.; a... T! van! a J o. .v fizz» \ Witt. . a 4:. la ¢ . V... i... a J .1 Eva... I... .i: ‘7 .. fa N'. 2- ‘t 2:9. . :1 .1.“ ...u Aqxv.l.|l .1... :12. hit. .a... gatuvufl‘fl. . iI , ‘ Hwfin. This is to certify that the dissertation entitled An Investigation of Differences in Student Interpretations of Product-Oriented and Alcohol Moderation Malt Beverage Print Advertisements presented by JoAnn Leigh Roznowski has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for the Ph.D. degree in Mass Media n - .’ #572th :7. {6502 MajorrProfessQr’s Signature "1); 0&1in ii f 526021 Date MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution LIBRARY Michigan State University PLACE IN RETURN Box to remove this checkout from your record. To AVOID FINES return on or before date due. MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE 91531-51147 ([505 a 1’ z; , i;;*§3°§_1.9”03~ I! ‘ 6/01 cJCIRC/DateDuepss-ots AN INVESTIGATION OF DIFFERENCES IN STUDENT INTERPRETATIONS OF PRODUCT-ORIENTED AND ALCOHOL MODERATION MALT BEVERAGE PRINT ADVERTISEMENTS BY JoAnn Leigh Roznowski A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Mass Media Ph.D. Program 2002 ABSTRACT AN INVESTIGATION OF DIFFERENCES IN STUDENT INTERPRETATIONS OF PRODUCT-ORIENTED AND ALCOHOL MODERATION MALT BEVERAGE PRINT ADVERTISEMENTS By JoAnn Leigh Roznowski Mass media campaigns are currently being used to help combat some of the social costs that can arise from alcohol over-consumption, such as those related to drinking and driving. One type of campaign, public service announcements (PSAS), has been used extensively, sponsored by the Ad Council, governmental agencies, and consumer-advocacy groups. While research suggests that PSAs produce attitudinal or cognitive effects, little research has indicated whether this form of mass communication produces any behavioral change in receivers. In addition, PSAs have to compete against traditional alcohol product advertisements for audience attention and viable media placement. Since the early 19905, the alcohol industry has established its own marketing communication campaigns addressing alcohol-related over- consumption. For example, the nation’s largest brewers, Anheuser—Busch, Miller and Coors, have all been involved in consumer awareness activities to fight drunk-driving and underage drinking, and promote “responsible” consumption of beer by adults who choose to drink. However, these campaigns developed and paid for by the industry draw heavy criticism from public health officials and policy makers who argue the campaigns are self-serving and too vague to be effective. There is a significant void in the academic research related to these “alcohol moderation” campaigns. While few studies have focused their investigations on the content of specific campaigns and advertisements, little research exists on how consumers interpret the alcohol moderation advertisement’s content or purpose. In addition, no research exists that compares whether or not interpretations of alcohol moderation advertising are different from traditional product-oriented alcohol messages. Therefore, an experiment was designed and implemented to investigate these questions by using the conceptual framework of strategic ambiguity. Results of the experiment indicate that advertising message content and purpose is significantly more diverse in alcohol moderation ads than in product- oriented advertising. In addition, while alcohol moderation ads were interpreted diversely, participants still arrived at the same positive evaluative outcomes. Specifically, significant differences were found on evaluative measures of attitude-toward-the-ad and perceptions of corporate credibility between alcohol moderation and product-oriented advertisements. Individual difference factors, such as a consumer’s belief that good ethics is good business and their level of skepticism towards advertising in general, produced mixed results on evaluative outcomes. Overall, the framework of strategic ambiguity proved fruitful for this exploratory study into interpretations of alcohol moderation advertising. Limitations in the current investigation can be overcome in future research studies. Copyright by JOANN LEIGH ROZNOWSKI 2002 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS There are several individuals who gave their time, guidance, and support while I completed this dissertation. I would like to express my gratitude to my dissertation committee chair and advisor, Dr. Bonnie B. Reece, for her unwavering patience and constant encouragement. For their critical analysis and suggestions for improvement, I wish to thank each of my committee members, Dr. Keith Adler, Dr. Brenda Wrigley, and Dr. Sandi Smith. I also would like to thank Dr. Janice Bukovac, Dr. Hairong Li, Carrie Trimble, and Karen Lancendorfer for their assistance during data collection. Finally, I am especially blessed to have a husband who put his dreams on hold so that I may have had the opportunity to pursue mine. It was his encouragement and belief in me that ultimately carried me through this process. TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................... viii LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................ ix CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 1 CHAPTER 'IWO LITERATURE REVIEW Alcohol Advertising ............................................................................... 7 Public Service Announcements .......................................................... 10 Industry Sponsored Alcohol Moderation Advertising .......................... 13 CHAPTER THREE CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Strategic Ambiguity ............................................................................ 17 General Study Hypotheses ............................................................... 25 Additional Measures of Advertising’s Impact ...................................... 26 Individual Difference Factors .............................................................. 31 CHAPTER FOUR METHODOLOGY Experimental Design .......................................................................... 37 Participants ........................................................................................ 37 Independent Variables ....................................................................... 38 Dependent Measures ......................................................................... 40 Stimulus ............................................................................................. 42 Administration .................................................................................... 44 CHAPTER FIVE RESULTS General Sample Characteristics ......................................................... 46 Scale Construction and Reliability ...................................................... 47 Hypothesis Testing and Research Question Exploration ................... 50 CHAPTER SIX DISUCSSION, LIMITATIONS, FUTURE RESEARCH AND CONCLUSIONS Discussion .......................................................................................... 72 Limitations and Future Research ....................................................... 75 Conclusions ........................................................................................ 77 APPENDIX A ................................................................................................ 79 vi APPENDIX B ............................................................................................... 90 LIST OF REFERENCES ............................................................................... 95 vii TABLE 1: TABLE 2: TABLE 3: TABLE 4: TABLE 5: TABLE 6: TABLE 7: TABLE 8: TABLE 9: TABLE 10: TABLE 11: LIST OF TABLES Scale Descriptives for Independent and Dependent Variables .. 48 Message Content F-test Results ............................................... 51 Ad Purpose F-test Results .......................................................... 53 Measures of Skewness and Kurtosis in Evaluative Measures for Alcohol Moderation Ads .............................................................. 54 One-Sample T-test Results for Evaluative Measures for Alcohol Moderation Ad ............................................................... 59 ANOVA Results for Evaluative Measures ................................... 60 Measures of Skewness and Kurtosis in Corporate Credibility for Alcohol Moderation Ads ........................................................ 62 ANOVA Results for Corporate Credibility Perceptions ............... 64 Individual Cell Mean Evaluative Scores by Ad Type and Ethic Group ......................................................................... 66 Marginal Cell Mean Evaluative Scores by Ad Type and Ethic Group ........................................................................ 66 ANOVA Results for Evaluative Measures by Skepticism ............ 71 viii LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1: Histogram for Attitude-Toward-the-Ad (Total) ............................. 55 FIGURE 2: Normal Q-Q Plot for Attitude-Toward-the-Ad (Total) ................... 55 FIGURE 3: Histogram for Attitude-Toward-the-Ad (aff.) ................................ 56 FIGURE 4: Normal Q-Q Plot for Attitude-Toward-the-Ad (aff.) ..................... 56 FIGURE 5: Histogram for Attitude-Toward-the-Ad (cog) .............................. 57 FIGURE 6: Normal Q-Q Plot for Attitude-Toward-the-Ad (cog.) .................... 57 FIGURE 7: Histogram for Attitude-Toward-the-Brand .................................. 58 FIGURE 8: Normal Q-Q Plot for Attitude-Toward-the-Brand ......................... 58 FIGURE 9: Histogram for Corporate Credibility ............................................ 63 FIGURE 10: NomIal Q-Q Plot for Corporate Credibility .................................. 63 ix CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION Since the beginning of the 20th century, there have been conflicting societal forces at work when it comes to alcohol (Ellison, 1998, p.12). On one side, there is the View that alcohol consumption contributes to violence, crime and the destruction of families. Yet, some believe that alcohol, when consumed responsibly and in moderation, may be harmless and even beneficial for some segments of society. Regardless of which side of the debate one chooses, one thing remains certain: alcohol appears frequently in the mass media (Gordis, 1995, pg. iii). Widespread concern over the effects advertising, one form of mass media, may have on alcohol consumption and over-consumption-related problems remains a complex social issue (Patterson, Hunnicutt, and Stutts, 1992). According to a previous director of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, the total cost of alcohol misuse is at least $100 billion per year (Glassman, 1997). The statistics, alone, are sobering: alcohol related automobile crashes result in over 22,000 fatalities and almost 2 million nonfatal injuries per year; alcohol-induced liver disease kills 20,000 annually; alcohol addiction for men ages 16 to 44 required more than 1 million days of hospital care in 1993; two-thirds of violent crimes are committed by perpetrators using alcohol; and, 1 in 500 babies are afflicted with fetal alcohol syndrome (Glassman, 1997). National brewers and distillers have been employing industry self- regulation, as well as marketing communication tactics, in an effort to curb the rising criticism of their product and its advertising. For more than fifty years, distilled sprits were not advertised on television or radio because of a self- imposed ban by members of the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States (DISCUS). The Council represents most of the major US. distilled spirits marketers with its members producing over 85 percent of the distilled spirits sold in America (Fueroghne, 2000). The members of DISCUS have all adopted a Code of Good Practice as guidelines concerning the placement and content of advertising and marketing materials. The guidelines have two dominant principles: (1) to ensure responsible, tasteful, and dignified advertising and marketing of distilled spirits to adult consumers who choose to drink; and, (2) to avoid targeting advertising and marketing of distilled spirits to individuals below the legal purchase age (www.discus.org). Yet, in June 1996, a lone distiller, Seagram, aired commercials for its Crown Royal Canadian whiskey brand and set in motion a unanimous decision by DISCUS members to overturn the self-imposed ban on broadcast ads. Despite the fact the ban was lifted, major television networks and many cable channels have continued to refuse liquor advertising (Belch and Belch, 2001). A new industry consortium, the Century Council, was set-up as a national not-for-profit organization funded by America's leading distillers in 1991. The Council claims to have been fighting the issues of drunk driving and underage drinking since its inception. The Council develops and implements educational public awareness and legislative programs with other national private and public organizations. Its funding companies have invested approximately $120 million in educational and outreach programs since 1991 (www.centurycouncil.org). The Council also has a Code of Responsible Marketing and Advertising Practices that prohibits the use of active athletes, models under 25 years of age, and appeals to minors (Gerbner, 1995). The Beer Institute, another industry trade association, reportedly has spent more than $400 million over the past decade to fund research, public safety, education and prevention campaigns to curb alcohol abuse (www.beerinstitute.org). The Institute also has an advertising and marketing code that reflects three basic principles: (1) beer advertising should not suggest that the laws regarding alcohol purchase or consumption should not be complied with; (2) brewers should adhere to candor and good taste in commercial advertising; and, (3) advertising should reflect that the brewers are responsible corporate citizens (www.beerinstitute.org). In addition to these industry self-regulatory practices, the nation’s largest brewers, Anheuser-Busch, Miller and Coors, are all individually involved in consumer awareness activities to fight drunk-driving and underage drinking, and to promote responsible consumption of beer by adults who choose to drink. For instance, Anheuser—Busch has, in the past, run an advertising campaign promoting “Know When to Say When,” while Coors ran similar advertising campaigns promoting “Not Now” and “21 Means 21 .” On the surface these campaigns seem similar to public service announcements (PSAS) sponsored by governmental agencies or consumer groups (e.g., Mothers Against Drunk Driving), in that they both promote a message on behalf of a cause; however, PSAs are usually created for free by advertising professionals and the media donate the space and time to run the ad. The advertising campaigns, or private service advertisements, developed by the brewers, on the other hand, have the characteristics of institutional or corporate advertising, which is usually designed with two goals in mind: (1) create a positive image for the firm and (2) communicate the finn’s View on a social, business or environmental issue (Belch and Belch, 2001). One conceptual framework that appears to offer promise for examining "drink responsibly” advertising is the organizational communication theory of strategic ambiguity. The theory posits that organizations have multiple goals they wish to accomplish and multiple targets they wish to influence with the same message. Hence, the “drink responsibly” campaigns may serve to create a positive image for the firm if target audiences - consumers, public health advocates or legislators — equate the advertising campaigns with being socially responsible. But at the same time, the advertisements may still communicate messages that promote brand purchase and alcohol consumption. This dissertation discusses how strategic ambiguity can be applied to the study of consumer perceptions of alcohol manufacturers’ responsible drinking advertising messages. Currently, very little academic research exists on how these advertisements are perceived by target audiences or what factors may infl wh tra a: (“,1 n! influence those perceptions. In addition, scant evidence exists examining whether or not target audiences perceive these advertisements differently from traditional product advertisements. Alcohol advertising that contains the message of “moderation" or “drink responsibly” should be of interest to public policy officials, public health advocates, as well as the alcohol beverage marketers themselves. Marketers of alcohol beverages should not only be interested in whether or not they can communicate two somewhat disparate messages with one advertisement, but also whether or not they can do so without eroding consumer (and public policy maker) goodwill. Public health advocates and policy makers should be interested in understanding how these ads are perceived in the event that additional scrutiny, or regulation, should be warranted. In addition, the media should be mindful of these advertisements, as alcohol marketers may, in the future, attempt to use moderation advertisements as a means for gaining air time or placement of their product- or brand-oriented advertisements. This manuscript begins with a review and discussion of alcohol advertising, anti-drinking public service campaigns, and alcohol moderation advertising found in Chapter 2. Chapter 3 introduces strategic ambiguity as the general conceptual framework for studying this specific type of advertising, which results in two general study hypotheses. Additional individual-level factors (consumer perceptions of corporate responsibility and skepticism toward advertising) and three evaluative measures (attitude-toward-the-ad, attitude- toward-the-brand, and perceptions of corporate credibility) also are introduced and used to develop more specific study hypotheses. In Chapter 4, details of an experiment designed and implemented to investigate the hypotheses and research questions at hand are discussed. Results of the experiment are presented in Chapter 5. Finally, Chapter 6 provides a discussion of the results, presents limitations of the current study, and proposes future research in this relatively new and unexplored research area. CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW The purpose of this chapter is to review the current state of alcohol advertising and counter-alcohol advertising, specifically in the form of public service announcements (PSAS) and industry-Sponsored alcohol moderation campaigns. Alcohol Advenflg The general category of alcohol advertising research has spanned numerous studies crossing several academic disciplines, from marketing and advertising, to sociology and psychology, to economics and health care. Cutler and Thomas (1994) reviewed 140 academic articles on alcohol/drugs and marketing from the period of 1955 to 1991. The authors first identified three major streams of research in this period (the relationship between alcohol industry advertising expenditures and national consumption of alcohol; the content of alcohol advertising; and, industry/market studies on alcohol marketing strategies) before focusing their review on the fourth research domain, namely, advertising programs designed to prevent alcohol/drug abuse. When it comes to the question of whether or not alcohol advertising affects overall consumption, the answer remains dubious. For example, Smart (1988) reviewed empirical data on the issue and concluded that total advertising expenditures have no reliable correlation with sales of alcoholic beverages. 7 Saffer (1996) points out that national studies are likely to find no effect on consumption, while local-level analysis is likely to produce some effects. Woodside (1999) showed that a 0.15% increase in absolute alcohol consumption was associated with a 1% share increase in hard liquor advertising (following the 1996 lifting of the DISCUS ban). Most recently, Grube and Agostinelli (2002) reviewed post-1993 literature on the effects of alcohol advertising on drinking and alcohol-related problems. After reviewing several experimental, econometric and survey results, they concluded that research on the effects of alcohol advertising are inconclusive, and even contradictory, in many areas. The authors note that, “with the exception of price promotions, the results of experimental studies offer limited support that alcohol advertising promotes more favorable drinking beliefs and increases consumption” (pg. 9). In addition, the authors conclude that the findings from econometric studies provide “very little consistent support” for a relationship between expenditures on alcohol advertising and alcohol consumption (or consumption-related problems). However, they do report that survey research generally reports significant, but modest relationships between exposure to, attention to, or recall of alcohol advertising and drinking beliefs and behaviors, especially in young people. Several survey studies have begun filling the research gap with respect to children and adolescents, specifically their exposure to and perceptions of alcohol advertising and their ensuing drinking beliefs and behaviors (e.g., Thorson, 1995; Grube and Wallack, 1994; Slater, Murphy, Beauvis, Van Leuven and Domenech-Rodriquez, 1996). For example, awareness of advertising was related to increased knowledge of beer brands and slogans, as well as related to more positive beliefs about drinking (Grube & Wallack, 1994). Others have noted that affect toward, or liking for, alcohol advertisements may be related to increased experimentation with alcohol (Austin & Nach-Ferguson, 1995). Grube and Agostinnelli (2002) conclude that studies on alcohol advertising and young people consistently indicate small, significant correlations between exposure to, awareness of, and affect toward alcohol advertising and drinking beliefs and behaviors, but they caution that most published studies do not adequately control for past drinking behaviors and predispositions. Their conclusions support an often-cited criticism of alcohol manufacturers: they advertise in media whose audiences consist primarily of underage prospective consumers. Fox, Krugman, Fletcher, and Fischer (1998) argue that adolescents and teens are very important to marketers because brand loyalty begins during this time period, and that younger consumers depend on advertising as an information source. There have been several studies examining alcoholic beverage warning labels on the actual product and within product advertising (see, for example, the Spring 1993 issue of 09ml of Public Policv& Marketing; Barlow and Wogalter, 1993; Fox et al., 1998). Hilton (1993) concludes that awareness of warning labels is only moderate, but growing. He notes that mixed evidence exists as to whether labels have changed consumer perceptions of risk and that there is little evidence that any change in risk-related behavior results from exposure to such warnings. In fact, some research suggests that warnings on alcohol beverages art the are counterproductive, causing some drinkers to perceive greater benefits from the beverage and, thus, make drinking more attractive (Snyder and Blood, 1992). Recently, much concern has arisen over alcohol-related problems on college campuses, where students are exposed to a barrage of advertising that encourages excessive drinking (Christie, Fisher, Kozup, Smith, Burton, and Creyer, 2001). Binge drinking — the consumption of five or more drinks in a row on a least one occasion within a typical two-week period - has recently been described as one of the most significant health hazards on college campuses (Treise, Wolburg, Otnes, 1999). Prevention advocates are looking to the mass media as an important aid in addressing the problem of high-risk drinking among college students (DeJong, 2002). The following sections outline two different mass media approaches that are currently being used to help combat, or even prevent, some of the social costs that can arise from alcohol over-consumption, such as those related to drinking and driving. One approach is the mass media approach of public service announcements (PSAS), the second approach is industry-sponsored alcohol moderation mass media campaigns. Public Service Announcements Public service announcements are an important part of social marketing (Bagozzi & Moore, 1994) and typically promote voluntary individual actions to solve social problems (Lynn, 1973). The most common sources of public service campaigns are associations that promote a specific cause (e.g., March of IO Dimes); local, state and notional governments; and, the Advertising Council, a non-profit organization supported by the media, advertising agencies, advertiser organizations and private firms (Lynn, 1973). In an early study, Reid and King (1986) reviewed five specific content properties of anti-drinking and driving public service announcements, including length, actor characteristics, setting, display of alcohol and consequences associated with drinking and driving. More than half of the 86 anti-drinking and driving PSAS were 30-second spots. The PSAS typically depicted drinking and driving as an adult, white male problem. One-third of the PSAS displayed some sort of alcoholic beverage (e.g., beer, liquor, wine or a combination of beverages), and the majority of the ads featured the physical consequences of drinking and driving (e.g., bodily injury, death or alcoholism) rather than social consequences (e.g., arrest, loss of friends or family, loss of job). In a more recent review of drinking and driving PSAS, Slater (1999) concluded that the most dominant creative approach in drinking and driving PSAS was the infonnational/testimonial, or rational, appeal. However, the author did note that a small number of PSAS used positive, empathy-based appeals, or more negative, fear-evoking appeals. This finding, itself, is interesting, because Lynn (1973) suggested that the emotional appeals would result in higher message evaluations. In fact, while not-limiting the scope of their study to ads that advocate don’t drink and drive, Dillard and Peck (2000) recently reported that affect plays a vital role in how individuals respond to PSA messages and their persuasive advocacy. In general, their study revealed that emotional responses to PSAS played an important role in how the PSAs were evaluated relative to perceived effectiveness, which, in turn, influenced attitudes toward the social issue addressed in the PSA (pg. 488). Public service campaigns against drinking and driving have long been viewed as a major weapon in the fight to get drunk drivers off the nation's highways (Reid and King, 1986). In fact, messages that are aimed at curtailing drinking are among the most common public service announcement (PSAS) produced (T reise et al., 1999; Agostinelli and Grube, 2002). Some evidence exists that PSAS are effective for reaching people, specifically in terms of attitudinal and cognitive effects; while little evidence exists surrounding the behavioral impact of PSAS (Ognianova and Thorson, 1997). One study reports that pro-social advertisements (e.g., anti-drinking PSAS) have weak relationships to viewer’s beliefs and reported behaviors relevant to drinking alcohol (Weintraub-Austin, Pinkleton, & Fujioka, 1999). Andsagar, Austin and Pinkleton (2001) state that the overall effectiveness of PSAS is hindered by a myriad of issues. These include their inability to counter advertising and the perception among some groups, especially young adults who are the primary target audience, that PSAS are boring or fail to catch their attention. Many PSAS are not remembered by their audience. In addition, a recent report on the time when PSAS run in the media suggests that 43% of all donated PSA time is between midnight and 6 am, the part of the day with the fewest viewers, while the part of the day with the greatest number of viewers, the prime-time hours of 8 pm. to 11 pm, accounts for only 9% of all donated PSA I2 time (Hatch, 2001). Hence, there still remains doubt as to whether PSAS as a mass media approach to combating the social ills of alcohol over-consumption are an appropriate or effective solution. Industry-Sponsored Alcohol Moderation Campgjgfi The second mass media approach to addressing the issue of alcohol over-consumption and its associated problems is the moderation advertising created and run by the alcohol companies, most commonly by the beer industry (Ognianova and Thorson, 1997). However, very little research attention has been given to these “drinking in moderation’ or ‘responsible drinking’ advertising developed by the alcohol industry. DeJong, Atkin, and Wallack (1992) were most likely the first to publish a critical analysis of the beer industry “moderation” advertising, in particular the messages that such advertising conveys (pg. 663). The authors examined two key issues: (1) whether or not the advertising messages promote responsible drinking in an appropriate and effective manner, and (2) how these campaigns are related to, and may overlap with, other industry marketing efforts. The authors collected 31 moderation advertisements aired on television through 1991 by the three dominant beer brewers (Anheuser—Busch, Miller, and Coors). While the authors did not provide a specific content-analytic protocol, they did describe trends in the sample in terms of: sponsorship (corporate versus brand name); campaign slogans; type of alcohol moderation message (avoid driving after drinking, use a designated driver, and third-party intervention); and, whether or not the alcohol moderation campaign contained themes and images consistent with regular product-centered advertising. The authors concluded that alcohol moderation advertising is counterproductive, from a pro-health message perspective, because it “present[s] themes and images that are consistent with beer companies’ regular brand promotions” (pg. 675). In addition, the authors offer guidelines that beer companies, or any sponsor of responsible drinking messages, should adhere to. Among the guidelines are clearly stating or depicting that alcohol consumption is inappropriate in situations where an individual needs to be alert; not implying that drinking is the social norm; not encouraging heavy consumption; and not glamorizing consumption. Ognianova and Thorson (1997) compared the effects of memory of drunk driving PSAS and alcohol moderation advertisements on driving-related cognitions and self-reported behavior. In order to explore these effects, the authors analyzed telephone survey data from two representative samples of adults and youths in the state of Missouri using regression analysis. The independent variables included amount of drinking, risk orientation, knowledge of state driving laws and regulations, and awareness of and memory for drinking and driving PSAS and alcohol moderation advertisements. The dependent variable was respondent cognitions and behaviors related to drinking and driving. One finding included that memory for PSAS and alcohol moderation ads negatively predicted unsafe driving behaviors and positively predicted safe driving behaviors. Secondly, alcohol moderation ads have lesser association with driving behaviors than PSAs, although the main message of moderation ads is still coming across. However, in youths, PSA and moderation ad memory was not associated with any of the driving behaviors related to alcohol. The authors report that fewer than 40% of both adults and youth said they could remember seeing a PSA or a moderation ad, and the authors posit that this level of recall could be associated with poor media schedules. More recently, Lavack (1999) examined the message content of alcohol moderation television commercials, specifically comparing corporate and non- profit sponsorship of the ads. A total of 203 commercials about alcohol moderation and driving under the influence (DUI) were examined to ascertain the type of persuasive appeal used in commercials. Advertisements were content analyzed along four key variables pertaining to the type of appeal used: threats, negative consequences and fear appeals, positive appeals and humor. The findings suggest that corporate sponsors use threats/negative consequences (high fear arousal) to a significantly lesser degree than do non-corporate sponsors. However, no other hypothesized differences between corporate and non-corporate sponsored commercials were supported. Clearly, very little academic research exists on alcohol moderation advertisements. Critics continually argue that these industry driven messages appear infrequently and that the messages are too ambiguous to be effective (Beaver, 1997). For example, one survey of 300 high school and college students reported that they interpreted Anheuser-Busch’s “Know When to Say When” message to mean it was acceptable for older teenagers to get drunk IS occasionally (Davidson, 1996). Other critics say industry efforts to combat drunk driving and other health and social ills of drinking are cosmetic and self-serving (Abramson, 1991). It is apparent that different audiences have different perceptions of what these alcohol moderation messages mean and the motives behind running such campaigns in the mass media. No academic research currently exists on how these alcohol moderation advertisements are perceived by their target audiences or what factors may influence those perceptions. In addition, no evidence exists to indicate whether or not target audiences perceive these alcohol moderation advertisements differently from traditional product advertisements. Hence, the purpose of this study is to contribute to the small, but growing literature on alcohol moderation advertising by investigating these two gaps in the literature. The following chapter outlines how the organizational concept of strategic ambiguity can be applied to examine alcohol moderation advertising. 16 the are mc Cl CHAPTER THREE CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK This chapter details the conceptual framework of strategic ambiguity for the study of alcohol moderation advertisements. Two general study hypotheses are offered before additional measures of advertising’s impact are discussed and more refined hypotheses are presented. In addition, two individual-level difference factors are introduced and related hypotheses also are developed. Strategic Ambiguity Eisenberg first introduced the concept of strategic ambiguity in 1984. He states that strategic ambiguity is an interactional concept that develops through a combination of source, message and receiver factors. Strategic ambiguity accounts for the context of sender goals, message content, and individual differences. Eisenberg argues the message source, or organization, wants multiple interpretations of a message and that the message contains high levels of abstraction that can produce multiple interpretations in multiple receivers. Hence, organizations have multiple goals they wish to accomplish and multiple targets they wish to influence with the same message. Eisenberg (1984) outlines two dimensions of communicative context appropriate for the study of strategic ambiguity: formality of communication (formal versus informal) and audience (internal versus external). These two dimensions intersect to form four potential research arenas. The first is formal internal communication, such as organizational goals, rules, policies and I7 pro cor inc sal inf: net linl ian Cc me me en co an St to CO procedures. The second is informal internal communication, exemplified by conversations, group discussions or organizational story telling. The third arena includes formal external communications, such as public relations, advertising, sales and inter-organizational agreements. The fourth and final arena represents informal external communications, such as overlapping directorates, “old boy" networks, or informal agreements. Eisenberg (1984) characterizes these linkages as “often covert and highly political” (p. 238). Research surrounding the strategic use of ambiguity spans each of these research cells. Formal communication appears to be a preferred choice among researchers, possibly due to the ease of study, as formal communications are typically tangible, written documents that can be examined in depth, whereas informal communications are more difficult to ascertain and study. For example, Contractor and Ehrlich (1993) investigated the impact of strategically ambiguous messages on the development of a multi-million dollar research organization at a major university. They argued that the organization’s development was enhanced by allowing for multiple interpretations from a variety of key constituencies. Markham (1996) used the idea of strategic ambiguity in a critical analysis of a work environment communications inside a small graphics firm. She found that while management used ambiguous communications intentionally to foster freedom, creativity and flexibility, the employees viewed the communications as “paradoxical and constraining.” The choice between internal or external forms of organizational communication most likely depends on the primary discipline of the researcher. 18 Studies examining internal formal communications stem from traditional business/organizational communication disciplines or human resource perspectives, while external formal communications stem from marketing communication disciplines. In addition, in the external formal communication arena, there is heavy emphasis on crisis communication (e.g., Ulmer & Sellnow, 1997; Ulmer & Sellnow, 2000; Sellnow & Ulmer, 1995), typically seen as a public relations function, and very little emphasis on advertising. For example, Ulmer and Sellnow (1997) argue that organizations’ use of strategic ambiguity emphasizes an interpretation where the organization is viewed most favorably. However, they introduce the criteria of significant choice as a means for determining the ethical nature of ambiguous messages in organizational crisis communication. The authors provide a case study of the tobacco industry’s crisis response to the FDA’s decision to publish findings contending that nicotine is addictive. They concluded that the tobacco industry use of biased and incomplete information (i.e., strategically ambiguous messages) was unethical, and that the industry’s concern for profit over social responsibility was a downfall in their communication tactics. Very few studies have examined ambiguity in the context of advertising or advertising-related communications. The general notion of ambiguity has been applied to traditional advertising as in, for example, the effects of ambiguity on consumer responses to music video commercials (Hitchon, Duckler, and Thorson, 1994). Here, ambiguity was defined as the potential for multiple interpretations (Hitchon et al., 1994), which somewhat corresponds with Eisenberg’s definition. The authors conducted a factorial experiment manipulating ambiguity (high/low) and complexity (high/low) across six product categories. Their sample consisted of 102 journalism students who watched a 30-minute television documentary embedded with filler ads. The main dependent variables were attitude-toward-the-ad and attitude-toward—the-brand. The authors found that low levels of ambiguity produced favorable attitudes toward the brand and toward the advertisement. The role of ambiguity in consumer learning, processing strategy, and product experience has been previously explored by Ha and Hoch (1986; Hoch & Ha, 1989). Ambiguity was operationalized as the distinctiveness of different brands and the potential for multiple interpretations of overall quality (p. 225). The authors conducted two experiments (with 64 and 48 undergraduate and graduate students, respectively) using product categories that provided either ambiguous or unambiguous evidence about product quality. They conclude that consumers are easily convinced by ambiguous evidence in advertisements that cannot provide disconfirmation. In addition, they argue that ambiguity is an important determinant of whether advertising shapes the interpretation of objective product evidence. In the case of drink responsibly advertising, alcohol producers may have a variety of goals they wish to achieve. First, alcohol advertisers may seek to enhance their image and reputation by communicating their concern for alcohol consumers. They may be attempting to establish themselves as a reputable and socially responsible company. Second, they may hope to reduce alcohol-related 20 problems associated with underage drinking, drinking and driving, or over- consumption (binge drinking). Third, alcohol advertisers may seek to reinforce brand loyalty among current drinkers by displaying their products, logos, or brand names within the advertisement. Finally, the companies may seek to promote alcohol consumption, even if only in moderation. Strategic ambiguity also recognizes that there are multiple audiences for one message. Again, like the multiple objectives characteristic, drink responsibly advertising is aimed at a number of different audience segments. Specifically, it can be targeted toward public health advocates who are most concerned about the societal problems stemming from alcohol abuse. It also can be targeted at legislators who decide whether bans or additional regulation of alcohol advertising are warranted. In addition, young drinkers or soon-to-be-of-age drinkers may be targeted in an effort to warn against underage or binge drinking. Finally, the advertisements may be targeted toward heavy, problem drinkers who may drive drunk, or become aggressive after excessive consumption. There are three primary outcomes associated with the strategic use of ambiguity in organizational communication. First, it can foster the existence of multiple viewpoints by allowing for multiple interpretations to exist among people who contend that they are attending to the same message, and believe they are interpreting the message in the same way. The exact meaning of “responsible drinking" may be highly connotative and/or denotative, depending on the target audience. Previous research indicates that when presented with either incomplete or ambiguous messages, recipients must introduce personal 21 perceptions to interpret it (Shimp, 1978). For example, when presented with a Mercury Cougar automobile ad that contained the statement “built better to give you more,” respondents closed the incomplete statement with a variety of endings such as “luxury and sportiness,” “value for your money,” and “standard features.” In addition, respondents also indicated a variety of perceived advertiser message intentions. Shimp concluded that receivers ascribe meaning to incomplete or ambiguous messages based on previously stored information and attitudes about the brand or related product class. Therefore, different receivers produce variations in interpretations. Yet, despite this outcome of diversity of message interpretations, strategic ambiguity also fosters widespread consensus in bottom-line attitudinal outcomes across the overall audience by facilitating selective perception of message content, pre-empting counterarguring, and minimizing source derogation (Atkin, Smith and Robbins, 1992, p. 3). Secondly, strategic ambiguity can facilitate change through shifting interpretations and/or by developing relationships (Eisenberg, 1984). Eisenberg explains that ambiguity is especially important to organizations in volatile environments, where “ambiguous goals (or messages) can preserve a sense of continuity while allowing for a gradual change in interpretations over time” (pg. 233). This can be a critical component of some “responsible drinking” advertising. In addition, if an organization’s objectives include enhancing or repositioning its image, thwarting negative publicity, or pacifying customer groups (Varadarajan 22 and Menon, 1988), the use of strategic ambiguity may ensure a positive outcome. And finally, strategic ambiguity in communication is deniable, allowing for the preservation of future options (Eisenberg, 1984) by allowing people to save face, delay conflict, test reactions to ideas or avoid personal responsibility (Clampitt, 2000, p. 27). According to Eisenberg “ambiguous communication allows the source to both reveal and conceal, to express and protect, should it become necessary to save face” (p. 236). Varadarajan and Menon (1988, p. 69) state that organizations “walk a fine line between reaping increased sales, goodwill and positive publicity and incurring negative publicity and charges of exploitation of causes.” With all the possible benefits of effective “responsible drinking" advertising come the criticisms that alcohol producers are only attempting to increase the bottom line and control the debate over alcohol advertising (Abramson, 1991). However, from strategically ambiguous messages, such criticisms can be deflected. Currently, there is one study that examines the diversity of audience responses to strategically ambiguous alcohol campaigns. Atkin, Smith, and Robbins (1992) examined viewer responses to brewer-sponsored “responsible drinking” and “don’t drink and drive” campaigns. The audience under investigation was teenage (16-18) and young adults (19-22). Respondents were shown a series of TV advertisements from two leading alcohol companies, Anheuser—Busch and Coors, and asked to complete a post-exposure measurement instrument. The investigators measured perceived appearance of 23 the ad as compared to a what respondents thought of as a typical product advertisement, perceptions of drinking portrayals in the ad, perceived motives of the advertiser for running the ad, interpretations of drinking recommendations, perceived advertiser policies on underage drinking practices, message evaluations, and attitude toward the brewers. Using strategic ambiguity as the framework, the authors hypothesized that interpretations of the message content and campaign purpose would be highly diverse, but that basic message substance and attitude toward the sponsoring companies would be more uniform and positive. The study results were consistent with these predictions. This study provides the first step in understanding the effects of alcohol moderation advertising. The proposed study seeks to build upon this research in several ways. First, the proposed study examines a different modality of advertising, namely magazine advertising. Magazines continue to dominate the market for liquor advertising dollars, controlling $224.6 million, or 73 percent of total advertising spending by the industry, in the first 10 months of 2001 (Callahan, 2002). Therefore, alcohol moderation print advertisements represent a viable alternative communication modality for investigation. Second, previous studies have not compared “responsible drinking’ advertising messages against the more traditional product-related messages. While previous studies have asserted that ‘responsible drinking’ messages are indeed “strategically ambiguous,” no one has asserted that traditional product- 24 related messages are not. In other words, there is no evidence to suggest that all alcohol advertising is or is not strategically ambiguous. Third, previous studies have not fully explored individual factors that may affect the receiver’s interpretations of the message. While Atkin et al. (1992) showed diversity in audience interpretations, there may be other factors that help explain why such diversity was evident. Two individual level factors that may affect message interpretation are the receiver’s perceptions of corporate social responsibility and skepticism toward advertising. Finally, while the Atkin et al. (1992) study examined audiences” attitude toward the brewers, traditional attitude-toward-the-ad (Aad) and attitude-toward- the-brand (Ab) measures - which have been used extensively in past efforts to understand the impact of advertising on consumer attitudes - were not utilized. In addition, new measures have since been introduced, such as measures of corporate credibility, that may be more useful in describing how audiences perceive sponsors of responsible drinking campaigns. General Study Hypotheses Based on the preceding discussion of strategic ambiguity, the following general study hypotheses are offered: H1: Interpretation of advertising message content will be more diverse for alcohol moderation advertisements than for traditional product-oriented advertisements. H2: Interpretation of advertising message purpose will be more diverse for alcohol moderation advertisements than for traditional product-oriented advertisements. 25 These hypotheses are similar to those tested and supported by Atkin et al. (1992), yet incorporate the additional comparison to traditional product-oriented advertisements. The next section outlines the three additional measures that could be used to further understand audience reactions, or interpretations, to the advertisements. Aggitional Meailres of Ajvertisim’sl—mpact Attitude-toward-the-Ad and Attitude-toward—the-Brand Advertisers are interested in consumers’ reactions to advertisements because they know that these reactions are an important determinant of advertising effectiveness (Belch and Belch, 2001). According to Muehling and McCann (1993), the notion that a consumer’s brand/choice behavior is likely to be influenced by their attitudes toward a particular advertising stimulus, stems from research that challenges F ishbein’s attitude theory that beliefs are the only mediators of attitude formation or change. The authors review close to 100 published studies in order to assess how attitude-toward-the-ad (Aad) has been defined and conceptualized, how Aad has been operationalized, the antecedents, consequences and effects of Aad, and what factors moderate the relationship between Aad and its antecedents and consequences. Meuhling and McCann (1993) describe the conceptualization of Aad as being either unidimensional or multidimensional. As a unidimensional construct, A3,, is often perceived as a global, affective construct. However, those who view Aad as a multidimensional construct, see it as consisting of a cognitive, as well as 26 an affective component. As such, Aad has no universal operationalization. Most studies, however, use bi-polar adjective (semantic differential) item-pairs. Those who believe in the unidimensionality of Aad rely on an overall measure of evaluative judgment (Burke and Edell, 1989; Zinkhan, Locander, and Leigh, 1986; Mitchell and Olson, 1981), or global affective measurement. Those who report both the overall attitude evaluation, as well as decompose the evaluation into its separate affective and cognitive components (e.g., believe Aad is multidimensional) (Petty, Wegener, and Fabrigar, 1997; Crites, Fabrigar, and Petty, 1994) also commonly use bi-polar adjective item-pairs. Evidence suggests that an individual’s overall attitude-toward-the-ad (Aad) in which a brand is advertised will influence brand attitudes and ensuing behavior. Hence, if one sees an ad and likes it, the liking for the ad may carry over to the brand, thereby making one’s brand attitude (Ab) more positive. Conversely, if Aad is low or negative, a low or negative Ab ensues. For example, previous research suggests that ads that are informative, evoke a positive feeling or emotion, or are interesting, are more liked than those that are not (i.e., ads that are not informative, evoke negative feelings or emotions, or are uninteresting). In turn, these “liked” ads foster a more positive brand attitude. In fact, Haley and Baldinger (1991) suggest that attitudes toward ads may be the best indicator of advertising effectiveness. With respect to antecedents, consequences and moderators of Aad, Muehling and McCann (1993) state that the antecedents of Aad include personal/individual factors and ad-related factors, consequences include 27 cognitive, affective and behavior responses, and that the typical moderators explored in current research include involvement and ad-related issues. Their review of Aad research leaves as many unanswered questions, as answered questions. They conclude that more research on what Aad is, what it affects and is affected by, and why these relationships occur is needed. Brown and Stayman ( 1992) conducted a meta-analysis on the antecedents and consequences of Aad. Their findings support the dual-mediation (D-M) model of the relationship between consumers’ liking for an ad and brand attitudes as proposed by Lutz, MacKenzie and Belch (1983). The starting point to the D-M model is cognitive and affective responses to an advertisement. These responses may cause one to like an advertisement that can then (1) make one either more accepting of brand beliefs, leading to a more positive brand attitude, or (2) give positive feelings that simply transfer from the ad to the brand itself. Either way, both processes lead to an increase in the intention to purchase. The construct Aad is an appropriate measure for the current study on the impact of alcohol moderation advertisements, and within the framework of strategic ambiguity, is considered an outcome variable. As such, the theory predicts that evaluative ratings of a strategically ambiguous communication will be uniform and positive. Hence the following hypothesis is offered: H3: Compared to interpretations, evaluative measures of (a) attitude-toward-the-ad and (b) attitude-toward-the-brand will be positive and uniform in the alcohol moderation advertisements. 28 Previous research has not explored evaluative differences between alcohol moderation ads and traditional product-oriented ads. Therefore, the following research question is offered: R1: Do differences exist between the two types of advertising executions on evaluative measures of (a) attitude-toward-the ad and (b) attitude-toward-the-brand? Corporate Credibility The concept of credibility has been studied by communication, marketing and advertising scholars alike. Source credibility — or the perceived expertise, trustworthiness and/or attractiveness of the information source in an ad - has been studied by a variety of researchers (Belch and Belch, 2001; Ohanian, 1990) Credibility is one of many source factors that can impact the effectiveness of a persuasive message, such as an advertisement. It seems like common sense to believe that as one’s credibility increases, so will one’s effectiveness. However, because credibility is usually not decomposed into its two components (competence and trustworthiness), the effects of credibility are somewhat mixed (O’Keefe, pg. 140). In addition, other factors, such as the receiver’s level of involvement with an issue and the timing of the identification of the communicator, may impact the magnitude of effect. Also, the nature of the position advocated by the message (counter or pro-attitudinal) may impact the direction of the credibility effect. New researchers have taken the idea of source credibility and adapted it to the corporation sponsoring the advertisement (Newell & Goldsmith, 2001; 29 Goldsmith, Lafferty, & Newell, 2000; Lafferty & Goldsmith, 1999). Newell and Goldsmith (2001) sought to develop and validate a scale to measure perceived corporate credibility because they, and others (Lee, 1997; Caminiti, 1992; MacKenzie and Lutz, 1989) assert that perceptions of a corporation play an important role in the development of consumer attitudes about advertisements, as well as how consumers react to advertising for brands closely identified with particular corporations. The authors presented five studies that demonstrated corporate credibility was positively and significantly related to perceived ad credibility, Aad, Ab, and purchase intention. In addition, they suggest that because many companies are highly concerned with their reputations and images, the credibility scales “could be used as a key part of corporate advertising effectiveness testing” (pg. 245). Some see alcohol moderation advertising as ads aimed at mollifying critics while buffing the industry’s image (Beatty, 1997; Brown, 1991). Atkin et al. (1992) used three measures of company image (respectable, responsible, caring) and reported that respondents who viewed the moderation ads had positive and uniform evaluations about the companies sponsoring the ads. Hence, these results indicate a possible positive relationship between Aad and corporate image. In addition, several researchers examining corporate image and corporate reputation (Fombrun, 1996; Gregory, 1991) stress that the establishment and maintenance of a positive corporate evaluation made by all corporate stakeholders (i.e., consumers, employees, suppliers, etc.) hinges on corporate credibility. Therefore, the new measure of corporate credibility is 30 worthy of consideration as an additional outcome variable in the proposed study. In keeping within the boundaries of the strategic ambiguity framework, the following hypothesis is offered: H4: Compared to interpretations, respondent perceptions of corporate credibility will be positive and uniform in the alcohol moderation advertisements. Because previous research has not compared alcohol moderation advertisements with product-oriented advertisement, the following research question is offered: R2: Do differences exist between the two types of advertising executions on the evaluative measure of corporate credibility? Individual Difference Factors This study proposes two individual-level receiver factors that may affect the interpretation and evaluation of the alcohol moderation advertisements. These factors include consumer perceptions of corporate responsibility and skepticism toward advertising (attitude-toward-advertising in general). Each variable will be described and additional hypotheses or research questions will be offered. Perceptions of Corporate Responsibility A question that has frequently been raised in the business world is whether corporate decision-makers should be concerned with issues other than profitability (Mohr, Webb & Harris, 2001). There has been a growing body of literature attempting to both define what it means for a company to be socially responsible, as well as investigate the impact of such actions on firm 3] performance or reputation. Mohr et al. (2001) state that, although there are a several definitions of corporate social responsibility (CSR), most emphasize that a socially responsible company must have concerns beyond short-term profitability, and may include obeying laws and ethical norms, treating employees fairly, protecting the environment, and contributing to charities (pg. 47). In their qualitative study, the authors explore what consumers think and feel about socially responsible and irresponsible companies. The authors develop a typology of consumers and consumer behavior based on their responsiveness to CSR initiatives. They conclude that respondents generally have a positive attitude toward socially responsible companies, while also recognizing the companies are motivated to engage in CSR activities to not only help others, but also help themselves. However, most respondents did not regularly use CSR as a purchasing criterion. Hence, there is some indication that, if consumers perceive a corporation to be socially responsible, advertising that supports the CSR initiative should be positively received. Maignan (2001) conducted a cross-cultural consumer survey to examine consumers’ readiness to support socially responsible organizations. She found that French and German consumers put less emphasis on economic responsibilities of a company, where US. consumers perceive economic performance to be a leading responsibility of a firm. She suggests that in the US, claiming to be a socially responsible company when economic achievements are not the greatest can be dangerous. The results also support Brown and Dacin, (1997) who state, “negative CSR associations can have a 32 detrimental effect on overall product evaluations, whereas positive CSR associations can enhance product evaluations” (pg. 80). Therefore, companies need to understand consumers” perceptions of corporate responsibility before engaging in CSR initiatives or promoting such actions through advertising campaigns. Singhapakdi, Kraft, Vitell, and Rallapalli (1995) state that business practices that are most likely to receive criticism regarding ethics and social responsibility are those that are marketing-related (pg.49 ). They agree with Robin and Reidenbach (1987) that there has been limited adoption of social responsibility and business ethics by marketing practitioners because these ideas are often treated as external to marketing’s strategic planning process (Robin and Reidenbach, 1987, pg. 47). However, the authors conclude that that marketers who choose to ignore their responsibilities to all their stakeholders (including society at large), face the prospect of a devalued corporate image and/or legal reprisals. Advertising draws more than its share of criticism because of its visibility and pervasiveness (Fueroghne, 2000, p. vii). For example, critics of advertising often state that advertising breeds negative stereotypes, makes us buy products we don’t need, has harmful effects on vulnerable groups (i.e., children, elderly, minorities), and distorts the political process (Lantos, 1987). In addition, questions have been raised over the ethics of target marketing (Smith and Cooper-Martin, 1997). 33 to 6 ad\ rac cor rel; inc 6X Ihi 3f III In 1994, a special issue of the Journal of Advertising was devoted entirely to ethics in advertising and covered such controversial topics as deception in advertising, advertising to children, tobacco advertising, political advertising, and racial stereotyping. Zinkhan (1994) notes that advertising ethics has attracted considerable attention from academia, yet states that alcohol advertising is a relatively under-researched topic area. Some View alcohol moderation advertising campaigns as the alcohol industry’s effort to be more socially responsible. However, no empirical research exists to support whether or not consumers share this perspective. Therefore, this study examines the relationship between a consumer’s perception of ethics and social responsibility in an organization and their perceptions and evaluations of advertising incorporating socially responsible themes. Based on the findings of previous research, the following hypothesis is offered: H5: Respondents with high scores on the “good ethics is good business” scale will evaluate the alcohol moderation advertisement more positively on the measures of (a) attitudes toward the ad, (b) attitudes toward the brand, and (c) corporate credibility than those with low scores on the “good ethics is good business” scale. Skepticism To ward Advertising (Attitude Toward Advertising In General) There is a great deal of research that shows consumers are quite skeptical of advertising and have been so for many years (Calfee & Ringold, 1994). After examining survey data across six decades, Calfee and Ringold (1994) concluded that there are enduring consumer beliefs about advertising. Specifically, the majority (approximately 70 percent) of consumers consistently (a) approach advertising with skepticism rather than credibility, (b) assume 34 advertising seeks to persuade for the benefit of sellers rather than consumers, (c) believe advertisements provide useful information, and (d) think more regulation of advertising is desirable. These results suggest that, although consumers may be skeptical of advertising, they still find useful information presented in advertisements. With regard to specific advertising modality, several studies have investigated why people tend to have unfavorable attitudes about television advertising. Alwitt and Prabhaker (1992) developed a scale to measure beliefs about television advertising, examining perceptions that TV advertising (a) does not offer information, (b) has personal and social benefits/costs, and (c) is deceptive. They hypothesize that people’s beliefs about advertising are related to what they know about advertising and how relevant advertising is to them. A significant regression model of six beliefs about television advertising was found and accounted for 15% of variance in the sample. Specifically, the more respondents perceive television advertising has benefits, the more they like it. Boush, Friestad and Rose (1994) modeled their measure of attitude toward television advertising, specifically, mistrust of advertiser motives, from a scale originally developed by Rossiter (1977). They found that the mistrust of advertisers has a significant positive relationship with self-esteem. However, internal consistency of the scale was low and the sample consisted of adolescents. 35 MacKenzie and Lutz (1989) state that attitude toward advertising in general exerts an indirect effect on attitude toward a particular advertisement. However, they recognize that a direct effect also may be likely, such that a consumer’s general affective reaction to advertising has a tendency to affect his or her attitude toward any specific ad. Therefore, the following hypothesis is offered: H6: Consumers who are highly skeptical, or have negative attitudes toward advertising in general, will have less favorable (a) attitudes toward the ad, and (b) attitudes toward the brand relative to both the alcohol moderation advertisement and the product-oriented advertisement than those who are less skeptical. The next chapter outlines an experimental design that was implemented to test the hypotheses and research questions presented herein. 36 CHAPTER FOUR METHOD The purpose of this chapter is to outline the method used to investigate the study’s research questions and hypotheses. Specifically, this chapter will cover the experimental design, experiment participants, independent and dependent variables of interest, choice of stimulus, and administration of the experiment. Experimental jDesfligu To test the hypotheses and investigate the possible differences between alcohol moderation and product-oriented advertisements, a between-subjects experiment was designed. Participants were randomly assigned to one of four test booklet conditions (see Appendix A). First, participants answered pre- exposure questions related to the measurement of two independent variables. Then they were exposed to one of four ads (See Appendix B). After exposure, they answered questions relative to the measurement of several dependent variables. Participants College students at a large Midwestern university were recruited from undergraduate-level introductory courses in advertising to participate in the experiment. Instructors gave their students extra credit for participation and each 37 participant was entered into a lottery for a chance to win one of 12 gift certificates of various denominations for a large entertainment-related retailer. Although the students represented a convenience sample, they are a viable target audience for alcohol moderation advertisements. Alcohol moderation advertisements may convey to the 18-20 age group that underage drinking is unacceptable (and illegal) behavior, while conveying to the 21-24 age group the dangers of over-consumption (binge drinking) or drinking and driving. The target sample of 240 participants, or 60 participants per test booklet, was hoped for. Independent Variables The first independent variable is attitude towards advertising (in general). Two different sets of scale items were used to measure this variable. The first scale is an adaptation of a six-item, 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree), developed by Boush, F riestad, and Rose (1994). The original scale measured the degree of skepticism a person has with commercials shown on television, in particular, the motives of the advertiser. In this adaptation, any reference to “television” was omitted in each scale item. The reliability of the scale in the original Boush et al. study (1994) was reported to be .58 in a first administration and .73 in a second administration. A second scale also is an adaptation of three previously developed scales to measure beliefs about television advertising. The original scale was a 17- item, 5-point Likert—type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) 38 developed by Alwitt and Prabhaker (1992) and used to measure beliefs about television advertising across three dimensions: perceptions that advertising does not offer information; perceptions that advertising is deceptive; and, perceptions of the personal and social benefits or costs of advertising. In the current adaptation, any reference to "television” was omitted on the individual scale items. Low scores on the scale represent negative perceptions of the personal and social benefits or cost of advertising; negative perceptions about advertising offering information; and, negative perceptions about advertising being deceptive. Reliability of each individual scale was reported to be .86 for the perception of the personal and social benefits/costs of television advertising; .61 for the perception that television advertising does not offer information; and, .71 for the perception that television advertising is deceptive. The second dependent variable is a measurement of participant perceptions that “good ethics is good business.” The original scale, developed by Singhapakdi et al. (1995) used seven items, in a 9-point, Likert-type (1 = completely disagree, 9 = completely agree) format to measure marketing practitioners’ perceptions. However, for this study, the scale will be adapted from its original 9-point version, to a 7-point version and used to measure consumer perceptions. Higher scores on the scale indicate stronger perceptions that ethical and socially responsible behaviors are important to the long-term profitability, competitiveness and survival of a firm. The authors reported an original reliability of .72 for this scale. 39 Dependent Variables There are several dependent measures incorporated in the experimental design. First, in order to assess interpretation of message content, participants were asked to complete a six-item, Likert-type question (1 = strongly agree, 5 = strongly disagree). Subjects were asked how strongly they agree/disagree with the following statements: Drinking alcohol is fun; People in the ad have had too much to drink; People who drink have lots of friends; People should be responsible when they drink; It is socially acceptable to get drunk on occasion; and, Making a night of drinking is all right. These items were adapted from the Atkin et al. ( 1992) study. Each of these items will be analyzed separately. Second, to assess interpretation of the advertisement’s purpose, participants completed a 10-item, Likert-type question (1 = strongly agree, 5 = strongly disagree). The scale is similar to that used by Atkin et al. (1992); however, instead of using a checklist procedure, the items were adapted into a Likert-type question. Subjects were asked how strongly they agreed or disagreed with different statements that describe possible motivations behind the advertisements. In addition, they were also asked to review the same list of motivations and mark which statement they perceived as the primary motive behind the advertisement. Seven of the motives were geared towards an image or pro-social motivation (i.e., prevent undesirable behavior, show concern for customers, or improve image). Three of the motives were geared towards traditional marketing/selling motivations (i.e., sell more product, make more 40 ITIOI' will I serr poll whi pal attr cor are pa be pa pre co eit thi 80 int 1C money, and promote product use). For purpose of this study, each motivation will be analyzed separately. Third, to measure participant reactions to the advertisement, a 10-item semantic differential scale was used. The scale contained bi-polar adjective end points; 5 pairs of words measured the affective reaction to the advertisement, while the other 5 pairs measured cognitive responses to the advertisement. The affective component of the scale used the following bi-polar adjectives pairs: good/bad, interesting/boring, pleasant/unpleasant, likable/unlikeable, and attractive/unattractive. These adjectives were chosen from among a list of 20 commonly used pairs in previous attitude-toward-the-ad research studies, and are 5 of the 7 items used by Laczniak and Muehling (1993). The cognitive component of the scale used the following bi-polar adjective pairs: trustworthy/untrustworthy, informative/uninforrnative, believable/unbelievable, effective/not at all effective, clear/vague. These specific pairs were chosen from among a list of 23 commonly used adjective pairs in previous attitude-toward-the-ad research studies. As previously discussed in the conceptual framework, the attitude-toward-the-ad construct has been treated as either a unidimensional or multidimensional construct. Therefore, the intent in this study is to have an overall attitude-toward-the-ad evaluation composed of the summated cognitive and affective scales, while at the same time analyzing the individual components to see if there is a differential impact. Fourth, in order to measure subject’s reactions to the advertised brand, a 10-item semantic differential scale was used. The adjective pairs included: 41 good/bad, pleasant/unpleasant, harmful/beneficial, favorable/unfavorable, desirable/undesirable, unusual/usual, worthless/valuable, intelligent/unintelligent, inferior/superior, interesting/boring. These specific pairs were chosen from among a list of 30 commonly used adjective pairs in previous attitude-toward-the- brand research studies. For the final dependent variable, corporate credibility, subject’s attitudes toward the sponsor company were measured with a scale previously developed by Newell and Goldsmith (2001). The scale is an 8-item, 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly agree, 7 = strongly disagree). The eight statements included the company behind the product has a great amount of experience, is skilled in what they do, has great expertise, and does not have much experience (reverse coded), I trust the company behind the ad, the company makes truthful claims, is honest, and I do not believe what the company tells me. Choice of Stimulus (advertisements) The author identified two pairs of a series of two advertisements as stimulus materials. Each pair of ads included one alcohol moderation and one product-oriented ad for the same brand and type of alcoholic beverage. The ads appeared in a print campaign run by a major distiller. Each pair of ads had similar creative executions (See Appendix B for actual advertisements. The images in the dissertation appendix are presented in color.). The two ads of ad pair one (referenced in the results section as “the red pair”) were both full-page, four-color advertisements. The ads are non-product 42 specific, but brand-oriented. Both ads contained a half-page top-half visual: the alcohol moderation ad visual included two males getting into a taxi cab; the product-oriented advertisement featured a young female dancing in front of several peers. The bottom half of both ads contained a red block with short copy and brand identification. The placement and nature of the copy also was similar, both advertisements contained only three lines of copy. The words “Drink Responsibly” were placed in the upper right-hand comer of each ad and the brand name was prominently featured in both ads in the lower right hand corner. The tag lines of each ad also were similar: in the product-oriented ad the tagline states “Bring it out;” while the alcohol moderation ad states “Bring it out responsibly.” The second pair of advertisements (referred to as “the white ads” in the results section) were specifically product oriented. Each ad contained a full- page, four-color product visual. The net impression from both ads is that of a close-up picture taken in a bar-like atmosphere. The product ad contained a close-up picture of an open bottle held by a male’s hand, whose shirt sleeve is pushed up to showcase several “admittance” stamps. The copy in the ad states “4:05 am: we get past our 6th doorman of the evening” in the upper left hand corner. Additional copy reads “see where it takes you.” In the lower left hand corner of the ad, the words “remember to drink responsibly” are place in white- type. The alcohol moderation ad also prominently features a bottle of the product; however, the bottle, while gripped by what looks like a man’s hand, is on a table surrounded by two of its own bottle caps and four water bottle caps. The 43 bottle of water, almost empty, is pictured in the background. The copy reads “make it a night you won’t forget, not one you can’t remember.” The product advertised, Smirnoff Ice, is a relatively new malt-beverage targeted toward males aged 21-34. The malt-beverage category of alcohol is experiencing rapid growth, from $132.3 million in sales in for the year ending February 23, 2001, to $294.9 million for year ending February 23, 2002 (Goetzl, 2002). In addition, the beverages themselves are not without their own controversy. Even though the drinks have about as much alcohol as beer, products like Smirnoff Ice and Bacardi Silver (another premium malt beverage) use the same brand name as their hard-alcohol siblings (Goetzl, 2002), prompting some consumer advocacy groups to accuse the distillers of deceptive advertising. There are both risks and benefits to using real ads for real brands instead of creating experimental test ads. The risks associated with using real ads or real brands include that participants may have already been exposed to the ad or brand and have pre-existing knowledge, attitudes and beliefs about the ad and/or brand. And, although there is a lack of experimental control when using real ads, a specifically designed ad may be too artificial. Administration The experiment was administered in groups of up to 25 students at half- hour intervals. Students were requested to sign up via a website for a pre- determined time, date and location for participation. The experiment sessions 44 were held on two consecutive Fridays starting at 10 am. and finishing at 5 pm in a college classroom. Upon arrival, students were checked in, informed to take a seat at a desk of their choice in the classroom and then to read the directions that were provided on each desk. A randomly distributed test booklet had been placed on each desk in the classroom. Students were asked to read and sign the informed consent form before proceeding with the booklet. In addition, each booklet contained pre-exposure measures, a test ad, and post-exposure measures. When completed, the students were asked to remove their signed consent forms and place their completed booklets in a box placed at the exit of the classroom (consent forms were collected in a separate box). There were no students who refused to sign the consent form, and no students who left without completing the entire booklet. On average, it took most students 15-25 minutes to complete the booklet. The following chapter details the results of the experiment. 45 CHAPTER FIVE RESULTS General SJample Characteristics Participants (n=283) were recruited from introductory advertising and public relations courses at a large Midwestern university and included a diverse number of academic majors. The sample consisted of 191 females (67.5%) and 92 males (32.5%) with an average age of 19.71 (SD=1.37). The majority of the sample indicated that their ethnicity was white Caucasian (80.9%), followed by Asian American (8.8%), African American (7.1%), Hispanic American (1.8) or other (1.4%). Academic majors reported by the sample included: Advertising or Public Relations (33.7%), Non-business (22.0%), Business (non-marketing) (20.6%), and Marketing (7.8%). Sixteen percent of the sample was undecided with respect to a major. With regard to their recent alcohol consumption, 31% of the sample reported not having a drink in the previous seven day period, while 27.2% said they drank once, 36% indicated they drank 2-4 times, 4.2% indicated they drank 5-6 times, and 0.5% of the sample reported drinking every day in the previous seven day period. The majority of the sample (74.4%) stated that their drinking behavior in the last seven days was “typical” for them, while 25.6% indicated it was not typical (13.1% reported drinking more than usual, 12.5% reported drinking less). Finally, over half of the sample (56%) reported that, in the last 46 four-week period, they had consumed more than five alcoholic beverages in one sitting. _S_caie Construction anu Reliapilihr Before addressing the specific hypotheses and research questions, the scales used to measure the independent and dependent variables were checked for internal consistency and unidimensionality. Cronbach’s reliability analysis was used for internal consistency and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to test for scale unidimensionality (Hunter and Gerbing, 1982). Table 1 summarizes the mean, standard deviation, and Cronbach’s coefficient alpha for each independent and dependent composite variable. Skepticism towards advertising was measured with two scales. First, the original scale developed by Boush, F riestad, and Rose (1994) used to measure mistrust of television advertiser motives, was slightly modified by removing any reference to “television.” The scale was found to contain two latent factors, violating the unidimensionality test, and reliability assessment conducted using Cronbach’s alpha indicated that this modified scale fell well below the generally accepted guideline of .70 (Hair, Anderson, Tatham and Black, 1995, p.641) with an alpha of .31. The second scale employed a scale originally developed by Alwitt and Prabhaker (1992) that measured beliefs about television advertising, examining perceptions that TV advertising (a) does not offer information, (b) has personal and social benefits/costs, and (c) is deceptive. Again, any reference to “television” in the individual scale item was omitted. Reliability analysis 47 conducted on these three scales also proved unsuccessful, with Cronbach alphas of .37, .59, and .45 respectively, although CFA for the deceptive and information components were unidimensional, the scale for personal and social benefits/costs contained three factors. In order to reconcile these results, three of the original twenty-two statements were chosen to construct a new scale of advertising skepticism. The statements included (1) advertisers care more about getting you to buy things than what is good for you, (2) advertisements try to make people buy things they don’t need, and (3) advertising does not show life as it really is. CFA indicated the three items were unidimensional and reliability analysis indicated that a scale with these three items produce a Cronbach’s alpha of .62. Although this value also falls below the usual threshold of acceptable reliability, values below .70 have previously been deemed acceptable when used in exploratory research (Hair et al., 1995, p.641). Table 1. Scale Descriptives for Independent and Dependent Variables Independent Variables Scale Mean Std. Dev. 0: Advertising Skepticism 11.02 2.06 .62 Good Ethics is Good Business 39.70 5.39 .80 Dependent Variables Scale Mean Std. Dev. (1 Attitude Toward the Ad 42.16 8.71 .82 Cognitive Component 21.47 5.65 .72 Affective Component 20.63 4.32 .81 Attitude Toward the Brand 42.24 9.15 .89 Corporate Credibility 26.23 6.6 .82 The independent variable “good ethics is good business” was measured using a modified version of a scale developed by Singhapakdi et al. (1995). It contained seven items measuring the importance of ethics and social 48 responsibility. The scale was adapted from its original 9-point version, to a 7- point version. The scale was found to be unidimensional and reliable, with a Cronbach’s alpha of .80. The dependent measure of attitude-toward-the-ad included a 10-item scale containing bi-polar adjective end points; five pairs of words measured the affective reaction to the advertisement, while the other five pairs measured the cognitive responses to the advertisement. The original five-item affective scale produced a Cronbach's alpha of .47; however, with the omission of one bi-polar adjective pair (unattractive/attractive), the alpha increased to .81. Hence, the composite scale used in analysis is composed of four, not five, items. All five items in the cognitive component of the scale were retained and produced a Cronbach’s alpha of .72. The overall attitude-toward-the-ad scale is a composite of nine of the original ten statements (four affective and five cognitive) with a Cronbach’s alpha of .82. The dependent measure of attitude-toward-the-brand also was measured using a 10-item bi-polar semantic differential scale. The ten-item scale produced an original Cronbach’s alpha of .85; however, item to total statistics indicated that if the pair “usual/unusual” were omitted, the alpha would increase to .89. Therefore, the final composite measure included nine of the original ten items. Finally, the dependent measure of corporate credibility was measured using an eight-item scale previously developed by Newell and Goldsmith (2001). The scale proved to be reliable, with a Cronbach’s alpha of .82. 49 Hypothesis Testing and Research Question Exploration Hypothesis One Hypothesis one posited that interpretation of message content will be more diverse for the alcohol moderation advertisements than for the traditional product-oriented advertisements. In order to test this hypothesis, “diversity” was operationalized as “variability.” Hence, larger standard deviations and variance would be present in the measures of message content for alcohol moderation ads than in the product ad. Recall that subjects were asked to indicate how strongly they agreed or disagreed (1 =strongly agreed, 5=strongly disagreed) with several message content statements. To test this hypothesis, an F-test for equal population variance between ad types was conducted on each message content item. Table 2 presents the mean scores for each content item by ad type, as well as contains F-test results. A one-tailed F-test was constructed such that the null hypothesis is 0'12 = 022 and the alternative hypothesis is 0'12 > 0'22 , where 012 is the variance in alcohol moderation content scores and 022 is the variance in the product related advertisement content scores. The null hypothesis that the variances are equal is rejected if the calculated F-statistic (the ratio of sample variances) is greater than the critical value of F .001=1 .00 with v1=141, v2=139 degrees of freedom. Table 2 summarizes the results of the F-test on each message content item. As the table suggests, the alcohol moderation advertisements produce significantly more diverse responses than the product-related advertisement on all but one message content item. Hence, hypothesis one is supported. 50 Table 2. Message Content F-test Results F- Messagg Mean Var. Statistic Sig. Drinking alcohol is fun Alcohol Moderation Ad 2.24 1.24 1.87 p<.01 Product Ad 1 .47 0.66 The people in the ad have had too much to dfink Alcohol Moderation Ad 3.43 1.57 1.27 p<.01 Product Ad 3.32 1 .24 People who drink have lots of friends Alcohol Moderation Ad 3.44 1.54 1.22 p<.01 Product Ad 2.67 1 .26 People should be responsible when they drink Alcohol Moderation Ad 1.64 1.11 0.83 n.s Product Ad 2.57 1 .33 It is socially acceptable to get drunk on occasion Alcohol Moderation Ad 2.51 1.27 1.22 p<.01 Product Ad 2.09 1 .04 Making a night of drinking is all right Alcohol Moderation Ad 2.27 1.18 1.36 p<.01 Product Ad 1 .76 0.87 You have more fun when you drink Alcohol Moderation Ad 2.71 1.65 1.59 p<.01 Product Ad 1 .85 1 .04 Hypothesis Two Hypothesis two posited that interpretation of ad purpose would be more diverse for alcohol moderation advertisements than for the traditional product- oriented advertisements. Following the same procedure as outlined in the previous section (Hypothesis One), “diversity” was operationalized as “variance” in ad purpose scores. Table 3 summarizes the results of the F-test. As the table suggests, the alcohol moderation advertisements produce significantly more diverse interpretations of the advertisement’s purpose for alcohol moderation 51 advertisements than the product-related advertisement on all but one ad purpose item. Hence, hypothesis two is supported. Hypothesis Three Hypothesis three suggested that, compared to interpretations of ad message content and ad purpose, evaluative measures of (a) attitude-toward- the—ad and (b) attitude—toward-the-brand would be positive and uniform in the alcohol moderation advertisement treatment. In order to investigate this premise, a close examination of the distribution of scores on the evaluative measures was conducted. Two measures, skewness and kurtosis, as well as histograms and normal probability plots, were calculated and constructed for each evaluative measure to assess whether or not the distribution of the scores was uniform (i.e., normal). Skewness is a measure of the symmetry of a distribution. Skewness values that fall outside the range of —1 to +1 indicate a substantially skewed distribution. A statistical test of normality is possible using z-scores. The statistic value (2) is calculated as: 2 value = skewness/ \l(6/N) where N is the sample size. If the calculated z-value exceeds a critical value (such as $2.58 for the .01 probability level), then the distribution is considered non-norrnal. 52 Table 3. Ad Purpose F-test Results F- The purpose of the ad was... Mean Var. Statistic Sig. To improve the company’s image Alcohol Moderation Ad 2.10 1.43 1.08 p<.01 Product Ad 2.61 1 .32 To promote product usage Alcohol Moderation Ad 1.87 1.20 1.56 p<.01 Product Ad 1 .58 0.77 To make it appear they are concerned about use of their product Alcohol Moderation Ad 2.00 1.80 1.16 p<.01 Product Ad 3.39 1.55 To avoid government regulation Alcohol Moderation Ad 3.09 1 .25 1 .17 p<.01 Product Ad 3.54 1 .07 To make more money Alcohol Moderation Ad 1.83 1.11 1.16 p<.01 Product Ad 1 .61 0.96 To avoid being blamed for related problems of product consumption Alcohol Moderation Ad 2.33 1.61 0.97 n.s. Product Ad 3.17 1.66 To prevent undesirable social behavior Alcohol Moderation Ad 2.67 1.74 1.44 p<.01 Product Ad 3.65 1.21 To sell more of their product Alcohol Moderation Ad 1.74 1.19 1.45 p<.01 Product Ad 1 .51 0.82 To persuade people to avoid a potentially dangerous situation Alcohol Moderation Ad 2.26 1.58 1.14 p<.01 Product Ad 3.75 1.38 Because they really are concerned about how consumers use their products Alcohol Moderation Ad 2.77 1.61 1.41 p<.01 Product Ad 3.75 1 .14 Kurtosis is a measure of the peakedness or flatness of a distribution when compared with a normal curve. A positive value indicates the distribution is “peaked,” a negative value indicates a “flat” distribution. Normal distributions 53 the TED dis- COI bra th n1 produce a kurtosis statistic of about zero. A general rule of thumb is that values of 2 standard errors of kurtosis or more (regardless of sign) probably differ from the normal distribution to a significant degree. Table 4 summarizes the statistical measures of Skewness and kurtosis for each evaluative measure. Table 4. Measures of Skewness and Kurtosis in Evaluative Measures for Alcohol Moderation Ads 2. Observed Calculated critical Measure: Skewness Skewness z-value at p=.01 Conclusion Attitude-Toward-the-Ad (total) -.298 1.41 2.58 Normal Attitude-Toward-the-Ad (aff.) -.597 2.82 2.58 Non-normal Attitude-Toward-the-Ad (@g.) -.078 0.37 2.58 Normal Attitude-Toward-the-Brand -.383 1 .81 2.58 Normal Is obs. > Measure: Kurtosis Observed SE. of 2 X Kurtosis Kurtosis S.E? Conclusion Attitude-Toward-the-Ad (total) . 164 0.42 No Normal Attitude-Toward-the-Ad (aff.) .603 0.42 No Normal Attitude-Toward-the-Ad (cog) -.225 0.42 No Normal Attitude-Toward-the-Brand 1 .048 0.42 Yes Peaked Histograms and normal probability plots are two graphical ways to show the distribution of scores for a particular measure. These graphical representations of scores are provided in Figures 1-8. Results indicate, that the evaluative measures are mostly normally distributed, with the exception that the attitude-toward-the-ad affective component scores being slightly negatively skewed, and the attitude-toward-the- brand scores being “peaked.” Therefore, the part of hypothesis 3, which posits that the evaluative measures are uniform, is mostly supported. 54 Frequency Expected Normal Figure 1: Histogram for Attitude-Toward-the-Ad (Total) 20 - 10 . 0 ‘ 2*2'1:':::'.-. . '2': 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 55.0 60.0 65.0 Figure 2: Normal Q-Q Plot of Attitude-Toward-the-Ad (Total) 3 D 2 l u 1 l 0 u -1 . -2 I u u/ a D / -3 - - r ' 20 30 40 50 60 70 Observed Value 55 Frequency Expected Normal Figure 3: Histogram for Attitude-Toward-the-Ad (aff.) 7.5 10.0 12.5 15.0 17.5 20.0 22.5 25.0 27.5 Figure 4: Normal Q-Q Plot of Attitude-Toward-the-Ad (aff.) 2 1 . O 0 I D D / D -1 l /D D D D / / -2. 0 a / u / -3 u ( 10 20 30 Observed Value 56 Frequency Expected Normal 30 20‘ 10- Figure 5: Histogram for Attitude-Toward-the-Ad (cog.) 10.0 12.5 15.0 17.5 20.0 22.5 25.0 27.5 30.0 32.5 35.0 Figure 6: Normal Q-Q Plot of Attitude-Toward-the-Ad (cog.) 2| Observed Value 57 Frequency Expected Normal Figure 7: Histogram for Attitude-Toward-the-Brand 40 65.0 Figure 8: Normal Q-Q Plot of Attitude-Toward—the-Brand 3 D 2 . D 1 . o . 66° 1 - 041/“ f DD 2 I D “on D / -3 I - I 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Observed Value 58 In addition to positing that the scores were uniform, hypothesis three speculates that the scores are positive. One-sample t-tests were conducted to verify whether or not the mean scores on each scale item were significantly different from each scale’s mid-point value. If the scores are significantly different, then this was taken to indicate that the evaluative measure was indeed “positive.” Table 5 summarizes the results of the t-tests. Table 5: One-Sample T-test Results for Evaluative Measures for Alcohol Moderation Ads Scale Measure Scale Mid- t- Mean point statistic Sig. Attitude-Toward-the-Ad (total) (n=137) 45.00 27.5 24.48 p<.001 Attitude-Toward-the-Ad (aff.) (n=138) 21.43 1 1.0 30.54 p<.001 Attitude-Toward-the-Ad (cog.) (n=139) 23.47 14.5 18.61 p<.001 Attitude-Toward-the-Brand (n=138) 42.93 27.5 19.65 p<.001 As the table suggests, the mean scores for each of the evaluative measures was significantly greater than the mid-point of the scale. The hypothesis that the evaluative measures for the alcohol moderation ads would be positive is supported. 59 Research Question One Research question one asked whether or not differences exist between the two types of advertising executions on evaluative measures of (a) attitude- toward-the-ad, and (b) attitude-toward-the-brand. In order to investigate this question, one-way analysis of variance was performed. Results are summarized in Table 6. Table 6: ANOVA Results for Evaluative Measures Measure Std. F- Mean Dev statistic Sig. Attitude-Toward-the-Ad (total) Alcohol Moderation Ad (n=137) 45-00 8-37 32-40 P<-001 Product Ad (n=138) 39-33 3-14 Attitude-Toward-the-Ad (affective) Alcohol Moderation Ad (n=138) 21 -43 4-01 9-57 P=-002 Product Ad (n= 140) 19.85 4.47 Attitude-Toward-the-Ad (cognitive) Alcohol Moderation Ad (n=139) 23.47 5-67 38.42 p<.001 Product Ad (n=139) 19.50 4.91 Attitude-Toward-the-Brand Alcohol Moderation Ad (n=138) 42.93 9.22 1.55 n.s. Product Ad (n=138) 41.56 9.05 The table indicates that there are significant differences across ad type on several of the evaluative measures. Specifically, respondents’ overall attitude- toward-the-ad was significantly higher for the alcohol moderation ad (M=45.00, _SQ=8.37) than for the product-oriented advertisement F(1,273) = 32.30, p<.001. In addition, both the affective and cognitive components of attitude-toward-the-ad were significantly higher among those who viewed the alcohol moderation ad (_M=21.43 and M=23.45, respectively) than the product-oriented ad (M=19.85 and 60 M=19.50, respectively). However, although the mean score for attitude-toward- the-brand was greater in the alcohol moderation treatment than the product- oriented treatment (M=42.93 vs. M=41.56, respectively), the difference was not found to be significant. Further ANOVA analysis was conducted between the two ad executions (red group-brand versus white group-product) to see whether or not the brand versus product focus of the ads produced similar results among the evaluative measures. In the red grouping, significant differences were found on attitude- toward-the-ad overall (F (1 ,133)=6.74, p=.01) and the cognitive component of attitude-toward-the-ad (F(1,136)=12.1 1, p<.001), such that the alcohol moderation advertisement (i.e., taxi ad) produced significantly more positive attitudes and cognitions (M=42.46 and M=21.90, respectively) than the product- oriented ad (i.e., disco diva) (M=39.21 and M=19.09, respectively). No significant differences were found on the affective component of attitude-toward-the-ad and attitude-toward-the-brand in this grouping. In the white creative grouping, however, significant differences were found on all four evaluative measures between ad types. Specifically, respondents had significantly more positive attitudes-toward-the-ad (F(1,138)=28.72, p<.001), both affective and cognitive dimensions (F(1,140)=14.31, p<.001 and F(1,138)=28.43, p<.001, respectively), and significantly stronger attitudes-toward-the-brand (F(1,136)=3.99, p<.05) in the alcohol moderation ad treatment (i.e., bottle caps) than in the product-oriented ad (i.e., bar stamps). 0 61 Hence, overall, results are somewhat mixed as to whether ad type affects the advertising evaluative measures. Hypothesis Four Like hypothesis three, hypothesis four posited that, compared to interpretations, respondent perceptions of corporate credibility would be positive and uniform in the alcohol moderation advertisement treatment. To test this hypothesis, the same measures of skewness and kurtosis, as well as graphical depictions of the scores (histograms and probability plots), were calculated and constructed. Table 7 summarizes the skewness and kurtosis measures, while Figures 9 and 10 graphically depict the distribution of corporate credibility scores. Table 7. Measures of Skewness and Kurtosis in Corporate Credibility for Alcohol Moderation Ads 2. Observed Calculated critical Measure: Skewness Skewness z-value at p=.01 Conclusion Corporate Credibility .352 1.66 2.58 Normal Observed SE. of Is obs. > Conclusion Measure: Kurtosis Kurtosis Kurtosis 2 X S.E? Corporate Credibility .112 0.41 No Normal Table 7 and Figures 9 and 10 suggest that the evaluative measure of corporate credibility is normally distributed, and therefore, uniform. Support is given for this part of hypothesis four. 62 Frequency Expected Normal Figure 9: Histogram for Corporate Credibility 30 20 ' 10 ' O Ii" ' ,1, r 1" , 1 g:o;,:-+r, , J . 7.5 12.5 17.5 22.5 27.5 32.5 37.5 42.5 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 Figure 10: Normal Q-Q Plot of Corporate Credibility 3 D / 2 1 ”/0 ,/ o ,/’ D f“ 1 . D D 01 9999/ -1 :1 6X ,’/ /0 DD -2 I -3 0 10 20 30 40 50 Observed Value 63 To test whether corporate credibility scores were positive, a one-sample t- test was conducted to compare the mean (M=24.34) versus the mid-point scale value (16.5). Results indicate that the mean is significantly greater than the mid- point of the scale (t=13.88, df=138, p<.001); however, it is in the opposite direction of what was predicted. Recall that lower scores on the scale indicate stronger perceptions of corporate credibility, while higher scores indicate lesser perceptions. Therefore, no support is provided for the hypothesis that corporate credibility scores would be positive for the alcohol moderation ads. Research Question Two Research question two asked whether or not differences exist between the two types of advertising executions on the evaluative measure of corporate credibility. Table 8 summarizes the results of the ANOVA analysis used to investigate this question. Table 8: ANOVA Results for Corporate Credibility Perceptions Std. F- Measure Mean Dev statistic Sig. Corporate Credibility* Alcohol Moderation Ad (n=139) 24-34 6.65 23-90 P<-001 Product Ad (n=140) 323-“ 5-19 Within Group Analysis Red Group — Brand Focus Corporate Credibility Alcohol Moderation Ad (taxi) (n=70) 25-50 6-39 3-45 9:06 Product Ad (disco diva)(n=70) 27.54 607 White Group - Product Focus Corporate Credibility Alcohol Moderation Ad (caps)(n=69) 23-17 5-25 27-72 P<-001 Product Ad (bar stamps)(n=70) 28-67 6-29 * Note: Lower scores indicate stronger perceived corporate credibility 64 The table indicates that there is a significant effect of ad type on the evaluative measure of corporate credibility. Specifically, those that viewed the alcohol moderation advertisements had stronger perceptions of corporate credibility than those who were exposed to the product-oriented ad, F(1, 277)=23.90, p<.001. This finding holds true in both the red and white creative execufions. Hypothesis Five Hypothesis five posited that respondents with high, rather than low, scores on the “good ethics is good business” scale would evaluate the alcohol moderation advertisement more positively on all evaluative measures (attitude- toward-the-ad, attitude-toward-the-brand, and corporate credibility) than the product oriented advertisement. The sample was split into three equal groups based on their overall ethics scale score. Those with the third lowest scores and those with the third highest scores were retained for analysis. The evaluative measures were analyzed in a type of advertisement (product vs. moderation) by ethics score (high vs. low) between subjects factorial analysis of variance. Tables 9 and 10 summarize the cell and marginal mean evaluative measure scores by ad type and ethic group. 65 Table 9: Individual Cell Mean Evaluative Scores by Ad Type and Ethics Group Low Ethics High Ethics Product Moderation Product Moderation Evaluative Measure Ad Ad Ad Ad (n=39) (n=44) (n=44) (n=36) Attitude-Toward-the-Ad 37.33 44.27 39.43 46.14 Affective Component 18.97 21.11 20.20 22.25 Cognitive Component 18.36 22.74 19.41 23.89 Attitude- Toward-Brand 41.27 43.27 40.05 43.39 Corporate Credibility* 29.64 25.89 28.44 23.02 "’ Note: Lower mean scores indicate stronger perceived corporate credibility. Table 10: Marginal Mean Evaluative Scores by Ad Type and Ethics Group Type of Ad Ethics Group Product Moderation Low High Evaluative Measure Ad Ad Ethics Ethics (n=83) (n=80) (n=83) (n=80) Attitude- Toward-the-Ad 38.45 45.1 1 41.01 42.45 Affective Component 19.63 21.63 20.11 21 .11 Cognitive Component 18.92 23.24 20.73 21.43 Attitude. Toward-Brand 40.60 43.32 42.34 41 .55 Corporate Credibility* 29.00 24.65 27.61 26.08 * Note: Lower mean scores indicate stronger perceived corporate credibility. Results indicate a significant main effect for type of advertisements (F(1,159)=30.50, p<.001 on attitude-toward-the-ad. Specifically, attitude-toward- the-ad scores overall were significantly higher in the moderation ad group treatment (M=45.11) than in the product-oriented treatment (M=38.45). And, although the attitude-toward-the-ad score was larger with respondents who scored “high” on the ethics scale versus those who scored “low” (_M=42.45 v. M=41.01, respectivelY). no significant main effect of ethic group was found (F(1,159)=2.58, p=.11, n.s.). No interaction effect between ethics score and ad 66 type was present (F(1,159)=.01, p=.92, n.s.). In addition, planned comparisons indicate that within each ethical group, the alcohol moderation ads produced significantly higher attitude-toward-the-ad scores. For example, in the low ethics group, the mean attitude-toward-the-ad score for the product-oriented ad was 37.33 and the alcohol moderation ad mean score was 44.27 (F(1,81)=16.80, p<.001). In the high ethics group, the mean attitude-toward-the-ad score for the product-oriented ad was 39.43 and the alcohol moderation ad mean score was 46.14 (F(1,78)=13.82, p<.001). While those with higher ethics scores did have higher attitude-toward-the-ad scores in both the product-oriented (_M=39.43 vs. _M_=37.33) and alcohol moderation treatments (M=46.14 vs. M=44.27), it was not significantly higher than those in the lower ethics group. With respect to the affective component of attitude-toward-the-ad, significant main effects were found on both the type of ad (F(1,160)=10.26, p=.002) and ethics group (F(1,160)=3.267, p<.10). Specifically, the alcohol moderation treatment generated more positive affect (M=21.63) than the product- oriented ad (M=19.63); and those with high ethics scores had more positive affect than those with low ethics scores (M_=21.11 vs. M=20.11, respectively). However, no interaction effect was present (F(1,160)=.01, p=.95, n.s.). In addition, affect was significantly higher in the alcohol moderation treatment (M=21.11) than the product-oriented treatment (_M=18.97) among the low ethics group (F(1,81)=6.25, p<.01). The same is true in the high ethics group, where the mean affect score in the alcohol moderation group was 22.25 versus the product- oriented group with a mean score of 20.20 (F(1,79)=4.26, p<.05). And, while 67 mean scores were slightly elevated in the high over the low ethics groups within the product-oriented ad (M=20.20 vs. M=18.97, respectively) and alcohol moderation ad (M=22.25 vs. M=21.11, respectively), the differences were not statistically significant. Significant main effects of ad type were found with respect to the cognitive component of attitude-toward-the-ad (F(1,161)=29.32, p<.001). Specifically, the alcohol moderation ad produced significantly higher cognitive scores (M=23.24) compared to the product-oriented ad (M=18.92). However, no main effect of ethic group was found, nor was there a significant interaction effect. In each ethic group, the alcohol moderation ad did produce significantly higher cognitive scores. Specifically, in the low ethic group, the mean score for the alcohol moderation ad was 22.74 compared with a mean of 18.36 in the product-oriented treatment (F(1,83)=13.87, p<.001). A similar finding is apparent in the high ethic group as well, with the alcohol moderation ad group mean of 23.89 compared with a mean of 19.41 in the product-orient ad treatment (F(1,78)=15.65, p<.001). Again, within each ad treatment, those with higher ethic scores did produce slightly greater cognitive scores than the low ethic group. For example, in the product-oriented treatment, the high ethic group produced a mean cognitive score of 19.41 compared to the mean score in the low ethic group of 18.36; however, these differences were not statistically significant. The finding is similar between the mean cognitive scores in the alcohol moderation ad treatment, with the high ethic group mean of 23.89 and the low ethic group mean of 22.74. Therefore, with respect to part (a) of hypothesis five, very little support is 68 provided. Only the affective component of attitude-toward-the-ad seems to be affected by respondent’s ethical scores on the “good ethics is good business” scale. For the evaluative measure of attitude-toward-the-brand, a significant main effect of ad type was found (F(1,159)=3.75, p<.05), such that alcohol moderation ads produced significantly higher scores overall (M=43.32 vs. M=40.60 in product-oriented treatment). However, no main effect of ethics group was found, nor was any interaction effect present. In addition, simple comparisons between cell means across ethic groups and ad treatments indicated no significant differences in mean scores on attitude-toward-the-brand. Hence, there is no support for part (b) of hypothesis five. Finally, for the evaluative measure of corporate credibility, significant main effects were found for both ad type (F(1,161)=19.60, p<.001) and ethics group (F(1,161)=3.81, p<.05). Specifically, the alcohol moderation treatment produced significantly stronger corporate credibility perceptions (M=24.65) compared with the product-oriented ad (M=29.00). Also, those with higher ethics scores produced stronger corporate credibility perceptions (M=26.08) compared with those with lower ethics scores (M=27.71). However, no interaction effect was present. Simple comparisons among cell means indicate that in both the low and high ethic groups, the alcohol moderation ad produced significantly stronger perceptions of corporate credibility compared to the product-oriented ad. For example, in the low ethic group, the mean score for the product-oriented ad was 29.64 compared with 25.89 for the alcohol moderation ad (F(1,83)=8.47, p<.01). 69 And, in the high ethic group, the mean score for the product-oriented ad was 28.44 compared with 23.03 for the alcohol moderation ad (F(1,78)=11.15, p<.01). While corporate credibility scores were slightly stronger in the high versus low ethic group in the product-oriented treatment (M=29.64 vs. M=28.44), the difference was not statistically significant. However, in the alcohol moderation treatment, the high ethic group did have significantly stronger perceptions of corporate credibility than the low ethic group (M=23.03 vs. M=25.89, respectively; F(1,79)=3.13, p<.10). Therefore, there is some support for hypothesis five, part (c). Hypothesis Six Hypothesis six posited that consumers who are highly skeptical, or have negative attitudes towards advertising in general, would have a less favorable (a) attitude-toward-the-ad and (b) attitude-toward-the-brand, regardless of ad type, than those less skeptical of advertising. The sample was split into three equal groups representing based on their overall skepticism score. Only those respondents who fell into the top (high) or bottom (low) thirds were used in the analysis. To investigate this hypothesis, univariate ANOVA was performed. Table 11 summarizes the results. 70 Table 11: ANOVA Results for Evaluative Measures by Skepticism Std. F- Measure Mean Dev statistic Sig._ Attitude-Toward-the-Ad (total) High Skepticism (n=67) 40.45 8.36 1.87 n.s. Low Skepticism (n=65) 4243 3.30 Attitude-Toward-the-Ad (affective component) High Skepticism (n=68) 20.07 4.32 1.22 n.s. Low Skepticism (n=66) 2034 3.76 Attitude-Toward-the-Ad (cognitive component) High Skepticism (n=67) 20.40 5.39 1.68 n.s. Low Skepticism (n=65) 21.53 5.51 Attitude-Toward-the-Brand High Skepticism (n=67) 41.74 9.88 .004 n.s. Low Skepticism (n=65) 4154 8.52 While the table suggests that those with greater skepticism did have lower scores on most of the evaluative measures (with the exception of attitude- toward-the-brand), the differences between their scores and those with lesser skepticism was not statistically significant. The next chapter provides a discussion of the data analysis, while also discussing the study’s limitations and offering future research considerations. 71 CHAPTER SIX DISCUSSION, LIMITATIONS, FUTURE RESEARCH AND CONCLUSIONS Discussion The purpose of this study was to apply the organizational concept of strategic ambiguity to an investigation of interpretations of alcohol moderation and product-oriented advertising. The study investigated whether differences existed between ad executions with regard to interpretation of message content and message purpose. It also examined if differences existed in evaluative ad measures, such as attitude-toward-the-ad, attitude-toward-the-brand, and perceptions of corporate credibility. Finally, individual difference factors also were considered to see if they, too, influenced interpretations across type of advertisement. Overall, the results of hypothesis one and two are consistent with the application of strategically ambiguous messages, such that the interpretations of alcohol moderation advertisements are more highly diverse than product-oriented advertisements with respect to message content and message purpose. While it is uncertain that the sponsor of the message was purposely ambiguous, what is clear is that participants who viewed the alcohol moderation advertisement had more varied interpretations than those exposed to the product-oriented advertisement. One explanation of this finding is that the alcohol moderation ad was sending a “mixed-message” that included both a product purchase 72 (marketing objective) and responsible consumption (public relations) cue, while the product-oriented ad was only sending a product purchase cue. In addition, a great deal of support was given to the argument, that compared to the diversity in message content and message purpose interpretations, the overall evaluative measures would be positive and uniform in the alcohol moderation ads. Widespread consensus in bottom-line attitudinal outcomes across the audience is a primary outcome associated with strategic ambiguity. Hence, even though participants had different interpretations of the advertisement, they still arrived at the same positive outcome. The results of this study also proved fruitful when investigating differences between evaluative measures across advertisement type. Participants exposed to the alcohol moderation ad had significantly stronger, positive attitudes-toward- the-ad and stronger perceptions of corporate credibility, than those exposed to the product-oriented ad. One explanation for these findings is that the strategically ambiguous alcohol moderation ad may have pre-empted counter- arguing and minimized source derogation. Previous research indicates that the nature of the position a communicator advocates on an issue can influence perceptions of the communicator’s competence and trustworthiness (O’Keefe, 1990). However, no significant difference was found in participant’s attitude- toward-the brand scores. This could be explained by participant’s prior brand attitude, as the majority of participants stated that they were either very or somewhat familiar with the brand. Participants may have already had a strong 73 positive brand attitude and exposure to one ad, alcohol moderation or product, was not enough to strengthen their already positive association with the brand. The individual difference factors under investigation produced little variance in advertising evaluative measures. The most interesting finding is that participants exposed to the alcohol moderation advertisement who had higher scores on the “good ethics is good business” scale did have significantly stronger attitude-toward-the-ad (affective component) and significantly stronger perceptions of corporate credibility than those with lower scores. Thus, those participants who believe in the importance of ethics and social responsibility in business practices, when presented with a message incorporating a socially responsible theme (i.e., drink responsibly), will look favorably not only on the advertisement, but possibly transfer these positive feelings toward the sponsoring organization. Finally, participant’s level of skepticism towards advertising had no direct impact on evaluative measures for either treatment. This finding could be attributed to poor construct operationalization and measurement. However, it also could be likely that skepticism could have exerted an indirect effect on attitude toward the particular advertisements under study, something this study did not investigate. The implications for the alcohol advertiser in this study are clear. First, the results of this study indicate that the malt beverage manufacturer has achieved several advantageous outcomes by producing an alcohol moderation advertisement. Not only have they engendered positive attitudes toward their 74 advertisements, but also produced the perception that the company is acting in a socially responsible fashion. The company may also be able to deflect criticism that the alcohol moderation ad is not about selling their product or brand, per se, but about reinforcing and promoting responsible drinking behavior, such as getting a designated driver or interspersing alcohol consumption with plenty of water. Limitfiaflans and Directions for Future Research This study is not without limitations that can be and should be overcome in future investigations. First, the modified versions of the scales to measure consumer skepticism were not pre-tested. Had this been accomplished, the problems associated with scale construction and reliability, as well as the non- significant results related to the effects of skepticism on evaluative measures of the advertising, may have been avoided. In addition, it could be that skepticism towards advertising may be modality sensitive. In other words, instead of just removing the word “television” from the individual scale items, inserting the word “print” in place of “television” may have made a difference in participant’s frame of reference. Future research should attempt to investigate more reliable measures of consumer's skepticism of advertising, in general and by modality. Other limitations of the study are associated with the choice of the stimuli used in the experiment. The four ads chosen were in circulation prior to the study investigation, and prior exposure to the ads may have influenced participants’ overall reactions to the ad. In addition, while the ads were chosen to 75 be exemplars of either an alcohol moderation or product-oriented category, the ads could not be experimentally controlled for differences in specific creative execution elements, such as visuals or copy. Hence, these elements may have confounded the results. Future research should employ ads that can be experimentally controlled so that variance can be specifically attributed to creative execution. Obviously the results of this study are specific to the specific advertising stimuli used, and cannot be generalized to all alcohol moderation advertisements. However, future research should investigate whether differences and similarities in ad interpretations exist across alcohol beverage categories (wine, distilled spirits, beer, malt-beverages) relative to alcohol moderation advertisements. Relative to the way the experiment was designed and administered, a couple of key limitations are apparent. First, the use of a convenient student sample is often criticized in academic research. Although the sample was deemed fit due to controversial relationship between college-aged consumers and the product category, future studies should attempt to investigate perceptions of alcohol moderation ads across a variety of audience segments, including inexperienced young or adolescent consumers and older, more experienced consumers. In addition, interpretation of alcohol moderation advertisements across other non-consumer audience segments should be investigated. Public health advocates, alcohol industry employees, and public policy makers are all viable target audiences for alcohol moderation advertisements. Measurement and comparison among audience segments will 76 lead to a greater understanding of how persuasive or effective this type of advertisement is. Second, the experiment was conducted on two successive Fridays and with subjects recruited from the same class. Hence, subjects that participated in the first session could have told others about the nature of the experiment and, therefore, somewhat biased the reactions of the second session participants. Secondly, a limitation that exists in many advertising experiments is that participants were exposed to the test ads in a contrived, unnatural setting. Future studies could explore ad interpretations in more realistic settings, such as embedding the ads in a magazine. There are a variety of other avenues that those interested in investigating alcohol moderation advertisements can take. One of the most revealing questions to ask is what does the phrase “drink responsibly” actually mean to different audience segments and how does this compare with what it means to the alcohol industry. Effectiveness and persuasiveness differences between alcohol-industry sponsored moderation advertisements and those in the form of a public service announcement (or campaign) should also be explored in future studies. Conclusions The primary purpose of this research was to contribute to the underdeveloped research stream relative to alcohol moderation advertising. The intent was to extend and build upon previous research efforts by: (1) examining 77 differences between alcohol moderation advertising and the traditional product- oriented alcohol advertising; (2) exploring a different modality of advertising; and, (3) incorporating more precise measures of advertising evaluative outcomes. In addition, individual level factors were explored to see if they impacted interpretations. The research supports the use of applying the organizational communication concept of strategic ambiguity, as it demonstrated that although participants had quite diverse interpretations of ad message content and ad purpose, participants still arrived at the same basic positive outcomes. Whether or not alcohol moderation messages are effective depends upon the nature of the advertiser’s specific advertising objectives, which at this point, are speculative, at best. The current study is but one experiment on alcohol industry sponsored responsible drinking campaigns, a relatively new and unexplored research domain. It does not answer the question of whether or not “drink responsibly” or “sensible drinking” messages are good or bad; nor does it answer the question of what kind of impact these messages have on alcohol consumption and alcohol- related behavior. Emblad (1995) argues that no clear lower threshold of risk-free alcohol drinking exists and that any message of moderation, unless it is “less is better,” may cause more societal harm than good. Clearly, more theoretically driven and empirical research is needed to address these controversial issues. 78 APPENDIX A 79 CONSENT FORM This study is to gain insight into your thoughts and feelings about the role of advertising, business ethics and corporate social responsibility. In addition, you will be asked for your opinion on a particular advertisement. The entire process of completing the questionnaire and reacting to the ad will take about 25-30 minutes to complete. It is important for you to understand that you may choose to discontinue your participation at any time. You may be exposed to advertising for a product that has age- restficted consumption. It is possible you may feel uncomfortable or anxious answering some survey questions. You have the right to choose not to answer any questions. However, by participating in this study, you might gain a better awareness of different advertising strategies and tactics used in a particular product category, as well as become more attuned to the issues of ethics and social responsibility in current business practices. Data that is collected from you will be held in the strictest confidence. No personally identifiable information will be used. This consent form will be removed and separated from your responses when you turn in your completed survey to further ensure your confidentiality. All results of this study will be reported in the aggregate. Your privacy is important and will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law. For questions about participants’ rights as human subjects of research, please contact Dr. Ashir Kumar, Chair of the University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects at 517-355-2180, or ucrihs@msu.edu. If you have specific questions about the study, you are encouraged to contact the primary investigator, J oAnn L. Roznowski, at 517-355- 5084, or via email at roznows3 @Lmsuedu. Thank you again for your participation. I indicate my voluntary agreement to participate by signing my consent below: Date: Month Date of 2002 Course and Instructor for Research/Extra Credit (e. g., ADV 123/ Smith): Your Name (Please Print): Your Signature: 80 rape-99‘ P‘Q‘i . Please indicate whether you agree or disagree with each of the following statements about advertising. The following scale is provided for you. Please indicate your answer by circling the appropriate number. Strongly Neither Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree/Disagree Agree Agree 1 2 3 4 5 Advertising is a good way to learn about what products and services are available. 1 2 3 4 5 Advertisements are all about the same when it comes to telling the truth. 1 2 3 4 5 Advertising results in better products for the public. 1 2 3 4 5 In general, advertising presents a true picture of the product advertised. 1 2 3 4 5 I often notice the tricks that advertisers play to get me to buy something. 1 2 3 4 5 Advertisers care more about getting you to buy things than what is good for you. 1 2 3 4 5 You can trust brands advertised more than brands that are not advertised. 1 2 3 4 5 Advertisements only tell the good things about a product; they don’t tell you the bad. 1 2 3 4 5 Advertising helps raise our standard of living. 1 2 3 4 5 Advertising helps me find products that match my personality and interests. 1 2 3 4 5 . Advertisements try to make people buy things they don’t need. 1 2 3 4 5 Advertising helps me to know which brands have the features I’m looking for. 1 2 3 4 5 . Advertising mostly tries to create imaginary differences between products that are similar. 1 2 3 4 5 . Advertising gives me a good idea about products by showing the people who use them. 1 2 3 4 5 . Advertising helps me buy the best brand for the price. 1 2 3 4 5 . Most advertising today is not about products, but about creating a mood. I 2 3 4 5 . Advertising today doesn’t give you as much information as it used to. 1 2 3 4 5 Advertising tells you more about the people who use the brand than what the brand does. 1 2 3 4 5 Most advertising tries to work on people’s emotions. I 2 3 4 5 There is a critical need for more truth in today’s advertising. 1 2 3 4 5 . Advertising does not show life as it really is. l 2 3 4 5 81 2. Please indicate whether you agree or disagree with each of the following statements about the role of ethics and social responsibility in business. The following scale is provided for you. Please indicate your response by circling the appropriate number. Strongly Disagree Somewhat Neither Somewhat Agree Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree or Agree Agree Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a. The ethics and social responsibility of a company are essential to its long-term profitability. l 2 3 4 5 6 7 b. Business ethics and social responsibility are critical to the survival of a business enterprise. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 c. The overall effectiveness of a business can be determined to a great extent by the degree to which it is ethical and socially responsible. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (1. Good ethics is often good business. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 C. Business has a social responsibility beyond making a profit. I 2 3 4 5 6 7 f. Corporate planning and goal-setting sessions should include discussions of ethics and social responsibility. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 g. Social responsibility and profitability can be compatible. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 h. Being ethical and socially responsible is the most important thing afirrncando. 1234567 i. The most important concern for a firm is making a profit, even if it means bending or breaking the rules. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 j. To remain competitive in a global environment, business firms will have to disregard ethics and social responsibility. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 k. If survival of a business enterprise is at stake, then you must forget about ethics and social responsibility. I 2 3 4 5 6 7 I. Efficiency is much more important to a firm than whether or not the firm is seen as ethical or socially responsible. l 2 3 4 5 6 7 m. If the stockholders of a company are unhappy, nothing else matters. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 82 3. Different companies support different social causes. Below are a few well-known companies and different social activities in which they could participate. For each company, please indicate if you would EXPECT these companies to participate activity listed. Circle Y for “YES,” N for “NO,” or NS for “NOT SURE.” Mobil Philip General Anheuser SOCIAL CAUSE Micro-soft Oil Morris Motors Nike - Busch Donating to the arts & Y N NS Y N NS Y N NS Y N NS Y N NS Y N NS theater Findingacure for YNNS YNNS YNNS YNNS YNNS YNNS diseases Clean air/clean water Y N NS Y N NS Y N NS Y N NS Y N NS Y N NS Diversity in the Y N NS Y N NS Y N NS Y N NS Y N NS Y N NS workplace Combating alcohol Y N NS Y N NS Y N NS Y N NS Y N NS Y N NS abuse Combating domestic Y N NS Y N NS Y N NS Y N NS Y N NS Y N NS violence Inner-city development Y N NS Y N NS Y N NS Y N NS Y N NS Y N NS Supporting recycling of Y N NS Y N NS Y N NS Y N NS Y N NS Y N NS products Sponsoring a sporting Y N NS Y N NS Y N NS Y N NS Y N NS Y N NS event Establishing Y N NS Y N NS Y N NS Y N NS Y N NS Y N NS Scholarships Aiding underdeveloped Y N NS Y N NS Y N NS Y N NS Y N NS Y N NS countries Supporting safe driving Y N NS Y N NS Y N NS Y N NS Y N NS Y N NS initiatives Sponsoring activities in 83 4. Below are a number of product/service categories. Using the scales provided rate (A) how socially acceptable or unacceptable each product/service category is to ypu personally, and (B) whether or not advertising for the product/service is acceptable. Please circle your answers. The following scale is provided for you: The product/service category is... AND Advertising for this product is... Completely Somewhat No Somewhat Completely Unacceptable Unacceptable Opinion Acceptable Acceptable 1 2 3 4 5 PRODUCT ADVERTISING CATEGORY FOR PRODUCT Gasoline 1 4 l 3 4 Nuclear energy Motor oil Insurance for home/automotive Life insurance Financial - debt consolidation Financial - home mortgages Financial — credit cards Tobacco — cigarettes Tobacco - cigars/chew Alcohol - beer Alcohol —— hard liquor . Alcohol - wine Sugar substitutes Condoms Birth control Prescription drugs Gambling - casinos Gambling — state lotteries Firearms — hand guns Firearms — assault weapons Funeral services . Attorney services — divorce counseling Attorney services - injury counseling Adult entertainment — movies Dietary supplements aa. Feminine hygiene products bb. Armed forces recruitment cc. Bio-engineered foods sack2serenepcpacr‘r'r'ewwceecc ._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._..._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._. NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN C.)wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwuwwwwwwwwwwww hAA-hbk-hAhA-bhhhhbbb-hbhhbkhA-bh mummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm I—II—Il—i—‘_—d_lI—I—u—i~—d——i_u—l—fi—tl—i~dh—D—~_u—I—i—— NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN wwoowwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwuw bah-I5A-k-hA-bAhhbhhbhbhhbkbhbhhhh LITLITt/ILIILITUIUIMU’IUIMl/tMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 84 V Please examine the ad on the next page for a minute or two, or as long as you normally would when flipping through a magazine. The following questions are related to this particular advertisement. 5. What type of product/product category was being advertised in the ad? (Please indicate your answer by placing a “X” in the appropriate box). I] Beer El Soft Drink [1 Hard Liquor/Distilled Spirit [3 Wine El Malt Beverage [I Don’t Know/Can’t Tell 6. Below is a list of reasons or pupposes that the advertiser may give for running the ad you just viewed. Using the scale provided, please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with each statement. The following scale is provided for you. Strongly Not Strongly Agree Agree Sure Disagree Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 The purpose of the ad was... a. To improve the company’s image. 1 2 3 4 5 b. To promote product usage. 1 2 3 4 5 c. To make it appear they are concerned about use of their product. 1 2 3 4 5 d. To avoid government regulation. 1 2 3 4 5 e. To make more money. 1 2 3 4 5 f. To avoid being blamed for related problems of product consumption. 1 2 3 4 5 g. To prevent undesirable social behavior. 1 2 3 4 5 h. To sell more of their product. I 2 3 4 5 i. To persuade people to avoid a potentially dangerous situation. 1 2 3 4 5 j. Because they really are concerned about how consumers use their products. 1 2 3 4 5 7. Of the choices listed above, which do you think is the PRIMARY reason for running the ad you just saw (Please write in the letter of ONLY ONE of the above choices in question 6): 8. How likely are you to purchase the product/brand in the advertisement? I definitely intend to purchase the product/brand I probably intend to purchase the product/brand I’m undecided I definitely don’t intend to purchase the product/brand DUDE] 85 9. How familiar are you with the product/brand in the advertisement? El I am very familiar with the product/brand D I am somewhat familiar with the product/brand El I am not at all familiar with the product/brand 10. Below is a list of messages that may or may not have been implied in the ad you just viewed. Using the scale provided, please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with each statement. The following scale is provided for you. Strongly Not Agree Agree Sure Disagree 1 2 3 4 The advertisement implied that 11. j. Clear Drinking alcohol is fun. The people in the ad have had too much to drink. People who drink have lots of friends. People should be responsible when they drink. It is socially acceptable to get drunk on occasion. Making a night of drinking is all right. You have more fun when you drink. crevice-9.0:!» NNNNNNN Strongly Disagree wwwwwww 5 ##«h-fiA-k-b MMMMMMM Below is a set of word pairs. For each pair, please mark an “X” in the space that best reflects your thoughts and feelings about the advertisement you just saw: Good THE ADVERTISEMENT Interesting Unpleasant Likable Unattractive Trustworthy Uninformative Believable Reset-spec 9‘!» Not at all effective 86 Bad Boring Pleasant Unlikeable Attractive Untrustworthy Informative Unbelievable Effective Vague Ill-":- III 5-! w«1. - - i , 12. Below is a set of word pairs. For each pair, please mark an “X” in the space that 13. best reflects your thoughts and feelings about the brand, SMIRNOFF, advertised in the ad you saw: SMIRNOFF a. Good ' ' ° Bad b. Boring : : : : : : Interesting c. Pleasant : : : : : : Unpleasant d. Undesirable : : : : : : Desirable e. Usual : : : : : : Unusual f. Unfavorable : : : : : : Favorable g. Harmful : : : : : : Beneficial h. Worthless : : : : : : Valuable i. Intelligent : : : : : : Unintelligent j. Superior : : : : : : Inferior Please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with the following statements. The following scale is provided for you: Strongly Agree Somewhat Neither Somewhat Disagree Strongly Agree Agree Agree/ Disagree Disagree Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a. The company behind the product in the ad has a great amount of experience 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 b. The company behind the product in the ad is skilled in whattheydo 1234567 c. The company behind the product in the ad has great expertise 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 d. The company behind the product in the ad does not have much experience 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 e. Itrust the company behind the product in the ad 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 f. The company behind the product in the ad makes truthful claims 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 g. The company behind the product in the ad is honest I 2 3 4 5 6 7 h. Ido not believe what the company tells me 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 87 14. 15. 16. l7. 18. What do the words “Drink Responsibly” mean to you? Exactly how many drinks do you believe companies are recommending you consume in one sitting when they suggest you “drink responsibly”? Please indicate your answer by circling ONE number below or check the box for “I’m not sure”. 6 or more 5 4 3 2 1 0 I’m not sure In the last seven days, how often did you consume alcoholic beverages (including wine, beer, and hard liquor)? Every day of the week 5-6 times 24 times Once Never SUEDE} Was the last seven days a typical week for you? D Yes D No, I usually drink less than I did last week [3 No, I usually drink more than I did last week In the last four weeks, did you ever drink more than 5 alcoholic beverages in one sitting? D Yes D No D I’m not sure 88 19. Please write in your age: 20. Please check your gender: M 21. Please write in your ethnic background: 22. Please write in your academic major: Thank you for participating in this study. Please return this booklet to the attendant. 89 J‘ 1: I .A 1‘} iv r h - I ‘ APPENDIX B 90 91 HUMP? a. x. 1‘) ,u T.) A OI ADI W! CIT PAST 01.”! 67M DOORMAN OF THE EVENlNC. SEE WHERE IT TAKES YOU “(far to Ciri'k res Ohéib W 93 i. - .‘sfi‘i‘i ’ -h"\(§;¥ Make i! a High! you won'l forgei, nol: one you can“! remember. 94 REFERENCES Abramson, Jill (1991) “Selling Moderation: Alcohol Industry is at Forefront of Efforts to Curb Drunkenness,” The Wall fleet Journal, May 21, A1. Agostinelli, Gina and Joel W. Grube (2002) “Alcohol Counter Advertising and the Media: A Review of Recent Research,” Alcohol Research & Health, 26 (1), 15-21. Alwitt, Linda F. and Paul R. Prabhaker (1992) “Functional and Belief Dimensions of Attitudes to Television Advertising,” J_ogrnal of AdLertising Research, 32 (5), 30-42. Andsager, Julie L., Erica Weintraub Austin, and Bruce E. Pinkleton (2001) “Questioning the Value of Realism: Young Adults’ Processing of Messages in Alcohol-Related Public Service Announcements and Advertising,” Jggrnal of Communication 51 (1) 121-142. Atkin, Charles K., Sandi W. Smith, and Steven Robbins (1992) “Diversity of Audience Responses to Strategically Ambiguous Alcohol Campaigns," paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, May 1992, Miami, FL. Austin, E.W and B. Nach-Ferguson (1995) “Sources and Influences of Young School-Age Children’s General and Brand-specific Knowledge about Alcohol,” Health Communication 7, 1-20. Bagozzi, Richard P. and David J. Moore (1994) “Public Service Advertisements: Emotions and Empathy Guide Prosocial Behavior,” Journal of Marketing, 58(1), 56-70. Barlow, Todd and Michael S. Wogalter (1993) “Alcoholic Beverage Warnings in Magazine and Television Advertising,” Journal of Consumer Research, 20 (1), 147-156. Beatty, Sally G. (1997) “Nipped in the Bud: How the Beer Industry Uses TV Ads to Mollify Critics, Buff Its Image,” Wall Street Journal, August 14, A1. Beaver, William (1997) “What to do about Alcohol Advertising,” Business Horizons 40, 87-91. Belch, George E. and Michael A. Belch (2001) Advertising and Promotion: Ag Integrated Marketing Commnications Perspective. 5 edition, New York: McGraw Hill. Boush, David M., Marian Friestad, and Gregory M. Rose (1994) “Adolescent Skepticism Toward TV Advertising and Knowledge of Advertiser Tactics,” J_ogrnal of Consmr Resegch, 21 (1), 165-75. Brown, Elizabeth A. (1991) “Alcohol Industry Tries New Image: Critics Remain Skeptical of Beer and Liquor Producers’ Efforts to Respond to Anti- Drinking Tide,” Christia:n Science Monitor. July 19, 12. 95 C/a Cor Critt Cutll Dav DeJ DeJ Brown, Steven P. and Douglas M. Stayman (1992) “Antecedents and Consequences of Attitude toward the Ad: A Meta-Analysis,” Journal of Consumer Resejarch. 19 (1), 34-51. Brown, Tom J. & Peter A. Dacin (1997) “The Company and the Product: Corporate Associations and Consumer Product Responses,” Journal of Marketing, 61 (1), 68-84. Burke, Marian C. and Julie A. Edell (1989) “The Impact of Feelings on Ad-Based Affect and Cognitions,” Journal of MarketiLq Research. 26 (Feb), 69-83. Calfee, John E. and Debra Jones Ringold (1994) “The 70% Majority: Enduring Consumer Beliefs About Advertising,” J_o_t_rrnal of Pubjc Policy & Marketing, 13 (2), 228-238. Callahan, Sean (2002) “Alcohol’s TV FIirtation More than a Threat,” Advertising Age, 73 (9) March 4, S12. Caminiti, S. (1992) “The Payoff from a Good Reputation,” Fortune, 125 (3), February 10, 73-77. Christie, Jennifer, Dan Fisher, John C. Kozup, Scott Smith, Scot Burton, and Elizabeth H. Creyer (2001) “The Effects of Bar-Sponsored Alcohol Beverage Promotions Across Binge and Nonbinge Drinkers,” Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 20 (2), 240-253. Clampitt, Philip G. (2000) Communicating for Managerial Effectivenefi, CA: Sage Publications. Contractor, NS. and MC. Ehrlich (1993) “Strategic Ambiguity in the Birth of a Loosely Coupled Organization: The Case of a $50-million Experiment,” Management Commlunication Q_uarterly, 6, 251-281. Crites, Stephen L. Jr, Leandre R. Fabrigar, and Richard E. Petty (1994) “Measuring the Affective and Cognitive Properties of Attitudes: Conceptual and Methodological Issues,” Personality ang_SociaI Psychology Bulletin, 20 (December), 619—634. Cutler, Bob D. and Edward G. Thomas (1994) “’This is Your Brain on Drugs’: A Review of the Marketing Literature on Alcohol/Drug Abuse,” Health Marketing Quarterly, 11 (3/4), 9-25. Davidson, D.K. (1996) Selling Sin: The Marketingof Socially Unacceptable Products Westport: CT, Quorom. DeJong, William (2002) “The Role of Mass Media Campaigns in Reducing High- Risk Drinking Among College Students,” Journal of Stu!dies on Alcohol. Supplement 14, 182-192. DeJong, William, Charles K. Atkin, and Lawrence Wallack (1992) “A Critical Analysis of ‘Moderation’ Advertising Sponsored by the Beer Industry: Are ‘Responsible Drinking’ Commercials Done Responsibly?” The MiIbank Quarterly, 70 (4), 661-677. 96 Math? ~_.. Dillard, James Price and Eugenia Peck (2000) “Affect and Persuasion: Emotional Responses to Public Service Announcements,” Communication Research. 27 (4), 461-495. Eisenberg, Eric M. (1984) “Ambiguity as Strategy in Organizational Communication,” Communicgtion Monographs, 51 (4), 227-242. ----- and H.L. Goodall Jr. (1993) Organizational Communicationszalancing Creativity and Constraint, New York: St. Martin's Press. Ellison, R. Curtis (1998) “Moderate Drinking is Beneficial for Human Health,” in eds. Leone, Stalcup and Barbour, Alcohol: OpQSIng Viewpoints, San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press, Inc. Emblad, Hans (1995) “What Would Happen in the World if ‘Sensible Drinking’ was Adopted as a Reasonable Concept and Advertised Universally?” Addiction 90, 169-171. Fombrun, CJ (1996) Reputation: Realizing Value From the Corporate Image, Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Fox, Richard J., Dean M. Krugman, James E. Fletcher and Paul M. Fischer (1998) “Adolescents’ Attention to Beer and Cigarette Print Ads and Associated Product Warnings,” Journal of AgLenising, 27(3), 57-68. Fueroghne, Dean K. (2000) Law and Advertising, Chicago, IL: The Copy Shop. Gerbner, George (1995) “Alcohol in American Culture,” in ed. S.E. Martin 1333 Effects of the Mass Media on 4Use and Abuse of Alcohol. Bethesda, MD: National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 3-29. Glassman, James K. (1997) “Next Target: Liquor Companies?” U.S. Ngws a_ng Work; Report, 123 (July 7), 57. Goetzl, David (2002) “Malt Drinks Boon for Cable, Sports,” Advertising Age, 73 (12), 26. Goldsmith, Ronald E., Barbara A. Lafferty, and Stephen J. Newell (2000) “The Impact of Corporate Credibility and Celebrity Credibility on Consumer Reaction to Advertisements and Brands,” Journal of Advertising,_ 29 (3), 43-54. Gordis, Enoch (1995) “Foreword,” in The Effects of Mass Media on the Use and Ampse of Alcohol. National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, Research Monograph 28. Gregory, JR (1991) Marketing Corporate Image: The Companv A_§ Yopr Number One Product Lincolnwood, IL: NTC Business Books. Grube, Joel W. and Lawrence Wallack (1994) “Television Beer Advertising and Drinking Knowledge, Beliefs and Intentions Among Schoolchildren,” American Journal of Ppplic Health, 84, 254-259. Grube, Joel W. and Gina Agostinelli (2002) “Alcohol Advertising and Alcohol Consumption: A Review of Recent Research,” paper under review. 97 Ha, Young-Won and Stephen J. Hoch (1989) “Ambiguity, Processing Strategy and Advertising-Evidence Interactions,” Journal of Consumer Research 16 (3), 354-360. Hair, Joseph F. Jr, Rolph E. Anderson, Ronald L. Tatham, and William C. Black (1995) Multivariate Data Analysis with Readings, 4th edition, New York: Prentice Hall. ‘ Hatch, David (2002) “Report: PSAs Air in Worst Daypart,” Electronic Megja, 21(Feb 25), 6. Haley, Russel l. and Allan L. Baldinger (1991) “The ARF Copy Research Validity Project,” Journal of Agvertising Research. 31 (2), 11-32. Hilton, Michael E. (1993) “An Overview of Recent Findings on Alcoholic Beverage Warning Labels,” Journal of PIQIIC Policy & Marketing, 12 (1), 1- 9. Hitchon, Jacqueline, Peter Duckler, and Esther Thorson (1994) “Effects of Ambiguity and Complexity on Consumer Response to Music Video Commercials,” Journal of Broadcast and Electronic Media 38 (3), 289- 306. Hoch, Stephen J. and Young-Won Ha (1986) “Consumer Learning: Advertising and the Ambiguity of Product Experience,” Journal of Consumer Research 13 (3), 221-232. Hunter, J.E. and D. W Gerbing(1982) “Machiavellian beliefs and personality: Construct invalidity of the machavellianism dimension,” Journal of Personality fl Social Psychology, 43, 1293 - 1305. Johlke, Mark C. and Dale F. Duhan (2001) “Supervisor Communication Practices and Boundary Spanner Role Ambiguity,” Journal of Managerial Issues 13(1), 87-101. ----, ---, Roy D. Howell, and Robert W. Wilkes (2000) “An Integrated Model of Sales Managers’ Communication Practices,” Journal (fire Acagamv of Marketing Science, 28 (2), 263-277. Kelemen, Mihaela (2000) “Too Much or Too Little Ambiguity: The Language of Total Quality Management,” The Journal of Management Studies, 37 (4), 483-498. King, Karen Whitehall, Leonard N. Reid, and Amy L. Becham (1994) “Themes and Verbal Claims in Cigarette and Alcohol Beverage Ads,” Journal of Current Issues and Research in Afirtising, 16 (2), 73-88. Laczniak, Russell N. and Darrel D. Muehling (1993) “The Relationship Between Experimental Manipulations and Tests of Theory in an Advertising Message Involvement Context,” Journal of Advertising, 22 (3), 59-74. 98 Lafferty, Barbara and Ronald E. Goldsmith (1999) “ Corporate Credibility’s Role in Consumers” Attitudes and Purchase Intentions When a High Versus Low Credibility Endorser is Used in the Ad,” Journal of Business Research 44, 109-116. Lavack, Anne M. (1999) “Message Content of Alcohol Moderation TV Commercials: Impact of Corporate versus Nonprofit Sponsorship,” Health Marketing Quarterly, 16(4), 15-31. Lantos, Geoffrey P. (1987) “Advertising: Looking Glass or Molder of the Masses?” _Jppmal of Pu_blic Policy aha Marketing, 6, 23-47. Lee, L. (1997) “Company Thinks Old Reputation May Be Better Than None at All,” Wall Street Journal, April 1, B1. Licata, Jane W., Abhijit Biwas, and Balaji C. Krishnan (1998) “Ambiguity and Exaggeration in Price Promotion: Perceptions of the Elder and NonElder Consumer,” The Jopmal of Conspmer Affairs, 32 (1), 56-81. Lutz, Richard J., Scott MacKenzie, and George Belch (1983) “Attitude Toward the Ad as a Mediator of Advertising Effectiveness: Determinants and Consequences,” Mvancea in Consumpr Research 10, 532-539. Lynn, Jerry R. (1973) “Perception of Public Service Advertising: Source, Message and Receiver Effects,” Jpprnalism Quarterly, 50 (4), 673-79; 689. Mackenzie, Scott and Richard J. Lutz (1989) “An Empirical Examination of the Structural Antecedents of Attitude Toward the Ad in an Advertising Pretesting Context,” Mrnal of Marketing,_ 53 (2), 48-65. Maignan, Isabelle (2001) “Consumers’ Perceptions of Corporate Social Responsibilities: A Cross-Cultural Comparison,” Journal of Bpsineaa Ethics, 30, 57-72. Markham, Annette (1996) “Designing Discourse: A Critical Analysis of Strategic Ambiguity and Workplace Control,” Management Communication Quarterly, 9, 389-422. Miller, Katherine, Lori Joseph and Julie Apker (2000) “Strategic Ambiguity in the Role Development Process,” Journal of Applied Communication Research 28 (3), 193-214. Mitchell, Andrew A. and Jerry C. Olson (1981) “Are Product Attribute Beliefs the Only Mediator of Advertising Effects on Brand Attitude?” Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (3), 318-332. Mohr, Lois A., Deborah J. Webb, and Katharine E. Harris (2001) “Do Consumers Expect Companies to be Socially Responsible? The Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility on Buying Behavior,” J_oanaI of Conspmer Affairs. 35 (1), 45-72. 99 Muehling, Darrel D. and Michelle McCann (1993) “Attitude Toward the Ad: A Review,” Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising,_ 15 (2) 25-58. Newell, Stephen J. and Ronald E. Goldsmith (2001) “The Development of a Scale to Measure Perceived Corporate Credibility,” Journal of Business Research 52, 235-247. Ognianova, Ekaterina and Esther Thorson (1997) “Associations Between Drunk Driving PSAs, Alcohol Moderation Ads and Safe Driving Behaviors,” Proceedings of the Conference of the American Academy of Advertising, 8—1 9. Ohanian, Roobina (1990) “Construction and Validation of a Scale to Measure Celebrity Endorsers’ Perceived Expertise, Trustworthiness, and Attractiveness,” Journal of Advertising, 19 (3), 39-52. O’Keefe, Daniel J. (1990) Peratgasion: Theory and Research Thousand Oaks: CA, Sage Publications. Patterson, Larry T., Garland G. Hunnicutt, and Mary Ann Stutts (1992) “Young Adults’ Perceptions of Warnings and Risks Associated with Alcohol Consumption,” Journal of Public Policy & Marketi_ng, 11 (1), 96-103. Paul, Jim and Christy A. Strbiak (1997) “The Ethics of Strategic Ambiguity,” T_he_ Journal of @siness Communication, 34 (2), 149-159. Petty, Richard E., Duane T. Wegener, and Leandre R. Fabrigar (1997) “Attitudes and Attitude Change, Annual Review of Pavchology, 48, 609-47. Reid, Leonard N. and Karen Whitehall King (1986) “The Characteristics of Anti- Drinking and Driving PSAs,” Proceedings of the Conference of the American Academy of Advertising: R103-R106. Robin, Donald P. and R. Eric Reidenbach (1987) “Social Responsibility, Ethics, and Marketing Strategy: Closing the Gap Between Concept and Application,” Journal of Marketing, 51 (1), 44-58. Rossiter, John R. (1977) “Reliability of a Short Test Measuring Children’s Attitudes Toward TV Commercials,” Jpprnal pf Conspmer Research 3 (4), 179-84. Saffer, Henry (1996) “Studying the Effects of Alcohol Advertising on Consumption,” Alcohol Health am! Reseflh Worla, 20 (4), 266-72. Sellnow, Timothy L. and Robert R. Ulmer (1995) “Ambiguous Argument as Advocacy in Organizational Crisis Communication,” Argumentation and Advocacy, 31 (3), 138-150. Shimp, Terence A. (1978) “Do Incomplete Comparisons Mislead?” Journal of AdvertisingResearch 18 (6), 21-27. IOO Singhapakdi, Anusorn, Scott J. Vitell, Kumar C. Rallapalli, and Kenneth L. Kraft (1996) “The Perceived Role of Ethics and Social Responsibility: A Scale Development,” Journal of Business Ethics, 15, 1131-1140. Slater, Michael D. (1999) “Drinking and Driving PSAs: A Content Analysis of Behavioral Influence Strategies,” Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education, 44 (3), 68-81. Slater, M., D. Rouner, K. Murphy, F. Beauvis, J. K. Van Leuven, and Marie Domenech-Rodriquez (1996) “Adolescent Perceptions of Underage Drinkers in TV Beer Ads,” Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education, 42, 43- 56. Smart, Reginald G. (1988) “Does Alcohol Advertising Affect Overall Consumption? A Review of Empirical Studies,” Journal of Sttflies on Alcohol 49 (4), 314-323. Smith, N. Craig and Elizabeth Coopet-Martin (1997) “Ethics and Target Marketing: The Role of Product Harm and Consumer Vulnerability,” Jyrnal of Marketi_ng, 61 (3), 1-20. Snyder, Leslie B. and Deborah J. Blood (1992) “Caution: Alcohol Advertising and the Surgeon General’s Alcohol Warnings May Have Adverse Effects on Young Adults,” Journal of Appkd Comflmication Research, 20 (1 ), 37- 53. Thorson, Esther (1995) “Studies of the Effects of Alcohol Advertising: Two Underexplored Aspects,” in ed. S.E. Martin The Effects of the Ma§s Medi on Use and Abuse of Ajcghol. Bethesda, MD: National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 159-195. Treise, Debbie, Joyce M. Wolburg, and Cele C. Otnes (1999) “Understanding the ‘Social Gifts’ of Drinking Rituals: An Alternative Framework for PSA Developers,” Journal of Agvertising, 29 (2), 17-31. Ulmer, Robert R. and Timothy L. Sellnow (2000) “Consistent Questions of Ambiguity in Organizational Crisis Communication: Jack in the Box as a Case Study,” Journal of Businfis Ethica, 25 (2), 143-155. ----- (1997) “Strategic Ambiguity and the Ethic of Significant Choice in the Tobacco Industry’s Crisis Communication,” Commanication Studies 48, 215-233. Varadarajan, P. Rajan and Anil Menon (1988) “Cause-Related Marketing: A Coalignment of Marketing Strategy and Corporate Philanthropy,” Journal of Marketing, 52 (3), 58-74. Weintraub-Austin, Erica, Bruce Pinkleton, and Yuki Fujioka (1999) “Assessing ProSociaI Message Effectiveness: Effects of Message Quality, Production Quality and Persuasiveness,” Jpprnal of Health Communication 4(3), 195-210. lOl Wolburg, Joyce M. (2001) “The “Risky Business’ of Binge Drinking Among College Students: Using Risk Models for PSAs and Anti-Drinking Campaigns,” Journal of AdLvertising, 30 (4), 23-39. Woodside, Arch G. (1999) “Advertising and Consumption of Alcoholic Beverages,” Journal of Consumer Paychology, 8 (2), 167-86. Zinkhan, George M. (1994) “Advertising Ethics: Emerging Methods and Trends,” Journal of Adtvertising, 23 (3), 1—4. ----- , William B. Locander, and James H. Leigh (1986) “Dimensional Relationships of Aided Recall and Recognition,” Journal of Advertising, 15 (1), 38-46. 102