor and the latter Is a low self-monitor. High self-monitors strive to be the type of person called for in every social situation that they find themselves. In contrast, low self-monitors are less concerned with the impressions that they make but rather use their own values and beliefs as a guide to their behavior. Thus, it can be hypothesized that high self-monitors (HSM) are more attracted to image-oriented products and low self-monitors (LSM) are more attracted to attribute-oriented products. It is our belief that if given a choice, HSM should select and use image-oriented products whereas, LSM should select and use attribute-oriented products. In the experiment, we asked you for your opinion towards two ads. These ads were systematically varied so that the product, and message was image or attribute oriented. After examining the ads, some of you were asked which perfume you would like to evaluate, whereas others were given a perfume to try and evaluate. Then we asked you to complete a mood measure after you had tested the perfume. We believe that those who were given a choice of which perfume you evaluated experienced some positive affect because the product was fulfilling some type of need for you (i.e., helping you attain social desirability or helping you validate self-opinions). Those given the perfume to evaluate may have been given a product that would not meet a need for you and thus, it was expected that you would experience less positive affect. if you would like to learn more about consumer behavior and affect, you can read the following: Snyder, M., & DeBono, K. G. (1985). Appeals to images and claims about quality: Understanding the psychology of advertising. ueurnal of Persenality ane §ecial Psyehology, 49, 586-597. If you should still have some questions concerning this experiment, or If you would like to examine the results from this study, you can contact Rick Hamish, 440 Baker Hall, 353-9164. Thanks once again for your participation. 183 APPENDIX E.6 Debriefing Form for Study 2 Debriefing for Product Evaluations The research that you participated in was concerned with the affective consequences in choosing a consumer good. Previous research has shown that some individuals are more attracted to products that emphasize the image associated with its use, whereas, other individuals are more attracted to products that emphasize Its attributes. The former type of individual is known as a high self-monitor and the latter is a low self-monitor. High self-monitors strive to be the type of person called for in every social situation that they find themselves. In contrast, low self-monitors are less concerned with the Impressions that they make but rather use their own values and beliefs as a guide to their behavior. Thus, it can be hypothesized that high self-monitors (HSM) are more attracted to image-oriented products and low self-monitors (LSM) are more attracted to attribute-oriented products. it Is our belief that HSM should select and use products that are favorably endorsed by a high status source, whereas LSM should select and use products that are endorsed by an expert source. In the experiment, we asked you for your opinion toward two ads. These ads were systematically varied so that the product, and message was Image or attribute oriented. After examining the ads we asked you which perfume you would like to evaluate and showed you previous evaluations made by either a high status source or an expert source. Then we asked you to complete a mood measure after you had tested the perfume. We believe that because the product was fulfilling some type of need for you (i.e., helping you attain social desirability or help you valid self- opinions) you experienced some positive affect. If you would like to learn more about consumer behavior and affect, you can read the following: Snyder, M, & DeBono, K. G. (1985). Appeals to images and claims about quality: Understanding the psychology of advertising. ueurnal of Persenai‘uy a nu seeila P,syehelegy 4a, 586- 597. If you should still have some questions concerning this experiment, or if you would like to examine the results from this study, you can contact Rick Hamish, 440 Baker Hall, 353-9164. Thanks once again for your participation. 184 LIST OF REFERENCES 185 LIST OF REFERENCES Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Ajzen, I., Tkao, C., & White, J. B. (1982). Self-monitoring and the attitude- behavior relation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 426- 435. . Attridge, M., & Snyder, M. (1989, May). Personality and advertising: Selling images and selling products. Paper presented at the 61 st Annual Convention of the Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago, IL. Axsom, D., Yates, 8., & Chaiken, S. (1987). Audience response as a heuristic cue in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 30-40. Bagozzi, R. P., & Schnedlitz, P. (1985). Social contingencies in the attitude model: A test of certain interaction hypotheses. Social Psychology Quarterly, 48, 366-373. Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). Broadening the theory of reasoned action to encompass goals and outcomes: An empirical comparison of two models and extensions. Unpublished manuscript, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. 186 Batra, R., & Ray, M. L. (1983). Advertising situations: The implications of differential Involvement and accompanying affect responses. In R. J. Harris (Ed.), Information processing research in advertising (pp. 127-151). Hillsdaie, NJ: Erlbaum. Baumgardner, A. H., Kaufman, C. M., & Levy, P. E. (1989). Regulating affect Interpresonally: When low esteem leads to greater enhancement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 907-921. Berlyne, D. E. (1967). Arousal and reinforcement. In D. Levine (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (pp. 1-110). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. Bettman, J. R. (1979). An informational processing theory of consumer choice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Bodenhausen, G. V., & Hamish, R. J. (1989, August). Affective consequences of attitude expression. Paper presented at the 97th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, New Orleans, LA. Bodenhausen, G. V., Harnish, R. J., Kramer, G., & Ervin, K. (1989). Affective consequences of attitude expression: General principles and individual differences. Unpublished manuscript, Michigan State University, East Lansing. Borgida, E., 8r Howard-Pitney, B. (1983). Personal Involvement and the robustness of personal salience effects. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 3, 296-309. 187 Britt, S. H., Adams, S.C., & Miller, A. S. (1972). How many advertising exposures per day? Journal of Advertising Research, 12, 3-9. Bruno, A. V., & Wildt, A. R. (1975). Toward understanding attitude structure: A study of the complementarity of the multiattribute attitude models. Journal of Consumer Research, 2, 137-145. Buckley, H. M., 8. Roach, M. E. (1974). Clothing as a nonverbal communicator of social and political attitudes. Home Economics Research Journal, 3, 94- 102. Budd, R., & Spencer, C. (1984). Latitude of rejection, centrality and certainty: Variables affecting the relationship between attitudes, norms, and behavioral intentions. British Journal of Social Psychology, 23, 1-8. Bugelski, B. R. (1962). Presentation time, total time, and mediation of paired- associate learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63, 409-412. Burnkrant, R. E., & Cousineau, A. (1975). Informational and normative social influence in buyer behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 2, 206-215. Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1984). The need for cognition: Relationship to attitudinal processes. In R. P. McGlynn, J. E. Maddux, C. D. Stoltenberg, & J. H. Harvey (Eds), Social perception in clinical and counseling psychology (pp. 113-139). Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech Press. Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1985). Central and peripheral routes to persuasion: The role of message repetition. In L. F. Alwitt, & A. A. Mitchell (Eds.), Psychological processes and advertising effects: Theory, research and applications (pp. 91-111). Hillsdaie, NJ: Erlbaum. 188 Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., & Sidera, J. (1982). The effects of a salient self- schema on the evaluation of proattitudinal editorials: Top-down versus bottom-up messages processing. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 18, 324-338. Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 752-766. Chaiken, S. (1986). Physical appearance and social influence. In C. P. Herman, M. P. Zanna, 8. E. T. Higgins (Eds), Physical appearance, stigma, and social behavior: The Ontario symposium (Vol. 3, pp. 143-177). Hillsdaie, NJ: Erlbaum. Chaiken, S. (1987). The heuristic model of persuasion. In M. P. Zanna, J. M. Olson, & C. P. Herman (Eds), Social influence: The Ontario symposium (Vol. 5, pp. 3-39). Hillsdaie, NJ: Erlbaum. Cialdini, R. 8., Petty, R. E., 8 Cacioppo, J. T. (1981). Attitude and attitude change. Annual Review of Psychology, 32, 357-404. Clark, M. S., & Fiske, S. T. (Eds). (1982). Affect and cognition: The 17th annual Carnegie symposium. Hillsdaie, NJ: Erlbaum. Cohen, J. B., & Golden, E. (1972). Informational social influence and product evaluation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 56, 54-59. DeBono, K. G. (1987). Investigating the social-adjustive and value-expressive functions of attitudes: Implications for persuasion processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 279-287. 189 DeBono, K. G., & Edmonds, A. E. (1989). Cognitive dissonance and self- monitoring: A matter of context? Unpublished manuscript, Union College, Schenectady, NY. DeBono, K. G., & Harnish, R. J. (1988). Source expertise, source attractiveness, and the processing of persuasive information: A functional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 541 -546. DeBono, K. G., & Snyder, M. (1989). Understanding consumer decision- making processes: The role of form and function in product evaluation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 19, 416-424. DeBono, K. G., & Telesca, C. (1987). Source physical attractiveness and the processing of persuasive information. Unpublished manuscript, Union College, Schenectady, NY. Deutsch, M., & Gerard, H. B. (1955). A study of normative and informational social influence upon individual judgment. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51, 629-636. Diener, E., & Emmons, R. A. (1984). The independence of positive and negative affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 1105- 1 1 17. Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71 -75. Diener, E., Larsen, R. J., Levine, 5., & Emmons, R. A. (1985). Intensity and frequency: Dimensions underlying positive and negative affect. Journal of ' Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 1253-1265. 190 Edell, J. A., & Burke, M. C. (1984). The moderating effect of attitude toward an ad on ad effectiveness under different processing conditions. In T. Kinnear (Ed.), Advances in Consumer Research (Vol. 11, pp. 644-649). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research. Elliott, G. C. (1979). Some effects of deception and level of self-monitoring on planning and reacting to a self-presentation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1282-1290. Erber, R., & Fiske, S. T. (1984). Outcome dependency and attention to inconsistent information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 709-726. . Fenigstein, A., Scheier, M. F., & Buss, A. (1975). Public and private self- consciousness: Assessment and theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 522-527. Fishbein, M. (1963). An investigation of the relationship between beliefs about an object and the attitude toward that object. Human Relations, 16, 233-240. Fishbein, M. (1980). A theory of reasoned action: Some applications and implications. In H. Howe and M. Page (Eds.), Nebraska Symposium on motivation (Vol. 27, pp. 65-116). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. Fisher, W. A. (1984). Predicting contraceptive behavior among university men: The role of emotions and behavioral intentions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 14, 104-123. Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1984). Social cognition. New York: Random ' House. 191 Gorsuch, R. L., & Ortberg, J. (1983). Moral obligation and attitudes: Their relation to behavioral intentions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 1025-1028. Greenwald, A. G. (1968). Cognitive learning, cognitive response to persuasion, and attitude change. In A. G. Greenwald, T. C. Brock, & T. M. Ostrom (Eds), Psychological foundations of attitudes (pp. 147-170). New York, NY: Academic Press. Harkness, A. R., DeBono, K. G., & Borgida, E. (1985). Personal involvement and strategies for making contingency judgments: A stake in the dating game makes a difference. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 22-32. Harnish, R. J. (1987). The effect of source Iikability and argument strength on cognitive processing: Do high and low self-monitors use these cues differently when processing persuasive messages? Unpublished master's thesis, Michigan State University, East Lansing. Herek, G. M. (1987). Can functions be measured? A new perspective on the functional approach to attitudes. Social Psychology Quarterly, 50, 285-303. Hirschman, E. C., 8: Adcock, W. O. (1977). An examination of innovative communicators, Opinion leaders and innovators for men’s fashion apparel. In H. Keith Hunt (Ed.), Advances in Consumer Research (Vol. 5, pp. 308- 313). Ann Arbor: Association for Consumer Research. 192 Holbrook, M. B. (1985). Why business is bad for consumer research: The three bears revisited. In E. C. Hirschman 8 M. B. Holbrook (Eds), Advances in Consumer Research (Vol. 12, pp. 145-156). Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research. Holbrook, M. B., 8 Hirschman, E. C. (1982). The experiential aspects of consumption: Consumer fantasies, feelings, and fun. Journal of Consumer Research, 9, 132-140. Holbrook, M. B., 8 O’Shaughnessy, J. (1984). The role of emotion in advertising. Psychology and Marketing, 1, 45-64. Howard-Pitney, B., Borgida, E., 8 Omoto, A. M. (1986). Personal involvement: An examination of processing differences. Social Cognition, 4, 39-57. Isen, A. H. (1984). The influence of positive affect on decision making and cognitive organization. In T. Kinnear (Ed.), Advance in Consumer Research (Vol. 11, pp. 534-537). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research. Isen, A. M., 8 Hastorf, A. H. (1982). Some perspectives on cognitive social psychology. In A. H. Hastorf 8 A. M. Isen (Eds), Cognitive social psychology (pp. 1-31). New York: Elsevier. Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice- Hall. Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., 8 T versky, A. (Eds) (1985). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. New York: Cambridge University Press. Katz, 0. (1960). The functional approach to the study of attitudes. Public Opinion Quarterly, 24, 163-204. 193 Katz, 0., 8 Stotland, E. (1959). A preliminary statement to a theory of attitude structure and change. In S. Koch (Ed.), Psychology: A study of a science, (Vol. 3, pp. 423-475). New York: McGraw-Hill. Kelley, H. H., Berscheid, E., Christensen, A., Harvey, J. H., Huston, T.L., Levinger, G., McClintock, E., Peplau, L A., 8 Peterson, D. R. (1983). Close relationships. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company. Kelman, H. C. (1958). Compliance, identification, and internalization: Three processes of attitude change. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2, 51 -60. Kelman, H. C. (1961). Processes of opinion change. Public Opinion Quarterly, 25, 57-78. Krugman, H. E. (1972). Why three exposures may be enough. Journal of Advertising Research, 12, 11-14. Leary, M. R. (1983). A brief version of the fear of negative evaluation scale. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 9, 371 -375. Lucas, 0. B., 8 Benson, C. E. (1929). The relative values of positive and negative advertising appeals as measured by coupons returned. Journal of Applied Psychology, 13, 274-300. Lutz, R. J. (1985). Affective and cognitive antecedents of attitude toward the ad: A conceptual framework. In L. Alwitt 8 A. Mitchell (Eds), Psychological processes and advertising effects: Theory, research and applications (pp. 45-63). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 194 Lutz, R. J., MacKenzie, S. B. (1982). Construction of a diagnostic cognitive response model for use in commercial pretesting. In M. J. Naples 8 J. S. Chasin (Eds), Straight talk about attitude research. Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association. Lutz, R. J., MacKenzie, S. B., 8 Belch, G. E. (1983). Attitude toward the ad as a mediator of advertising effectiveness: Determinants and consequences. In R. P. Bagozzi 8 A. M. Tybout (Eds), Advances in consumer research (Vol. 10, pp. 532-539). Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research. Manis, M. (1977). Cognitive social psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 3, 550-566. . Markus, H., 8 Zajonc, R. B. (1985). The cognitive perspective in social psychology. In G. Lindzey 8 E. Aronson (Eds), Handbook of social psychology (3rd ed., Vol. 2, pp.137-230). New York: Random House. Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81-97. . Mitchell, A. A. (1983). The effects of visual and emotional advertising: An informational processing approach. In L. Percy 8 A. G. Woodside (Eds), Advertising and consumer psychology (pp. 197-217). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Newell, A., 8 Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 195 Nisbett, R. E., 8 Ross, L (1980). Human inference: Strategies and short- comings of social judgement. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Norman, D. A. (1969). Memory and attention: An introduction to human information processing. New York: Wiley. Olshavsky, R. W., 8 Granbois, D. H. (1979). Consumer decision making-Fact or fiction? Journal of Consumer Research, 6, 93-100. Park, C. W., 8 Young, S. M. (1983). Types and levels of involvement and brand attitude formation. In R. P. Bagozzi 8 A. M. Tybout (Eds), Advances in consumer research (Vol. 10, pp. 320-324). Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research. 1 Petty, R. E., 8 Cacioppo, J. T. (1981). Attitudes and persuasion: Classic and contemporary approaches. Dubuque, IA: William C. Brown. Petty, R. E., 8 Cacioppo, J. T. (1984). The effects of involvement on responses to argument quantity and quality: Central and peripheral routes to persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 69-81. Petty, R. E., 8 Cacioppo, J. T. (1986a). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), AdVances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 123-205). New York: Academic Press. Petty, R. E., 8 Cacioppo, J. T. (1986b). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer- Verlag. 196 Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., 8 Goldman, R. (1981). Personal involvement as a determinant of argument-based persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 847-855. Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., 8 Schumann, D. (1983). Central and peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness: The moderating role of involvement. Journal of Consumer Research, 10, 134-148. Petty, R. E., Wells, G. L., Heesacker, M., Brock, T. C., 8 Cacioppo, J. T. (1983). The effect of recipient posture on persuasion: A mgnitive response analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 9, 209-222. Ratneshwar, S., 8 Chaiken, S. (1986). When is the expert source more persuasion? A heuristic processing analysis. In T. A. Shimp, S. Sharma, et al., (Eds), American Marketing Association Summer Marketing Educators’ Conference Proceedings. Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association. Ray, M. L. (1973). Psychological theories and interpretations of learning. In S. Ward and T. S. Robertson (Eds), Consumer behavior: Theoretical sources (pp. 45-117). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Ray, M. L., 8 Batra, R. (1983). Emotion and persuasion in advertising: What we do and don’t know about affect. In R. Bagozzi 8 A. Tybout (Eds), Advances in Consumer Research (Vol. 10, pp. 543-548). Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research. Russell, J. A. (1980). A circumplex model of affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 1161 -1 178. 197 Sarnoff, D. 8 Katz, D. (1954). The motivational bases of attitude change. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 49, 115-124. Shavitt, S. (1985). Functional imperative theory of attitude formation and expression. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University, Columbus. Shavitt, S. (1987). Operationalizing functional theory: Focusing on attitude functions inherent in objects. Unpublished manuscript, University of Illinois, Urbana. Shavitt, S. (1989). Operationalizing functional theories of attitude. In A. R. Pratkanis, S. J. Breckler, 8 A. G. Greenwald (Eds), Attitude structure and function (pp. 311-337). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Sheth, J. N. (1979). The surpluses and shortages in consumer behavior theory and research. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 7, 414-427. Shower, 0., 8 Cantor, N. (1985). Social cognition: A look at motivated strategies. Annual Review of Psychology, 36, 275-305. Silk, A. J., 8 Vavra, T. G. (1974). The influence of advertising’s affective qualities on consumer responses. In G. D. Hughes 8 M. L. Ray (Eds), Buyer and consumer information processing (pp. 157-186). Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press. Simon, H. A. (1974). How big is a chunk? Science, 183, 482-488. Smith, M. B., Bruner, J. 3., 8 White, R. J. (1956). Opinions and personality. New York: Wiley. 198 Snyder, M. (1974). Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 526-537. Snyder, M. (1987). Public appearances, private realities: The psychology of self-monitoring. New York: Freeman. Snyder, M., 8 DeBono, K. G. (1985). Appeals to image and claims about quality: Understanding the psychology of advertising. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 586-597. Snyder, M., 8 DeBono, K. G. (1987). A functional approach to attitude and persuasion. In M. P. Zanna, J. M. Olson, C. P. Herman (Eds), Social influence: The Ontario symposium (Vol. 5, pp. 107-125). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Snyder, M., 8 DeBono, K. G. (1988). Identifying attitude functions: Lessons from personality and social behavior. In A. R. Pratkanis, S. J. Breckler, 8 A. G. Greenwald (Eds), Attitude structure and function (pp. 339-359). ' Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Snyder, M., 8 Gangestad, S. (1986). On the nature of self-monitoring: Matters of validity, matters of assessment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 125-139. Sorrentino, R. M., 8 Higgins, E. T. (Eds) (1984). The handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behavior. New York: Guilford. Stafford, J. E. (1966). Effects of group influences on consumer brand preferences. Journal of Marketing Research, 3, 68-75. 199 Stone, G. P. (1962). Appearance and the self. In A. M. Rose (Ed.), Human behavior and social processes (pp. 86-117). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Venkatesan, M. (1966). Experimental study of consumer behavior, conformity and independence. Journal of Marketing Research, 3, 384-387. Watson, 0., Clark, L A., 8 Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063-1070. Watson, D., 8 Friend, R. (1969). Measurement of social-evaluative anxiety. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 33, 448-457. Wood, W., 8 Eagly, A. H. (1981). Stages in the analysis of persuasive messages: The role of causal attributions and message comprehension. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 246-259. Wood, W., Kallgren, C. A., 8 Preisler, R. M. (1985). Access to attitude-relevant information in memory as a determinant of persuasion: The role of message attributes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 540-559. Yalch, R. F., 8 Elmore-Yalch, R. (1984). The effect of numbers on the route to persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 11, 522-527. Zajonc, R. B. (1980). Cognition and social cognition: A historical perspective. In L. Festinger (Ed.), Retrospections on social psychology (pp. 180-204). New York: Oxford University Press. FOOTNOTES ‘ Although there are indeed some conceptual differences between Chaiken’s and Petty and Cacioppo’s view of persuasion, for the purposes of this research, the two models are largely interchangeable. " * :l llllllillllllllllillIllIlllllllllllllllllHill ‘- ~