:3;
¢
.7

3‘
1-

2%.”

$3
I

 

 

 

 

 

:1 F
1:23;. :1
3 rdwltix

.fl
‘

‘p-o-oueq.
o

If

EEEE s. , , E _.. wagfifififigx

I). it:«

 

r1

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

PSYCHOLOGICAL REACTANCE AND
BRANDED PRODUCT PLACEMENT

presented by

SUSAN CHANG

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

Doctoral degree in Mass Media

 

Ger/ {a SeQeeg‘

 

Major Professor’s Signature

(lugwt Ivjcbe
Date

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

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
rm 0 6 2007 rm 3 2W

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2/05 clam. “Tm-175‘

PSYCHOLOGICAL REACTANCE AND BRANDED PRODUCT PLACEMENT
By

Susan Chang

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Mass Media

2005

ABSTRACT
PSYCHOLOGICAL REACTANCE AND BRANDED PRODUCT PLACEMENT
By
Susan Chang

This dissertation extends Psychological Reactance to branded product placement
in entertainment media by investigating the relationships between Psychological
Reactance, saturation levels of branded products within a television program, profit goals
of the brand’s source, recall, branded product placement attitudes, and purchase intention.

Psychological Reactance says that individuals may act counter to the intended
effects of communication messages because audiences are motivated to restore any
threats made to their freedom to control their own behaviors (Brehm 1966; Brehm &
Brehm, 1981). The theory has been applied to several mass media and communication
contexts such as the censorship of mass media messages (Bushman & Stack, 1996) and
consumer responses to product scarcity (Clee & Wicklund, 1980), but it has not been
applied to branded product placement in entertainment media.

The cost of producing entertainment media is often not inexpensive and requires
creative fundraising from marketing departments. Branded product placement
partnerships have been one way for producers to fund media projects, while marketers
gain consumer awareness or generate potential sales. Quinn and Kivijarv (2005)
estimated that branded product placement spending reached $3.46 billion in 2004 and
project it to reach $6.94 billion in 2009. The overabundance of placements has had
positive and negative effects: while audiences become aware of brands, their overt

presentation may trigger Psychological Reactance.

As a captive audience member, one does not have the freedom of choosing the
content of entertainment media that he is exposed to or the advertisers who sponsor the
programming. Unlike traditional television commercials, brands placed within the
content of entertainment programming cannot be fast-forwarded through. Thus, the
audience’s freedom to skip through advertising messages cannot be avoided and risks the
types of audience backlash as predicted by Psychological Reactanee.

This dissertation seeks to understand how the relationship between Psychological
Reactanee. saturation levels of branded product placements within a television program,
and the profit goal of the branded product placement source might influence audience
attitudes. A conceptual model was proposed to test the effects of Psychological
Reactanee. saturation, and the profit goal of the placement source on brand recall,
participant attitudes, and purchase intention of the inserted brand.

Using an undergraduate student sample (N=498), this study employed a 3 X 6
independent-groups quasi-experimental study that varied the profit goal of the source and
the saturation level of the branded products digitally inserted within a television program.
The results of a hierarchical regression technique found that there were significant effects
between levels of branded product placement saturation, participant knowledge about the
source’s profit goal, and brand recall. While some attitudes were impacted by the
interaction between saturation levels and profit goals, Psychological Reactance was only
significant at step one, suggesting moderating effects. The three-way interaction was
found to positively affect participants’ intention to purchase the branded product

Implications for the theory of Psychological Reactance and the industry, as well

as suggestions for future research are discussed.

Copyright
SUSAN CHANG
2005

To my Mommy, Daddy, and sister with love.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

In Hollywood, stars are created with the help of a team of fashion designers, hair
stylists, and make-up artists. While it is fairly certain that I will never experience this
phenomenon, this dissertation would have been impossible without a team comprised of
my supportive family, friends, faculty, and staff members who have made this journey
not only worthwhile, but warmly memorable.

My parents, Shen-nan and Wen-chieun, have supported me wholeheartedly and
lovingly even before the day that I was born. I could not be the person that I am today
without their genes, guidance, patience, and reminders to love your work. My “baby”
sister, Nancy, can never do any wrong in my eyes — and vice versa. This is perhaps what
makes me love her so very much.

When I put together my committees, I wanted a group of scholars who not only
had high standards, but would expect nothing but excellence from me. I am proud of the
brilliant team assembled and will be eternally grateful for the knowledge that l have
gained, the training that l have received, and the laughter that made this enlightening
process enjoyable. I give a heartfelt thank you and sincere note of appreciation to Dr.
Charles T. Salmon. My loudest and most earnest cheerleader and supporter in the College
of Communication Arts and Sciences before I even arrived on campus, I am particularly
grateful for his continued patience, eternal kindness, sage advice, and gentle mercy. My
education would not have been complete (nor as much fun) without Dr. Ronald C.
Tamborini. His tireless efforts to educate me so that I might be “less ignorant” have made

me a better scholar at the end of this journey. I could not have completed this degree

vi

without the consistent moral support from Dr. William A. Donohue, someone as
supportive as Dr. Hairong Li, and a role model as inspirational as Dr. Pamela S. Whitten.

This project has allowed for me to connect with industry leaders who are much
more knowledgeable about branded product placement and entertainment media than me.
Their willingness to fit my needs into their already busy schedules has renewed my spirit
that not all for-profit organizations are selfish and driven by the power of the dollar — or,
in some cases, the pound. I thank Allan Jaenicke from Imagineer in Guildford, England
for his patience in teaching me about Monet software to help me create the stimulus. To
Matt Osbourne, a talented editor who put in the time on this project for me when it really
counted, 1 thank you. The generosity of Eric Wright at Joyce Julius and Associates, Inc.
has provided me with a personal sense of “value.”

Aside from my family, James Ramos, Mariko Morimoto, and Vickie VanHurley
often heard my cry for help before I uttered a sound. Without the encouraging phone calls
and enthusiastic greeting cards throughout the doctoral process from James, I would still
be just hoping to one day be “ABD.” My similarities in work ethic, philosophies about
human nature, and a common belief of how people should be treated have linked me very
closely to Mariko and Vickie. Without my “girls,” I am Certain that I would not have
been able to endure the long cold winters and hot humid summers of Michigan. I have
felt the warmth from their hearts and the cool relief of sisterhood when my academic or
personal life threatened to weaken my spirit and soul. A special note of appreciation to
Mariko: I am indebted to you for your endless patience in teaching me about statistics

and being my soundboard for research methods.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................... x
LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................. xii
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................ 1
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................ 10
Psychological Reactance .................................................................... 10
Major Constructs and Assumptions ............................................ l3
Outcomes of Psychological Reactance ........................................ l7
Psychological Reactance as a Stable Trait .................................... 20
Other Theories and Concepts Related to Psychological Reactance 23
Further Understanding of Psychological Reactance .......................... 26
Extending the Theory of Psychological Reactance to Message Source 30
Product Placement ........................................................................... 34
Defining “Branded Product Placement” ....................................... 36
Industry Agenda ................................................................... 39
Product Placement and Theories: Academic Research ....................... 4l
Studying Product Placement: Direct Effects ................................... 42
Measured Outcomes of Product Placement .................................... 47
The Ethical Nature of Product Placement ....................................... 50
Advertising Clutter and Wearout ........................................................... 52
Moving Beyond the Direct Effects of Branded Product Placement ................... 62
Research Questions and Preposed Conceptual Model .................................. 63
CHAPTER 3
METHOD .......................................................................................... 67
Procedure ...................................................................................... 67
Participants .................................................................................... 68
Pilot Test ....................................................................................... 69
Main Experiment ............................................................................. 69
Stimulus ............................................................................ 70
Independent Variables ....................................................................... 72
Saturation Level ................................................................... 72
Profit Goal of the Source ......................................................... 75
Measures ....................................................................................... 76
Pilot Study ......................................................................... 76
Main Study ......................................................................... 83

viii

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS .......................................................................................... 89

CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSION .................................................................................... 108
Theoretical Implications ..................................................................... 1 I 1
Practical Implications ........................................................................ l 13
Limitations and Future Studies ............................................................. 1 l4

APPENDICIES .................................................................................... l 17

REFERENCES .................................................................................... 150

ix

Table 1:

Table 2:

Table 3:

Table 4:

Table 5:

Table 6:

Table 7:

Table 8:

Table 9:

Table 10:

Table 1 1:

Table 12:

Table 13:

Table 14:

Table 15:

Table 16:

Table 17:

Table 18:

Table 19:

LIST OF TABLES

Major constructs and assumptions of the theory of Psychological Reactance
(Brehm, 1966; Brehm & Brehm, 1981) ........................................... 17

Experimental design and variables, including n values for the main study 67

Saturation level of branded product placement inserts .......................... 75
Measured variables for main study ................................................ 77
Measured variables according to study ............................................ 78
Values for 11, means, and standard deviations of measured variables ......... 89
Correlation matrix for measured variables ........................................ 90
Model summary for unaided brand recall ......................................... 92
Coefficient table for unaided brand recall ......................................... 93
Model summary for aided brand recall ............................................ 94
Coefficient table for aided brand recall ........................................... 95
Model summary for attitudes toward branded product placement ............ 96
Coefficient table for attitudes toward branded product placement ............ 97
Model summary for attitudes toward Chiquita ................................... 99
Coefficient table for attitudes toward Chiquita ................................... 100
Model summary for attitudes toward 5 A Day ................................... 101
Coefficient table for attitudes toward 5 A Day ................................... 102
Model summary for attitudes toward Chiquita bananas ......................... 104
Coefficient table for attitudes toward Chiquita bananas ........................ 105

Table 20: Model summary for purchase intention of Chiquita bananas ................... 106
Table 21: Coefficient table for purchase intention of Chiquita bananas .................. 107

Table 22: Dollar estimates of inserted Chiquita brand
from Joyce Julius Associates, Inc. ................................................. 1 16

xi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Proposed conceptual model for independent and dependent variables ....... 66
Figure 2: Inserted billboard for for-profit source of branded product placement ....... 72
Figure 3: Inserted billboard for non-profit source of branded product placement ...... 73

Figure 4: Inserted Chiquita logo seen on the banana of the stand and the sign on the

banana stand .......................................................................... 73
Figure 5: Inserted Chiquita logo seen on the refrigerator .................................. 74
Figure 6: Inserted Chiquita logo seen on the shirt ........................................... 74

xii

INTRODUCTION
Int. bedroom - Morning

A WES TCLOX ALA RM CLOCK sitting on a nightstand buzzes. It shows the time
to be 7:00AM. Next to the alarm clock is the book, “MEN ARE FROM MARS,
WOMEN ARE FROM VENUS, " a half empty box of HOS TESS C UPCAKES with
several empty wrappers, a half-empty bottle of A QUAF INA water, an almost-
empty box of KLEENEX, and a pile of crumpled up tissues.

A well-manicured hand with a natural colored nail polish slams down on the
clock as Isabel, blonde and 21, rolls over in bed and throws back the POLO
RALPH LA UREN down comforter. She is wearing a sleep-shirt with the cartoon
characters from ANI MA NIA CS silk-screened on it.

Pulling herself out of bed, Isabel turns on the SONY RADIO just as the DJ
announces that BLACK E Y ED PEAS will be making a local appearance at
MADISON SQUARE GARDEN.

Int. bedroom - Continuous

Isabel stands in_ front ofthe bathroom sink and squeezes some CREST
WHITENING TOOTHPAS TE onto her ORAL B TOOTHBRUSH.

Brushing her teeth, we see Isabel ’s reflection in the bathroom mirror above the
sink. We also see a stack of pink flufly bath towels, SECRET deodorant, A VEDA
hair products, a C ONAIR hair dryer, and hairbrushes. Isabel grabs the skin
around her stomach. She rolls her eyes and rinses her mouth out.

Int. walk-in closet - Continuous

Mouthing the words to “Disco Inferno ” by 50 CENT and dancing, Isabel slips out
of her sleep-shirt, pulls on NIKE A THLE TIC PANTS and a NIKE SWEATSHIRT.
Lacing up NIKE RUNNING SHOES while sitting on thefloor, we see shopping
bags from VICTORIA 'S SECRET, H20+, and SAKS FIFTH A VENUE.

Int. bedroom - Continuous

Isabel turns 017 the SONY RA DIO, grabs a SONY WALKMAN, and walks out the
bedroom door.

From the inside of the bedroom window, we see Isabel walk past a parked brand
new black A UDI CONVERTIBLE in the driveway. She gets to the sidewalk, takes
a deep breathe and glances at a billboard that reads, “COME SUN IN MIA MI! "
With a look of determination, Isabel starts her morning jog around the
neighborhood block.

The inclusion of branded products in the scripts of entertainment media such as
film and television is becoming more and more commonplace. While the inclusion of
branded products, services, and musical artists in the above script may seem obnoxious
and in excess, they are related to the context of the actions and may be labeled as
“organic” by movie producers. That is, the brands are fitting of that particular scene in
that they help to tell the story and assist the viewer in identifying what kind of character
is being depicted through the types of brands she uses. More importantly, the inclusion of
branded products within the content of entertainment media at every opportunity within
the film or program is increasingly commonplace. So much so, in fact, that the term
“advertainment” now describes the saturation of branded product placements in
entertainment media such as films or television programs, particularly reality shows
(Lasswell, 2004). .

As marketers strive to capture the undivided attention of niche consumers, more
product placements may not suffice to generate recall and recognition of a particular
brand. Thus, cross-marketing promotions have become an increasingly popular practice
among marketers for brands and branded products alike. These business partnerships
ofien include media buys, cross-promotion for films on the labels of branded products or
joint in-store retail displays. If the branded product does survive the editing phase of the
film or television show and is included in the final media product, then it is possible that
audiences might assume that this was a preconceived relationship between entertainment
media producers and the brand.

However, the practice of placing branded products in entertainment media is

unclear -— whether or not these brands were included intentionally or not, if companies

paid studios for their inclusion, and how much money exchanged hands (if any). While
many product placements take place without any cross-promotion, the identification of
the source is desirable for marketers to gain more airtime exposure and receive credit for
their efforts. This may be achieved through more subtle acknowledgements such as a line
in the credits at the end of a program, or a blatant sponsorship billboard that appears
sometime during the broadcast or the show.

Branded product placement partnerships in entertainment media are becoming a
phenomenon that can no longer be ignored by marketing, advertising, and corporate
brand leaders. As the American culture becomes more and more immersed in media,
industry executives recognize that traditional advertising methods no longer suffice. In
fact, movie audiences have expressed their general support of branded product
placements as a subtle type of advertising over overt in in-theatre advertising efforts
(Negenzahl & Secunda, 1993). As a result, marketing communications must be novel and
distributed in creative ways to reach targeted audiences. The increasing popularity of
- digital recorders such as TiVO has allowed audiences to fast forward through
commercials, thereby forcing advertisers and marketers to generate integrated marketing
strategies that include partnerships with retail distributors, cross promotions with
complementary product brands and/or services, and engage in product placement
practices by forming alliances or relationships with producers of entertainment media.

Furthermore, Zufiyden, Pedrick, and Sankaralingam (1993) found that audiences
were more likely to zap through channels during programming than actual commercial
breaks. This behavior pattern was found to be particularly true during primetime, when

audiences have more programming options to choose from. This provides another reason

for marketers to take advantage of branded product placement within entertainment
media, since this would provide even more opportunities to reach channel surfing
audiences.

Regardless of its popularity in the industry, academic research concerning the
effectiveness of branded product placement in media is fairly limited, inconsistent,
inconclusive, and atheoretical. Furthermore, studies are often complicated by confounds
such as media type, genre, attitudes towards brands, relevancy of brands, the presentation
of brands in the media entity, and individual differences that are difficult to control,
operationalize, test, or measure. In fact, the definition of “product placement” has
evolved from one particular classification of a generic product such as cigarettes (Gibson
& Maurer, 2000) to include brands that are verbally mentioned or visually seen by the
audience (Steortz, 1987), or a marketers‘ intention to change attitudes or behavior (Karrh,
1995), or the paid nature of branded placements (Karrh, 1998), or business partnerships
in which brands pay entertainment companies for the inclusion of their product (Chang,
Salmon, & Newell, 2004). These more narrow definitions of product placement have
been unable to include more current trends in this marketing communications practice
such as cross-promotions or integrated marketing strategies.

The product placement literature seems to assume that the inclusion of a branded
product or service in an entertainment media entity is sending a message to the audience.
However, the implication of branded product placements might range from encouraging
potential consumers to purchase the product, try their service, shape attitudes related to
that brand, or change unfavorable opinions to be positive. Thus far, studies concerned

with product placement have not examined the effects that the source of the placement

might have on audience recall, attitudes, or behaviors. As with films, it is often difficult
to predict formal business partnerships between brands and entertainment entities in
television programs. Referred to as “product integration” in the television industry, these
placements range from subtle appearances such as Hfiagen-Daz ice cream in Gilmore
Girls (2000), in which business relationships are less obvious or nonexistent, to
shameless placements such as Coca-Cola and American Idol (2002), which are
prearranged business partnerships.

Product placement studies have tested audience attitudes about the marketing
practice of product placement depending on the type of product that is shown. For
example, previous literature has demonstrated that film audiences react differently to
ethically charged products such as guns, alcoholic beverages, tobacco and non-ethically
charged products such as candy, soda pop, automobiles (Gould, Gupta, & Grabner-
Krauter, 2000; Gupta, Balasubramanian, & Klassen, 2000; Gupta & Gould 1997;
McKechnie & Zhou, 2003). In general, audiences are less supportive of the placement of
ethically charged products than non-ethically charged products. Similarly, studies that
have compared Eastern audiences with Western cultures do not seem to differ in their
attitudes about the ethical charge of a product that is represented in entertainment media
(McKechnie & Zhou, 2003).

For-profit marketers are not the only venue seeking the placement of messages in
entertainment media. Health communication campaigns designed to change an
individual’s knowledge, attitudes, intentions, and behaviors (Salmon & Murray-Johnson,
2001), often integrate “edutainment” in their strategy to embed health related issues such

as practicing safe sex through condom use (Peltzer & Promtussananon, 2003), reducing

alcohol use (Borzekowski, 1996), and road safety (Zeedyk & Wallace, 2003) within
storylines of entertainment programs. Regardless of the profit motive, the examination of
direct effects related to health campaigns, marketing communications, or advertising
efforts is often tested in terms of whether the goals and objectives were attained.

However, just as important is an examination of unintended effects since the
ramifications of their potential effects may be detrimental at both macro and micro levels
(Pollay, 1986). For example, unintended effects resulting from fear appeals in social
marketing strategies (Hastings, Stead, & Webb, 2004) are frequently viewed as
potentially threatening to society and can imply that those responsible for such campaigns
have not been thorough in their research or are inexperienced.

Unintended effects have been examined in application to a number of contexts,
including standardized tests (Bond, 1995), research on marital relationships (Bradbury,
1994), posted signs to prevent littering (Horsley, 1988), raising health awareness (Giles,
2003), parental aspirations that lead children to cheat (Pearlin, Yarrow, & Scarr, 1967),
managerial training for managers in organizations (Bergen, Soper, & Foster, 2002;
Kaminski, 2001; Maltz, Souder, & Kumar, 2001 ), relationships between psychologists
and their clients (Perlman, 2001), regulations of abortion (Melton, 1987), and idealized
advertising images (Gulas & McKeage, 2000).

In explicating the distinctions between effects of health communication
campaigns and their effectiveness, Salmon and Murray-Johnson (2001) described how
campaign outcomes often have both intended and unintended consequences, which may
be interpreted as either positive or negative. For example, the increase in minimum

drinking age in the United States from 18 to 21 was intended to curb drinking behaviors.

However, as Engs and Hanson (1989) found, underage drinkers were more likely to
overly imbibe, a negative unintended consequence of a policy that had positive impact as
well. Furthermore, unintended effects resulting from health campaigns include how
images or descriptions associated with health issues such as HIV/AIDS might cause
audiences to imply that only certain “types” of individuals are prone to the disease,
increase phenomenon such as knowledge and social gaps, and generate backfire effects
from communications that assume health is a moral obligation (Guttman & Salmon,
2004).

Smith and Atkin (2003) list the direct effects of advertising to include brand
recognition and recall, product desires, requests for the purchase of products, consistent
and predictable product consumption patterns, and effective persuasive appeals.
Subsequently, unintended effects include parent-child conflicts regarding the child’s
desire for a product and a parent’s decision process, unhappiness, unhealthy eating habits,
contributions to materialism, and negative self-perceptions. Furthermore, in surveys
conducted with children and their parents, Buijzen and Valkenburg (2003) found that
television advertising is directly positively correlated with purchase requests and
materialism. Indirectly, advertising is positively related to family conflicts,
disappointment, and life dissatisfaction.

While worldwide corporations such as Coca-Cola Company conduct proprietary
research to examine levels of direct success of their marketing efforts and product
placements in various entertainment media content, the effectiveness of branded products
in films and television shows has not been tested for unintended effects commonly

associated with Psychological Reactance and its Boomerang effects. Psychological

Reactance (Brehm, 1966; Brehm & Brehm, 1981) suggests that individuals act counter to
a message because they are attempting to regain a feeling of lost freedom or control over
their own actions. Consumers may rebel against certain types of communications because
they feel that their levels of freedom and choice were being threatened. For example,
Psychological Reactance is frequently used in health communications to explore
messages designed to curb alcohol use. Bensley and Wu ( 1991) found that college males
exposed to a more dogmatic anti-drinking message drank more than those given a low-
threat message.

In marketing communications, Psychological Reactance has been used as a
framework to understand the adverse behaviors that consumers can take when marketers
give consumers the allusion that other choices are not available to customers (Clee &
Wicklund, 1980). Similarly, consumers who feel that their freedom has been threatened
or restricted by marketing messages may boycott products. Ringold (1988) examined
how consumers withdrew to the simultaneous introduction of New Coke and elimination
of original formula Coca-Cola. By removing one choice from consumers, Coca-Cola
Company experienced not only a loss of profits, but outright claims to boycott the other
brands manufactured by the worldwide beverage corporation. This has suggested that
when product options are eliminated, these types of unintended effects can take place
between branded products and consumers as well.

A theory often used as the framework for more interpersonal and individualized
applications, this study explores how Psychological Reactance might be extended to mass
media through its application of branded product placement in entertainment media.

When seeing a film or watching a television program, a captive audience member does

not have the freedom of choosing the content of entertainment media that he is exposed
to or the advertisers who sponsor the programming. Unlike traditional television
commercials placed during programming breaks, brands placed within the content of
entertainment programming cannot be fast-forwarded through because they are a part of
the set or perhaps the even the plot. Thus, the audience’s freedom to not be exposed to
brands cannot be avoided and risks the types of audience backlash predicted by
Psychological Reactance traits.

This dissertation examines how Psychological Reactance might interact with the
number of branded product placements within a television program and the profit goal of
the branded product placement source to influence audience attitudes. A conceptual
model was proposed to test the relationships between Psychological Reactance as a stable
trait, branded product placement saturation levels, the profit goal of the placement source,
participant brand recall, audience attitudes about branded product placement, the for-
profit or non-profit source responsible for the placements, attitudes about the branded
product featured, and their purchase intention of the inserted brand.

This 3 X 6 experimental study involved two independent variables: the saturation
level of the episode (varying from 61 seconds of on-screen time to zero) and the profit
goal of the source (for-profit, non-profit, or no source identification). These variables
were controlled by digitally inserting branded product placements using Monet software

and creating sponsorship billboards using Final Cut Pro.

LITERATURE REVIEW

This section will review the literature concerning Psychological Reactance and

discuss its application to branded product placement.
Psychological Reactance

The theory of Psychological Reactance is attributed to Brehm (1966) and Brehm
and Brehm (1981) and primarily seeks to explain unintended communication effects. \/
Wicklund (1974) defines Psychological Reactance as the “motivational state of a person/
whose freedom has been assaulted” (p. ix). Communications created to request
individuals or mass audiences to take some sort of action are often based upon the
assumption that the target audience will do as they are told. However, as a parent might
observe in his young child, kids are apt to doing the exact opposite of a command that
their parent had just given. Psychological Reactance suggests that the child is reacting in
this way because he feels that the parent has infringed upon his freedom and thus has no
control over his own behavior. Thus, motivated to regain his freedom, the child is now
likely to do exactly the opposite of what the parent had intended.

Advocacy groups such as Commercial Alert have suggested that because
individuals at movie theaters are captive audiences, it is unethical to show commercials at
the beginning of films (De Marco, 2003). Commercial Alert believes that the producers
of entertainment media should identify product placements as advertising within the
content if they are paid-for or sponsored (Elliot, 2003). Because the definition of
advertising has often included the purchase of airtime, product placements of this nature

would be considered as such. Since most placements are not paid for in monetary terms,

this has been one way that the industry has circumvented this criticism (Parkes, 2004).

10

However, marketers are likely to desire some sort of recognition for their efforts and
many placements have been accompanied by large cross-promotional efforts, especially
with motion pictures. The placement of branded products in entertainment media and
understanding the boundaries of marketing communications should therefore be
addressed.

The theory of Psychological Reactance says that individuals frequently act
counter to restrictions or pressures put upon them (Brehm, 1966; Brehm & Brehm, 1981),
and that people react against threats or losses of freedom to restore that freedom through
a sequence of responses (Brehm & Brehm, 1981; Donnell, Thomas & Buboltz, 2001; /
Wicklund, 1997). These restrictions can come in the form of behavioral restrictions, as
well as directions for how someone should feel or think (Petty & Cacioppo, 1981). This \/
motivational state to maintain one’s level of freedom is consistently directed toward the
re-establishment of the threatened or eliminated freedom by engaging in those threatened
relevant behaviors and actual attempts.

The freedom to be the first to turn down requests to control any commitment to
future favors suggests that freedom and control often are interrelated. Jones (1969) found
that participants who were asked a favor with an implication of future dependence were
more likely to engage in reactance than those who were not given that inference. Brehm /
and Brehm (1981) defined freedom as a “belief that one can engage in a particular
behavior” (p. 35). Since freedom can be defined as the means to what, when, and how
one engages in a particular activity, it may influence one’s decision of attaining a

pleasant outcome, or avoiding an unpleasant one. Thus, this type of freedom can be

considered “expectancy with a particular degree of strength” (Brehm & Brehm, 1981, p.

11

358). Therefore, an individual’s strength that stems from obtaining a freedom can be
defined as “control” and the concept can be applied in the framework of Psychological
Reactance.

A freedom or control is threatened or lost when an event increases the perceived
level of difficulty of exercising that freedom (Brehm & Brehm, 1981; Westcott, 1978;
Wicklund, I974). Individuals may also find the need to reallocate their freedoms. For
example, Gibbins (1976) found that when an individual’s freedom in an organization
such as a corporate environment is restricted, then his need for freedom in other areas of
his life becomes increasingly important. Brehm (1966) originally argued that reactance
may be triggered by concepts such as frustration, social power, and compliance; Joubert
(1990) found that self-esteem, self-rating of happiness, and loneliness may serve as a
threat to freedom/control (Donnell, Thomas, & Buboltz, 2001).

Because the level of reactance depends on the importance of the freedom, the \/
types of actions taken to regain one’s freedom may range from avoidance to aggression
toward the source. Chenitz (1983) found that patients admitted to nursing homes may
engage in resigned resistance that consists of brief behaviors such as withdrawal, crying,
or sadness. On the other hand, those who resist forcefully overtly demonstrate their anger
and resentment by refusing to be bathed and are verbally abusive to their caretakers.
Because an individual’s freedom and control of moderate or high importance are
threatened, the level of reactance of the individual could be greater and considerable
resistance to compliance may occur (Brehm & Brehm, 1981). In situations where

confederates are asking participants for favors, Brehm and Cole (1966) found that

12

participants are more likely to engage in Psychological Reactance when the favor was of \/
low importance.

Reactance is also likely to occur when there are no rewards attached to the lost \/
freedom. Mavis and Stoffelmayr (1994) found that when participants are given monetary
rewards for weight loss, reactance was minimal in the lottery condition and not found in
the equal distribution of cash condition. The findings from their study suggested that not
only is the loss of freedom and alternative choice important to Psychological Reactance,
but that participants must be devoid of any type of compensation for giving up freedoms.

Major Constructs and Assumptions

Psychological Reactance suggests that there are two main constructs related to
unintended effects: freedoms and thre/ats. This section will define and identify the
assumptions surrounding these major concepts, explicate the outcomes of Psychological
Reactance, and examine how Reactance has been applied to several contexts. Table 1
outlines the major constructs and assumptions of Psychological Reactance.

Freedoms

Assuming that an individual has a desire for freedoms, Brehm(1966) and Brehm \/
and Brehm (1981) suggested that reducing the amount of freedom that an individual has
will arouse his motivation to prevent a further loss of freedom and to re-establish
whatever freedom he/she may have already lost or had threatened. Based on the notion of
specific freedoms, not general freedoms, the concept of freedom in Psychological
Reactance assumes that at any given time, a person has a set of concrete, behavioral
actions that he may realistically engage in at any time (Brehm, 1966; Brehm & Brehm,

1981). There are four characteristics to free behaviors (Brehm & Brehm, 1981). First, \/

i3

individuals must be aware of that the freedom exists. Second, individuals must have the
ability to exercise those freedoms. Next, a person holds that freedom to some sort of
significance. The importance of those freedoms is based on whether or not the freedom

has some unique instrumental value to the individual. The type of freedom restricted can l/
range for individuals from civil rights (Westcott, 1988) to the reception of Internet pop-

up ads (Edwards, Li, & Lee, 2002).

Freedoms can be categorized as absolute or conditional. Absolute freedoms are
widely available freedoms that are most likely internal. Conditional freedoms are those
that are contingent upon other behaviors. Thus, although one freedom may have been
threatened, the value of that freedom may be dependent upon whether or not there are any
viable alternatives. Babad (1987) found that when Israeli sports fans were instructed to
reduce their wishful thinking about a trailing team who was not winning a soccer game,
participants reduced their desires at first, but then unexpectedly had even more desires for
the straggling team following halftime. While West (1975) found that participants were
not likely to find university cafeteria food to be more attractive afier the elimination of
one choice, Horowitz (1968) found that Psychological Reactance was most likely to be
aroused in powerful individuals who were internally dependent and not given any
alternative choices. Similarly, Ringold (1988) suggested with consumer withdrawal
regarding Coca-Cola, the lack of alternatives was in large part responsible for creating the
aggressive response from customers. These findings suggested that the complete
eradication of choices is more likely to arouse Psychological Reactance than the mere

elimination of one or more alternatives.

l4

While previous studies have often examined the loss of freedom of control from \/
an individual’s attitudes in a private setting, Baer, Hinkle, Smith, and Fenton (1980) and
Nail, Van Leeuwen, and Powell (1996) suggested that an individual’s desire to manage
his impression in public may instigate Psychological Reactance. The researchers found
that when participants had not yet had the opportunity to publicly exercise their freedom,
they were more likely to engage in reactance type behaviors when that freedom was
threatened.

Upon examination of an individual’s perception of whether or not they have
control over their own freedoms in certain situations, there are two loci of control that can
be examined: internal and external. While internal locus of control suggests that
individuals believe that environmental outcomes are dependent upon their own behaviors,
those who believe that their behavior has little to do with subsequent events in their
environment are said to have an external locus of control (Lewis & Blanchard, 1971).
Meyer (1978) found that the lack of freedom to choose among those participants with an
internal locus of control was correlated with decreased recall in a verbal learning task.
Cherulnik and Citrin (.1974) suggested that interactions between the locus of control and
the elimination of freedom of choice can cause participants to find those options taken
away to be more desirable. The findings from these studies suggested that the ability to
choose one’s own materials can lead to faster and more receptive learning for those with
internal and external loci of control.

An individual’s locus of control may have implications on how medical
information should be distributed (Donham, Ludenia, Sands, & Holzer, 1983). However,

Adame (1986) found that there was no significant increase in internal locus of control for

15

participants who had engaged in an interactive course on sexuality. The unsupported
hypothesis could be the result of the method, the sensitive nature of the task used, or
confounded by the changing sexual attitudes in the mid to late 80’s.

Threats

Psychological Reactance suggests that to attain reactance, there must be a
freedom, and a threat made to that freedom (Brehm, 1961; Brehm & Brehm, 1981).
Threats are defined as any attempt to withhold an individual’s ability to exercise his ‘/
freedom — including social influences and impersonal events such as the elimination of
choices, laws and restrictions, or coincidental natural disasters that might restrict one’s
travel plans (Brehm & Brehm, 1981). Brehm and Brehm (1981) suggested that the
greater the threat made to an individual’s freedom, the greater the reactance. Vrugt
(1992) found that when high threats were made to male workers about the preferential
treatment of women in the workplace, more feelings of Psychological Reactance were
evoked.

Brehm and Brehm (1981) suggested that an individual’s perceived threat to a
freedom is dependent upon how severe the threat seems to be and whether or not they
have control over the actual threat. For example, if a snowstorm threatens an individual’s
travel plans to fly to Miami, Florida, then the person may engage in Reactance if the
weather is perceived as a threat to their freedom to vacation. On the other hand, if the
individual perceives the weather to be out of his control, then he is not likely to engage in
Reactance types of behaviors. The correlation between the amount of force threatening a

freedom and reactance is not necessary linear. Dickenberger and Grabitz-Gniech (1972)

found that although participants are likely to experience reactance when the threatened

l6

freedom is attacked, individuals may store up feelings of Psychological Reactance when

social influence is too strong.

 

Table 1

Major constructs and assumptions ofthe theory ofPsychological Reactance (Brehm,
I 966; Brehm & Brehm, l 981)

 

 

Construct Descriplion Assumptions
Freedom - A specific behavioral action — Individuals do have a desire
(cognitive or physical) that an for freedom
individual may realistically engage
in at any time - At any given time, an
individual has a set of
Four characteristics of a freedom: behaviors that he may engage
(1) an individual is aware of the in
freedom; (2) an individual’s ability
to exercise the freedom; (3) the
freedom is held in high regard by
the individual; and (4) the freedom
‘ is either absolute or conditional
Threat - Any attempt to withhold an - An individual must believe

individual’s ability to exercise his
freedOm

These attempts may include social
influence or impersonal events

The severity of a threat depends
upon an individual’s perception of
that threat

that he has a freedom that
may be threatened

- The greater the threat, the
greater the Reactance

 

Outcomes of Psychological Reactance

Psychological Reactance defines two outcomes that might result from an

individual’s loss of control or feelings of threat: Boomerang and Romeo and Juliet effect. \/

l7

Boomerang Effect

Also known as the “backfire effect,” the Boomerang effect is commonly used in
marketing and advertising disciplines when referring to threats to attitudinal freedoms
(Clee & Wicklund, I980). Boomerang effects have occurred with interactions between
the confederate’s intention to influence and a high level of threat (Heller, Pallak, and
Picek. 1973) as well as interactions between high threats and the expectation of future
exchanges between the participant and confederate. Using Psychological Reactance to
explain their findings, Worchel and Brehm (1970) found that when participants were
given freedom-threatening communications that were synonymous with their own
opinions, they were more likely to move away from the advocated position.

Engs and Hanson (1989) conducted a timely study when the national legal
drinking age increased from 18 to 21 in 1984. The researchers found that this law not
only failed to curb underage drinking, but that incidents of drinking rose. Just as a /
boomerang returns to its point of origin, Boomerang effects in Psychological Reactance
suggest that when negative messages are advocated, the audience meets them with
negative behaviors. Positive or no-influence messages, on the other hand, are not as likely
to be met with unexpected reactions from the audience.

In relationship to branded product placement in entertainment media, these
marketing communications might be perceived as negative messages depending on the
audience’s reaction to the type of product that is present and the source of that placement.

Thus, this Boomerang effect may take place with audiences who are opposed to certain

types of branded products or have preexisting negative attitudes about whom might have

18

been responsible for their placement. From the marketers’ perspective, this makes the
intended effects unsuccessful.
Romeo and Juliet E fleet

Most commonly used in the context ofpsychology and interpersonal
communication, the Romeo and Juliet effect borrows from William Shakespeare’s classic
tale of two young lovers who were forbidden to be together by their respective families.
This restriction not only pulled the teenage lovers closer together, but also eventually led
to the tragic demise of the couple. Discoll, Davis, and Lipetz (1972) suggested that when
couples suffer from parental interference, they react by committing themselves more
firmly to the partnership and falling more deeply in love. Related to the Romeo and Juliet
effect, Goodstadt (1971) examined how interpersonal attraction was a motivating factor
for reactance behavior, particularly when the attraction was made public.

Although these are two of the most commonly noted effects of Psychological
Reactance, other studies have examined outcomes that might be mediated by reactance
traits such as task completion strategies, thought suppression, and self-efficacy.
Strykowska (I978) correctly hypothesized that those with high levels of reactance would
use cautious strategies when confronted with a problem-solving task and that individuals
with low levels of reactance would take more risks. Kelly and Nauta (1997) found that
higher reactant participants who were asked to suppress their thoughts using a stream of
consciousness writing task felt more out of control and bothered by their intrusive
thoughts and by their own thoughts in general. In an ethnographic study conducted to
examine the ramifications of job loss, Zippay (1995) found that the loss of control to find

a new job experienced by workers in a particular location affected their self-efficacy.

l9

Psychological Reactance as a Stable Trait

While many studies have examined Psychological Reactance as a temporal state
in which individuals are reacting to certain conditions, other research suggested that
Psychological Reactance is a stable personality trait that is embedded within a person’s
personality (Brehm & Brehm, 1981; Buboltz, Woller, & Pepper, 1999; Dowd &
Wallbrown, 1993; Dowd, Wallbrown, Sanders, & Yesenosky, 1994; Hargrove Ladner,
2003; Reitenbach, 2000; Seemann, 2003). In fact, Poonnan (2000) found that trait
reactance was more stable than state reactance, and that the two were moderately
correlated.

Psychological Reactance as a stable trait has been applied mostly to the
relationship between counselors and their clients. Although Sherman and Lynn (1990)
examined how Psychological Reactance might be used in therapy sessions using
hypnosis, many other studies have examined how the conscious mind might process
reactance types of behaviors. For example, when individuals are not receptive to advice
from medical professionals, therapists, or counselors, this noncompliance has been
explained using. Psychological Reactance (Blankenship, Eells, Carlozzi, Perry, & Barnes,
1998; Dowd, 1989; Dowd, Hughes, Brockbank, Halpain, Seibel, & Seibel, 1988; Fogarty,
1997; Garcia, 1982; Gordon, 1978; Harris & Harvey, 1978; Horvath & Goheen, 1990;
Hughes & Falk, 1981; Hunsley, I997; Tennen, Rohrbaugh, Press, & White, 1981), as

well as those seeking to change the racist or sexist language used by others (Latting,
1994). In many cases, individuals are court ordered to seek out therapeutic or counseling

services (Prandoni & Wall, 1990), which might lead to Psychological Reactance.

20

“Therapeutic Reactance” refers to a personality trait or motivational state in
which the patient delays or prohibits treatment in a continued attempt to maintain control
over his personal freedom and is often measured using the Therapeutic Reactance Scale
(Dowd, Milne, & Wise, 1991) or the Resistance Potential scale (Beutler, Engle, Mohr,
Dahldrup, Bergan, Meredith, & Merry, 1991). However, Baker, Sullivan, and Marszalek
(2003) found that there were no correlations between the two scales and that the
Resistance Potential scale lacked internal consistency.

Some of the literature correlating reactance behaviors and patient compliance
suggested a negative relationship. For example, Hunsley (1993) found that Psychological
Reactance was unrelated to participant acceptability ratings of treatment for
procrastination and Seibel and Dowd (1999) found that Psychological Reactance was
negatively correlated with overall improvement and premature termination of treatment,
but unrelated to medical compliance. This finding could be explained by Redman,
Dickinson, Cockbum, Hennrickus, and Sanson-Fisher (1989), who found that although
patients were not likely to admit to reactance behaviors, the doctors believed that the
findings might have been the result of demand characteristics.

On the'other hand, Dowd and Sanders (1994) and Keller (2003) suggested that if
the symptoms identified are in conjunction with the client’s self-image, then patients are
more likely to follow the treatment led by a counselor. Furthermore, studies have found
that therapist characteristics are just as important for creating effective relationships with
clients (Baker & Neimeyer, 2003; Wallace & Hall, 1996). Dowd, Trutt, and Watkins
( l 992). found that counselors who used absolute interpretations with highly reactant

patients were more successful in conveying their eagerness to help the patient. Graybar,

21

Antonuccio, Boutlier, and Varble (1989) found that advice given to patients high in
reactance behaviors was most effective when it was delivered with a low amount of
negativity. Although Swoboda, Dowd, and Wise (1990) found that doctors who reframe
messages are more effective than restraint or controlling behaviors, individual levels of
reactance had no effect.

Related to counseling and therapy, Mulry, F leming, and Gottschalk (1994) have
previously explored how Psychological Reactance might play a part in the treatment of
academic procrastination among undergraduate college students. The researchers found
that although incidents of procrastination decreased among both treatment and control
groups, improvement was less marked for those who exhibited high levels of reactance.

Some studies have found evidence for Psychological Reactance being a temporal
state that is influenced by situational and environmental variables than personality traits.
For example, Hong and Giannakopoulos (1994) found that Psychological Reactance was
the only non-predictor among all personality characteristics tested to predict an
individual’s satisfaction of life. Dodds (1997) found that that Psychological Reactance
did not predict adherence among coronary heart patients to follow medical instructions.
However, other studies that have examined Psychological Reactance as a stable trait have
found significant relationships. For example, in an organizational psychology study
examining goal—orientation, Austin (1989) suggested that Psychological Reactance, along
with other personal factors, may interfere with goal-acceptance and goal-attainment.

Psychological Reactance has been treated as a part of an individual’s personality
that may affect relationships with significant others. Hockenberry and Billingham (1993)

suggested that Psychological Reactance affects the interpersonal control that partners feel

22

and thus become much more protective of their personal sense of freedom and are more
sensitive to perceived threats to these freedoms, resulting in violent interpersonal
relationships. In divorce settlements involving children, Bay and Braver ( 1990) found
that Psychological Reactance predicted parents’ perceived control over the final decision
and that this was related to not only both mothers’ and fathers’ reports of interpartental
conflict, but that fathers are more likely to experience noncontrol distress and notice less
conflict. This finding suggested that there may be gender differences regarding
Psychological Reactance.
Fisher, Nadler, and Whitcher-Alagna (1982) and Manikowske and Winakor
(1994) explored equity, attribution, and reactance as three factors that might predict
whether or not an individual will ask for assistance. Fisher, Nadler, and Whitcher—Alagna
(1982) found that the act of asking for help is related to an individual’s self-esteem. Thus,
in predicting reactions to help, the authors suggested that a model that has formalized
threat-to-self-esteem is more comprehensive and parsimonious than reactance,
reciprocation, or attribution. However, Manikowske and Winakor (1994) found that when
giving and receiving gifts of clothing, the three factors were not necessarily independent
of each other, but rather an overlapping of theories.
Other Theories and Concepts Related to Psychological Reactance
There are several concepts from psychology that are related to Psychological
Reactance. Cognitive dissonance is described as a motivational state that exists when one
holds beliefs that are inconsistent with another held cognition (Festinger, 1957).
Rodrigues (1970) has suggested that while cognitive dissonance and Psychological

Reactance might produce the same outcomes, the mechanisms are dissimilar. Still, in

23

regards to Psychological Reactance, consistency with previous behaviors can also
account for reactance (Wright, 1986). Reiter and Samuel (1980) found that although
participants are more likely to litter when trash was already in existence at the site, there
were no significant differences depending upon signs prohibiting littering that were
threatening rather than cooperative. On the other hand, Geller, Koltuniak, and Shilling
(1982) found that by posting three signs verbalized to minimize the theft of newspapers,
each was equally effective in reducing incidents of theft, but did not conclude that the
more threatening sign might have resulted in Psychological Reactance. These findings
suggest that reactance might be a function of strong social influence rather than
individual interpretation of one sign.

Applicable in situations involving education, Psychological Reactance is often
used in conjunction with several other learning theories to understand how administrators
and teachers might make their classroom effective learning environments (Clifford,
Chou, Mao, Lan, & Kuo, 1990; Parish & Parish, 1991; Tingstrom, Little, & Stewart,
1990) or among athletes (Carter & Kelly, 1997). Defined as a state of an individual’s
learning that a conditioned stimulus precedes an unconditioned stimulus as he is exposed
to classical conditioning trials (Allen & Janiszewski, I989; Priluck & Till, 2004; Shimp,
Stuart, & Engle, 1991), contingency awareness suggests that individuals must be
conscious that they are learning something to actually gain knowledge (Shimp, 1991).
However, Fulcer (2001) suggested that individuals who are prone to reactance are likely
to process information subconsciously.

Borrowed from classical conditioning, learned helplessness suggests that an

individual eventually gives up fighting an unpleasant environment when he becomes

24

aware of his inability to control the situation that he has been placed in (Baltes &
Skinner, 1983; Dattilo & Kleiber, 1993). Peterson (1992) examined how learned
helplessness might account for issues such as underachievement, mental retardation,
burnout, absenteeism, and illness occurring in schools. Other research has examined the
relationship between reactance and learned helplessness (Brockner, Gardner, Bierman,
Mahan, Thomas, Weiss, Winters, & Mitchell, 1983; deCharms & Muir, 1978; Baum &
Gatchel, 1981; Jardine & Winefield, 1981; Mikulincer, Kedem, & Zilkha—Segal, 1989;
Trice & Woods, 1979; Tennen & Eller, 1977).

Wortman and Brehm (1975) suggested that the immediate results from
uncontrollable events are defined as Psychological Reactance, and that the long-term
effects are learned helplessness. As supported in a study that examined stress-related
consequences of unemployment, Baum, Fleming, and Reddy (1986) examined the
behavioral changes related to this experience as a loss of control and confirmed the
theoretical underpinnings of Wortman and Brehm (1975). In application to marketing
communications, some movie theater audiences may be adamantly opposed to :30
commercials for branded products at the start of a film. However, the realization that
there is nothing they can do to avoid these marketing messages without missing part of
the film they paid to see suggests that audiences have realized that they are helpless in
this situation and thus may just accept the environment that they are in.

Evaluative conditioning is identified as the ability of an individual’s affect for one
stimulus to be transferred to another through a conditioning paradigm (Field, 2001;
Houwer, 2001). In relationship to branded product placements in entertainment media,

evaluative conditioning would suggest that because audiences have certain affects

25

regarding an actor, the brands used by that actor are transferred to the brands that she
uses because she is constantly using those same products. This consistency has then
conditioned the audience to associate certain brands with that actor, which then transfers
positive or negative feelings about the actor to the brand as well. Fulcher and Hammerl
(2001) suggested that evaluative learning does not require conscious perception of the
stimuli, the contingencies, nor the awareness that learning has occurred at all.
Further Understanding ofPsychological Reactance
In addition to specific variables, previous studies have used Psychological
Reactance as a guiding framework for a multitude of applications and contexts to explain
behaviors ranging from ways that messages were framed to shape President Clinton’s
image after the sexual scandals (Nail & Scott,2000) to increasing tourism and leisure
behavior (Propst & Kurtzz, 1989) to pro-social behavior (Goldman, Pulcher, & Mendez,
1983) to the censorship of mass media content (Austin, 1980; Bushman & Stack, 1996;
Clark, 1994; Kremar & Cantor, 1997; Worchel & Arnold, 1973). This section will outline
how studies have furthered our understanding of the theory of Psychological Reactance.
Demographic factors such as age and gender (Brehm & Weinraub, 1977; Hong,
Giannakopoulos, Laing, Williams, 1994), gender (Gannon, Heiser, & Knight, 1985;
Jospeh, Joseph, Barto, & McKay 1982) and general personality traits (Buboltz, Williams,
Thomas, Seemann, Soper, & Woller, 2002; Buboltz, Woller, & Pepper, 1999; Burke &
Haslam, 2001; Dowd & Wallbrown, 1993; Dowd, Wallbrown, Sanders, & Yesenosky,
1994; Frank, Jackson-Walker, Marks, Van Egeren, Loop, Olson, 1998; Gorton, 1973;
Hannah, Hannah, & Wattie, 1975; Seibel & Dowd, 2001) have been researched. In

particular, studies have explored how individuals with a “Type A” personality (Carver,

26

1980; Clark & Miller, 1990; Mayes, Sime, & Ganster, 1984; Rhodewalt & Fairfield,
1990; Rhodewalt & Marcroft, 1988; Rhodewalt & Strube, 1985) are more likely to
engage in Psychological Reactance. Interestingly, Hong and Giannakopoulos (1994)
found that among all personality characteristics tested to predict an individual’s
satisfaction of life, Psychological Reactance was the only non-predictor.

Other studies have examined how intrapersonal factors such as one’s sense of self
(Johnson & Buboltz, 2000), self esteem (Brockner & Elkind, 1985; Hellman & McMillin,
1997; Joubert, 1990), self-consciousness (Carver & Scheier, I981), self-awareness
(Swart, Ickes, & Morgenthaler, 1978), and impression management (Wright & Brehm,
1982) might predict behaviors related to Psychological Reactance. Levels of reactance
are likely to also be influenced by a person’s family background (Buboltz, Johnson, &
Wallace, 2003), disciplinary styles used in the home during childhood (Joubert, 1992),
and alcoholism (Rice & Schoenfeld, 1975). Interestingly, an individual’s daily personal
habits (Joubert, 1995) and critical perceptions of politics (Long, 1978) have also been
shown to predict Psychological Reactance.

Interpersonal relationships (Baumeister, Catanese, & Wallace, 2002; Bay &
Braver, 1990; Bushman, Bonacci, van Dijk, and Baumeister, 2003; Hockenberry &
Billingham, 1993, Poe, 1977), interpersonal attraction (Wright, Wadley, Danner, &
Phillips, 1992), social influences (Brehm & Sensenig, 1966; Donoghue, McCarrey, &
Cle'ment, I983; Grabitz-Gniech, 1971; Sosnowski, 1978), and an individuals’ mood and
justification for the request (Berkowitz, 1973) have been shown to be predictors of

Psychological Reactance.

27

While experimental settings have been designed to prime pre-existing cognitions
such as gender stereotypes (Kray, Reb, Galinsky, & Thompson, 2004), the effects of
Psychological Reactance have also been studied in relationship to the request for
assistance (Fisher, Nadler, & Whitcher-Alagna, 1982; Gross, Wallson, & Piliavan, 1979:
Manikowske & Winakor, I994; Schwartz, 1970) depending upon past behaviors (Fraser
& F ujitomi, 1972) and future expectations (El-Alayli & Messé, 2004).

Professional relationships between managers and subordinates in organizational
settings (Austin, 1989; Blickle, 2003; Feldman-Summers, 1977; Caldwell, O’Reilly, &
Morris, 1983; Sachau, Houlihan, & Gilbertson, 1999; Steensma & Erket, 1999) and
between judges and jury members (Lenehan & O’Neil, 1981; Lieberman & Amdt, 2000;
Minor, I978; Mullin, Imrich, & Linz, 1996; Wolf & Montgomery, 1977) have been
examined to guide individuals in positions of higher power to communicate in a manner
that would not enable behaviors related to Psychological Reactance.

Studies using Psychological Reactance have examined communication efforts to
alter the attitudes or behaviors of the audiences. Particularly concerned with how
messages should be structured and framed, Psychological Reactance has been used as the
guiding framework for studies concerned with efforts by the government to ban the use of
certain chemicals or special interest groups reduce incidents of littering have often been
met by audiences engaged in Psychological Reactance (Mazis, 1975; Stern and
Kirkpatrick, 1977; Stoll-Kleeman, 2001). In addition, the exploration of Psychological
Reactance has been examined in depth regarding the use of health related issues as well
as health communication efforts (Albarracin, Cohen, & Kumkale, 2003; Allen, Sprenkel,

& Vitale, 1992; Bensley & Wu, 1991; Buller, Burgoon, Hall, Levine, Taylor, Beach,

28

Buller, & Melcher, 2000; Engs & Hanson, 1989; Grandpre, Alvar, Burgoon, Miller, &
Hall, 2003; Kohn & Barnes, 1977; Moore, Sellwood, & Stirling 2000; White &
Zimbardo, 1980) and health communication messages in an interactive environment
(Burgoon, Alvaro, Broneck, Miller, Grandpre, Hall, & Frank, 2002). Interestingly, Hong
( 1990) and Hong and Langovski (1994) did not find significant sex differences in
Psychological Reactance nor patterns of church attendance (Hong, 1990).]

Past research concerning Psychological Reactance has defined a loss or threat to
one’s freedom is a motivating factor. However, impersonal threats or barriers to obtaining
one’s desires or goals (Wicklund, 1974; Clee and Wicklund, 1980) or the anticipated
regret for not complying with a persuader (Crawford, McConnell, Lewis, & Sherman,
2002) may also be an encouraging mechanism. The scarcity or discontinuation of a
product or product line can create even more desire for merchandise (Cialdini. 2001; Clee
and Wicklund, 1980). Regarding the packaging of harmful substances, Andrews (1995)
and Andrews and Netemeyer (1996) examined how consumers might engage in
Psychological Reactance by purchasing and consuming more of the product when
confronted with the Warning labels on alcohol packages, in much the same way that
consumers have reacted towards cigarette warning labels.

Coulter and Pinto (1995) found that marketing communications using traditional
advertising messages that attempt to elicit guilt or remorse are likely to arouse levels of
reactance. With personal sales techniques, Burger (1999) suggested that Psychological
Reactance can be reduced by controlling the time lapse between the initial request and the
target request when using the foot-in-the-door technique often used by salespersons to

gain compliance from potential customers. In a study designed to examine mechanisms

29

that mediate the persuasion-inhibiting effects of a forewaming in a fear-arousing
communication, Fukada (1986) found that forewamings produced resistance to \/
persuasion. Furthermore, that resistance was mediated directly by counterarguments
during the presentation of the communication, and unintentionally by Psychological
Reactance in the time between the warning and the actual communication.

Overall, the literature regarding Psychological Reactance has suggested that a
variance in the type and tone of message may cause unintended effects. The research
using Psychological Reactance as a framework has used some sort of marketing
communication or advertisement as the message to test for effects. However, studies have
not expanded Reactance to the source of the message. For example, while past studies
would suggest that individuals are more likely to engage in Psychological Reactance
depending upon the tone of a message, there has not been any prior research to test if
people are likely to engage in Reactance dependent upon whom the message might
originate from.

Extending the Theory ofPsycho/ogical Reactance to the Message Source

Psychological Reactance has been largely examined by manipulating the language
of the message’s intensity. Although there is no literature to suggest a relationship
between Psychological Reactance and source persuasiveness, Perloff (2003) has
suggested that there are three characteristics to an effective communicator: (1) authority,
which influences using compliance; (2) credibility, which takes advantage of the internal
attitudes of the audience; and (3) the attractiveness, both personality and physique, of the ‘/
source. Ritchie and Phares (1969) found that individuals with an external locus of control

were more easily persuaded by high-credibility sources than low-credibility sources and

30

that those with an internal locus of control were equally persuaded by high- or low- -
credibility sources. When considering traditional models of communication that include
the source or sender of information, the message containing the information, and the
receiver of the message (Jaspars, 1978) an exploration of the source or sender component
of Psychological Reactance could strengthen the theory.

The persuasion literature has explored source credibility to a great extent
(Pornpitakpan, 2004) and is ofien examined in conjunction with message effectiveness
and product or audience involvement. For example, Marshall, Smith, and McKeon (1995)
conducted a study to test what sources women with breast cancer would prefer to go to
receive information and found that religious and community leaders were not preferred
sources of information, but that family and friends were the most preferred as the result
of similarity and trustworthiness. In addition, while highly involved participants found
health care providers to be credible sources of information, others perceived lay sources
as more informative because the vocabulary used was less technical.

In addition to trustworthiness, competence, and dynamism, another of the
dimensions of source credibility has been identified as objectivity (Whitehead, 1968).
While the source of a message may not necessarily be objective in their intention, there
are some that are perceived as more unbiased than others.

The theory of Psychological Reactance would suggest that audience reactions to \/
messages might vary as the result of the message source. Lumsden (1977) found strong
support that message strength was an interaction between the strength of the message
multiplied by the strength of the source. In addition, the intent of the source impacts the I

persuasiveness of the message. Past research has found that when participants were

31

forewarned about the intent of speakers, persuasion was inhibited (Hass & Grady, 1975;
Kiesler & Kiesler, 1964). However, when a source seemed concerned about the well
being of an audience, persuasion increased (Mills, 1966). Campbell, Bernhardt,
Waldmiller, Jackson, Potenziani, Weathers, and Demissie (1999) found that in print
messages designed to encourage the consumption of fruit and vegetable consumption,
participants were more likely to trust messages from their pastor or spiritual leader than
those from expert sources. Furthermore, Lord (1994) found that participants were most
likely to improve their recycling behavior when they received messages from a personal
acquaintance (versus an advertisement or publicity effort) that was negatively framed.

Non-profit organizations are generally created to increase social circumstances
such as teen pregnancy (i.e., Planned Parenthood), prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS (i.e.,
UNAIDS), or discourage drinking and driving (i.e., Mothers Against Drunk Driving).
These pro-social motives may therefore be perceived by audiences as concerned groups
who are looking out for the welfare of a greater good. Although not an intentional
manipulation of source credibility, Gutteling (1993) found no significant differences
when comparing the same information from two different sources: a government agency
called the Ministry of the Environment and a fictitious private company the Dutch
Plastics Recycling Company. The authors explained this non-significance as the result of
equal source credibility.

In regards to persuasive messages, Andreoli and Worchel (1978) suggested that
the more removed the source from the communication, the more trustworthy the source.
The researchers found that in a message presented by either a political candidate,

representative, former representative, or newscaster, the latter two were found to be more

32

trustworthy than the former two. Furthermore, while not all sources are readily
recognizable to the audience, Pham and Johar (1997) suggested that the schematic
inferencing of sources requires some sort of basic understanding regarding the reference.
For example, some understanding of the profit goals of certain sources may impact
audience attitudes about the message being communicated.

The timing of the revelation of message sources has an impact upon audience
persuasiveness, although the findings are not consistent. Weber (1971) found evidence
for the recency effect and thus suggested that when the source of a message is presented
after the message, it can act as a powerful acceptance cue for the audience. Sources that
are perceived to be highly credible are likely to be the most credible when they are
introduced at the beginning or middle of a message rather than the end (Greenberg &
Tannenbaum, 1961). On the other hand, Stemthal, Dholakia, and Leavitt (1978) found
that highly credible sources generated more positive attitudes towards issues when the
source was identified after the message than before. Furthermore, Homer and Kahle
(1990) found that the time of source identification was more influential depending upon
the level of involvement.

In a me'tanalysis of source effects in communication and persuasion research,
Wilson and Sherrell (1993) found that the largest effect sizes were associated with
psychological issues, oral communication, and video media. While d’Astous and Seguin
(1999) found that positive images of the sponsor in television sponsorship do not lead to
more positive consumer evaluations and ethical reactions toward product placement, the
researchers did not control for the profit goals of the product placement source. Thus, this

study will explore attitudinal differences based on the profitability goals of an

33

organization that is responsible for the branded products placed in the entertainment
media and the location of its prime.
Product Placement
“Screen advertising is unfair to our audiences. An advertisement on the screen
forces itself upon the spectator. He cannot escape it, yet he had paid his
admittance price. for entertainment alone. "
- Nicholas Schenck, MGM head, I931 (Segrave, 2004)

This same philosophy has been used as an argument against branded product
placement in entertainment media by opponents such as Commercial Alert
(http://www.commercialalert.org). Citing an audience’s right to experience entertainment
media content without being bombarded with marketing messages, unsuspecting
audiences lack the freedom to escape advertisements because they are integrated within
the content. While the theory of Psychological Reactance has been applied to several
marketing situations, it has not been tested specifically within the context of branded
product placement in entertainment television programs. This section will discuss the
phenomenon of product placement in the entertainment and marketing industries, review
the literature for product placement, and identify opportunities for growth and
understanding within the context of Psychological Reactance.

It may seem too simplistic to say that academic approaches to product/brand
placement are concerned with good research and product placement practitioners are
constantly on the lookout to make more money, this is essentially the difference between
the two. Articles appearing in peer-reviewed academic journals have published studies

that have asked questions regarding product placements in entertainment media such as:

34

Under what conditions do audiences recall/recognize branded product placement (Babin
& Carder, 1996; Brennan, Dubas, & Babin, 1999; Gupta & Lord, 1998)? Does consumer
attitude increase if a particular brand is associated with a certain character on screen (Law
& Braun, 2000; Strauss, 1999)? Do branded product placements translate to increased
sales (Anonymous, 1989)? Do audiences disapprove of product placement altogether
(Gupta & Gould, 1997; Nebenzahl & Secunda, 1993)?

While trade publications, newspaper articles, and general magazines are interested
in variables such as the location of the branded product, actor association, and screen
time, commercial practitioners are really interested in these questions to understand the
outcomes of branded product placement opportunities. Specifically, how can product
placement opportunities be maximized to add to their brand equity, raise consumer
awareness, and increase sales? Thus, it is important to note that from a business
perspective, these interests are not necessarily inclusive.

It would seem logical to suggest that marketers and advertisers are interested in
the effectiveness of the practice that they preach, but Steve Sturm, a marketing executive
at Toyota says that tests of aided and unaided recall are useless to him because they give
no indication of whether or not those audiences are going to go out and buy a car. In fact,
Ong and Meri (1994) found that although participants who remembered brands in movies
did not indicate higher purchase intentions, respondents generally had positive attitudes
regarding the practice of brand placements. Similarly, Mr. Sturm’s main goal with
extended brand exposure is that audiences keep the Toyota brand in mind the next time

they are in the market to purchase a car (Chang, Salmon, & Newell, 2004).

35

Both the marketing industry and academic research seem to suggest that the
practice of branded product placement in entertainment media is a message that might
lead to direct outcomes. However, unintended effects such as those predicted by
Psychological Reactance may be caused by the profit goal of the source responsible for
certain brands placed in films or the type of product placed in television programs. The
next sections will define branded product placement, discuss findings from previous
academic studies, and delineate the ethical concerns surrounding the practice of branded
product placement.

Defining “Branded Product Placement "

A rapidly changing environment, the term “product placement” in commercial
circles refers to everything from the Pepsi vending machine in Big to Audrey Hepburn
smoking a cigarette in Breakfast at Tiffany 's (1961) to McDonald’s billboards on the
track field in Athens, Greece during the 2004 Summer Olympics. Academics, however,
would be more likely to classify these as brand placements, product placements, and
sponsorships, respectively. It is important to note that there are definitional and
operational differences in the terminology.

Product placement generally refers to the use of items in which the brands cannot
be recognized. For example, lit cigarettes or an alcohol flask demonstrates to the viewer
that the actor is smoking or drinking, but no name brand is associated with it. Brand
placements refer specifically to items in which the brand is seen or recognized by the
audience. Thus, if the actor takes a Camel cigarette out of the package and lights it with a
Zippo, or if he pours himself a Smirnoff into his glass, these are classified as brand

placements. Brand placements may also include those items in which the name has been

36

“greeked” out. That is, while the audience might think that the soda is a Coke because of
the red aluminum can with white wave, there is no real indication of the brand name.
The definition of product placement has evolved to reflect either the goals of
marketers or filmmakers or has attempted to take the audience’s point of view. Within the
academic literature, product placement was defined as the inclusion of merchandise that
had been trademarked, brand name products or signage in a motion picture (Steortz,
1987). In later years, Nebenzahl and Secunda (1993) included the requirement for a
product placement to be in return for a fee or reciprocal promotional exposure, thus
making placement difficult to discern and discounting those placements that may have
occurred serendipitously. Balasubramanian (1994) and McCarty (2004) suggested that
product placements are paid and are unobtrusive by nature, yet aimed at influencing the
audience. Law and Braun-LaTour (2004) defined product placement as “the deliberate
insertion of branded products into an entertainment program aimed at influencing the
audience” (p. 63). Film and television producers suggest that the best placements are
those that are “organic” to the storyline, and often insist that the brand is not included to
influence the audience, but to tell a story in a way that is believable and realistic (Chang,
Salmon, and Newell, 2004). Karrh (1994; I998) contended that the phenomenon of
product placement should be titled “brand placement,” since the practice usually involved
inserting a branded product into the production of the entertainment media.
While advertising often relies upon verbal cues to express their brand message,
many marketers recognize the importance of nonverbal signs as well (Hecker & Stewart,
1988). It can be argued that some forms of branded product placement in entertainment

media are nonverbal marketing messages that rely on audiences to immediately recognize

37

corporate symbols and make brand associations in the midst of visual and audio cues
from the characters (Wyer & Adaval, 2004).

Changing economic climates have challenged narrow definitions of product
placement. For example, while some definitions might have anticipated recent
partnerships between media entities and branded products, other relationships would not
have been included at all. The prominent placement of Pepperidge Farm’s Milano brand
cookies in the series finale of NBC’s Frasier (2004) both raised the eyebrows and gained
the approval of marketing executives. In this partnership, no money exchanged hands
between NBC, Pepperidge Farms, the actors on Frasier, nor the producers of the show.
Instead Pepperidge Farm agreed to buy 12 pages out of TV Guide as a sort of advertorial
that would provide a historical praise of the sitcom’s impact on television and its
audiences (Steinberg, 2004).

Films such as DreamWorks’ animated hit, Shark Tale (2004), expanded the
definition of branded product placements to include brands based on real, preexisting
brands. Created to provide a spotlight for brands in films that may not necessarily call
products because of the unusual settings these brands often fit the environment and
comedic tone of the film. For example, “Coral-Cola” imitated the colors and logo
treatments of Coca-Cola. Furthermore, Dreamworks seems to be creating an animated
world with fantasy brand by carrying over those real brand to fit the time period of films
such as 2004’s Shrek 2 (i.e., Burger King = Burger Prince, Old Navy = Olde Knavery)
into the underwater adventures of Shark T ale (i.e., Burger Prince = Fish King, Olde

Knavery = Old Wavy) (http://www.brandchannel.com/ brandcameo_films.asp).

38

In looking at current product placement partnerships and interviews with
marketing and film production executives conducted by Chang, Salmon, and Newell
(2004) have found that these past definitions associated with product placement are much
too narrow for the scope of its practice and applicability. Having already expanded to
television programs (although termed “product integration”), books (Friedman, 1986),
music videos (Englis, Solomon, & Olofsson, 1993), and video games (Nelson, 2000), the
inclusion of branded products may or may not have been contracted business
partnerships. Thus, the inherent conflict between the identification of product placement
as advertising or public relations suggests that this categorization may depend upon how
brands become a part of the media (Chang, Salmon, & Newell, 2004; Tilson, 2003). This
study will use the term “branded product placement” to refer broadly to branded products
that materialize in entertainment media. These placements may range from actors making
verbal brand mentions to visual appearances of the logo to a brand that is recognizable to
the audience to a combination of both verbal and visual appearances.

Industry Agenda

The classic product placement story of how Mars, Inc., the makers of M&M’s
chocolate candies missed out on an opportunity to be in E. T..- The Extraterrestrial (1982)
or how any clothing line missing an opportunity to dress the contestants of 2004’s
American Idol (Duvall, 2004) and rising costs to produce entertainment media, including
music videos (Fiore, 2003), has forced media producers to look for other ways to fund
their projects. In an economic climate that does not favor large marketing budgets, more
and more companies have been held accountable for their appropriations (Gough, 2003).

In response to these concerns, Joyce Julius Associates and iTVX in Ann Arbor,

39

Michigan, Nielsen Media Research, and lntermedia Advertising Group (lAG) in New
York City, have devised formulas to calculate the monetary value of a brand placement.
Based primarily on traditional media buying concepts, these firms are interested in
impressions, if the placements are shown and/or spoken about, whether or not there are
interactions with the actors, and for how long the brand is on the screen. To address the
growing definition of brand placement that has now expanded to computer games (Elkin,
2002; Mack, 2004), companies such as JAM lntemational Partners has proposed a way of
testing the effectiveness of placements in video games.

It is important to note that commercial research and articles regarding product
placement do not only focus on the positive attributes of brand placement in
entertainment media such as brand exposure and potential marketing effectiveness. In
fact, Philip Morris’ Marlboro cigarettes asked Paramount to edit out scenes that show
Samuel L. Jackson smoking Marlboros in Twisted (2004) (O’Connell, 2004). The plea
stems from cigarette advertising bans on billboards or television, the increasing scrutiny
tobacco manufacturers face, and indoor smoking bans within the state of California. In
addition, as suggested by academic studies, the use of product placement with a character
that has negative attributes or is misused may lead to detrimental association between the
brand and its reputation (Palmer, 1998).

According to Psychological Reactance, requests from corporations to ban certain
products from entertainment media may spawn additional interest from consumers. As
suggested by Clee and Wicklund (1980), the elimination of choices may enable feelings

of Psychological Reactance. Thus, publicity directed at desires to eliminate images of

40

characters smoking might lead audiences to feel that their freedom to see actors with
cigarettes has been threatened or censored, triggering Psychological Reactance.
Product Placement and Theories: Academic Research

Previous literature regarding various aspects of product placement (i.e., its
effectiveness on brand recall, awareness, ethics, purchase intention, etc.) has
demonstrated that this body of literature does not have a consistent theoretical framework
that has been used to either explain or predict findings. The most frequently used theories
and approaches for quantitative product or brand placement studies include: Attribution
Theory (Babin & Carder, l996b; Gupta, Balsubramanian, & Klassen, 2000), Classical
Conditioning (Gupta, Balsubramanian, & Klassen, 2000; Johnstone & Dodd, 2000),
including operant conditioning (Johnstone & Dodd, 2000), Elaboration Likelihood Model
(Babin & Carder, l996b; Gibson & Maurer, 2000; Pracejus, 1995), and constructs from
Social Learning Theory (Bandura, 1977) such as the modeling paradigm (Gupta,
Balsubramanian, & Klassen, 2000) and observational learning (Johnstone & Dodd,
2000). Other theories that have been used in application to product placement include
impression management (Karrh, 1998), meaning transfer model (McCracken, 1988;
Russell, 1998), consumer-brand relationship (F oumier, 1994), persuasion paths
(Deighton, Romer, & McQueen, I989), theory of mere exposure (Pracejus, 1995), the
two-process model of memory (Johnstone & Dodd, 2000), and the tripartite typology for
product placement (Russell, 1999).

Studies of a more qualitative nature have relied upon Grounded Theory, which
suggests that the process and products of research are shaped from the data, rather than

the research being driven by the theory (Glaser, 1992; Charmaz, 2000). DeLorme and

41

Reid (1999) used Grounded Theory to examine moviegoers’ experiences with brands that
are used as props on the set.
Studying Product Placement: Direct Effects

While several articles have addressed the ethics, laws, and regulations of product
placement (Snyder, 1992; Kruckenber & Starck, 2004; Siegel, 2004; Turner, 2004;
Wenner, 2004), the majority of studies regarding product placement have used a range of
qualitative and quantitative methods to examine the direct effects of branded product
placement. This section will examine published journal articles regarding product
placement.

Qualitative methods have ranged from studies that explored the nature of product
placement to focus groups (DeLorme & Reid, 1999) to case studies (Friedman, 2004) and
ethnographies (La Pastina, 2001). La Pastina (2001) found that in a one-year
ethnographic study of Brazilians who watched a telenovela, younger and more educated
audiences were more likely to interpret the placements as persuasive messages. Older
viewers, on the other hand, believed that the products were an integral part of the
storyline — or did not notice the brands at all.

Analyzing Media Content for Product Placement

Studies that reported the pervasiveness of product placements in entertainment
media present an unusual challenge in the academic arena because of the process of
publishing articles. For example, Ferraro & Avery (2000) suggested that in 1997, there
were 2,945 brand appearances in the sample of prime-time television that was obtained.
When the article was published, it was already three years later — a year in which the

nature of television programs began to shift, the appearance of products were becoming

42

more pervasive, and industry leaders could not jump onto the bandwagon fast enough.
Still, Avery’s study, as admitted to in the article, does provide a benchmark for the
number of brand appearances in 1997.

Other studies have avoided this problem by comparing product placements in
entertainment media across time. For example, Galician & Bourdeau (2004) examined
the occurrences of products in films in three decades: 1977, 1987, and 1997 and found
that the number of placements in films had not significantly increased. However, the top
products that were categorized included automobiles (21%), beer (14%) and soda (11%),
with Coca-Cola leading the brand in that category. In the first comprehensive industry
analysis of branded product placement in media content (film, television, magazines,
newspapers, videogames, Internet, recorded music, books and radio), Quinn and Kivijarv
(2005) estimated that spending in 2004 reached $3.46 billion, with film and television
representing the lion’s share. The three product categories most represented in media
content include transportation and parts (16%), apparel and accessories (15.6%), and food
and beverage (12.5%).

Interestingly, the content of other media have been examined for product
placements as well. For example, Englis, Solomon, and Olofsson (1993) investigated the
product categories and brand names that have appeared in music videos from the US.
and Sweden. In the third content analysis conducted by Friedman (1986) suggested that
the number of brands mentioned in media such as novels, Broadway plays, and music

varied by decade, with novels being the most pervasive in their brand name dropping.

43

Surveys about Product Placement

Survey methods often allow for more flexibility in terms of distribution and cross
comparisons. Thus, it was interesting to note several studies that investigated the cultural
perceptions of product/brand placements in entertainment media (Gould, Gupta, &
Grabner-Krauter, 2000; Karrh, Frith, & Callison, 2001; McKechnie & Zhou, 2003). In
addition, the participant pool went beyond the college campus and extended to
advertising and marketing executives (Sandler & Secunda, 1993), movie goers (Ong &
Meri, 1994), and online survey methods (Ong, 2004).

The nature of some of the participants allowed for the dependent variables to
include countries of origin such as France and Austria (Gould, Gupta, Grabner-Krauter,
2000), Britain (Johnstone & Dodd, 2000), Singapore (Karrh, Frith, & Callison, 2001),
China (McKechnie & Zhou, 2003). In addition, surveys regarding product placement
have exposed all participants to the same type of stimuli and measured dependent
variables such as product placement usage (Brennan, Dubas, & Babin, 1999), persuasive
nature (Deighton, Romer, & McQueen, 1989), advertising preference (Gupta,
Balasubramanian, & Klassen, 2000), gender and movie going behavior (Gupta & Gould,
1997), media format (Nebenzahl & Secunda, 1993; Nelson, 2000; Ong & Meri, 1994;
Ong, 2004).

The types of independent variables measured shared commonalities in that most
measured attitudes toward product placement, especially those that are ethically charged
(Gupta, Balasubramanian, & Klassen, 2000; Gupta & Gould, 1997; Karrh, Frith, &
Callison, 2001; McKechnie & Zhou, 2003; Sandler & Secunda, 1993). Similar to

experimental studies, survey methods have been employed to understand aided and

44

unaided brand recall (Brennan, Dubas, & Babin, 1999; Nelson, 2000; Ong & Meri, 1994;
Ong, 2004), purchase intention (Gould, Gupta, & Grabner-Krauter, 2000), and brand
attention (Karrh, Frith, & Callison, 2001).

Product Placement Experiments

Experimental studies involving product placement have generally used college
students in the sample pool. Babin and Carder (1996) and Gupta and Gould (1997)
argued that the use of college students for the sample population regarding branded
product placement studies is appropriate because the prominent age group for film
attendance ranges from 18 to 34 (Johnson, 1981) and because going to see films is the
number one activity for the age range of undergraduates (Nebenzahl & Secunda, 1993).
One dissertation by Vollmers (1995) was particularly interested in children’s recognition
of brands and thus used second, fourth, and sixth graders in the study. Studies by
D’Astous and Seguin (1999) and Roehm, Roehm, and Boone (2004) used a convenience
sample of masters’ students in their study.

The type of media shown to participants in experimental groups for studies
regarding product placement involved film clips (Babin & Carder, l996a, l996b;
Brennan & Babin, 2004; Gibson & Maurer, 2000; Gupta & Lord, 1998; Johnstone &
Dodd, 2000), television programs (D’Astous & Seguin, 1999; Law & Braun, 2000),
scripts to, television programs (Roehm, Roehm, & Boone, 2004), or televised sporting
events (Pracejus, 1995) as the stimuli. These stimuli relate to the independent variables
often measured in these experimental studies. For example, participants were either
exposed to the stimuli or not (Babin & Carder, l996a), different films (Babin & Carder,

l996b; Gupta & Lord, 1998) or television scripts (Roehm, Roehm, & Boone, 2004) that

45

had different kinds of brands represented, presentations of the product/brand placements
such as visual only, audio only, or audiovisual (Brennan & Babin, 2004; D’Astous &
Seguin, 1999; Law & Braun, 2000); or the existence of the product placement (Gibson &
Maurer, 2000).

Dependent variables often overlapped and fell into the realm of aided or unaided
brand recall (Babin & Carder, l996b; Gupta & Lord, 1998), brand recognition and/or
familiarity (Brennan & Babin, 2004; Johnstone & Dodd, 2000; Law & Braun, 2000;
Vollmers, 1995), brand attitudes (Babin & Carder, 1996a; D’Astous & Seguin, 1999),
memory (Roehm, Roehm, & Boone, 2004), and behavioral (Gibson & Maurer, 2000) or
purchase intention (Pracejus, 1995).

The only study thus far to explore the effects of product placement in
entertainment media and children, Auty and Lewis (2004) found that when children are
exposed to a film clip, they are more apt to choosing the brand that they observed in the
movie for themselves. From interviews with the participants, the researchers concluded
that exposure to branded products in films alone are not suffice. Rather, it is a
combination of previous exposure to the brand and a reminder exposure that affects their
behavior.

Perhaps one of the most seminal research studies on product placement involves
the Tripartite Typology of Product Placement, a model developed and validated by
Russell (1999). Testing the model by creating scripted stimuli that was acted out by
masters’ students in: the fine arts department at Arizona State University and was
videotaped, Russell used this theater methodology to control many of the validity issues

encountered in previous product placement situations. The model suggested that the

46

effectiveness of branded product placement was threefold: (1) visual appearance: the
physical placement of the product in relationship to the screen; (2) auditory presence: the
placement of the product in the script of the entertainment media; and (3) degree of
connection to plot: the placement of the product as an integral part of the storyline.
Russell (1999) concluded that the conditions created to maximize audience memory
(such as incongruent situations where the plot connection was not in line with the
modality of the product display) about branded product placements did not necessarily
increase persuasion.
Measured Outcomes ofProduct Placement

It would seem that because of the attention product placement is receiving in both
trade and popular media, entities such as www.brandcameo.com that have been created to
track product placement appearances in films, and private corporations whose existence
depends upon estimating the dollar value of branded product placements, the research
regarding this marketing communication method would be more consistent. As examined
in the next section, the research regarding the effectiveness of product placement in
entertainment media is not only inconclusive, but seems to depend upon the
interrelationship of several variables.
Brand Awareness and Brand Recall

Ong (2004) suggested that respondents were just as likely to be aware of brands in
movies as television programs. After awareness, the next cognitive process for product
placements might include whether or not the audience recalls seeing the brands in the
media. The use of aided or unaided recall has different merits, but studies have argued

that because of the multitude of brands in films, aided recall is often more accurate in

47

estimating the effectiveness of products (Babin & Carder, l996b; Brennan, Dubas, &
Babin, 1999). Studies have also used both unaided and aided (in that order to prevent
ordering effects) of brands in media (Gupta & Lord, 1998) since this provides us with an
understanding of what brands might be more salient to audiences (Johnstone & Dodd,
2000), which brands can be triggered in from long term or short term memory storage
(Nelson, 2000), and even which brands are incorrectly attributed to certain media (Ong &
Meri, 1994). On the other hand, Ong and Meri (1994) also found through unaided brand
recall that those who correctly remembered those specific brands did not have a higher
intention of purchasing that branded product.

Across studies interested in product placement awareness and recall, the results
have indicated that these effects can vary depending upon how the product is presented in
the scene, the types of interactions that the brand has with the character, and how integral
they are to the plot. For example, Ong and Meri (1994) found that most audiences (55
mentions, n=65) recalled Coke as a brand in the Michael Douglas classic Falling Down
(2003). One explanation for this could be its intensive involvement in the scene since
Douglas gets into a confrontation with the convenience store owner regarding the
purchase of a can of Coke.

The use of the product in the media can also influence the audience’s brand recall.
Brennan, Dubas, and Babin (1999) and Brennan and Babin (2004) made the distinction
between a “creative” or “on-set” placement. Creative placements are defined as those in
which there is an implicit endorsement from the actor because he/she is using the product
(i.e., Tom Cruise in the 1983 film Risky Business wearing Ray-Ban sunglasses). On-set

placements are those that are used primarily background props (i.e., the multitude of

48

cereals sitting on Jerry Seinfeld’s kitchen cabinet in Seinfeld). Brennan, Dubas, & Babin
(1999) found that the on-set placements accounted for 87% of the effective placements -
when considering time of exposure and brand recall.

Brennan and Babin (2004) further explored the on-set and creative placement
constructs to the presentation of the products. That is, if the product is only mentioned
verbally (audio only), only seen (visual only), or both seen and heard (audiovisual). The
researchers found that brand recognition rates from audio-visual placements that were on-
set were significantly greater than those rates for those that were visual only. Other
studies have contradicted these findings. For example, Gupta and Lord (1998) found that
audiovisual placements did not yield higher recall rates than audio only or visual only
placements.

Other studies have explored the involvement of the product with the program’s
dramatic nature and found that those that were integral parts of the story had a higher
brand recall than those that served as background prop. Similar to the on-set and creative
definitions of product placement, D’Astous and Seguin (1999) used the term implicit
(brand is present in the program without being formally expressed), integrated (brand that
is formally expressed within the program), and non-integrated (brand that is not formally
expressed, but integrated within the contents of the program). The researchers found that
not only do implicit placements lead to more negative consumer reactions to product
placements than integrated placements, but that they are considered more deceptive than
explicit placements.

Similarly, in exploring the difference between a product “plug” (television

programs that allow for the personalities to speak obviously about brands) and

49

“placements” (those programs that would have to organically and seamlessly integrate
products), Roehm, Roehm, and Boone (2004) found that audiences are more likely to
remember those product placements integrated in the storyline through unintended means
(i.e., if the viewer find him/herself in the same situation as the character or is thinking
about the program, then recall of the product increases). Plugs, on the other hand, are
linked to a more direct memory recall.

Studies that have examined the direct outcomes of product placement have not
tested possible unintended effects of branded product placement. As the practice becomes
much more predominant in films and television programs, increasingly controversial, and
continues to be unregulated in the United States, the indirect effects associated with
audience attitudes must extend beyond audience attitudes. Rather, the focus should
concentrate around those responsible for branded placements, the types of products that
are appropriate, and possible backfire effects resulting from Psychological Reactance
associated with how audiences might react as a result of what they see on the screen.

The Ethical Nature of Product Placement

The ethics of branded product placement can be considered from two aspects: (1)
common concerns about the ethical nature of placements and (2) the ethical nature of
specific products (Gould, Gupta, & Grabner-Krauter, 2000). While research conducted to
determine the effectiveness of product placements in entertainment media such as
television programs, movies, and music is inconsistent, are often times dependent upon
several factors, the consensus seems to be that in regards to consumer and audience
attitudes, Americans in general do not object to its practice (Gupta & Gould, 1997;

Negenzahl & Secunda, 1993; Ong & Meri, 1994).

50

General Attitudes Regarding Product Placement

On the other hand, there are ethical considerations regarding the use of some
product categories. Turner (2004) investigated the placement of medical products in
entertainment media. The implications for such products are not necessarily ethically
charged, but if taken out of context, misused by the media, or misinterpreted by the
viewer, then the implications can be much greater than if a consumer purchased hair
spray that Brooke Shields was using and it did not hold her hair in the same way that it
held Brooke’s. Turner acknowledges that medical products will continue to have its place
in entertainment media for the same reason that other consumer products do, but urges
entertainment producers and medical product advertisers to be cautious of its use.

Relationships between the attitudes about the ethical nature of branded product
placements and demographic variables have been tested. Individual differences such as
gender (Gould, Gupta, & Grabner-Kriiuter, 2000; Gupta & Gould, 1997), movie going
frequency and pre-existing attitudes about product placement (Gupta & Gould, 1997),
television genre (d’Astous & Seguin, 1999), have been found to impact audience attitudes
regarding the placement of branded products, particularly with gender. Culturally, there
are no attitudinal differences between Chinese and American audiences (McKechnie &
Zhou, 2003) or Austrian, French, and American audiences (Gould, Gupta, & Grabner-
Krauter 2000) regarding branded product placement in films. However, the strict
government of Singapore may have contributed to the ethical concerns regarding branded
product placement between Singaporeans, who are supportive of governmental

regulations of product placement, and Americans (Karrh, Frith, & Callison, 2001).

51

Attitudes Regarding Ethically Charged Product Categories

Product categories that appear in media and whose placements are less likely to
be supported by audiences are defined as ethically charged branded products (Gould,
Gupta, & Grabner-Krauter, 2000; Gupta & Gould, 1997; McKechnie & Zhou, 2003).
Cigarettes, alcohol, guns (Gupta & Gould, 1997; McKechnie & Zhou, 2003), fatty foods,
(McKechnie & Zhou, 2003), and prescription drugs (Gupta & Gould, 1997) have been
identified as ethically charged while soft drinks, sports equipment, mobile phones, racing
bicycles, healthy consumer products, candy/snacks, sunglasses, cameras, stereo
equipment, and computers were found to be non-ethically charged (McKechnie & Zhou,
2003).

To summarize, previous studies examining product placement have made the
assumption that products in entertainment media are a marketing message. Thus, studies
have often tested for the effectiveness of the product’s placement in terms of recall or
recognition and the type of product that it is (i.e., ethically versus non-ethically charged).
However, the research thus far has not explored the influence of product placement
sources nor the unintended effects of product placement related to over-saturation within
the same entertainment content.

Advertising Clutter and Wearout
“ We 're reaching the tipping point where overexposure of product
placement is going to wind up creating the same kind of wallpaper effect that
commercial television has created. "

- Adam Hanft, Chief Executive, Hanft Unlimited (Ives, 2005)

52

The over-saturation of branded products placed in entertainment media can be
equated to what is commonly referred to as advertising wearout or advertising clutter.
This section will distinguish between the two concepts and apply them to this study.
Advertising Clutter

In broad marketing terms, the American Marketing Association (AMA) defines
clutter as “the condition that exists when many ads or commercials are placed too closely
together in space or time” (http://www.marketingpower.com). Specifically, AMA
describes advertising clutter as “the extent to which multiple messages compete for the
consumers’ (limited) attention and is often used to indicate multiple competing messages
in one medium (such as television) or place” (http://www.marketingpower.com). Clutter
is a phenomenon that is comparable to product placement in entertainment media when
scenes become so inundated with brands that audiences cannot help but notice. While the
multitude of brands that appear in scenes that take place at Times Square in New York
City such as Madagascar (2005) may seem organic, films such as Minority Report (2002)
created a futuristic shopping mall that strategically placed brands within an that
environment are likely to generate more audience reactions.

The pervasiveness of advertising is inevitable in capitalistic cultures that welcome
advertising as one way of communicating with potential consumers. Rumbo (2002) goes
as far to suggest that advertisers have taken over cultural spaces that cannot be ignored by
individuals. As a result of this over-saturation, audiences must work to keep advertising \/
messages out of their psychic spaces. One of the assumptions about advertising clutter is
that the volume of advertising has made creative executions more difficult to achieve

(Pieters, Warlop, & Wedel, 2002). As a result, some marketers have turned to featuring

53

prominent sexuality as a “shock” factor as a means of gaining attention from time-
pressed audiences (LaTour & Henthome, 1994; Kilboume, 2003).

Advertising clutter has been studied across various types of media (Elliot &
Speck, 1998) as well as specific media such as television commercials (Webb, 1979;
Webb & Ray, 1979; Pillai, 1990; Lloyd & Clance, 1991; Brown & Rothschild, 1993;
Johnson & Cobb-Walgren, 1994; Kent, 1995; Zhao, I997; Eastman & Newton, 1999;
Waller, I999; Pieters, Warlop, & Wedel, 2002; Rumbo, 2002; Kilboume, 2003),
magazine advertisements (Ha, 1996), print advertisements (LaTour & Henthome, 1994;
Singh, Lessig, Kim, Gupta, & Hocutt, 2000), yellow page advertising (Abemethy &
Laband, 1999), the Internet (Cho & Cheon, 2004).

Upon examination of clutter within the same print advertisement, Singh, Lessig,
Kim, Gupta, and Hocutt (2000) found that when participants were exposed to
advertisements that had a low copy-picture ratio twice, these advertisements were more
effective than ads with a high copy-picture ratio. Regarding advertisements within yellow
pages, Abemethy and Laband (1999) suggested that clutter effects in directories for large
cities were more likely than smaller regions. Ha (1996) found that in magazines, clutter /
characteristics such as quantity and intrusiveness lowered attitudes toward
advertisements. Interestingly, intrusiveness lowered participants’ memory of the focal
advertisement, which is consistent with Psychological Reactance,

While perceived advertising clutter is highest in television and direct mail (Elliot
& Speck, 1998), clutter on television commercial pods have been the most researched. In
a study conducted by Johnson and Cobb-Walgren (1994), the data failed to support the

claim that cluttered commercial environments have uniformly negative effects upon

54

audience responses. However, regardless of clutter level, the cognitive speed did seem to
affect responses (Johnson & Cobb-Walgren, 1994).

In respect to media planning, clutter is a concern regarding the position of an
advertisement within a commercial pod (Pillai, 1990) and whether or not that message is
embedded in a high or low clutter environment (Webb, 1979). Webb and Ray (1979)
found a positive correlation between clutter and advertising effectiveness scores,
measured using audience attention, recall, and cognitive response. Webb (1979) found
that commercials at the beginning position of a pod are likely to experience more
audience attention and higher recall rates. Zhao (1997) confirmed these findings and
suggested that marketing messages fare better in pods that have fewer ads, or are placed
at the beginning of the break.

Billboards that announce program broadcasts at the end of a commercial pod
seemed to increase salience for the shows that were being promoted (Eastman & Newton,
1999). This finding suggested that sponsorship billboards for brands that are also featured
with the content as a branded product placements would generate more audience recall.
Advertising Wearout

As opposed to advertising wear-in, which is defined as the process of delivering
an advertisement to a consumer population over-time to increase awareness (Blair, 2000),
advertising wear-out is described as the decline of an advertisement’s overall persuasive
power as effective delivery is achieved among the target population (Blair, 2002). In
general, wearout is explained by the subjects’ involvement in expecting to be entertained

or seeking new information in processing an advertisement (Krugman, 1965; Greenberg

55

& Suttoni, 1973; Craig, Stemthal, & Leavitt, 1976; Calder & Stemthal, 1980; Hughes,
1992).

Past research has suggested that single exposure advertisements may be just as
effective in audience brand recall and changing attitudes. Gibson (1996) summarized the
findings of a study conducted by General Mills and found that for food advertisements:
(1) for an established brand, a single exposure of an advertisement can change brand
attitude; (2) possible effects for one single exposure advertisement may range from
positive to negative; and ( 3) that the effects of an advertisement are not related to the
product category.

Greenberg and Suttoni (1973) suggested that repeating a commercial does two
things: (1) increases and continues to reinforce what an individual learns about the
product; and (2) prevents the possibility of the audience forgetting about the product.
Berger (1999) found that moderate levels of advertising exposure frequency can \/
positively influence the number of brand associations in a participant’s memory and the
increase the consistency between brand associations in memory and summary
evaluations. The difference between first and second exposure may depend on the type of
product that is being advertised. For example, Kamins, Alpert, and Elliot (2000) found
that providing consumers with information that a brand is a pioneer within the product
class affects sales more at the second exposure than the first. Campbell and Keller (2003)
found that when while repetition of an advertisement for an unknown brand occurred, its
effectiveness decreased, while wearout was delayed for a familiar brand.

Repeating the same commercial too many times may have also detrimental effects \/

on audience perceptions and attitudes about the advertised brand. Pashupati (2003) found

56

that participant attitudes for one advertisement could improve tolerance levels for the ad,
but that additional exposures did not increase attitudes for the advertisement. In an
examination of the repetition of similar advertising messages by familiar brands, Law
(2002) found that although increased exposure improved audience memory for the
correct brand and claim, audience confusion was elevated among advertised competitors.
Although Craig, Stemthal, and Leavitt (1976) did not observe wearout effects when
controlling for participants’ inattention to advertisements and reactance to repetition, the
highest repetition level in the researchers’ experiment yielded greater or at equal brand
name recall at the lower repetition levels.

The consumer’s familiarity with an advertised brand does seem to impact recall
dependent upon the repetition of a message. Winter (1973) found that not only did past
exposures, brand familiarity, and prior attitude significantly related to attitudinal
responses,.but that individuals who were not familiar with the brand are more likely to \/
be influenced by repetition of the same ad than those who are already familiar with the
brand. This seems to hold true for fictitious brands as well. Baker (2003) defines brand
imprinting as theprocess of creating and strengthening a brand name in the brand
memory netwdrk through brand name exposure. Baker (2003) found that brand names
with neutral meanings better facilitate the imprinting effect because they do not interfere
with any preconceived notions that consumers might already have. In fact, Holden and
Vanhuele (1999) found that when participants are deliberately exposed to fictitious
brands, they are likely to recall the brand as real the day after exposure.

The type of message being repeated and its length may also affect audience recall

and attitudes. Riter, Balducci, and McCollum (1983) found that while advertisements that

57

were compressed from traditional :30 spots increased brand awareness and recall of main
idea among participants, compressed spots did not increase consumer motivation to
purchase the advertised brand. Singh and Cole (1993) found that although informational
:15 advertisements are just as effective as :30 commercials, emotional :30 ads are more
effective than emotional :15 ads. MacLachlan and Siegel (1980) found that not only were
recall scores for time-compressed commercials significantly higher than advertisements
running in their normally allotted time, but also that neither viewer attitudes nor recall
were affected by clutter.

Certainly, audience characteristics also affect attitudes regarding the repetition of
advertising messages. Weilbacher (1970) listed three types of factors that can influence a
viewer’s attention in regards to television commercials: (1) the viewer’s characteristics
and pre-existing attitudes: (2) the nature of the commercial; and (3) the viewer’s previous
experience with the commercial. Among children audiences, advertising repetition seems
to have been found to be effective at three exposures for brand recognition (Gorn &
Goldberg, 1980). In fact, the authors found that by increasing exposures, children’s
preferences and behavior were affected only if the exposure was not repetitive.

In conjunction with information processing models, product involvement levels
impact advertising wearout effects. Olson and Thjemee (2003) found that when
participants have low involvement with the brand name and product category, they are
likely to process informational ads much more favorably than advertisements that only
contained the name of the brand. Hughes (1992) found that affective and cognitive states
stabilize quickly when participants are exposed to advertisements that are a part of an

established marketing campaign. However, when the advertisement no longer provides

58

any information, cognitive wearout is likely to occur. In testing a model regarding the
motivations of consumers, Baker and Lutz (2000) examined the time that it took a
consumer to make a purchasing decision after he had seen an advertisement and found
that the advertisement’s appeal and relevancy to the consumer were the most influential
factors in consumer decisions.

Often concerned with effective media plans and strategies, wearout has been
suggested to be dependent upon the ad’s message, the tone of the ad, the target audiences,
and the media plan (Scott & Solomon, 1998). Stewart (1999) suggested that the definition
and operationalization of advertising wearout is not only important to the measurement of
the construct, but the results and conclusions drawn. In fact, the research conclusions
regarding advertising wearout are inconsistent. While a study designed to test advertising
wearout with a campaign from the Traffic Accident Commission found little evidence for
advertising wearout Fry (1996), Blair and Rabuck (1998) examined studies concerning
500 observations of advertising wearout and conclude that although the wearout function
occurs across global markets, the curve seems to be somewhat slower than what was
observed in the first cases.

Longman (1997) found that regardless of light or heavy product category usage,
short-term advertising response is the strongest after the first exposure, which suggest
that recency, not frequency, is a more effective media strategy. While Simon (1982)
found that in terms of media planning, a pulsation strategy has proven effective in
avoiding the effects of advertising wearout, information-processing models predict that
advertising wearout will occur, regardless of strategies designed to decrease those effects

by increasing attention. Calder and Stemthal (1980) found that increasing exposures by

59

increasing flight strategies or executions not only lead to wearout, but also caused
audiences to generate negative attitudes abOut those brands being advertised.

Product placement in entertainment media may be compared to advertisements in
which a brand is featured within an incongruent context. For example, contextual
interference occurs when pictures from two advertisements are too similar and audiences
are often unable to distinguish between the two, thereby affecting audience memory for
both familiar and unfamiliar brands (Kumar & Krishnan, 2004). Kumar (2000) found that /
participants exposed to print advertisements with similar contextual elements reduced
their ability to recall the background, contextual elements, and the brand name,
suggesting that brands seen within a contrasting environment might increase audience
recall. Hollander and Jacoby (1973) found that commercials in which the audio and video
did not match increased recall, but did not improve the chances of purchase intent. These
findings are in conjunction with findings from Russell (2000) who found that branded \/
products placed in incongruent media contexts were more likely to increase audience
recall of the brand.

Beyond the consistency of the context within an advertising message, consumers
who had received repeated exposures to brands with incongruent brand extensions have
been found to express more positive evaluations of the brands and higher usage intentions
than by those who had been exposed only once (Lane, 2000). Contributing to brand
equity, these attitudes provide many positive attributes to marketers, including spillover
effects for umbrella brands (Erdem & Sun, 2002). Janiszewski (1993) found that even
though a consumer may not remember when they were first exposed to a brand, mere

exposure to -a brand’s package can encourage a consumer to have a more favorable

60

attitude toward the brand. On the other hand, this spillover is based upon the assumption
that the current consumer attitudes regarding the brand are positive. Fennis and Bakker
(2001) found that during one commercial pod, audience irritation from one advertisement
can affect their evaluations of the spots that follow it.

Weak brand name associations may also interfere with audience memory
accessibility (Keller, 19993). But, beyond just the brand name, Keller (1987) found that
advertising retrieval cues such as visuals or verbals from the advertisement, competitive
ad interference, and consumer processing goals during the exposure, not only increased
memory, but affected brand evaluations. In applying this finding to branded product
placement in entertainment media, audiences are likely to recall brands that they see
within content by drawing from contextual cues. While research has not yet been
published to establish the relationship between exposure to a branded product in
entertainment media and actual purchase behavior, Mazursky (2000) found that time-
delays between knowledge about a product category and product purchase decision may
positively impact a consumer’s purchase decision.

Axelrod (1980) listed 13 variables that are relevant to the examination of \/
advertising wearout: (1) frequency of the exposure; (2) flight patterns of commercials; (3)
product category; (4) time slot; (5) repetitiveness of the commercial; (6) similarity of the
advertising strategy to its competitive brands; (7) complexity of a commercial, such as
how many ideas are presented within the time allotted; (8) programming genre; (10)
market composition; (11) product life cycle; ( 12) influence of the size of the commercial

employed in an ad campaign: and (13) demographic characteristics of the audience. As

61

appropriate for this study, each of these variables will be taken into consideration for the
application of product placement wearout.
Moving Beyond the Direct Effects of Branded Product Placement

The theory of Psychological Reactance has primarily examined the type of
message that might cause unintended effects. Previous research regarding Psychological
Reactance has not yet examined how the source of the message might influence
participant Reactance. Studies concerned with branded product placement in
entertainment media have not examined the level of saturation necessary for audiences to
recognize and recall the placements without engaging in Reactance. This dissertation
study will extend Psychological Reactance by testing whether or not the source of a
marketing communication and the type of message may contribute to the phenomenon.

It is possible that other mechanisms may lead to the same unintended effects or
reversal effects (Karpf, 1978) described by Psychological Reactance Baumeister (1982)
suggested that an individual’s concern with self-presentation is a mediating factor that
may lead to reactance, not the need to regain control. Thus, it is hoped that this study will
demonstrate whether or not the freedom and threat to loss of control mechanisms
explicated by Brehm (1966) and Brehm and Brehm (1981) will continue to be validated
with marketing communications in entertainment media in which audience members have
no freedom to choose the content they are exposed to. Although Psychological Reactance
has been treated as both a stable trait and state, this research hopes to extend this theory
to the practice of branded product placement to understand if this type of marketing

communication could be considered affective or cognitive.

62

Research Questions and Proposed Conceptual Model

Psychological Reactance suggests that attitude change is based on a feeling of loss
of freedom and control (Brehm, I961; Brehm & Brehm, 1981). In the case of marketing
communication efforts such as branded product placement in entertainment media,
consumers may feel that marketers control his/her time, space, information, and security.
As suggested by Psychological Reactance, this threat brought upon by marketers through
these types of communications may result in actions to preserve or regain the control.
Also, the lack of choice that one faces could force consumers to feel that they have lost
the ability to control whether or not he/she receives these advertising messages from
marketers. In turn, this triggers a negative reaction and action from the recipient.

Unlike traditional television commercials during program breaks, audiences do
not have the freedom to disregard marketing communications with branded product
placement in entertainment media or todecide how many messages they are to receive in
a 30-minute program. Thus, the number of branded product placements seen within an
entertainment television program may influence audience brand recall, attitudes about the
branded product, the corporation associated with the placement, and the participant’s
intent to purchase the inserted brand.

The source of the placement message is often unknown to the audience. Although
viewers are likely to make assumptions about whether brands have paid for certain
placements, Chang, Salmon, and Newell (2004) found that the method in which brands
might have a role in a film or television show is dependent upon the type of media, the
unique situation presented in the content, and previous business relationships and

networks that may have been built and strengthened. It is possible that audiences might

63

assume that branded product placements in entertainment media are seen as
communication messages that help to tell the story and perhaps describe the character, a
marketing message strategically placed to increase consumer awareness, or even just an
element of the set’s design. Perhaps more interesting is to examine the audience’s
perception of these messages as aggressive because they cannot be eliminated or passive
because they are an organic part of the content.

Since the sources of branded product placement are often unknown to the general
audience, this study seeks to understand whether or not the identification of the source’s
profit goal of these marketing communications might generate more brand recall, create
more positive or negative attitudes about the placement and brand, or influence the
participants’ intent to purchase the inserted branded product. From the previous literature
regarding the ethical and non-ethical charge of the product (Gould, Gupta, & Grabner-
Krauter, 2000; Gupta, Balasubramanian, & Klassen, 2000; Gupta & Gould, 1997) and
relatedeffects such as cognitive dissonance (F estinger, 1975), audiences are more likely
to engage in Psychological Reactance when a branded product originates from a for-
profit goal oriented than non-profit.

The relationship between Psychological Reactance, the saturation level of
branded product placements, and the profit goal of the source is outlined in RQl through
RQ6 and proposed in a conceptual model (Figure 1).

RQl: How does Psychological Reactance, the saturation level of the inserted

branded product placements in entertainment television programs, the
profit goal of the inserted branded product placement source, and their

interactions affect brand recall?

64

RQ2:

RQ3:

RQ4:

RQS:

RQ6:

How does Psychological Reactance, the saturation level of the inserted
branded product placements in entertainment television programs, the
profit goal of the inserted branded product placement source, and their
interactions affect participant attitudes about branded product placement?
How does Psychological Reactance, the saturation level of the inserted
branded product placements in entertainment television programs, the
profit goal of the inserted branded product placement source, and their
interactions affect participant attitudes about the for-profit organization
(Chiquita)?

How does Psychological Reactance, the saturation level of the inserted
branded product placements in entertainment television programs, the
profit goal of the inserted branded product placement source, and their
interactions affect participant attitudes about the non-profit organization (5
A Day)?

How does Psychological Reactance, the saturation level of the inserted
branded product placements in entertainment television programs, the
profit goal of the inserted branded product placement source, and their
interactions affect participant attitudes about the branded product
(Chiquita bananas)?

How does Psychological Reactance, the saturation level of the inserted
branded product placements in entertainment television programs, the

profit goal of the inserted branded product placement source, and their

65

interactions affect the participants’ intent to purchase the branded product

(Chiquita bananas)?

 

Figure 1

Pryosed conceptual model for independent and dgendent variables

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

R0 1 > Aided/unaided
Psychological Reactance brand recall
Saturation level
Profit goal Of the source RQ2 _ Attitudes about branded
, product placement
Psychological Reactance X R03 __ Attitudes about for-profit
Saturation level 7 organization (Chiquita)
Psychological Reactance x RQ4 A Attitudes about non-profit
Profit goal organization (5 A Day)
I Saturation level X E R05 J Attitudes about branded
Profit goal [ product (Chiquita bananas)

 

 

 

 

Psychological Reactance x
Saturation level x
Profit goal

 

RQ6

 

 

 

V

 

 

 

Purchase intention l

 

 

 

 

66

METHOD
This study employed a 3 X 6 independent—groups quasi-experimental design that
varied the profit goal of the source (for-profit, non-profit, no-source control) and the
saturation level of the branded products included within a :30 television program (ranging
from an episode with 61 seconds of air-time where the brand is seen to the control, which
had zero seconds of air-time with the brand). Table 2 outlines these variables and the

number of participants for each condition.

 

Table 2

Experimental design and variables, including n values for the main study

 

 

Source identification Saturation level
A _B C D E F (control) Igtgl
For-profit (Chiquita) 26 26 27 22 36 24 161
Non-profit (5 A Day) 26 24 29 28 39 25 171
No source (NS, control) 23 38 23 21 25 36 166
Total 75 88 79 71 100 85 498
Procedure

A pilot test was conducted to check for internal consistency and reliabilities of the
scales to be used in the main study. After selecting the appropriate measures, participants
were asked to complete a pre-test survey when they are recruited for the main
experimental study. After showing them the stimulus in the laboratory setting,

participants will then fill out the post-test survey. Lukin, Dowd, Plake, and Kraft (1985)

67

found that tests administered to experimental participants did not significantly increase
the likelihood of generating Psychological Reactance.
Participants

For the pilot test, undergraduate students (28 female and 8 male) from a large
Midwest university were recruited (N=37). The average age for was 21.68 years old and
the sample consisted of 2 juniors and 34 seniors.

Undergraduate students from the same institution were recruited for the main
study (N=498). Because it is possible that Advertising and Marketing students will have
strong preconceived attitudes about product placement in entertainment media,
participants outside of Advertising and Marketing courses were sought out for both the
pilot and actual study. With an average age of 20.18, 318 were female, and 180 were
males. The overall sample consisted of 78 freshmen, 202 sophomores, I38 juniors, and
77 seniors.

Students were offered extra credit from the instructor of the class they were
recruited from in exchange for their participation. This type of non-forced participation is
favored to restrict the possibility of Psychological Reactance occurring among the
students (N immer & Handelsman, 1992). There were no prerequisites for being involved
in the study, except that all participants are to be at least 18 years of age. In addition,
because Linder and Crane ( 1970) found that the effects of Psychological Reactance may
be dependent upon the pressure of time that participants might feel to make a decision, it

was important that volunteer participants did not feel rushed while filling out the surveys.

68

Pilot Test

The pilot test was conducted to check the reliabilities of the items and to
assure that the sources and branded products that have been chosen to be included
in the stimulus would generate enough variance in the final analysis. The items
for the pilot test are discussed in detail in future sections and are listed in
Appendix B.

Main Experiment

Participants in the main experiment were told that the researcher was seeking
volunteers for a study regarding relationships between what they believe are good
characteristics of television programs and their own personality traits. On the same day
that students were recruited for the experiment, willing participants were asked to sign up
for one of several dates and times and told that all sessions were to be held in the same
location. Each experimental date and time represented one experimental condition.
Willing participants were asked to read, sign, and date the consent form and the time-one
survey.

The measures in the time-one survey included the characteristics (well-designed
set, characters, and appearances of brand placements) of a good television program
(including a well designed, Psychological Reactance, attitudes about commercials in
television programs, attitudes about branded product placement, liberalism-conservatism,
and demographics (including television viewing habits). The survey items will be
discussed in the “Measures” section and are listed in Appendix D.

At time-two, participants arrived at the experiment site, asked to fill out another

consent form, shown the stimulus, and filled out part-one of the time-two survey that

69

contained a question pertaining to unaided recall of brands in the episode. The aided
recall question was included on the second part of the survey. Participants were asked to
fill out part-one of the survey before they received part-two to assure validity with
unaided and aided recall questions.

In addition, the surveys included items regarding characteristics of the television
episode they just watched (including set-design, storyline, characters, and appearances of
brand placements), previous experience and attitudes regarding Arrested Development,
purchase intention, attitudes about bananas, Chiquita, and 5 A Day. The items for this
survey will be discussed in the “Measures” section and are listed in Appendix F. After the
time-two survey was completed, participants were thanked for their time and e-mailed a
debriefing of the study.

Stimulus

A twenty-one minute episode of Arrested Development (Twentieth Century Fox,
2004) was used for this study. First premiering on November 2, 2003, the storyline of this
award-winning comedy series centers around the wealthy (but dysfunctional) Bluth
family, now run Michael Bluth, played by Jason Bateman, because the father of the
household is in jail for embezzling funds from his own company.

The Nielsen ratings for the television program indicated that not many Americans
tune in to the show. Furthermore, an informal show of hands in large classrooms at a
large Midwest university indicated that Arrested Development is not a popular television
program among college undergraduates. Although it is broadcast on Fox, a network that
traditionally skews to a younger audience, the critical acclaim and popular press coverage

that the program has received necessitates the inclusion of items in the pre-test to assure

70

its appropriate use. Thus, questions were written to measure whether or not the sample
population watches this program, determine the frequency that it is watched, and their
general attitudes about the television show.

Previous literature has not indicated the saturation level of branded product
placements in which audiences might not only begin to notice the brands, but at what
level they might begin to engage in Psychological Reactance. Since past research
suggested that the ethical charge of products affects audience attitudes (Gould, Gupta, &
Grabner—Krauter, 2000; Gupta, Balasubramanian, & Klassen, 2000; Gupta & Gould,
1997), this study chose to insert a branded product that was non-ethically charged as a
control mechanism. Thus, the Chiquita logo was chosen to be digitally inserted in the
television program to represent bananas.

Branded products of Chiquita logos were inserted into an episode of Arrested
Development by using Monet, a computer software program that specializes in element
replacement. Monet, developed by Imagineer, is the premier editing software for either
changing the names of brands in pre-existing media or adding images of branded
products in television shows or films. This technology, while not new to the industry
(Elliot, 2001; Goldsmith, 2004; Kuczynski, 2000), makes it unknown to the audience of
its post-post-production involvement with the content.

Using Final Cut Pro software, slates representing sponsorship billboards were
inserted at the beginning of the episodes in the for-profit and non-profit source
identification conditions. These billboards identified the sponsor of the episode as either,

“This episode brought to you by Chiquita” or “This episode brought to you by 5 A Day.”

71

Independent Variables

This study will control and measure two independent variables: (1) saturation

level of branded product placements; and (2) profit goal of the source.
Saturation Level

Table 3 identifies the saturation level inserted branded product placements of each
of the six experimental conditions, according to on-air time for the location of inserted
brand. The number of frames column is based upon the editor’s log of how many inserted
brands were included. Because there are 30 frames per second in television video, the
editor’s time leg was then calculated to determine how many seconds of inserted brands
were in those scenes. Figures 2 through 6 illustrate the screen-shots that illustrate the

inserted placements within the television program.

 

Figure 2

Inserted billboard for for-profit source of branded product placement

 

This episode

brought to you by:
Chiquita

 

 

72

 

Figure 3

Inserted billboard for non-profit source of branded product placement

 

This episode
brought to you by:

5ADay

 

 

 

Figure 4

Inserted Chiquita logo seen on the banana of the stand and the sign on the banana stand

 

 

 

73

 

Figure 5

Inserted Chiquita logo seen on the refrigerator

fl... AMA-4...”... --~ —

 

.- .A-tw... .. x'l.\"-1-~.A“/\n3'~g~.

 

 

Figure 6

Inserted Chiquita logo seen on the shirt

 

 

74

 

Table 3

Saturation level of branded product placement inserts

 

Locations of branded

 

Version placement inserts Number of frames Number of seconds
A Banana on stand 3,000 100
Banana stand sign
Shirt
Refrigerator
B Banana on stand 1,950 65
Banana stand sign
Shirt
C Banana on stand 1,850 61
Banana stand sign
Refrigerator
D Boy’s shirt 1,380 46
E Banana on stand 210 7
F (control) No inserts 0 0

 

Profit Goal of the Source

One for-profit organization and one non-profit organization were identified as the
“sponsor” of the television program. Because the survey at time-one indicated that the
participants were cognizant of the profit goals for Chiquita (98.4% responded that
Chiquita was a for-profit corporation, n = 436) but not Five A Day (15.9% responded that
Five A Day was a non-profit organization, it =225), participants were told of their profit
goals when they arrived at the experimental site.

Depending on the experimental condition, the researcher read from a script that

said, “This episode is brought to you by Chiquita, a for-profit organization whose goal is

75

to make money in their various endeavors” or “This episode is brought to you by 5 A
Day, a non-profit organization whose goal is to increase the consumption of fruits and
vegetables among American adults” to assure that participants were clear about the profit
motivations for each organization.
Measures

The following section identifies the proposed items to be used to measure the
dependent and independent variables. Full surveys are listed in Appendices B (pilot test),
D (survey at time-one), and F (survey at time-two). Table 4 lists the independent,
dependent, covariates, and manipulation check, and bogus variables to be measured, and -
Table 5 delineates the variables that will be measured in each of the studies.

Pilot Study

The pilot test was designed to identify the non-profit and for-profit sources and
the ethically charged products that would generate the most variance for the final study.
In addition, because the findings from previous literature regarding scales for
Psychological Reactance were contradictory and inconsistent, the pilot test sought to
examine the reliabilities of each before choosing one to include in the survey at time-one.
The names of the sources and products were chosen based on a prescreening Arrested
Development episodes. After identifying scenes that are appropriate for the incorporation
of branded products, complementary non-profit and for-profit sources were chosen.
Profit Goal of the Source

Participants were asked to identify on a scale from one to four whether an
organization name was (1) for-profit; (2) non-profit; (3) that they had heard of the

organization but were not aware of their profit goal; or (4) that they had never heard of

76

them at all (a = .86). A total of 12 non-profit organizations such as American Red Cross,

National Institute of Health, Centers for Disease Control, and Planned Parenthood, and

16 for-profit companies such as Kraft, Proctor and Gamble, Kimberly Clark, and General

Electric were listed.

 

Table 4

Measured variables for main study

 

 

Manipulation
Independent Dependent Covariates checks Bogus
- Psychological - Aided/unaided - Attitudes - Profit goal of - Quality of
Reactance brand recall about the source television
advertising program
- Saturation - Attitudes
level of about branded - Attitudes
branded product about
product placement commercials
placement
- Attitudes - Attitudes
- Profit goal of about for- about Arrested
branded profit Development
product organization
placement (Chiquita) - Previous
source (for- experience
profit, non- - Attitudes with Arrested
profit, no about non— Development
source profit
identification) organization
(5 A Day) - Demographic
characteristics
- Attitudes
about branded - Number of
product television
(Chiquita hours viewed
bananas)
- Product
- Purchase involvement
intention (bananas)

 

77

 

Table 5

Measured variables according to study

 

 

 

 

 

 

Measures Pilot Study Main stud)!I
T. T2
1 2
Profit goal of source X X
Ethical nature of product placement X X
Psychological Reactance X X
Attitudes about:
Advertising X X
Commercials X X
Branded product placement X X
Arrested Development X X
5 A Day X
Chiquita X
Chiquita bananas X
Television viewing behavior X X
Demographics X X
Exposure to Arrested Development X X
Quality of television program:
In general, well-designed set, X X
well-written storyline, characters
Brand placements X X
Product involvement X
Brand recall:
Unaided X
Aided X
Purchase intention X

 

78

Ethical Charge ofProducts

Thirty-five potential products that had been identified in scenes from Arrested
Development were listed (a = .96). Products included hard liquor, cigarettes, automobiles,
fast food, baked goods, ice cream, tractors, and marijuana. Participants were asked, “If
any of these products or services appeared in a television entertainment program, please
indicate how ethical you believe this would be by circling the number that best reflects
your feelings (l=totally ethical, 7=totally unethical)”
Using Arrested Development

Using a seven-point Likert-scale, participants were asked whether they strongly
agree (1) or strongly disagree (7) with four statements: “I try to watch this television
program every chance that I get,” “I am a fan of this television program,” “I am familiar
with this television program, but do not like it,” “I watch this television program if there
is nothing else on” (a = .41). A seven-point semantic differential scale from Aaker and
Bruzzone (1981) anchored with eight items such as “dull/interesting,”
“meaningful/pointless,” “funny/serious,” and “silly/clever” was be used to gauge
attitudes about Arrested Development from those who have seen the show. One item,
funny/serious was added to the scale. The reliability for all eight items was a = .75.
Psychological Reactance

Because literature regarding scales to measure Psychological Reactance is
inconclusive, three scales were identified to be pilot tested: (1) the l8-item Merz (1983)
scale; (2) the l4-item Hong and Ostini (1989) scale; and (3) the 28-item Therapeutic

Reactance Scale (Dowd, Mine, Wise, 1991). All scales asked respondents to respond on a

79

seven-point Likert-like scale (1=strongly agree, 7=strongly disagree). The overall a for
all three scales (57 items) in pilot study was a = .93.

Originally developed by Merz (1983) in Germany (split half reliability of .88), 18
items have been translated to English and tested. These items include statements such as,
“Only those things which I do out of free will really agree with me,” “I react negatively
when someone tries to tell me what I should or should not do,” “The thought of being
dependent on others is unpleasant to me,” and “Strong praise makes me skeptical.”
Although found to be unsatisfactory by Tucker and Byers (1987) (split half reliability =
0.84, but low factor loadings to indicate four factors), Dowd, Pepper, and Seibel (2001)
believed the findings to be consistent with the predictions of Psychological Reactance.
Except for seven items that were worded either exactly the same or very similar to those
identified in the Hong Psychological Reactance scale, the items translated from Tucker
and Byers (1987) will be used for the pre-test. This pilot study found the 18-items from
the Merz (1983) scale to be a = .87.

Four items modified from Mertz (1983) were included to specifically target
advertising: “I react strongly to advertisements,” “I get very irritated when ads try to
interfere with my freedom to make decisions,” “I strongly resist the attempt of ads to
influence me,” and “I get very irritated when advertising tells me what I should buy or
do” (a = .74).

Hong and Ostini (1989) suggested that low reliabilities from Merz’s scale might
be due to the translation of items. Estimating a split half reliability of .77, Hong and
Ostini (1989) developed a l4-item Hong Psychological Reactance scale based upon

Merz’s original items (Cronbach’s a = .77). Thomas, Donnell, and Buboltz (2001) found

80

that the l4-item scale yielded a reliability estimate of .77. Seven items such as, “When
something is prohibited, 1 usually think: ‘That’s exactly what I am going to do,’” “Advice
and recommendations induce me to do just the opposite,” “It makes me angry when
another person is held up as a role model for me to follow,” “I find contradicting others
stimulating,” and “I become angry when my freedom of choice is restricted” are either
very similar or exactly the same as Merz’s. In a subsequent study that refined the items,
Hong and F aedda (1996) yielded a Chronbach a of .80. This pilot study found the 14-
items from the Hung and Ostini (1989) scale to be a = .82.

Twenty seven of the 28-items from the Therapeutic Reactance Scale (Dowd,
Milne, & Wise, 1991) were part of the pilot test. This scale included items such as, “If I
receive a lukewarm dish at a restaurant, I make an attempt to let that be known,” “It
would be better to have more freedom to do what I want on a job,” “I don’t mind other
people telling me what to do,” “It is important to me to be in a powerful position relative
to others,” and “I consider myself more competitive than cooperative.” The authors
reported that over a three week period, their internal consistency reliability coefficients
ranged from .75 to .84. A subsequent study by Buboltz, Thomas, and Donnell (2002)
reported a considerably lower coefficient alpha of .65, but the factorial analysis was
consistent with predictions made by the theory. This pilot study found the 27-items from
the Therapeutic Reactance Scale (Dowd, Milne, & Wise, 1991) to be a = .84.
Attitudes about Branded Product Placement

Using a seven-point scale ( l=strongly agree, 7=strongly disagree), a 20-item scale
was designed to measure a participant’s previous experience with brand placements (i.e.,

“I have watched an entertainment television program that featured a brand in its

81

storyline,” “I remember seeing a story about a brand in an entertainment television
program”) (a = .75), behaviors resulting from brand placements (i.e., “I have acted upon
a brand I saw in an entertainment television program,” “I have gone online to find out
more about a brand I saw on an entertainment television program”) (a = .86), general
attitudes about brand placements (i.e., “I do not like to watch entertainment television

,3 66

programs with brand placement, 1 think that branded products are intentionally placed
in entertainment television programs to influence the audience”) (a = .57), and the
influence of entertainment television program content (i.e., “I do not mind if television
producers receive money or other compensatiOn for manufacturers for placing their brand
in the program,” “For-profit organizations should not interfere with the content of
entertainment television programs”) (a = .52). The overall a for the brand placement
scale was a = .85.

Attitudes about Advertising

Using the l2-item seven point semantic differential scale from MacKenzie, Lutz,
and Belch (1986), participant attitudes regarding advertising were measured (a = .93).
Attitudes about Commercials ’

Using a seven point scale (l=strongly agree, 7=strongly disagree) from Li,
Edwards, and Lee (2002), participants were asked to identify whether or not they believe
commercials in television programs to be attractive, enjoyable, entertaining, and fun to
watch. Four additional items were included (“Informative,” “Unrelated to program

content,” “Completely independent of the television program,” and “Non-existent”) to

understand specific attitudes regarding sponsorship (a = .45).

82

Demographics

The age, gender, education level, family household income before taxes,

ethnicity, and religion of each participant were asked.
Main Study

This section will outline the measures that were included in the main surveys at
time-one and time-two.
Time—one survey

Measures in the survey at time-one included the characteristics of a good
television program (including a well designed set, characters, and appearances of brand
placements), Psychological Reactance, attitudes about advertising (a = .92), attitudes
about commercials in television programs (a = .61), various opinions about branded
product placement, and demographics (including television viewing habits). The
following section outlines the instruments used and their reliabilities in the survey at
time-one that were not previously discussed in the pilot study.

Quality of television program. Modified items from Aaker and Bruzzone (1981)
were used to ask participants’ attitudes about what a good television program should be
(a = .65). Using a seven-point semantic differential scale with seven items such as
uninteresting/interesting, silly/clever, meaningful/pointless, and irritating/pleasant,
participants were asked to also use this same scale to identify the qualities of a well
designed set (except silly/clever) (a = .81), a well-written storyline (a = .79), characters
in a television program (a = .66), and the inclusion of branded products in television

programs, which included one item (obvious/organic) (a = .84). The overall a = .91.

83

Psychological Reactance. The reliability for the all items in the main study to
measure for Psychological Reactance was a = .92. However, since this study treats
Psychological Reactance as a stable trait, the 27-items from the 28-item Therapeutic
Reactance Scale (Dowd, Mine, Wise, 1991) was used for the analysis of the main study
(a = .81).

Pro/it goal ofthe source. Participants were asked to identify on a scale from one
to four whether the organization used as a treatment was (1) for-profit; (2) non-profit; (3)
that they had heard of the organization but were not aware of their profit goal; or (4) that
they had never heard of them at all. These items acted as a manipulation check for the
profit goal of the source variable (a = .82).

Attitudes about branded product placement. In addition to those items from the
pilot test, a seven-point semantic differential scale from Aaker and Bruzzone (1981) with
MacKenzie, Lutz, and Belch (1986) were combined to understand a participant’s
attitudes about brand placement. Additional items such as relevant/irrelevant and
obvious/organic were included to yield 20 items (a = .84).

A 19-item scale modified from Gupta, Balasubramanian, and Klassen (2000) was
used to measure audience attitudes about branded product placement in entertainment
television programs (a = .87). Originally developed to measure attitudes about product
placements in movies, the authors identified four constructs: attitudes against advertising
(a = .66), attitudes toward placements (a = .68), attitudes toward realism in movies (a =
.75), and attitudes against placements of ethically-charged products (a = .71).

Some items such as “I hate seeing brand name products in entertainment

television programs if they are placed for commercial purposes” and “The presence of

84

brand name products in an entertainment television program makes it more realistic”
were modified for the purpose of entertainment television programs. Another item was
modified (“Brands placed in an entertainment television program for which the producers
receive payment from brand manufactures should be disclosed in the credits at the end of
the program”) from the original item, “Brands placed in an entertainment television
program for which the producers receive payment from brand manufactures should be
disclosed in the credits at the beginning of the program.” In addition, one item was added,
“I do not mind if television producers receive money or compensation from
manufacturers for placing their brands in entertainment television programs.”

Five original items, “Moviegoers should have the option of receiving a full refund
for their tickets if they hated seeing brand name products as props in the movies they
watched,” “If movies are making money from product placements, ticket prices should be
reduced,” “Cigarette product placements in movies should be banned completely since
cigarette ads are banned on television,” “Brand name tobacco, beer, and liquor products
should only be used in R-rated movies, as kids don’t watch such movies,” and “Use of
brand name tobacco, beer, and liquor products should be banned from PG and PG-13
rated movies because kids watch such movies” were deleted because they are irrelevant
to the application of entertainment television programs.

Television Viewing Behavior. While there are several approaches to measuring
how many hours of television an individual watches, this study used three items.
Cultivation Theory (Gerbner & Gross, 1976) separates heavy viewers (individuals who
watch four or more hours of television per day) from light viewers (those who watch less

than four hours of television per day). Previous studies have taken the average of how

85

many hours of television participants watched yesterday and the day before (Perse, 1986;
Rubin, 1984). Thus, this study asked participants: “How many days per week do you
watch television?” and two open ended questions, “How many hours of television did
you watch yesterday?” and “How many hours of television did you watch the day before
yesterday?” Combining the two averages from reported number of television viewing
hours yesterday and the day before yesterday (IL/l = 1.96, SD = 1.55, min. = 0, max. = 9).
In addition, participants were asked to rank order five genres that they prefer to watch.
Time-two survey

The survey at time-two was distributed to participants after they have viewed the
stimulus in a laboratory setting. The survey at time-two was separated into two parts so
that participants would not rely upon the brands they had previously listed in the aided
recall section for their unaided recall responses. In addition to aided and unaided brand
recall, the measures in the time-two survey purchase intention, attitudes about Chiquita
bananas (or = .91), attitudes about Chiquita company (a = .92) and 5 A Day (a = .91), and
attitudes about Arrested Development (a = .88), as well as from those whom had watched
the show previous to the experiment (a = .72), those whom had not (a = .77).

Quality of television program. The same items from the survey at time-one were
included in the survey at time two to be consistent with what the participants were told
about the study. Participants’ attitudes about what a good television program should be
was a = .76. Using a seven-point semantic differential scale with seven items such as
uninteresting/interesting, silly/clever, meaningful/pointless, and irritating/pleasant,
participants were asked to also use this same scale to identify the qualities of a well

designed set (except silly/clever) (a = .81), a well-written storyline (a = .79), characters

86

in a television program (a = .79), and the inclusion of branded products in television
programs, which included one item (obvious/organic) (a = .81). The overall a = .92.

Purchase Intention. On a seven point scale (l=strongly agree, 7=strongly
disagree), participants were asked if they intended to take any actions on the Chiquita
brand they saw in the episode of Arrested Development with the following items: “It is
very likely that I will buy (brand),” “If I were in need of a (product), I would want to
learn more about (brand),” “I will purchase (brand) the next time I need (product),” “I
will definitely try (brand),” “The next time 1 purchase (product category), there is
definitely a chance that I would consider (brand)” (a = .84).

Attitudes about a Chiquita and 5 A Day. Using the lZ-item seven point semantic
differential scale from MacKenzie, Lutz, and Belch (1986), participant attitudes
regarding the for-profit source (Chiquita, a = .92) and the non-profit organization (5 A
Day, a = .91) were measured.

Product involvement. Using a 10-item seven point semantic differential scale
from Zaichkowsky (1994), the participant’s personal involvement with bananas, the
product featured in the episode, were measured (a = .91 ).

Previous exposure to Arrested Development. Participants who said that they had
previous experience with Arrested Development before the laboratory session were asked
to rate (l=strongly agree, 7=strongly disagree) four items regarding their exposure and
viewing habits of Arrested Development (a = .72). The items were: “1 try to watch this
television program every chance that I get,” “I am a fan of this television program,” “I

have seen this television program before and did not like it,” and “I watch this television

program only if there is nothing else on.” Participants who did not have any prior

87

exposure to Arrested Development were asked to rate their response to these statements:
“I will try to watch this television program every chance that I get,” “I am a potential fan
of this television program,” “Now that I have watched this television program, I do not
like it,” and “I would watch this television program only if there was nothing else on” (a
= .77).

Using a seven-point semantic differential scale from Aaker and Bruzzone (1981),
participants were asked to fill out these six items regardless of whether or not participants
had watched Arrested Development before the laboratory session that they participated in.
One item, funny/serious was added to the scale as a manipulation check for participants
who may not have been paying attention to the television show. Overall, a = .88 for the
seven point scale.

Unaided brand recall. Participants were asked to check-mark any of the 36 listed
brands that they recalled seeing in the episode of Arrested Development. 15 were actually
in the episode, 14 were not present, six were possible brands but unconfirmed due to the

lack of on-screen recognition, and one (Chiquita) may or may not have been present.

88

RESULTS
Table 6 presents the n, means, and standard deviations for each of the variables
that were measured in this study. Table 7 presents the correlation matrix for each of the

variables that were measured in this study.

 

Table 6

Values for n, means, and standard deviations of measured variables

 

Standard
Variable n Mean Deviation
Psychological Reactance 466 4.035 8 .59910
Attitudes toward branded product placement 490 5.0596 .65823
Attitudes toward Chiquita bananas 486 4.9125 .76298
Attitudes toward Chiquita 492 5.4287 .89053
Attitudes toward 5 A Day 492 5.6438 .86462
Purchase Intention 482 3.6404 1.36957

 

A hierarchical regression technique for three steps of variable analyses was
conducted using SPSS. The first step examined the effects of Psychological Reactance,
the saturation level of branded product placements within the entertainment television
program, and the profit goal of the branded product placement source on brand recall
(aided and unaided), attitudes about branded product placement, the for-profit (Chiquita)
and non-profit (5 A Day) source of the branded product placement and the branded
product (Chiquita bananas), and the participants’ intent to purchase the branded product

inserted into the program. The second step examined the interaction effects of

89

Psychological Reactance and the two independent variables on the outcomes. Lastly, step

three included a three-way interaction to test for its effects on the dependent variables.

The results for this study will be discussed according to the outcome variables, as

reflected in the research questions.

 

Table 7

Correlation matrix for measured variables

Attitudes Attitudes
toward branded, toward
Psychological product Chiquita
Reactance placement bananas
Psychological
Reactance
Attitudes toward -.080
branded product
placement
Attitudes toward -.144** .2 80**
Chiquita bananas
Attitudes toward -.151** .316** .736**
Chiquita
Attitudes toward -.204** .287** .384**
5 A Day
Purchase -.094* .142** .571 **
intention

Attitudes Attitudes
toward toward 5
Chiquita A Day

.422M

.370** .228**

 

** Indicates p < .01 (2-tailed)
* Indicates p < .05 (2-tailed)

 

90

RQI .' Unaided and Aided Brand Recall

Unaided recall. The results from the first step of the linear regression (Table 8)
indicated that Psychological Reactance, saturation levels, and the profit goal of the source
accounted for about 25% of the variance for unaided brand recall (R2 = .249), which was
statistically significant, F (3,462) = 50.950, p < .001. Individual regression coefficients
(Table 9) for saturation level ([3 = .417, t (462) = 10.332, p < .001) and the profit goal of
the source (,8 = .258, t (462) = 6.378, p < .001) were significant.

The second step with the inclusion of the interactions added a significant 2.2%
variance that accounted for unaided recall of the Chiquita brand, R2 A = .022, F (3,459) =
4.594, p = .004. Regression coefficients for the profit goal of the source (B = .185, t (459)
= 4.141 , p < .001) and the interaction between saturation level and profit goal (B = .475, t
(459) = 3.664, p < .001) were significant. Step three did not significantly contribute to the
variance of unaided brand recall, R2 A = .000; F (1,458) = .145, p = .704).

The results show two things. By itself, profit goal influences unaided brand recall
such that the awareness of the source as a for-profit organization increases recall.
Additionally, the interaction between saturation level and profit goal shows that higher
levels of saturation combined with awareness of the source as a for-profit organization
interacted to increase participant recall of the Chiquita banana brand using unaided
measures. That is, the more inserted branded product placements there were in an
entertainment television program and if the profit goal of the branded product placed was
for-profit, the more likely participants are to recall the Chiquita brand unaided.

Aided recall. The results from the linear regression (Table 10) indicated that the

first step accounted for about 14% of the variance for aided brand recall (R2 = .141),

91

which was statistically significant, F (3,462) = 25.212, p < .001. Individual regression
coefficients (Table 1 1) for Psychological Reactance (fl = -.088, t (462) = -2.029, p =
.043), saturation level (fl = .322, t(462) = 7.458, p < .001 ), the profit goal of the source (,6

= .176, t (462) = 4.070, p < .001) were significant.

 

Table 8

Model summary for unaided brand recall

 

Standard
Adjusted error of the p of
Block R R2 R2 estimate R2 A FA dfl dt2 FA
1 .499 .249 .244 .42595 .249 50.950 3 462 .001*
2 .520 .271 .261 .42107 .022 4.594 3 459 .004*
3 .520 .271 .260 .42146 .000 .145 1 458 .704

 

Block 1: Psychological Reactance, Saturation level, Profit goal
Block 2: Reactance X Saturation, Reactance X Profit goal, Saturation X Profit goal
Block 3: Reactance X Saturation X Profit goal

* Indicates significance, p < .01

 

The second step included the two-way interactions, which indicated that
significant variance for aided recall was not accounted for, R2 A = .007, F (3,459) =
1.239, p < .295. Similarly, step three did not significantly contribute to the variance of
aided brand recall, R2 A = .002; F (1,458) = 1.206, p = .273).

The results show that independently, Psychological Reactance, saturation levels,
and the profit goal of the source predict participant recall of the Chiquita banana brand

using aided measures. Thus, while participants who scored higher on Psychological

92

Reactance were likely to have not recalled the brand, high levels of saturation and
awareness of the source being a for-profit organization influenced participants to recall

the Chiquita brand.

 

Table 9

Coefficient table for unaided brand recall

 

 

 

 

Unstandardized Standardized
coefficients coefficients
Standard
Block Variables B error [3 t Sig.

l Constant .684 .065 10.599 .001*
Psychological Reactance .018 .020 .036 .883 .378
Saturation level .1 19 .01 l .417 10.332 .001*
Profit goal .154 .024 .258 6.378 .001*

2 Constant .768 .068 1 1.340 .001*
Psychological Reactance -.016 .123 -.O33 -.131 .896
Saturation level -.008 .036 -.029 —.226 .822
Profit goal .110 .027 .185 4.141 .001*
Reactance X Saturation -.006 .01 l -.045 -.493 .622
Reactance X Profit goal .010 .024 .108 .433 .665
Saturation X Profit goal .025 .007 .475 3.664 .001*

3 Constant .766 .068 1 1.295 .001*
Psychological Reactance -.106 .266 -.216 -.398 .691
Saturation level -.008 .036 -.029 -.225 .822
Profit goal .1 10 .027 .184 4.126 .001*
Reactance X Saturation .020 .068 .163 .294 .769
Reactance X Profit goal .029 .054 .300 .533 .594
Saturation X Profit goal .026 .007 .477 3.672 .001*
Reactance X Saturation -.005 .013 -.218 -.380 .704

X Profit goal

 

* Indicates p < .01

 

93

 

Table 10

Model summaryfor aided brand recall

 

 

Standard
Adjusted error of the p of
Block ‘ R R2 R“ estimate R2 A FA de df2 FA
1 .375 .141 .135 .45927 .141 25.212 3 462 .001*
2 .384 .148 .136 .45891 .007 1.239 3 459 .295
3 .387 .150 .137 .45881 .002 1.206 1 458 .273

 

Block 1: Psychological Reactance, Saturation level, Profit goal
Block 2: Reactance X Saturation, Reactance X Profit goal. Saturation X Profit goal
Block 3: Reactance X Saturation X Profit goal

* Indicates significance, p < .01

 

R Q2 .' Attitudes to ward Branded Product Placement

The results from the linear regression (Table 12) indicated that none of the steps
significantly accounted for the variance regarding participant attitudes toward branded
product placement. The first step accounted for less than 1% of the variance for attitudes
regarding branded product placement, R2 = .007, F (3,455) = 1.050, p = .370. Table 13
lists the individual regression coefficients. Step two did not significantly account for the
variance in participants’ attitudes about branded product placement, R2 A = .012, F
(3,452) = 1.803, p < .146. Step three did not significantly contribute to the variance

attitudes about branded product placement, R2 A = .002; F (1,451) = .707, p = .401).

94

 

Table l l

Coefficient table for aided brand recall

 

 

 

 

Unstandardized Standardized
coefficients coefficients
Standard
Block Variables B error [I t Sig.
l Constant 1.054 .070 15.153 .001*
Psychological -.043 .021 -.088 -2.029 .043“
Reactance
Saturation level .092 .012 .322 7.458 .001*
Profit goal .106 .026 .176 4.070 .001*
2 Constant 1.081 .074 14.646 .001*
Psychological -. 129 .134 -.262 -.969 .333
Reactance
Saturation level .058 .040 .202 1 .464 .144
Profit goal .093 .029 .154 3.202 .001*
Reactance X Saturation -.018 .012 —.145 - .146
1.1458
Reactance X Profit goal .030 .026 .308 1.138 .258
Saturation X Profit goal .007 .008 .125 .890 .374
3 Constant 1.085 .074 14.686 .001*
Psychological .153 .290 .31 1 .529 .597
Reactance
Saturation level .058 .040 .202 1 .462 . 144
Profit goal .094 .029 .156 3.230 .001*
Reactance X Saturation -.098 .074 -.794 -1.325 .186
Reactance X Profit goal -.028 .059 -.291 -.478 .633
Saturation X Profit goal .006 .008 .119 .851 .395
Reactance X Saturation .016 .015 .681 1.098 .273

X Profit goal

 

* Indicates p < .01
** Indicates p < .05

 

95

 

Table 12

Model summary for attitudes toward branded product placement

 

Standard
Adjusted error of the p of
Block R R2 R2 estimate R2 A FA de dt2 FA
1 .083 .007 .000 .65344 .007 1.050 3 455 .370
2 .136 .019 .006 .65171 .012 1.803 3 452 .146
3 .142 .020 .005 .65192 .002 .707 l 451 .401

 

Block 1: Psychological Reactance, Saturation level, Profit goal
Block 2: Reactance X Saturation, Reactance X Profit goal, Saturation X Profit goal
Block 3: Reactance X Saturation X Profit goal

 

The results show that neither Psychological Reactance, saturation levels, nor the
profit goal of the source affected participant attitudes regarding the branded product
placement.

RQ3: Attitudes toward Chiquita

The results from the linear regression (Table 14) indicated that the first step
significantly accounted for the variance regarding participant attitudes toward branded
product placement. The first step accounted for about 4% of the variance for attitudes
regarding the for-profit organization, Chiquita, R2 = .042, F (3,456) = 6.631, p < .001.
The individual regression coefficients (Table 15) for Psychological Reactance (B = -.139,
t (456) = -3.014, p = .003) and the profit goal of the source (B = -.138, t (456) = -3.003, p

= .003) were significant.

96

 

Table 13

Coeflicient table for attitudes toward branded product placement

 

 

Unstandardized Standardized
coefficients coefficients
Block Variables B Standard [3 t Sig.
error

1 Constant 5.045 .099 50.743 .001 *
Psychological -.052 .031 —.080 -1.708 .088
Reactance
Saturation level .008 .018 .020 .438 .662
Profit goal -.006 .037 -.007 -. 159 .874

2 Constant 5.122 .106 48.521 .001*
Psychological -.059 .190 -.091 -.31 1 .756
Reactance
Saturation level -.1 12 .057 -.292 - l .960 .051
Profit goal -.046 .041 -.058 -1.1 19 .264
Reactance X Saturation .011 .017 .069 .640 .523
Reactance X Profit goal -.007 .037 -.053 -.182 .856
Saturation X Profit goal .024 .011 .340 2.216 .027"

3 Constant 5.126 .106 48.487 .001*
Psychological .249 .413 .382 .603 .547
Reactance
Saturation level -.1 12 .057 -.296 -1.957 .051"
Profit goal -.045 .041 -.057 -1.095 .274
Reactance X Saturation -.076 .105 -.469 -.724 .470
Reactance X Profit goal -.070 .084 -.547 -.834 .405
Saturation X Profit goal .024 .011 .335 2.179 .030"
Reactance X Saturation .018 .021 .563 .841 .401
X Profit goal

 

* Indicates p < .01
** Indicates p < .05

 

In the second step that included the two-way interactions, significant variance for

attitudes about Chiquita was accounted for, R2 A = .021, F (3,453) = 3.340, p < .019.

Three individual regression coefficients were found significant, the saturation level of the

97

branded product placement (B = -.420, t (453) = -2.885, p = .004), the profit goal of the
source (B = -.208, t (453) = -4.076, p < .001), and the interaction between saturation
levels and the profit goal of the source (B = .445, t (453) = 3.01 l, p = .003). Step three did
not significantly contribute to the variance of participant attitudes with Chiquita, R2 A =
.001; F (1,452) = .352,p = .553).

The results show that while Psychological Reactance alone significantly
contributed to negative attitudes about the for-profit source, Chiquita, this effect dropped
out when the two-way interaction effects were taken into consideration, providing
evidence of a moderator. Step two indicated that saturation levels and the profit goal
alone also negatively affected attitudes about Chiquita and account for much of the
variance. That is, high levels of saturation of inserted branded product placements
influenced audiences to have negative attitudes about Chiquita and knowledge about
Chiquita as a for-profit organization generated negative attitudes about the company.
Furthermore, the interaction between saturation and profit goal shows that higher levels
of saturation combined with awareness of the source as a for-profit organization interact
to predict audience attitudes regarding Chiquita.

RQ4: Attitudes toward 5 A Day

The results from step one (Table 16) indicated that a significant amount of the
variance was accounted for regarding participant attitudes toward the non-profit source, 5
A Day. The first step accounted for about 5% of the variance for attitudes regarding 5 A
Day, R2 = .054, F (3,456) = 8.657, p < .001. The individual regression coefficients (Table
17) for Psychological Reactance (B = -.2l4, t (456) = -4.672, p < .001) and the profit goal

of the source (B = .1 10, t (456) = 2.41 1, p = .016) were significant.

98

 

Table 14

Model summary for attitudes toward Chiquita

 

Standard
Adjusted error of the p of
Block R R2 R2 estimate R2 A FA dfl dt2 FA
1 .204 .042 .036 .87531 .042 6.631 3 456 .001*
2 .250 .063 .050 .86865 .021 3.340 3 453 .019**
3 .252 .063 .049 .86927 .001 .352 l 452 .553

 

Block 1: Psychological Reactance, Saturation level, Profit goal
Block 2: Reactance X Saturation, Reactance X Profit goal, Saturation X Profit goal
Block 3: Reactance X Saturation X Profit goal

* Indicates significance, p < .01
** Indicates significance, p < .05

 

The second step that included the two-way interactions indicated no significant
variance for attitudes about 5 A Day, R2 A = .005, F (3,453) = .775, p < .508. Step three
did not significantly contribute to the variance of participant attitudes regarding 5 A Day,
R2 A = .005; F(1,452) = 2.475, p = .116).

The results show that by itself, the profit goal of the source significantly
accounted for participants’ negative attitudes regarding 5 A Day, the non-profit source.
Thus, when participants are exposed to an entertainment television program that contains
branded product placements from a for-profit source, audiences have positive attitudes

about the non-profit organization, 5 A Day.

99

 

Table 15

Coefficient table for attitudes toward Chiquita

 

 

Unstandardized Standardized
coefficients coefficients
Standard
Block Variables B error [3 t Si&
1 Constant 5.721 . 133 42.960 .001*
Psychological -. 124 .041 -. I 39 -3.014 .003"
Reactance
Saturation level -.001 .024 -.002 -.045 .964
Profit goal -. 150 .050 -.138 -3.003 .003”
2 Constant 5.869 .140 41.776 .001*
Psychological -.201 .253 -.226 -.794 .428
Reactance
Saturation level -.218 .075 -.420 -2.885 .004"
Profit goal -.226 .055 -.208 -4.076 .001*
Reactance X Saturation -.021 .023 -.096 -.91 3 .361
Reactance X Profit goal -.030 .050 .173 .609 .543
Saturation X Profit goal .043 .014 .445 3.001 003*?"
3 Constant 5.873 .141 41.724 .001*
Psychological .088 .550 .099 .161 .872
Reactance
Saturation level -.218 .075 -.420 -2.884 .004**
Profit goal -.225 .055 -.207 -4.055 .001*
Reactance X Saturation -. 103 .140 -.465 -.737 .462
Reactance X Profit goal -.029 .111 -.167 -.261 .794
Saturation X Profit goal .043 .014 .442 2.987 .003"
Reactance X Saturation .016 .028 .388 .594 .553

X Profit goal

 

* Indicates p < .01
** Indicates p < .05

 

100

 

Table 16

Model summary for attitudes toward 5 A Dgy

 

Standard
Adjusted error of the p of
Block R R2 R2 estimate R2 A FA dfl di2 FA
1 .232 .054 .048 .84729 .054 8.657 3 456 .001*
2 .242 .059 .046 .84792 .005 .775 3 453 .508
3 .253 ' .064 .049 .84655 .005 2.475 1 452 .116

 

Block 1: Psychological Reactance, Saturation level, Profit goal
Block 2: Reactance X Saturation, Reactance X Profit goal, Saturation X Profit goal
Block 3: Reactance X Saturation X Profit goal

* Indicates significance, p < .01

 

RQ5.‘ Attitudes toward Chiquita Bananas

The results from step one of the linear regression (Table 18) indicated that the
variance regarding participant attitudes toward the inserted branded product (Chiquita
bananas) was significantly accounted for. The first step accounted for about 2% of the
variance for attitudes regarding Chiquita bananas, R2 = .023, F (3,451) = 3.569, p = .014.
The only individual regression coefficient (Table 19) that was significant was
Psychological Reactance (B = -.140, t (451) = -3.006, p = .003).

Significance was found in the second step for participant attitudes regarding
Chiquita bananas, R2 A = .018, F (3,448) = 2.825, p < .038. Three individual regression
coefficients were found significant, the saturation level of the branded product placement

(B = -.386, t(448) = -2.592, p = .010), the profit goal of the source (B = -.1 10, t(448) = -

101

2.125, p = .034) and the interaction between saturation level and profit goal (B = .431,

t(448) = 2.855, p = .005). Since Psychological Reactance was not significant when the

 

Table 17

Coefiicient tabflor attitudes toward 5 A Day

 

 

 

 

Unstandardized Standardized
coefficients coefficients
Standard
Block Variables B error [3 t Sig.

1 Constant 5 .435 .130 41.763 .001*
Psychological -.188 .040 -.214 -4.672 .001*
Reactance
Saturation level 0.006 .023 -.012 -.257 .797
Profit goal .1 17 .048 .110 2.411 .016**

2 Constant 5.420 .139 39.105 .001*
Psychological -.178 .253 -.203 -.703 .482
Reactance
Saturation level .033 .074 .065 .449 .653
Profit goal .129 .054 .122 2.389 .017**
Reactance X Saturation -.032 .023 -.l47 -l .364 .173
Reactance X Profit goal .021 .049 .124 .435 .664
Saturation X Profit goal -.008 .014 -.087 -.593 .554

3 Constant 5 .406 .139 38.987 .001*
Psychological -.959 .557 -1 .094 -l .722 .086
Reactance
Saturation level .034 .073 .066 .458 .647
Profit goal .127 .054 .120 2.348 .019"
Reactance X Saturation .185 .140 .861 1.325 .186
Reactance X Profit goal .180 .112 1.051 1.606 .109
Saturation X Profit goal -.007 .014 -.078 -.533 .594
Reactance X Saturation -.043 .028 -1.052 -1.573 .1 16

X Profit goal

 

* Indicates p < .01
** Indicates p < .05

 

102

interaction effects were taken into consideration, this suggests the presence of a
moderating variable. Step three did not significantly contribute to the variance of
attitudes regarding Chiquita bananas, R2 A = .002; F (1,447) = 1.011, p = .315).

The results show that Psychological Reactance by itself had a negative effect
upon attitudes about the inserted branded product. Thus, participants with high levels of
Psychological Reactance had negative attitudes about Chiquita bananas. However, this
effect dropped out when combined with the two-way interactions in step two, providing
evidence for a moderator. The individual coefficients from step two showed that
individually, saturation level and profit goal generated negative attitudes about Chiquita
bananas. However, the interaction of the saturation level of branded products inserted
into the entertainment television program and knowledge of the source’s profit goal
generated positive attitudes about Chiquita bananas.

RQ6: Purchase Intention

The results from the linear regression (Table 20) indicated that step one did not
significantly account for the variance regarding participants’ intention to purchase the
inserted branded product, Chiquita bananas, R2 = .011, F (3,446) = 1.721, p = .162. The
second step that included the two-way interactions indicated that significant variance for
purchase intention was not accounted for, R2 A = .003, F (3,443) = .396, p = .756.

Step three significantly contributed 10% to the variance of participant purchase
intention of Chiquita bananas, R2 A = .010; F ( 1,442) = 4.737, p = .030). The individual
regression coefficients for the two-way interaction between Psychological Reactance and
saturation (B = -l.431, t (442) = -2. l 92, p = .029) and the three-way interaction (B = .098,

t(442) = 1.472, p = .030) were found to be significant (Table 21).

103

The results show that while the first two blocks did not significantly contribute to the
variance of purchase intent, the inclusion of the three—way interaction in step three
demonstrated that Psychological Reactance and saturation level did not affect
participants’ intent on purchasing Chiquita bananas. However, the significant three way
interaction between Psychological Reactance, saturation level, and profit goal increased

the audience’s intent to purchase Chiquita bananas.

 

Table 18

Model summary for attitudes toward Chiquita bananas

 

 

Standard
5 Adjusted error of the p of
Block R R- R2 estimate R2 A FA dfl de FA
1 .152 .023 .017 .76102 .023 3.569 3 451 .014*
2 .203 .041 .028 .75644 .018 2.825 3 448 .038*
3 .209 .043 .029 .75643 .002 1.01 1 1 447 .315

 

Block 1: Psychological Reactance, Saturation level, Profit goal
Block 2: Reactance X Saturation, Reactance X Profit goal, Saturation X Profit goal
Block 3: Reactance X Saturation X Profit goal

* Indicates significance, p < .05

 

104

 

Table 19

C oeflicient tablgfor attitudes toward Chiquita bananas

 

 

 

 

Unstandardized Standardized
coefficients coefficients
Standard
Block Variables B error 13 t Sig.

I Constant 4.964 .117 42.516 .001*
Psychological -.107 .036 -. 140 -3.006 .003*
Reactance
Saturation level .008 .021 .017 .375 .708
Profit goal -.043 .044 -.046 -.994 .321

2 Constant 5.080 . 123 41.200 .001*
Psychological .007 .221 .009 .033 .974
Reactance
Saturation level -.172 .066 -.3 86 -2.592 .010*
Profit goal -.103 .048 -.1 10 -2.125 .034**
Reactance X Saturation .003 .020 .018 .167 .867
Reactance X Profit goal -.025 .043 -. 170 -.589 .556
Saturation X Profit goal .036 .013 .431 2.855 .005”

3 Constant 5.086 . 123 41.199 .001*
Psychological .436 .480 .570 .908 .365
Reactance
Saturation level -.172 .066 -.3 86 —2.597 .010
Profit goal -.102 .048 -. 109 -2.100 .036“
Reactance X Saturation -.117 .122 -.620 -.964 .336
Reactance X Profit goal -.113 .097 -.756 -1 . 162 .246
Saturation X Profit goal .036 .013 .426 2.820 .005*
Reactance X Saturation .024 .024 .669 1.005 .315

X Profit goal

 

* Indicates p < .01
** Indicates p < .05

 

105

 

Table 20

Model summary for purchase intention of Chiquita bananas

 

Standard
Adjusted error of the p of
Block R R“ R2 estimate R2 A FA dfl df2 FA
1 .107 .01 1 .005 1.37628 .011 1.721 3 446 .162
2 .1 19 .014 .001 1.37908 .003 .396 3 443 .756
3 .157 .025 .009 1.37330 .010 4.737 1 442 .030*

 

Block 1: Psychological Reactance, Saturation level, Profit goal
Block 2: Reactance X Saturation, Reactance X Profit goal, Saturation X Profit goal
Block 3: Reactance X Saturation X Profit goal

* Indicates significance, p < .05

 

106

 

Table 21

Coefficient table for purchase intention of Chiquita bananas

 

 

 

Unstandardized Standardized
coefficients coefficients
Standard
Block Variables B error 13 t Sig.

l Constant 4.203 .213 19.767 .001*
Psychological -.131 .065 -.095 -2.020 .044**
Reactance
Saturation level .041 .038 .052 1.093 .275
Profit goal .007 .080 .004 .083 .934

2 Constant 4.284 .226 18.955 .001*
Psychological -.193 .407 -.140 -.474 .636
Reactance
Saturation level -.079 .121 -.098 -.651 .516
Profit goal -.035 .089 -.020 -.389 .697
Reactance X Saturation -.010 .037 -.029 -.271 .787
Reactance X Profit goal .019 .079 .071 .241 .810
Saturation X Profit goal .024 .023 .159 1.040 .299

3 Constant 4.310 .225 19.124 .001*
Psychological l .499 .876 1.091 1.710 .088
Reactance
Saturation level -.080 . 121 -. 100 -.663 .508
Profit goal -.032 .088 -.019 -.356 .722
Reactance X Saturation -.492 .224 -1.431 —2.l92 .029”
Reactance X Profit goal -.328 .178 -1.219 -1 .842 .066
Saturation X Profit goal .023 .023 .149 .978 .329
Reactance X Saturation .098 .045 1.472 2.177 .030**4

X Profit goal

 

* Indicates p < .01
** Indicates p < .05

 

107

CONCLUSION

Because previous research had not yet explored the theory of Psychological
Reactance by focusing on the source (rather than the message) and its application to
branded product placements in entertainment media, the findings from this study can be
used as a benchmark for future studies that examine the theory’s relevance to branded
product placement as a specific marketing application and identifying the number of
brands that should be included within content before audiences engage in Reactance. In
addition, this study has provided more evidence to support previous findings about
audience brand recall, attitudes regarding branded product placement, and audience
behaviors such as the intent to purchase branded products that were seen within the
content of entertainment media.
Brand Recall

The results of this study indicated that there are two commonalities between
unaided and aided brand recall: the saturation level of branded product placements and
the profit goal of the branded product placement source. It is logical that the number of
placements present in a program would be related to both unaided and aided brand recall.
Unaided recall measures may have forced participants to recollect brands that they may
or may not have remembered otherwise. Thus, it is not surprising that participant recall
increased with the combination of saturation level and profit goal.

Regarding Psychological Reactance, it is possible that the visual cue of Chiquita
within the episode caused individuals with Reactant personalities to recall for-profit
messages more than those from a non-profit organization that was not visually

represented within the program. Thus, while participants may not have recalled the

108

Chiquita brand through unaided measures, seeing the organization name within a list for
the aided measures may have triggered the memory of those who are more Reactant.
Attitudes

Branded product placement. Neither Psychological Reactance nor the
independent variables affected participant attitudes regarding branded product placement.
Since the measures used in the analysis for branded product placement were designed to
measure very general attitudes about the placement of brands in entertainment television
programs, the results of this study suggested that just as individuals who are Reactant do
not have positive or negative attitudes regarding branded product placement, saturation
levels and the profit goal of the source also have no effect. It is possible that the scale
from Gupta, Balasubramanian, and Klassen (2000) may have yielded different results,
since those items were designed to measure various attitudes of branded product
placement.

Chiquita. Participant attitudes regarding Chiquita as a for-profit organization and
Chiquita bananas as a branded product were comparable in that Psychological Reactance
in step one of the analysis, saturation level, and the interaction between saturation and
profit goal in the second step of the analysis significantly impacted audience attitudes
regarding both the company and its product. However, because Psychological Reactance
was not significant when the interaction effects were included in step two, this provided
evidence for the presence of a moderator.

5 A Day. For attitudes about 5 A Day, the non-profit organization, the first step of
the analysis found that while Psychological Reactance caused participants to have

negative attitudes about 5 A Day, knowledge of the source’s profit goal generated

109

positive feelings about 5 A Day when audiences were exposed to a television show with
branded placements from a for-profit organization, Chiquita.

Chiquita bananas. While the variance for participant attitudes regarding Chiquita
bananas was not large, they were found to be significant. Audience attitudes about the
inserted branded product, Chiquita bananas, were being driven primarily by the saturation
level of the inserts. It is likely that audience attitudes regarding Chiquita, as a for-profit
company, and Chiquita bananas are the same variable, since the correlation between the
two outcome variables was high and the patterns in the linear regression are similar.
Behavior: Purchase Intention

This study also examined the intent that participants may have to purchase the
brand inserted into the entertainment media, Chiquita bananas. The findings are
particularly noteworthy because in general, consumers do not seem to pay much attention
to the brands they are purchasing in the fresh fruit product category. The only model that
significantly contributed to the variance of purchase intent was step three, which included
the three-way interaction. Interestingly, the two-way interaction between Psychological
Reactance and saturation levels generated a negative intent to purchase Chiquita bananas,
indicating that participants who are generally high on Reactance and were exposed
episodes with high levels of saturation were less likely to purchase Chiquita bananas.
However, the three-way interaction that included the profit goal of the source increased
the audience’s intent to purchase the branded product.

It is possible that this finding was confounded by variables about Chiquita as an
organization with a positive reputation and its brand equity. For example, participant

familiarity with Chiquita may have generated a sense of comfort and trust that increased

110

the intent to purchase the branded product. Since the results from other analyses imply
that participant attitudes regarding Chiquita are generally positive, it is possible that
Chiquita is not viewed as a for-profit organization in the same way as another global
company such as McDonald’s or Coca-Cola. Thus, filture studies that examine the
relationship between branded product placements in entertainment media and the source
of a for-profit organization should include placements from organizations that audiences
undoubtedly consider for-profit.

This specific finding also provides evidence that it is may not be the constructs
identified by Psychological Reactance that are driving behavioral intent. Thus, future
studies should specifically examine the effects of advertising wearout interacting with
saturation levels to affect purchase intention.

Theoretical Implications

This study has extended the theory of Psychological Reactance to the
understanding of branded product placement in entertainment media by finding that while
its applicability is not as strong when considering levels of brand saturation within the
content of programs or the profit goals of the branded product placement source, these
two variables taken into consideration together have significant effects upon an
individual’s level of Psychological Reactance. This interaction suggests that while one
single characteristic may not suffice to create unintended effects from audiences, the
combination of several marketing tactics within the same content may push audiences to
react negatively to the intended messages.

On the other hand, it is possible that Psychological Reactance does not apply as

strongly to the context of branded fresh fruit. Rather, topics that are placed within

111

entertainment programs as health messages (issue placement) or ethically charged
products such as alcohol or condoms may have more recall, attitude, and behavioral
effects upon individuals who are highly Reactant.

In a review of experimental studies that had been designed to extend the theory of
Psychological Reactance, but failed to find significance, Schwartz (1984) suggested that
past inductions for Psychological Reactance were not strong enough to detect. Thus, if
individuals are given the opportunity to restore their freedom immediately following the
threat, then feelings of reactance may subside almost instantly, leading researchers to
conclude incorrectly that reactance was nonexistent. This study did not test for effects
between the saturation levels of branded product placements and Psychological
Reactance because Reactance was treated as a stable trait. However, future studies could
provide for stronger inductions of saturation levels that make the inserted brands more
obvious by including them in every single scene, not necessarily only where appropriate
to the story, context, or environment — since this study sought to explore the organic
placement of branded products, and measure Psychological Reactance as a state.

The interaction between the source’s profit goal and Psychological Reactance was
not found to be significant in any of the models. However, depending upon the brand
being inserted into an entertainment television program, this may impact the amount of
Psychological Reactance that an individual experiences. For example, preconceived
notions of a worldwide corporation such as Proctor and Gamble may not have the same
implications as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and thus may affect levels

of Psychological Reactance more than Chiquita, which was considered a fairly neutral

112

corporation. Since research has not been conducted to test for source effects and
Psychological Reactance, this study can be considered a benchmark for those to come.
Practical Implications

When still photography evolved to cinematic magic, and the distribution of
television sets became global, big ticket actors, brilliant writers, complex special effects,
authentic costuming, and visionary directors have become near staples to creating
television’s next cultural phenomenon or Hollywood’s box office blockbusters. The cost
of producing entertainment content can therefore become costly. The findings from this
study provided several practical guidelines for industry leaders in branded product
placement and further research. Marketers should be aware of how their brand is
presented within entertainment media and the number of placements that are contained
within the same program or film so that audiences are not overwhelmed.

To maximize recall rates among audience members, not only is more on-screen
exposure better (assuming that the placement is organic), but identifying sponsorship
billboards may prime the audience to be more cognizant of those featured brand. Since
attitudes are mostly affected by interactions between saturation levels of the branded
placements and awareness of the source’s profit goal, this combination may also impact
whether or not audiences intend to purchase the brand seen in the entertainment
television program.

As the industry of branded product placement moves from partnerships that
generally do not involve the exchange of cash to one that has a price (Steinberg, 2005),
the results of this study suggest several ways to package the placement of branded

products within the content for entertainment media executives.

113

Limitations and Future Studies

The significant findings for the relationships between levels of saturated branded
placement, identification of the source’s profit goal, and recall (both aided and unaided),
suggest that there may be individual characteristics about the specific inserted brand that
might recall among audience members more than others. In fact, as found by Russell
(1999, 2002), the placement of branded products does have an impact upon audience
recall. Since this study focused on placements that were organic to this particular episode,
storyline, and each scene, future studies should control for the presentation of each
branded product more consistently.

Singh, Rothschild, and Churchill (1988) suggested that although recognition
scores are not significantly higher than unaided recall scores, they do decline overtime
and are more discriminating than unaided recall. However, the availability of the stimuli
from this experiment provides a unique opportunity to expand the understanding'of an
individual’s recall of branded product placement by using different methods and
expanding the boundaries of recall and recognition. Using real-time audience response
systems, studies should explore audience identification of certain brands within the
episode to determine the specific characteristics of those recognized placements.
Identifying participant eye movements as they watch the episode may help to identify
whether or not the eye glances at or over the inserted brands. Furthermore, these stimuli
can be used to understand how external noise, similar to what an individual might
experience while watching television at home, might impact the recall rates of branded

product placements.

114

It is important that future studies address the lack of a consistent definition for the
practice of branded product placement within the academic literature. One natural area to
begin this exploration could start with the business of product placement and its industry
leaders (i.e., movie studios, corporations, product placement houses, marketing firms,
advertisers, network executives). By comparing and contrasting these definitions with
other business leaders in conjunction with current academic literature, consistent
concepts about branded product placement should be begin to emerge.

The cooperation between the business of branded product placement and
academic research is pertinent to the study of product placement in entertainment media.
As the field continues to evolve and change, not only do definitions become more
discriminating, but the “value” of product placements within entertainment media content
becomes more pertinent. Joyce Julius and Associates, Inc. provided dollar estimates for
what the value of Chiquita brand would be for each of the experimental conditions (Table
22). Using published rate card prices for a :30 spot advertisement within Arrested
Development on Fox Network as the base, Joyce Julius Associates, Inc. estimates values
conservatively to account for external distractions that the audience might face and the
fact that audiences are not paying as close attention to branded placements as they are.

Interestingly, the values from Joyce Julius Associates, Inc. are based upon how
many seconds a recognizable brand is present within a scene. Therefore, if a brand is
present within the content of the media, but is unrecognizable to the audience, then the
placement may not be of “value.” Similarly, the presence of one brand within several
locations of a scene is considered one placement. For example, as seen in Figure 4, one

scene from Arrested Development contained the Chiquita logo in several places. Joyce

115

Julius would estimate these multiple inserts as one placement. Future studies concerning
audience recall and recognition, then, are even more important to determining whether

companies such as Joyce Julius Associates, Inc. should incorporate audience estimates.

 

Table 22

Dollar estimates of inserted Chiquita brand from Joyce Julius Associates, Inc.

 

 

Exposure Comparable :30 Recognition Grade
Brand name location Time value Value
Logo on refrigerator :30 $70,010 $43,640
Logo on shirt :23 $53,675 $33,145
Banana stand signage :08 $18,665 $15,165
Billboard identification :03 $7,000 $7,000

 

116

APPENDICIES

117

APPENDIX A
Consent form for Pilot-test Survey
ENTERTAINMENT TELEVISION PROGRAMS AND YOU

The researcher is conducting this study to explore audience experiences of entertainment
television programs in relationship to personality traits.

Voluntary completion of this survey requires approximately 30 minutes. You will receive
extra credit for your participation in this study. If you choose not to complete this survey,
your instructor will provide you with an alternative assignment in lieu of this survey.

Although there are no foreseeable risks to participating in this study, you do not have to
answer the questions if at any time you feel uncomfortable. You are free to stop
answering questions from the survey at any time. Any information that you provide and
the data collected from this study will be kept confidential. Your privacy will be
protected to the maximum extent allowable by law. This consent form will be separated
from the survey. Thus, your responses will not be identifiable.

If you have any questions about this survey, please contact the researcher, Susan Chang,
at changsu4@msu.edu or (517) 353-3858, Department of Advertising, 320
Communication Arts and Sciences Building, Michigan State University, East Lansing,
MI 48824-1212 or the Project Investigator, Dr. Charles T. Salmon at (517) 355-3410 or
salmon@msu.edu.

If you have any questions or concerns regarding your rights as a study participant, or are
dissatisfied at any time with any aspect of this study, you may contact — anonymously, if
you wish, Peter Vasilenko, Ph.D., Chair of the University Committee on Research
Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS) by phone: (517) 355-2180, fax: (517) 432-4503, e-
mail: ucrihs@msu.edu or regular mail: 202 Olds Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824.

By signing and dating this consent form, you indicate your voluntary agreement to
participate in this survey.

 

 

 

Printed Name Signature Date

 

 

Your Instructor’s Name Class/section you are receiving extra credit in

118

APPENDIX B
Pilot-test Survey

ENTERTAINMENT TELEVISION PROGRAMS AND YOU
Thank you for volunteering for this study.

For this survey, please note that “brand placements” refer to the visual appearance and/or
verbal mention of branded products or services in entertainment television programs.

Once you have marked your answers as indicated in each section, please do not erase or
modify your responses.

 

PART I

Have you ever watched the television program Arrested Development? YES NO
If you have watched the program (even once), please continue on to Part II and IH.

PART II
In regards to Arrested Development, please place a circle around the answers that best
reflect your feelings on a scale ranging from 1 (strongly agree) to 7 (strongly disagree).

 

Strongly Strongly
A rec . q Disa . re ,

     
   
 
 

 
 
    

I am a fan of this television program. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

f!

I watch this telev1810n program if there is
nothing else on.

 

PART III
Below is a set of word pairs. Please mark an “X” in the space closest to the word that best
reflects your feelings about Arrested Development. For example, if you think that
Jennifer Aniston is a beautiful actress, your might respond like this:

Beautiful : X : : : : : Ugly

Overall, I believe that Arrested Development is...

'-_ Uninteresting ’ __ . __ . _____ . __ . __ ._ ._¥ . , Interesting . _

Dull _:_:_:_:_:+:_ Exciting . .

Memorable '___ : _; : ____,: _____' : _'___ : __ :_____ 1' Easytoforget
Silly _:_:_:_:___:___:_ Clever

119

,,,,,,

 

Irritating

 

 

Meaningful

 

 

Funny

 

 

 

Pleasant

Pomtlessilfilffl-

Serious

. AmuSifig;' y '. .-

is...

 

PART IV

If you have heard of the companies and organizations listed below, please identify them
as for-profit, non-profit, or if you don’t know its profit goal. If you have never heard of
that organization or company, please circle “Never Heard Of.”

 

bA- A- )_ -1.......-.v.... . ----.¢- .-n-.~>..-=s
, .

Centers for Disease Control

Proctor and Gamble? .
Schwmn . ..

.....
''''''

UNICEF

" f7,17C7I'1‘Lir'éfifféiidDWighft' i .7 .7fo

PETA

.- .‘,.\“UN 1 ‘,‘-‘r“ . ‘t I“ ‘5' V .V "r

National Institute of Health

American Heart Assoc1ationT, .‘ ‘

Phillip Morris

y. . . x ‘ 7,.1..._—,~‘.’.: ..-

- . .¢~r.n .......

‘qu. .-

I: ’ Mothers Aoamst Drunk Dnvmg V: ‘ 7'

. Nissan

..,. Dole
Kimberly Clark {
Eco- farm Assoc1ation g _ ,

NIH

"""p‘i'anhedmremhood f "

National Dairy Council

....

A People for the Ethical
Treatment of Animals

’ Smith‘aridWessoh‘ .[i .

RJ Reynolds

5? Environmental,Prétect‘io‘n’Agency "

Knudsen

Mtdcmnd

CDC

' AmericanDi-abet’es AssOCiation if

Unilever . i: ii,

Kraft; f f}. 37
General Electric . ‘

Huffy} } f i

For-
Profit

~

p—d- —_~— _Ly_'

- Mummwu y'

American Red Crossgxflgrgm

.‘p ~

120

Non-

Heard of, but Never
Heard Of

 

Profit *
) ....;2"_...

ix) P" N ix) N ix)? N ix); N to [019?th }tx)-§ N ix): ix) ix); N ix) N ix) N N rx) f;

'NZMNNNNN

Don ’t Know

n'- 1:f\QA-”.\v¢'l‘fa-o-F.-I“aw - --.' -.-- r.- .

o.) o.) m in," u) b)

ft»). 9) p)

o) in? o) p)? u.) b). u) loo};

wimp) we) w u) o) imp) wt» my)

—h.—.4 “4.“...-

‘A . A ,‘Aei A A A -._A_"i A ‘_'zA‘;. A A

.................

a"), & "t‘i A a“ h *‘7 5 3.433;“ :51 4A ibiA EA? A 3A) A 3A? A A: A

~nfiwwm' W‘ ”'7" "'3

: -.-.'_-.‘ slur?!
‘l

'_ A

II

- “1101165“--. 1 . __.__2. - . .. _. 3 ,, ___ . .. 4
National Highway Traffic" " " ’ ' ' ‘ ' '
- SafetyAdmmlstratlon

PART V
If any of these products or services appeared in a television entertainment program (such
as a sitcom or drama type of program), please indicate how ethical you believe this would

be by circling the number that best reflects your feelings (1=Totally Ethical, 7=Totally
Unethical).

 

Totally Totally
Paper l
Alcohol 1
Cottage cheese _l p,
Cigarettes“ .' ,, If
.- ._ .Icccrearn _ 1V. .
" "._'._,Aiiibni0t5i1‘es; 'i "
Condoms l
Tractors " "1
p .. . Soda pop , 1
. , Guns ._ 1
Bottled water I
' Birth control 1
Instant soup 1
Deodorant 1
Chewmg tobacco l
' Popcorn _1 ,
Fast food 1
.1 ,
l
l
l
l
l
1
l
l
l
1
l
l
l
1
l

....

rut, u: flui' u: 1m; u: fur. Ui Tu:

LA.: on

U1. u: u... m Vuif u: f

L1) U:

u: uivui'uifui'uifui ui'uisui ui‘ui u: ui Ur

. Abortion
Lighting fixtures
Counseling
Hard liquor
Computers ,
. Applesauce
' Milk
Marijuana ,
V Sportswear _
Fashion magazines ‘
.... Tampons
Baked goods , . ,.
ExerCise tapes
. Coffee
"""" B icycles
Fur coats

o) c); o) m, up) u.) i095 o) 9)in b.) o) :o)’ u) mew»); wig)

aim-foo») o.)
oxiox axes a» ox‘oio'o C» ox oxoro ox».o~fc~._10x‘o\jofic\?o\ ox ogm‘o'oxoxo; oxcx

ix) ix) Nix) ix) ix) ix)ix)ix) bin.) ix.) ix) ix) ix)3ix) ix) ix.) ix) ix)’ ix) ix)"ix)_'ix)lix) ix) ix);ix)}ix) ix)".ix).i‘ix)jix)§ix)'
A 4A: A AA .A'A JA‘ A;A:A A A AA_A1A A'A A; bub-14>- "A;A AAfA:_Aj.A;A_1_EAA:A

wwwwwxwwwwf
\i \I‘jxigxi'slsiéxi \i‘:\i;\i‘\i

O‘O‘NO‘

 

121

PART VI

On a scale ranging from 1 (strongly agree) to 7 (strongly disagree), please place a circle

around the answers that best reflect your feelings.

 

 

 

i Eligible voetg'ih the 'Umiéa”sntesgnaaa 152: 7 "

it forced to vote. .......- ,....
Permanent residents in the United States should
?be given the right to vote
IfiA woman has the right to have an abortion.
iflf someone close to me married outSide of
his/her race, I would be supportive .. _ 5,,

I believe that the government should provide free“ A '

health care for all citizens. ,,
Stem cell research Should be allowed in the
United States.

Condoms should be distributed for free in middle -.

schools.
' The PreSident of the United States should
ainstttiite the.draftiorfixesrtnation. 111.1139: -.
The United States Congress does not have
enough control over the war on terrorism.
I do not believe that the government Should be
involved in gun control
The government should regulate advertismg
more.
7The government should riot meddle with the I.
marketing of products. .
Because of the potential harms of advertismg,
businesses should pay additional taxes.

Strongly
Agree

1,._._c_.____

N

ix) ix) ix) ix)
o.) if u.) 5.11))? u)

29.):

ox fax or. as

Strongly

7

mllifiagree

Fifi—”Ti

 

PART VII

How many days per week do you watch television? (Please circle only one.)

1 2 3 4

How many hours of television did you watch yesterday?

5

6

 

How many hours of television did you watch the day before yesterday?

122

7

 

Please identify 5 television genres that you prefer to watch from I (prefer to watch the
most) to 5 (prefer to watch the least):

Action/Adventure Courtroom/Legal Political
Animated Drama Reality
Anthology Educational Science Fiction
Cartoons Game Stand-up Comedy
Children’s Medical Sitcom
Comedy Music Sports
Cop/Detective News/Documentary Talk/Variety
PART VIII

Please indicate your opinions regarding advertising in general...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

........Bed ‘ 7 GQQd _
Unfavorable _ V ‘ _:_ _ :_ :V ,, _; , . .. , Favorable
' P021113: 7.7.7 '27 IE] " f: ‘ IE] " ff ff--.Nottzenillar,.._fff§
_ Pleasant : : : : : : V . Unpleasant“
Dlshke v _ - Like
Positive : _ : : : : :. Negative
Disagreeable': :_' .:. : . V:. ' ,' ;. ' Agreeable __ g
. Expensrve .. : g :H _: _ : , ,, .i . Inexpenswe
..... Useful l _ ” fl __ , Useless...
Not ”beneficial . .3 : : . : : _ Beneficial _ ..
Worthless ._ ' Valuable
Relevant : : : : : : Irrelevant
PART IX

On a scale ranging from 1 (strongly agree) to 7 (strongly disagree), please place a circle
around the answers that best reflect your feelings.

Commercials in an entertainment television program should be...

 

Strongly Strongly
, , ,, , _ Agree . _ Dlsagree _
"Attractive" . ' . l f .2” 3 f . 4' ,5 6] " 7
Enjoyable , I 2‘ H3. ,4 H 7 64 7___
Entertaining . . ,1 _. 3 '3 4 5 f 6 . 7
Funtowatchv _ a. 1 A2, 3 44‘, 5.. A 6._ .. 7
Informative l if '3’” _j4} 5 165} 7
Unrelated to prOgram l 2 3 4 5 6 7
content
Completely Independent I 2 3 4 5 6 7
ofthetelev181onprograni_ .. _ v . ,, .. .. _ _ . . . .:
Non-existent 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

 

123

PART X
On a scale ranging from 1 (strongly agree) to 7 (strongly disagree), please place a circle
around the answers that best reflect your feelings about the statements listed.

 

 

 

 

 
  

 

Strongly Strongly
. ._ . Agree . Disagree
Ibecome frustrated whenTa’mEuhable to ,VVV 1“] 2, f3 456 ' V 7 1 , fig!
makmee and independent (lessons ‘ ‘ .- " ~ ~ 5'"
I become angry when my freedom of l 2 3 4 5 6 7
choice 13 rrue'sfltricted _ ,
salmtates me When someone pomts out ' VV.V'V 1 '~ ' ,2 3 4:1 '5 6 7 ‘ E
a mgsmhich are obVious .to me ' ' - ~ .
Regulations trigger a sense of resistance in 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

me.

 

    

Ifind contradicti ; others stimulatin. _ l 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I resist the attempts of others to influence

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

l 2 3 4 5 6 7
me. ....... i
alt makes me anory when another person is , .1 u , 2 ,3 a 4",“; 5 4, V6 1 75-1"
gzheld up_ as _a model for me to follow - _, ' - ' ., .— ,-_. 2
When someone forces me to do something, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Iteel like. doing the oppOSite ,
t disappoints Vine to see others submitting - ' ”
I 2 3- 4; 5 6 7
to some” 3 sttmdardsandituhlesr H ----- .. .....
I am content only when I am acting of my 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
own free will
leonsider advice from Others to be an 1 2 3 ' 14:1. 5 6 7 S
intrusmn ............................. ' .,--,~. 7 .......
Advice and recommendations induce me to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
fldo just the opposite: ______________________
‘ only those things which 160 out Of free V l 2 3 . 4 5 6 , _7
.ilwilli really agree with me ., .. 1..., v ,~. 2, ~~_:-:A-..:‘..-.:;._;; ....... , 1.1.1.1 .‘
I react negatively when someone tries to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
_tell me what I should or should not do _ _ 7 __ _ _____________
“Strong"pr‘élse makes me. skéhhcalii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii .1. ....... 2 3.11.74 5 6 7 '
I often do not feel like doing something
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
e._simply becauseethtérsswt1991.9 _, . 1
_It pleases me to see how others submit to l 2 3 4: 5 6 7

 

SOClal norms ‘mngQSI-ramm- :.:-;‘-;-.'.,E'.i.- ' .;,:v.:. 12:13:13.5: :~;:.-,:.1,1~:,1 -‘.;‘;:_'-.‘;: .,

It makes me angry when someone points
out things which are obvious to me

   
 

124

!-’V-'-“?1‘-'1f‘:‘-‘~Jf§°.°"?r .‘1'...'-‘_-'_-‘_vtv":f—‘.e ~-- .-.-.7.: an: _.1.‘ _‘-‘.-". ‘:.:.-:’.-1-rr'l-._ tans-...:gc rm'qu91:45am» i- --.»a.;,, A. .

me... 11111

“"""‘.".'~"::
'h'”'vi'-

lconsrderadVice from others to be VV V V VV VV V“ "' " ' ...

 

 

1 2 3 4 5 6
patronizing - ..-“..- ...?
It stimulates me to contradict others 1234 5 6.. ,
The thought of being dependent on others 1 2 3 4 5 6
is unpleasant to me? . ...... .

311an behaVior I‘VrVaVrely considermhe V V VVVVVVVVVV V VV

l 2 3 4 5 6
thoughts ofothers-.. , ....y... _ _. ..
Making free and independent deCiSions 18
more important to me than it is for most 1 2 3 4 5 6
other 9991219,, W... , ... .. ..

{React strongly. t9... advertlsements . -- - 1.. 2 3 4 56
I get very irritated when ads try to interfere

l 2 3 4 5 6
with my freedom to make decisions. _ _ ,

1 III strongly reSist the attempt of a‘aé’ to l 2 3 4 5 6

1111111161106 me... __ 9 , , , , .
I get very irritated when advertising tells 1 2 3 4 5 6
me what I should buy or do. _ -_... . __
If I receive a lukewarm dish th Va restaurant I 9 3 4 5 6
:I make an attempt to let that be known , ._- . .. ~ -

I resent authority f1 gures who try to tell me 1 2 3 4 5 6
what to do. __ ..
I find that I often have to question i 2 3 4 5 6
authority ., ,. .... ......“ ...... . _, .. . .
I enjoy seeing someone else do something

1 2 3 4 5 6
that neither of us is supposed to do. _ 4_ . . .
I have a strong desire to maintain my 1 2 3 4 5 6

..personal freedom. . — .. . . _

Ienjoy playing devil’ Vs advocate l 2 3 4 5 6
whenever I can. . _
In discussmns, I in eaSin persuaded by I 2 3 4 5 6

others 1 .- ' -- v
Nothing turns me on as much as Va good 1 2 3 4 5 6

g argument , , . .. .  
It would be better to have more freedom to V ' V V VV V ' .

l 2 3 4 5 6
do whathant on ajob .. ,. _. 9 ...... ._. ......
IfI am told what to do, I often do the l 2 3 4 5 6
OPPOSlte . ,

5.. I am sometimes afraid to disagree with ‘ 2 3 4 5 6
others ....... . . .
It really bothers me when police officers

1 2 3 4 5 6
tell peoplefiwhat to do .

. :I den’ t mind other people telling me What I 2 3 4 5 6

. I enjoy debates with other people I: 1]., . _ 2 3 4 5 _6 _

VngIf someone asks a favor of me, I Will think . V .11. V'Vf V 2 3 ' 4 VV 5 . 6_ ,

125

.........

w. V4
; ..
us I
1\),‘
t V.

1'

. t.
1': z
r .r

a“ . "'

~
‘22-; at 1:

-L, W... .;:t

..... ’1! .3" 1" 14’! W'5}1R’J53fi‘l~"V;'V.".’"2;".7-1‘4'?"Mi.”’L‘Y‘M";;‘-T‘I’fn'~;"1"7113333‘6‘15’3L’19-53flit-721520???'k'z'lf'f-iJC’C.‘~'--"'.(02”.22‘37-?1'.‘1‘V‘ta‘£’"-“:‘Q‘1

116616161 this person 13 really after .. , . . 6,

I often follow the suggestions of others WL_ -... 23456 I 7
lam relativer Opinionated .. 1 234. 56 }- . 7 V ’
It is important to me to be in a powerful I 2 3 4 5 6 7

posrtion relative to others.

gr t” ~.~1 .sr ‘rrm 6'; .-.‘~ - --.~..'. 1: -aY‘;.v".'."-.'-‘"ark/(b vs: '--'-:_-.*.;'. '.=.-_-..'.".« - - - -.r .... -." - .. ' ‘ ~ -~ "'1 " r

i I am very oVVpen to solutions to my problems -------

 

 

 

 

l 2 3 4 '5 6 7

from others. . . 11111

Ienjoy‘ ‘showing up’ people who think 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

they are right. _-_..-_ ___-.-_.._._..__._.

IcoVnVSider myself more competitive than V ' 123 V 4 4. 6 ' V 7V “_VV
Lgpoperative. -. , \ .._IWMWO6M_WMW~M..W,a

I don’t mind doing something for someone I 2 3 4 5 6 7

even when _Idon’ tknow why 1’01 doingit .

Iusuafly 36 along With others adVICe. f 1234 5 6 f 1 7

I feel it is better to stand up for what I

believe than to be silent _.... 1 - W1 __, 1 2 3 4 5,1 ?_ 7
f'I am very stubborn and set in my ways , I ' 23 _ _V" 4 V15 6 . 7

It is very important for me to get along 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

with the people I work with.

 

PART XI

Below is a set of questions regarding brand placement in entertainment television
programs. On a scale ranging from 1 (strongly agree) to 7 (strongly disagree), please
place a circle around the answers that best reflect your feelings.

Brand placement is defined as the intentional or unintentional inclusion of brand into
entertainment programs on television by corporations to influence public attitude and/or
change an individual’s behavior about that branded product or service.

Television entertainment programs are defined as shows on television such as situation
comedies (sitcoms), soap operas, drama series, movies, or reality shows. Thus, programs

. such as news shows, documentaries, sports broadcasts, or award shows should not be
considered.

 

Strongly Strongly
. ,1 Agree V, . . Disagree ,
VIVIVliVaveWaicheVdVanentertainment'teleVIsionVV " ' " '
program that featured a brand in its 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
storyline ...............
I remember seeing a story about a brand in 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

an entertainment television program. __ .. .
I have watched an entertainment telev1Sion V

l 2 3 4 5 6 7
1, program that. contained brandyplacementh . _
I have become aware of a brand through an 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
entertainment program.
Ihave acted upon a brand VI Saw in an _ _ 1, . .1- 2, _13 4 5 6 7

126

 

te 1
I have talked to someone about a brand I
saw in anentertainment television 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.. _ 7 1 2 31.111.45.75 6
I intend to seek more 1nformat10n about a
brand I saw on an entertainment television 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
program 7
Ihave gOne online to find out inOre about a’ , . . , _. . . , _
brandIsaw on anentena1nmenttelev1s1on l 7 ‘ 23-3 3 45 .6 . , 7
“ptogtam .. . ,1..
I th1nk that branded products are
intentionally placed in entertainment
. . . l 2 3 4 5 6 7
telev1s1on programs to 1nfluence the
“a dience. ..
1 2 3:. 4 ..5 6 7
I feel comfortable knowing that brands are V
placed 1n entertainment media to influence
. . . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
the content of entertainment telev1s1on
PFQSTmS ............ .
"Idonot l1ke to'watch entertamment """""
l 2 3 4 ,1 5 6 7 3:},
television. progrmnwith brandplaccment. . .
There 15 no reason to object to brand 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
placements. ...... _ ,
Brand placements in entertainment 1 2 3 . 74:75.5 6 7

 

It is okay if producers of entertainment

television programs receive payment for 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
brand clacement.

 

The government should not interfere with

 

the content of entertainment television 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
programs. _
{For—prombigam‘z’aaont should not """ , ,_ .
interfere with the content of entertainment 1 2 3 4. 5 6 - ' 7,

telev1510n programs, . ,. .
Non profit organizations should not
interfere with the content of entertainment 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
television programs.

127

 

PART XI
What is your age?
What is your gender? (Please circle only one.) Female Male
Please indicate your current education level:
Freshman __‘Junior __ Graduate

Sophomore Senior Other
Please indicate:

 

What was your family’s household income level before taxes in 2004?
(Please check only one.)

Less than $10,000 $25,000 to $34,999 $75,000 to $99,999

$10,000 to $14,999 $35,000 to $49,999 $100,000 to $149,999

$15,000 to $24,999 $50,000 to $74,999 $150,000 to $199,999
$200,000 or more

Do you consider yourself: (Please check only one.)
Asian or Pacific Islander

Black or African American (non-Hispanic)
Hispanic or Latino

White (non-Hispanic)

Mixed racial background (please identify):
Other (please specify):
Not sure

 

 

 

What is your religion? (Please check only one.)

 

 

 

Atheist Jewish
Buddhist Muslim
Catholic Protestant
Christian (please specify) Unsure
Other (please specify)

PART XI

Please provide any additional comments.

 

THANK YOU for completing this study.

128

APPENDIX C
Consent form for Survey at T1

ENTERTAINMENT TELEVISION PROGRAMS AND YOU
Participant Consent Form #1 of 2

The researcher is conducting this study to explore audience experiences of entertainment
television programs in relationship to personality traits.

This experiment consists of two parts. You will receive extra credit from your instructor
only if you participate in both parts of this study. The first part of this study is a survey.
Your voluntary completion for the first part requires approximately 30 minutes. If you
chose not to complete this survey, your instructor will provide you with an alternative
assignment in lieu of this survey.

After you complete this survey, you may go online to sign up for a laboratory session.
The second half of this experiment requires you to arrive at the session you just signed up
for. At that time, you will be shown a television program and asked to fill out a second . '
survey. This session will take approximately one hour.

Although there are no foreseeable risks to participating in this study, you do not have to
answer the questions or view the television program if at any time you feel
uncomfortable. You are free to stop answering questions from the survey or leave the
experiment site at any time. Any information that you provide and the data collected from
this study will be kept confidential. Your privacy will be protected to the maximum
extent allowable by law. This consent form will be separated from the survey. Thus, your
responses will not be identifiable.

If you have any questions about this survey, please contact the researcher, Susan Chang,
at changsu4@msu.edu or (517) 353-3858, Department of Advertising, 320
Communication Arts and Sciences Building, Michigan State University, East Lansing,
MI 48824-1212 or the Project Investigator, Dr. Charles T. Salmon at (517) 355-3410 or
salmon@msu.edu.

If you have any questions or concerns regarding your rights as a study participant, or are
dissatisfied at any time with any aspect of this study, you may contact — anonymously, if
you wish, Peter Vasilenko, Ph.D., Chair of the University Committee on Research
Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS) by phone: (517) 355-2180, fax: (517) 432-4503, e-
mail: ucrihs@msu.edu or regular mail: 202 Olds Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824.

By signing and dating this consent form, you indicate your voluntary agreement to
participate in this survey. ‘

 

 

 

Printed Name Signature Date

 

 

Your Instructor’s Name Class/section you are receiving extra credit in

129

APPENDIX D
Survey at T1

ENTERTAINMENT TELEVISION PROGRAMS AND YOU
Part 1 of 3

Thank you for volunteering for this study. Please note that completing this survey and
attending a separate laboratory session constitutes this entire experiment. After you have
completed the last portion of the study, you will be debriefed by the experimenter.

Once you have marked your answers as indicated in each section, please do not erase or
modify your responses.

 

PART 1
Below is a set of word pairs. Please mark an “X” in the space closest to the word that best
reflects your feelings about good television programs.

For example, if you think that Jennifer Aniston is a beautiful actress, your might respond
like this:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Beautiful : X : : : : : Ugly
...!" general agood telewswn Program shew? ....-- .
Unmterestmg .. ...-.--:.:.,. ,1.--..§.;..'...3....-‘.- "'. --.- . ---... Interesting :4
_ _, Dull : : : : :1 : Exciting .
[Memorable f _; f: . j]: '9 " E """" EaSy to forget)"
Silly- _.= +_ = _ _ F _1 _ a Clever-
. Phony... .. .1 _.. . _; . ...Afitusmg
Irntating : _F : : .: _ : __ .. _. Pleasant, , _
Meaningful) .. .I' j ' ..i ,sz ..j.:-- e ;: ' g: T. Pomtless
In general, a well designed set on a teleVISion program should be..
" “Umnteresung , _ .:, - 1 Interesting
Dull _ : _ :__ _ z, .. i.. _: . Exc1t1ngmu
Memorable. . if” :_ ' ” v. ' ..z . . Easyto forget-...}:
. Silly : : 7: , : : : p Clever
j“ Phony‘mj. :1 : 7 : I: V Amusmg
Irritating : : : : : : 7 Pleasant .
Meaningful], g _ 1 ' Pomtless
In general, a well-written storyline on a televismn program should be...
Utnnteresung :.. . .z. .. 3. - 2, 1. . ..° . _Interestlng
, Dull : : : : : : . Exciting .
”Memorable :7 ‘2‘ j: z“ .. ' _IHEasyto‘forget,
Silly : : : : : : Clever

 

I30

Phony» I Amusmgi
Irr1tat1ng...” _ =_ ,2 ,. Pleasant

 

Meamngful..-...gfl . ,_ ' ,1 POIIIIICSS..'.-_-L.[...-.1

 

In general, the characters on the telev1s10n program should be...

............

Umnteresu‘ng 1. ; " 33.1 '. :’ -.". “ ”1 a“: 1:

imam-.1: In ..M

.. Interesting 41,4,-
Dull _. I:I ., : : : : Exc1t1ng

.. 4..-- .. . :~- ‘-.-.-_>.- ..- ...?-_.._..v._....-..-.o..-.- ._. ....w..—--m- ._.—w

Memorable I. .1 .. _. a. Edsyto feed

- .—: .wf'l'iw' Wm

O
SIII ' ° ° ' ' ' C16 VCI‘
y 0 I I . O U
a .... "rn‘lflmriw.'m~‘1.w*m’ -*. » , r-. . .r » ..-.. -. . w. . 'r‘tb -.°.~-'- ' ., ~-'-.~;'-~.-. - . «3...;- —.’ -- u- rw-rrnqgmm 'rtnarmm1-1Jamrz-«m;

-.. 11:19:11. ._ . . . A .. Amusmg. 1
Irr1tat1ng _: : I:I :_ I: . : _ Pleasant

N ha. 3;: "—133:

Memgful M . .- -. , ..Bomtless. ‘3

3:-
p

 

 

PLEASE NOTE: Brand placement refers to the visual appearance and/or verbal mention
of branded products or services in entertainment television programs.

....

Unmterestmg _... 1, '1 Interesting

.... ‘ . 1. .“r—'..

-.....Dull. _ V =_ .=_ . =A _ =__ . EXEItlng_..._-
.Mqifapizitile f : ' ‘ ' _ ' 1': 7 -_ f: f ...‘mfiésifi‘éforéetm’
Silly I : _ : _ : I: : . :__ .. I Clever ..
“Phony ‘ * _ ,: ' i: T Amusma
I . Irritating : : : : :_ .3 _, Pleasant _ . .
Meanmgful " . : . _:. .: .1. . .. . . ......Pomtlgss
Obvious _V V _V =. __ .=. . = __:" __ Orgamc
WVulgar * Refined
Negative _ : _ : I: . : I: , : _I I Positive .__
' Smart " ' _C‘11.7f7f77Stup1d
Distractmg . : : : : : : . I Calmlng
D1sturb1ng . : : _: . z" 7‘ Passive
Forceful .. . _ I: : , . I __: .1 _ Subtle
Intruswe . :7 : ,: __: : _ I Mild ..
Evasive _: : _ . : : : . : Straightforward
Helpful j: , ' :  ‘ ': , __ ' '; ’ Unhelpful "
Important . : : : : : : Ummportant
Relevant .: 7 :' ' .: . :3 : ’ .7 Irrelevant
Useful : : : : : : Useless

‘4‘sw ‘ A ’{

 

1.

2.: t-

 

‘.1
II
I
I
i
1
A
I
2 1
5.2.4.1

 

 

 

PART II
If any of these products appeared in a television entertainment program (such as a sitcom
or drama type of program), please indicate how ethical you believe this would be by

circling the number that best reflects your feelings (1=Totally Ethical, 7=Totally
Unethical).

 

HardliqUOr 1 2 3 4 7 5 6 7

Totally Ethical _ __ . . I . II Totally Unethical II

131

Alcohol
Fur coat
Banana

Ice cream sandwrch
Condom

. I Coffee __
. ' T 1...}...3119 nearer .

Refrigerator

N N N N N :iNi N 71s).- N

U.) [113? U.) fog-3‘ U.) Irn". o.) for. U.)

{A}; A {A} A

A {A}, A Ail A

VI 1501'] Ur

-----------

Ur igUr‘l Ur iUr- Ur UrI

cs Os as iios’: as {psi as gas-.3 as

‘51.? \1

if, jg
:t
7
7
7
7
J
'- . “It". {IL-.214
7

 

PART III

Below is a set of word pairs. Please mark an “X” in the space closest to the word that best

reflects your feelings about advertising.

For example, if you think that Jennifer Aniston is a beautiful actress, your might respond

like this:

Beautiful

 

 

IIIPlease indicate your opinions regardmg advertlsmg 1n general

Bad
I Unfavorable

Popular ,. . ..

Pleasant

.. Dislike

Positive

Dtsagreeable l i

, Expens1ve
. Useful
Not beneficial

. i Worthless
Relevant

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘1'»

‘ BenefiCial “I

"’jjfjvaiuable

Irrelevant

Ugly

Good
Favorable .
Not popular 3
Unpleasant“ -
..lee i .53
Negatlve
Agreeable
IIInexpensrve .-
Useless!“ H

 

PART IV

On a scale ranging from 1 (strongly agree) to 7 (strongly disagree), please place a circle
around the answers that best reflect your feelings.

Commercials in an entertainment television program should be...

 

... ..4“ .........

Attractive ' _ ,

Enjoyable
. Entertaimng
Fun to watch

Informat1ve f
Unrelated to program content

Strongly

. Agree

132

N mvamzw-Ni

Ur Ur: Ur Uri UriUrg

as as ososf 0‘30“.

Strongly
D1sagree

“...—._.“?

\17\1 \riq \114:

 

Completelymae‘fié’ndemofthe . .

}'- _ television program ' l 2 i

L»)
4:.
L11
0\
\I

Non-existent l 2 3 4 5 6 7

 

PART V

If you have heard of the companies and organizations listed below, please identify them
as for-profit, non-profit, or if you don’t know its profit goal. If you have never heard of
that organization or company, please circle “Never Heard Of.”

 

F or- Non- Heard of, but Never
Profit Profit . Don’t Know Heard Of
_- Absolut 12.. _ 4”;
Good Humor ,
Fruit Growers Assoc1at10n ,I
Chiqu1ta I ,.
I Guccr I
MADD
American Heart AssocratronIiiI 7'
” A.Na‘iionéiilrafpberégAsSOCiatiogjn' i. j ‘
Pradaw - . .
Centers for Disease Control .. , , V

V..-

Eskimo Pie

i.

... 3,17:

.....

 

..
.-.s.'.r'3

mil-t...) 51.999: '1»- 133.1ng ”93} w it.) U.) 150.);

Grey Gooseiff. """"
3
._IFur T‘r‘héé'Assdciaridn; ' 3.
,- Dolce and Gabbana . .. 3... I!
. y' ......... Smirnoff. . . f, 3
Nat1onal Da1ry Council I I3
.2 , 1‘ Christian Dior: '_' 7' M 3
Amencan Cancer Association 3
._ _ f . CDC?“ 33 '
Mothers Agamst Drunk Driving , . 3 i---
{Q ., Banana Growers Assoc1ation‘,I 3 I:
Louis Vuitton . 3 . ,
........ 53:44 Day“ 3 _

to _N. is.) 'ts.) N to: N N N'N‘N .1\>7N}1\)_-’ININNMIN: rs.) MIN rots.)
A A? A 'fIA'A A A A" A _i-lA-i A A. A IA:- A IA? A ':A‘ A A, A 7A.; A -.A A :-

l
I
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
1
l
l
Versace I l ,
.11.. ,
l
l
l
l
l
l
I
I
l
l
l

DJ

2 Finlandia

 

PART VI

Below is a set of questions regarding brand placement in entertainment television
programs. On a scale ranging from 1 (strongly agree) to 7 (strongly disagree), please
place a circle around the answers that best reflect your feelings.

133

Brand placement refers to the visual appearance and/or verbal mention of branded
products or services in entertainment television programs.

Television entertainment programs are defined as shows on television such as situation
comedies (sitcoms), soap operas, drama series, movies, or reality shows. Thus, programs
such as news shows, documentaries, sports broadcasts, or award shows should not be

considered.

 

I have watched an entertainment telev151on
1; program that featured a brand 111 115, storyline 1
I remember seeing a brand that was a part of a

........

kprogramthat cantaincdrbrand placement-
I have become aware of a brand through an

I remember seeing a brand in an entertainment 3 I

telev1sron program -. 1

I have acted upon a brand I saw in an
entertamment television program. II

an entertamment television program. ..

I have Ieamed about a brand by watching an
entertainment telev1s10n program

........

Non-profit organizations should not interfere
with the content of entertainment television
programs
The placement of brands in entertainment
television programs should be banned by the
IIgovemmeInt.
I feel comfortable knowing that brands are
1 placed 1n entertainment media to influence the
Lattrtudes of aud1ences
I do not like to watch entertamment telev1s10n
programs with brand placement.
Brand placements 1n entertainment television
1 programs are obvious. _, A .
It 1s okay if producers of entertainment
television programs receive payment for brand
placement.
Manufacturers are misleading the audience by

134

Strongly

Agree
I

to f—I

3'03:

V ' .'.".'.-"~ -_":‘_.. -

Strongly

,, Disagree

.-.. .1 -_~.,. 11'
. . .Aw .1

33.1.4]. .-.’3

- .3

..

. 'U
why-3.2.29.5-

............

d1sgu1s1ng their brands as props in entertainment {

1[telev181on programs .. ________
The government should not 1nterfere with the“.
IPIIcoIrIiItenItI of entertainment telev151on programs

1.1.119 991116.111pf.entertainment..t¢levisi.on. pregranlss
Branded products are intentionally placed in
entertainment television programs to influence
the audience. .

{I do not mind if brand name products 51115351111

Lntertamment television programs,
The presence of brand name products 1n
entertainment television programs makes it more
realistic.

{ff “prefer 16 11311511 15151121.; 111 eateaaaaea "

itelevision programs rather than fake/fictitious
“ones ._...r...,--,..-. .. .. .
I will not watch an entertainment television
program if I know beforehand that some brands
are placed prominently in the show.
{111s unethical to influence a captive audience by
iusing brand name products 1n entertainment
teleV131on programs ...... .-., .-...
I would consider product placement as
commerc1als in d1sgu1se
entertamment television shows as long as they
Lare real1st1cally shown. . _
Entertainment television programs Should not
show one brand a number of times within the
same episode.
The government shOuld regulate the use Of
branded products 1n entertainment television
“programs . . . . ...........................
The placement of brands in entertainment
television programs should be banned.
I do not mind if televisi6n producers rece1ve
{gsome compensation from manufacturers for
,1 placing a brand in the program. , _
I don t mind if producers receive money or other
compensation from manufacturers for placing
their brands in entertainment television
IIprograms.
{Ibuy brands I see television Stars uSing or
gholding 111 entertainment television. programs.
Entertainment television programs should

I35

'Wl—v-‘fls‘~fl"7. -~..,

b»)

'43

......

contain only those brand name products that are
essential to the r am’s realism.

 

Television audiences are subconsciously
influenced by the brands they see in l

 

 

I television programs if they are placed for ~; _‘ j, -1.: ,_ j

.5: commercral purposes _ “ .1 z"
Entertainment television programs should use
fictitious brands rather than existing brands.

 

PART VII
On a scale ranging from 1 (strongly agree) to 7 (strongly disagree), please place a circle
around the answers that best reflect your feelings about the statements listed.

 

 

 

 

 

Strongly Strongly
. , Agree. .. , . , , _Pisagree.
Isfiégy. 10115 tagger asense'6f1e315tancetnme' " .1: “=3; 21:: ’3 45 Q 7 i=4
The thought of being dependent on others

aggravates me

 

 

 

I resist the attempts of others to influence me. 1 '
gilt makes me” angry when another person is held :-

    

u -~- .» _ ....1;13.-.-,-.{_.
When someone forces me t6 do something, I feel
11ke domg the opposite

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

somety 5 standards and rules. 3., . ., I 2 , 3.4 5 .....
I am content only when I am acting of my own 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
free W4". ............... ............... .
1 2. ..... 3. . 4 5 6 7 '
Advrce and recommendations induce the to do 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 just the oppos1te 7
' nly thOSe things Which I do out of free W1“ 1 . ‘2 3 .4, 5 :1 6 . 1., 7. g ‘3
.. ....1)! agree with me _g . . . , ._ a ............ ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, . ..
I react negatively when someone tries to tell me I 2 3 4 5 6 7
-.Wh?‘ I should or should not do - . , .,
l ........ 234 .5_,_.6 ......... 7 ........
I often do not feel like doing something simply I 2 3 4 5 6 7

because others expect me to.

136

 

 

It makes me angry when someone points out
th1ngs which are obvious to me

 

  

 

 

 

In hmy behavior, I rarely eonsider the thoughts of

 

 

 

§Méking fee and independent d‘ecxswns'i 4
I resent advert1sements that tell me what to do 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

 

 

I strongly resist the attempt of ads to mfluence
me.

 

I get very irritte he aedvrtising tells me
what I should bu or do.

 

I resent authority figures who try to tell me what
to do.
I; "‘=‘-"¢?E‘:"?¥‘”ffl<'fl'- "1111'?

 

I enjoy seeing someone else do something that
neither of us is supposed to do

...,umv- VVVVV

 

........................

   

 

 

 

 

IfIamtoldwhattodo, Ioften do theOu-ssite. V 2 3 4 5 V 6 7

 
 

It bothers me whenpohce ot‘ficers tell people
what to do.

I don’t mind other o-le telhn me what t do.

 

 

I often followteh sugstgelonsof~ ter.

137

If someone asks a favor of me, I will think about

 

 

 

 

 

4
what this person is really after ., . AAAAAA _ I- ,_ _2_ 3_ 5W 6 7
WI am "relatively opinionated II I ;;;; I 234 S 6 :__ 7 II

It IS important to me to be in a powerful posnion l 2 3 4 5 6 7
relative,“ to. chelis .7 .. .7 ,,-.,— . . ....... ._. ..
I I am very open Ito solutions to my problems from 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
otlggrsW , W WWW, ,, WWWWW MN...” .. __
I enjoy showmg up people who think they are 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I consrder myself more competitive than 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5 .cooperative : ~ . * " . .. ......“ .3“
I don t mind doing something for someone even
, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
when I don’ t know why 1 In doing it ,. .. . ..
lII IféelII' it is better to stand up Ifor whflbelieve 1 II "I 23 I4 W 6 7 I I if;
41111130126. Silent .. ., -..-...... , , ._ W
I usually go along With others __ advicew - l 2 3 4 56 7 .
Iam _veryW stubborn and set in myrymyqs 123 4 1.5. 6 7 ..IIgi
It is very important for me to get along with the
l 2 3 4 5 6 7
People. I Work with , ........ .. . ..
Ibecome angry when my freedom of choice is I II .
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
restricted , , _ . . _ ..
I become frustrated when I am unable to make
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
“9‘? E.“9..‘Pdependem dec‘S‘Ons _ _
IIIt irritates me when someone points out things   ' ' I
l. 2 3 4 5 6 7
2.139.101; are, Obviquisitp 1.139.. W. , ,7 _ W , f . V

 

PART VIII

How many days per week do you watch television? (Please circle only one.)

1 2 3

4 5

How many hours of television did you watch yesterday?

6

7

How many hours of television did you watch the day before yesterday?

Please identify 5 television genres that you prefer to watch from I (prefer to watch the

most) to 5 (prefer to watch the least):

Action/Adventure Courtroom/Legal
Animated Drama

Anthology Educational
Cartoons Game

Children’s Medical

Comedy Music
Cop/Detective N ews/Documentary

138

Political

Reality

Science Fiction

Stand-up Comedy

Sitcom
Sports

__ Talk/Variety

If someone asks a favor of me, I will think about

 

 

 

 

 

4
Wiesihis perseusgeelly after. . 123567
ELI am relatively onlmeneted .. I 5 I‘ 1 23 4 56 7
It is important to me to be in a powerful posmon 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
relative to others.
tn 31‘72312'1.‘ ...... “if-32'8“" "I‘- “ -' ' x
I am very open to solutions to my prob ems from 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
omrsfiwr 3.2 {2:51; I gwtd‘fi A.“mua¢.z'.x¢1¢~.rr:::'a--ii-zn: .7 _._W...
I enjoy “showing up’ ’people who think they are l 2 3 4 5 6 7
IconSider myself mOIe competitive than 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
III don t mind doing something for someone even
, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
when Idon’ tknow whyI Indoingit. _ _ . _ _. , . .
FIfeel it is better to ISt'and up for wha’thbelieve ” I I " ' 5‘ " V
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
than» be. Silent , mm.
Iveually go along With others, 3921.92..- - 1 234 5 6... - 7
I am very. stubborn and set ,in mLWa XS. 1 23 4.5 -6 . 7
It 18 very important for me to get along with the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
people I work with. . .. _
Ibecome angry When my freedom of ch01ce is 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
restricted ...... ........ . _
I become fruStrated when lam unable to make
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
...fTQE and Independent deC’S‘Ons _.....“ .. .
It irritates me when someOne points out things I II I I
l 2 3 4 5 6 7
thieh are obvious to me. W .. .

 

PART VIII

How many days per week do you watch television? (Please circle only one.)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

How many hours of television did you watch yesterday?

 

 

How many hours of television did you watch the day before yesterday?

Please identify 5 television genres that you prefer to watch from 1 (prefer to watch the
most) to 5 (prefer to watch the least):
Action/Adventure Courtroom/Legal Political

Animated Drama Reality
Anthology Educational Science Fiction
Cartoons Game Stand-up Comedy
Children’s Medical Sitcom

Comedy Music Sports
Cop/Detecti ve N ews/Documentary Talk/Variety

138

Rank the five television genres that you just chose from “prefer to watch the most” to
“prefer to watch the least.”
Prefer to watch the most:

 

 

 

 

l
2.
3.
4
S

Prefer to watch the least:

 

PART IX

What is your age?

 

What is your gender? (Please check only one.)

 

Female Male Transgender
Please indicate your current education level:
Freshman Junior Graduate
Sophomore Senior Other (please indicate)

 

What was your family’s household income level before taxes in 2003? (Please check only
one.)

Less than $10,000 $25,000 to $34,999 $75,000 to $99,999

$10,000 to $4,999 $35,000 to $49,999 $100,000 to $149,999

$15,000 to $24,999 $50,000 to $74,999 $150,000 to $199,999
$200,000 or more

Do you consider yourself: (Please check only one.)
Asian or Pacific Islander

Black or African American (non-Hispanic)
Hispanic or Latino

White (non-Hispanic)

Mixed racial background (please identify):
Other (please specify):
Not sure

 

 

 

llllll

What is your religion? (Please check only one.)

 

 

 

 

Atheist Jewish Christian
Buddhist Muslim (please specify)
Catholic Protestant
Unsure Other (please specify)

PART X

Please provide any additional comments.

THANK YOU for participating in this study! See you at the second session!

139

APPENDIX E
Consent form for Survey at T2

ENTERTAINMENT TELEVISION PROGRAMS AND YOU
Participant Consent Form #2 of 2

Thank you for attending the second session of this experiment. The researcher is
conducting this study to explore audience experiences of entertainment television
programs in relationship to personality traits.

As you know, this experiment consists of two parts. You will receive extra credit from
your instructor only if you participate in both parts of this study. The first part of this
study was the survey that you have already completed. During this session, you will be
shown an episode of a television program and asked to fill out a survey. This session will
take approximately one hour. The first survey will be distributed to you after you view
the episode. You will be asked to hand in that portion to receive the last portion of this
survey. If you chose not to complete the second half of this study, your instructor will
provide you with an alternative assignment in lieu of your voluntary participation. Today,
you will be shown a television program and asked to fill out a survey. This session will
take approximately one hour. ‘

Although there are no foreseeable risks to participating in this study, you do not have to
answer the questions or view the television program if at any time you feel
uncomfortable. You are free to leave the experiment site or stop answering questions
from the survey at any time. Any information that you provide and the data collected
from this study will be kept confidential. Your privacy will be protected to the maximum
extent allowable by law. This consent form will be separated from the survey. Thus, your
responses will not be identifiable.

If you have any questions about this survey, please contact the researcher, Susan Chang,
at changsu4@msu.edu or (517) 353-3858, Department of Advertising, 320
Communication Arts and Sciences Building, Michigan State University, East Lansing,
MI 48824-12 l 2 or the Project Investigator, Dr. Charles T. Salmon at (517) 355-3410 or
salmon@msu.edu. If you have any questions or concerns regarding your rights as a study
participant, or are dissatisfied at any time with any aspect of this study, you may contact
— anonymously, if you wish, Peter Vasilenko, Ph.D., Chair of the University Committee
on Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS) by phone: (517) 355-2180, fax: (517)
432-4503, e-mail: ucrihs@msu.edu or regular mail: 202 Olds Hall, East Lansing, MI
48824.

By signing and dating this consent form, you indicate your voluntary agreement to
participate in this survey.

 

 

Printed Name Signature Date

 

 

Your Instructor’s Name Class/section you are receiving extra credit in

140

APPENDIX F
Survey at T2

ENTERTAINMENT TELEVISION PROGRAMS AND YOU
Part 2 of 3

Thank you for volunteering for this study. Please note that viewing the television
program and completing the next two surveys constitutes this entire experiment. After
you have completed this session, you will be debriefed by the experimenter.

Once you have marked your answers as indicated in each section, please do not erase or
modify your responses. When you are finished with this survey, please hand it in to the
experimenter to receive the last portion of this survey.

 

PART I

For the television program you just watched, please list any branded products or services
that you remember seeing, if any at all. Do not feel like you have to fill up all of the
blanks. If you do not remember any brands, then leave this section blank.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. 14.
2. 15.
3. l6.
4. 17.
5. 18.
6. l9.
7. 20.
8. 21.
9. 22.
IO. 23.
11. 24.
12. 25.
13. 26.
PART II

Prior to today, have you ever watched the television program Arrested Development,
even once? YES NO

If you answered “yes” to the above question, please continue on to Part III and IV,
and skip Part Va.

If you answered “no” to the above question, please skip Part III and continue on to
Part IV and Va.

PART III

In regards to Arrested Development, please place a circle around the answers that best
reflect your feelings on a scale ranging from I (strongly agree) to 7 (strongly disagree).

141

 

Strongly Strongly

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agree Disagree
Itry to'watch this teleVismn program every ?????? a ' l J m
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ;
,chance Ihatlget ..... _. . V. .. . .6 .
I am a fan of this televiSion program l ,. 2 3__4 _.5__... 617“
Ihave watched th1s telev1s10n program before i .1. I I 2 7 4 S .6. 7 3
land did nothke .it . M. . .-.. . _._..-“ ___...71
I watch this television program only if there 15 l 2 3 4 5 6 7
nothing else on.
PART IV
Below is a set of word pairs. Please mark an “X” in the space closest to the word that best
reflects your feelings about Arrested Development. For example, if you think that
Jennifer Aniston is a beautiful actress, your might respond like this:
Beautiful : X : : : : : Ugly
Overall, I believe that Arrested Development 1s.. 4 _ 1 _ 4
Uninteresnng _: : . . : : " . ‘ ' Interesting , _ in};
7 “Dull ‘ : : : . : : : . _ . Exciting .-
Memorable, . l : : : l: :_ :7 j _ _ Easy to forget j
Silly : : : : : : . _, Clever
Phonyfi- , .2 , . :_ .», :’ _ . .. Amusmg 1
._ 4 Irritating : : : : : : 4 Pleasant
Meaningful I _ .: ,: ': "1 .: . .- '.   Pmmless 1
Funny : : : : : : Serious
PART Va
Now that you have watched your first episode of Arrested Development, please place a
circle around the answers that best reflect your feelings on a scale ranging from 1
(strongly agree) to 7 (strongly disagree).
Strongly Strongly
_ Agree ‘_ 4 Disagree.

"IWi11‘tryto'Watcli this teleVision program every '

1 2 s 4 5 6 7

g-chance thatIget . , _ . , _ ._.},
I am a potential fan of this television program I 2 3 4 5 6 7

5 Now that I have watched this telev1s10n prOgram, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4.

eldonot like It . .. .
I would watch this television program again only 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

if there was nothing else on.

 

PART V
Below is a set of word pairs. Please mark an “X” in the space closest to the word that best
reflects your feelings about good television programs.

142

For example, if you think that Jennifer Aniston is a beautiful actress, your might respond
like this:

Beautiful : X : : : : : Ugly

_444In general, agood teleVISlon program should 4I)4e4... 4 _ 4 4 4 _ 44
Umnterestmg-.. ._. - . A. .. I: . ‘ .i “ j.;j.:__;.tt‘massesg;;;;;;;_;;;.;:;i3
Dull 4_ 44 : :_ :4 4‘ 4 4: 4 : _ _ : _ Excmng
Memorable '_ Easxto Meg-3

4 4 44 Silly 4: : : 4 : 4:_ _ : 44 44 Clever
Phoy . ,_ ,i‘.:;; ;A.Ia§1._g J
Irr1tat1ng : _ : _: : :4 : 4_ 4 Pleasant
Meamngful fig: . " 5:112:11;,.1?omtte..ss .L,f."if.f'.'.{TiT‘7‘.‘.f7

.....

51 ...:3'

_4In general a well des1gned set 94411 a teIeVISlon program should 4I)e_4.4.44.44_ 4444444 4 4,4444
Umnterestmg .. , _ h .. .2 _ ,. .Intereétlng ,
. 44D4ull44 4 _: 4: . : : 4: 4: _ 4 Exc1t1ng
'J'fMemiirabléf _ i _ . 2’ . : ' ' , .._”:Easytoforoet
4 Silly_4 : : : : : : 4Clever
”PhOny‘f’ : : .. :1 . ': : ' : .' ,lfAmusmg
Irritating . =, .= .= :_ . ,: =1, ,A -Plsasant.-._,._.
Meamngful , w. P01116688.

\.. 4-.

In general, a well-written storyline (14114 4214 teIeVISlon program shouId be...

Umnterestmgg, . . .._~.,_.,_._,Interest1ng :

4 4 Dull : _ : : : : : _ Exciting
Memorable ' . : ; . ’: " 4 ; . :4 In: _ . [..fijQEasyto forget
Silly 4 4 : : 4:_ : : : V 44‘44'444C41ever4 444
Phony. ... _ : : :. :1 : ‘_ ‘ “:_Amusmg

Irntating _ : 3, : :~ : : 4 4 Pleasant

Meaningful, 4 _4 :2 .: : 4: 44 '_ ’Pomtless

 

 

Uninterestmo 4 _ 4 4 4 . 4 Interest1ng
44 Dull : : : :44 : : 4 4 Exciting
I "'_.]Méixiorablef;fl .7 , ' 1 1 ‘ * "T f..'Easy to forget
Silly : : : : : : 44 Clever
Phony ’ : : : :' '1’ , IjAmuSing
Irritating : : :4 4 4 : : :4 44 Pleasant
Meaningful ,4 . 44 4 4_ 4 "Pomtless

' '.‘(“5’.'»'1‘,1'1‘4ttfig'rin.,'g 19"“.

II M" ‘6‘

 

PLEASE NOTE: Brand placement refers to the visual appearance and/or verbal mention
of branded products or services in entertainment television programs.

In general, brand placements In a telewsmn program should be...

Uninterestlng .. : . . . . ‘ ._ Interesting 1.
Dull : : : : : : Exciting

143

Silly
Phony

4 Irritating
~ 5 555_.'4'54Meamn,,ful
vaious
Vulgar
Negative

Smart A

44454-454Distract1ng
4 .1 4; Disturbing

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

S’tUBid' ,1 ,5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

E556 ‘fflfciiéfefifj

Clever44 44 44
Aurrnlsi'rig'.~ , '
Pleasant 44 _ 4
Pomtless ‘4 ' 5. 5. ;
_4O_rganic_4

Refined : .5 55:
Positive

Calming” 44 . 4 4
Passive i

 

Forceful 4 Subtle 44 4
Intruswe M1Ld :5
44444_4_4444444E4\4'a4s41ve 4 44 Strarghtforgvard
.......g..'.,;...1:1..§lp£ul Unhelpful " :5;
44441mportant Ummportant
Relevant '5 Irrelevant
Useful Useless
PART VI

Below is a set of word pairs. Please mark an “X” in the space closest to the word that best

reflects your feelings about bananas.

For example, if you think that Jennifer Aniston is a beautiful actress, your might respond

like this:

Beautiful

.wfluq-

Please indicate your opinions regardmg bananas..
' Bad . '

55 .. Unfavorable

Popular 5

Pleasant
”Dislike
Positive
, : Disagreeable

Expensive
~4._ ”'4, Useful 5

_ Not beneficial

5 Worthless
Relevant

Boring

Exciting

5Means nothing 4
' Appealing

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

' UneXCiting

 

 

 

 

144

Ugly
" f _ Good . '7
44 Favorable
5 Not popular
Unpleasant

Like:
4 4_Negat1ve
Agreeable

Inexpensrve 4

Useless

Beneficial

5:1Valuable. .,£

Irrelevant

5 Ummportant-H. '

Interesting

......

‘ Meanselm _
~.Unappealing , ..

Fascinating

qv-w' mcw 'M’m -u,u.-<

 

 

 

 

Worthless . -_ .. .

 

 

 

Mundane

Valuable , . ,3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Involvmg ‘ Un1nvolv1ng

Not needing ' Needed ”
PART VII
Below is a set of word pairs. Please mark an “X” in the space closest to the word that best
reflects your feelings about 5 A Day.
For example, if you think that Jennifer Aniston is a beautiful actress, your might respond
like this:

Beautiful : X : : : : : Ugly

5 A Day is a non-profit, nationwide organization dedicated to increasing America’s
consumption of fruits (such as apples, grapes, watermelon, bananas, or plums) and
vegetables (such as celery, lettuce, broccoli, cucumbers, or corn) to 5 to 9 servings a day
to promote good health and reduce the risk of heart disease, stroke, hypertension, some
cancers, and other chronic diseases.

Please indicate your oplmons regarding 5 A Day.. ‘ V 1 . A A ,,
, Bad . , _ .. .  ._ Good”
Unfavorable 1 , : ‘g _ _: .. _ :_ _ :_ _ . Favorable‘m

Pleasant . V : 7 : . : : : _g : , . Unpleasant

“Disks? "if. j, _ if f f3; j . L._7_"f_fl.~.Like
Positive : : : : : : . Negative

Disagreeableff',, * 4 1 _. _, ' ' i _ , _ ' , :  ' , , “,Agreeable :

Expens1ve ,Z ,3 .. _ . ._3 _ _: U Inexpenswem ..

, Useful,‘:_f__ _ _:_ _ ' , __ : . Useless

Not benefic1al , _ : : ..i : : : _ , Beneficial .. . . g

“ Worthlessif'f“ ' a j ‘ --.-- ' 5:; :' * j. I: .. ‘i. Valuable
Relevant : : : : : : Irrelevant

 

 

 

 

This concludes the first half of the survey.

PLEASE HAND THIS IN TO THE EXPERIMENTER
TO RECEIVE THE LAST PORTION.

145

ENTERTAINMENT TELEVISION PROGRAMS AND YOU
Part 3 of 3

This is the last portion of the study!

Once you have marked your answers as indicated in each section, please do not erase or
modify your responses.

 

PART VIII
Below is a set of word pairs. Please mark an “X” in the space closest to the word that best
reflects your feelings about Chiquita Company, a for-profit organization.

For example, if you think that Jennifer Aniston is a beautiful actress, your might respond
like this:

Beautiful : X : : : : : Ugly

 
  

;'-.I Bad.
Unfavorable

Popular :
IPleasantIII

  
 

 

 

 

Positive

 

 

........ Useful" '. 7"
.,- Not benIeIf1c1al I ., II _ : _ : ___. : _II_ :I __ IBenef1c1al
' Wonliless; ___:__ : ___.._ ._...F ..... Valuable
Relevant : : : : : : Irrelevant
PART IX

On a scale ranging from 1 (strongly agree) to 7 (strongly disagree), please place a circle
around the answers that best reflect your feelings.

 

Strongly Strongly
-' ..... Agree I , I I I DisagreeIII
It ‘5- very hkely that I WiIIQbuy bananas soon . . ,1. ’ Q2” 3‘. 4 ,5,,, .6 1 7 '
IfI were in need of bananas, I would want to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

    

learn more about CIIhi uita
, .

 

146

 

--r..--"'f'.hl'l.!.'-'o‘ -i'.:»-.'--- --.Ya ran ._-,- -.'r.‘-'--'..’n c -.---,‘.‘:'- h;»--L':".-.:.rn-.'.‘ -‘n.‘.’-‘-:-.‘Futafanraavtn' 4. :2". v}. Jr ~.‘-‘v.‘.'.‘ '-.‘..' 1'." ca:- r; ‘1". ~'-’-:':~. '.7--n- 2' ' -‘ filth ca 'J‘r' Q

 

 

Chxqmta Q ....
The next time thatIpurchase fresh fruit, Iw1ll 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
-Innxbananasrc ;,;;x - " " ~ - 12345 a ,7
Brands are irrelevant to my purchase decmon 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

regarding bananas.

 

PART X
Below is a set of word pairs. Please mark an “X” in the space closest to the word that best
reflects your feelings about Chiquita bananas.

For example, if you think that Jennifer Aniston is a beautiful actress, your might respond
like this:

Beautiful : X : : : : : Ugly

—_~_———_————_

Please indicate your opinions regarding Chiquita bananas...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

...-... Bad _ .1 Good
Unfavorable :I I: II: II: II I Favorable ___IIIII
POPUIar .. ,: ’ :’ IQ, _. .. NotPOPular
_ F'easam . _r, =._ :A _, =_, ,. _ Unpleasant .-..Q
Dislike. " ' _. .Q Lake
Positive I _I _I: : :I . _ . : : . I : Negative II

 

 

?.__-.-.'.;«; ‘.‘./T¢‘I¥m4“."((‘n,-I,I‘\ mire: mum
,. Disagreeable

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agreeable

 

ExpenSive Inexpenswe
Useful Useless ' ‘
Not benefic1al II Benef1c1al II
‘ Worthless """ Valuable
. Relevant Irrelevant
i Important ”Ummportant
Boring Interesting
. Excmng Unexcmng
Means nothing Means a lot
Appealing Unappealmg
Fascrnating I Mundane _
Worthless .5 - Valuable
Involving Uninvolvmg
Not needing Needed
PART XI

For the television program you just watched, please indicate if you remember seeing any
of the branded products or services listed below. Check all that apply, or leave it blank, if

you do not recall seeing any of the brands.

Fox Dole Doritos
LG Absolut Chanel

_._—__—

147

Adidas Smirnoff Jack Daniels

Orange Transit Gucci Grey Goose

Ramsey’s Christian Dior Klondike

Mini-tacos Eskimo Pie Pepsi

Chiquita Good Humor Louis Vuitton

Versace Ben and Jerry’s Dreyer’s

Coca-Cola Mercedes-Benz Taquitos

Finlandia Vogue Lighthouse Bar and Grill
Fromex Photo Homblower Cruises Craz Curz

Schwinn Balboa Storage Tractor Pull

 

THANK YOU for participating in this study!

148

APPENDIX G
Participant debriefing e-mail

Dear Research Participant,

Thank you for your recent voluntary participation in a dissertation research study titled,
“Entertainment Television Programs and You.” Your full participation has been noted.
Your name has been submitted to your professor for receipt of extra credit.

At the time of your participation, you were told very generally that the research was
designed to understand what you felt were characteristics of a good television program in
relationship to some of your personality traits. While this is true, the study was
specifically designed to test the theory of Psychological Reactance, which suggests that
individuals may act counter to the intended effects of communication messages because
audiencesIare motivated to restore any threats made to their freedom to control their own
behaviors ". ’

Using an undergraduate student sample, this experimental study has been designed to
extend Psychological Reactance to branded product placement in entertainment media. It
was hypothesized that varying the profit goal of the source (for-profit or non-profit),
when audiences are told about the source, and the ethical nature of the product placed in
an episode of Arrested Development would allow for audiences to engage in
Psychological Reactance.

If you have further questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me: Susan
Chang by phone: (517) 353-3858, e-mail: changsu4@msu.edu, or regular mail: 309
Communication Arts and Sciences Building, East Lansing, MI 48824. You may also
contact the Primary Investigator: Dr. Charles T. Salmon, Acting Dean, by phone: (517) Q
355—3410, e-mail: salmon@msu.edu, or regular mail: 291 Communication Arts and
Sciences Building, East Lansing, MI 48824 or Dr. Peter Vasilenko, Ph.D., Chair of the
University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS) by phone:
(517) 355-2180, fax: (517) 432-4503, e-mail: ucrihs@msu.edu, or regular mail: 202 Olds
Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824.

Thank you again for your participation in this study.
Best regards,

Susan Chang
Mass Media Ph.D. Candidate

 

‘ Brehm, J. w. (1966). A theory ofPsycho/ogical Reactance. New York: Academic Press.

2 Brehm, S. S., & Brehm, J. W. ( 1981). Psychological reactance: A theory of freedom and control. New
York: Academic Press.

149

REFERENCES

150

REFERENCES

Aaker, D.A. & Bruzzone, D. E. (1981). Viewer perceptions of prime-time television
advertising. Journal of Advertising Research, 21(5). 15-23.

Abemethy, A. M., & Laband, D. (1999). Influences on the purchase of yellow page
display advertisements. Journal of Advertising Research, 39(5), 15-25.

Adame, D. D. (1986). Instruction and course content in sex knowledge and attitudes and
internal locus of control. Psychological Reports, 58(1), 91-94.

Albarracin, D., Cohen, J. B., & Kumkale, G. T. (2003). When communications collide
with recipients’ actions: Effects of post-message behavior on intentions to follow the
message recommendation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(7), 834-845.

Allen, C. T., & Janiszewski, C. A. (1989). Assessing the role of contingency awareness in
attitudinal conditioning with implications for advertising research. Journal of Marketing
Research, 26(1), 30-43.

Allen, D. N., Sprenkel, D. G., & Vitale, P. A. (1994). Reactance theory and alcohol
consumption laws: Further confirmation among collegiate alcohol consumers. Journal of
Studies on Alcohol, 55(1), 34-40.

American Marketing Association. (2005). Dictionary of marketing terms. Retrieved June
20, 2005 from http://www.marketingpower.com/mg-
dictionary.php?Searched= l &SearchFor=clutter

Andreoli, V., & Worchel, S. (1978). Effects of media, communicator, and message
position on attitude change. Public Opinion Quarterly, 42(1), 59-70.

Andrews, J. C. (1995). The effectiveness of alcohol warning labels: A review and
extension. American Behavioral Scientist, 38(4), 622-632.

Andrews, J. C., & Netemeyer, R. G. (1996). Alcohol warning label effects: Socialization,
addiction, and public policy issues. In R. P. Hill (Ed), Marketing and consumer research
in the public interest (pp. 153-175). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Anonymous. (1989, January 2). Plugging away in Hollywood. Time, 103.

Archer, R. L. (1976). Reactance as a result of repeated threats and an intervening
restoration of attitudinal freedom (Doctoral dissertation, Duke University, 1976).

Dissertation Abstracts International, 3 7, 3141-3142.

Arkes, H . R., & Hutzel, L. (2000). The role of probability of success estimates in the
sunk cost effect. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13(3), 295-306.

151

Arrow, B. A., Manber, R., Blasey, G, Klein, D. N., Blalock, J. A., Markowitz, J. C.,
Rothbaum, B. 0., Rush, J. C., Thase, M. E., Riso, A. J., Vivian, D., McCullough, J. P. Jr.
(2003). Therapeutic reactance as a predictor of outcome in the treatment of chronic
depression. Journal of Counseling and Clinical Psychology, 71(6), 1025-1035.

Atkinson, C. (2003, October 27). Placement comes under FTC review. Advertising A ge,
74(43), 4.

Austin, B. A. (1980). The influence of the MPAA’s film-rating system on motion picture
attendance: A pilot study. The Journal of Psychologv, 106(1), 91-99.

Austin, B. A. (1982). M.P.A.A. film rating influence on stated likelihood of high school
student film attendance: A test of Reactance Theory (Doctoral dissertation, Temple
University, 1981). Dissertation Abstracts International, 42, 4964.

Austin, J. T. (1989). Effects of shifts in goal origin on goal acceptance and attainment.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 44(3), 415-435.

Auty, S., & Lewis, C. (2004). Exploring children’s choice: The reminder effect of
product placement. Psychology and Marketing, 21(9), 697-713.

Avery, R. J ., & Ferraro, R. (2000). Verisimilitude or advertising? Brand appearances on
prime time television. The Journal of Consumer A flairs, 34(2), 217-244.

Avnet, J. (Producer), Tisch, S. (Producer), & Brickman, P. (Writer/Director). (1983).
Risky business [Motion picture]. United States: Geffen Pictures.

Axelrod, J. N. (1980). Advertising wearout. Journal of Advertising Research, 20(5), 13-
18.

Aylesworth, A. B. (1995). Advertising effectiveness and program context: The effect of
program-induced mood on advertising processing. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation,
Indiana University, Bloomington.

Babad, E. (1987). Wishful thinking and objectivity among sports fan. Social Behaviour,
2(4), 231-240.

Babin, L. A., & Carder, S. T. (1996a). Viewers’ recognition of brands placed within a
film. International Journal of Advertising, 15(2), 140-151.

Babin, L. A., & Carder, S. T. (1996b). Adverting via the box office: Is product placement
effective? Journal of Promotion Management, 3(1/2), 31-51.

Baer, R., Hinkle, S., Smith, K., & Fenton, M. (1980). Reactance as a function of actual

versus projected autonomy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38(3), 416-
422.

152

Baems, B. (2003). Separating advertising from programme content: The principle and its
relevance in communications practice. Journal of Communication Management, 8(1),
101-1 12.

Baker, K. D., & Neimeyer, R. A. (2003). Therapist training and client characteristics as
predictors of treatment response to group therapy for depression. Psychotherapy
Research, 13(2), 135-151.

Baker, K. D., Sullivan, H., Marszalek, J. M. (2003). Therapeutic reactance in a depressed
client sample: A comparison of two measures. Assessment, 10(2), 135-142.

Baker, W. E. (2003). Does brand name imprinting in memory increase brand information
retention? Psychology and Marketing, 20( 12), 1 119-1135.

Baker, W. E., & Lutz, R. J. (2000). An empirical test of an undated relevance-
accessibility model of advertising effectiveness. Journal of Advertising, 29(1), 1-14.

Balasubramanian, S. K. (1994). Beyond advertising and publicity: Hybrid messages and
public policy issues. Journal of Advertising, 23(4), 29-46.

Baltes, M. M., & Skinner, E. A. (1983). Cognitive performance deficits and
hospitalization: Learned helplessness, instrumental passivity, or what? Comment of Raps,

Peterson, Jonas, and Seligman. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(5),
1013-1016.

Baum, A., Fleming, R., & Reddy, D. M. (1986). Unemployment stress: Loss of control,
reactance, and Ieamed helplessness. Social Science and Medicine, 22(5), 509-516.

Baum, A., & Gatchel, R. J. (1981). Cognitive determinants of reaction to uncontrollable
events: Development of reactance and Ieamed helplessness. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 40(6), 1078- 1089.

Baum, W. M. (1973). The correction-based law of effect. Journal of the Experimental
Analysis of Behavior, 20(1), 137-153.

Baumeister, R. F. (1982). A self-presentational view of social phenomena. Psychological
Bulletin, 91(1), 3-26.

Baumeister, R. F., Catanese, K. R., & Wallace, H. M. (2002). Conquest by force: A
narcissistic reactance theory of rape and sexual coercion. Review of General Psychology,

6(1), 92-135.

Bay, R. C., & Braver, S. L. (1990). Perceived control of the divorce settlement process
and interparental conflict. Family Relations, 39(4), 382-387.

153

Bensley, L. S., & Wu, R. (1991). The role of Psychological Reactance in drinking
following alcohol prevention messages. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21(13),
1 111-1124.

Berger, 1. E. (2000). The influence of advertising frequency on attitude-behavior
consistency: A memory based analysis. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality,
14(4), 547-568.

Berkowitz, L. (1973). Reactance and the unwillingness to help others. Psychologv
Bulletin, 7 9(5), 310-317.

Bermant, G. (1972). Telling people what they are likely to do: Three experiments.
Proceedings of the Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, 7(Pt.
1), 171-172.

Beutler, L. E., Engle, D., Mohr, D., Dahldrup, R. J., Bergan, J., Meredith, K., & Merry,
W. (1991). Predictors of differential response to cognitive, experiential, and self-directed

psychotherapeutic procedures. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59(2),
333-340.

Birch, L. L., Birch, D., Marlin, D. W., & Kramer, L. (1982). Effects of instrumental
consumption on children’s food preference. Appetite: Journal for Intake Research, 3(2),
125-134.

Blair, M. H. (2000). An empirical investigation of advertising wearin and wearout.
Journal of Advertising Research, 27(6), 95-100.

Blair, M. H., & Rabuck, M. J. (1998). Advertising wearin and wearout: Ten years later —

more empirical evidence and successful practice. Journal of Advertising Research, 38(5),
7-18.

Blankenship, B. L., Eells, G. T., Carlozzi, A. F., Perry, K., Barnes, L. B. (1998).
Adolescent client perceptions and reactions to reframe and symptom prescription
techniques. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 20(2), 172-182.

Blum, R. (2004, May 5). Baseball sells “Spider-Man ” ads on bases. Retrieved May 5,
2004 from http:sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=ap-spider-
manonbase&prov=ap&type=lgns

Bond, L. (1995). Unintended consequences of performance assessment: Issues of bias
and fairness. Education Measurement: Issues and Practice, 14(4), 21-24.

Borzekowski, D. L. (1996). Are you experienced? Teenagers’ perceptions of edutainment
shows featuring anti-alcohol messages. Journal of Health Psychology, 1(3), 297-306.

154

Bradbusy, T. N. ( 1994). Unintended effects of marital research on marital relationships.
Journal of Family Psychology, 8(2), 187-201.

Brehm, J. W. (1966). A theory of Psychological Reactance. New York: Academic Press.

Brehm, J. W. (1997). The theory of Psychological Reactance: A reliably revolutionary
perspective. Contemporary Psychology, 42(8), 679-681.

Brehm, J. W., & Cole, H. (1966). Effect of a favor which reduces freedom. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 3(4), 420-426.

Brehm, J. W., & Sensenig, J. (1966). Social influence as a function of attempted and
implied usurpation of choice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4(6), 703-
707.

Brehm, S. S. (1981). Oppositional behavior in children: A reactance theory approach. In
S. S. Brehm, S. M. Kassin, & F. K. Gibbins (Eds.), Developmental social psychology:
Theory and research (pp. 117-124). New York: Oxford Press.

Brehm, S. S., & Brehm, J. W. (1981). Psychological reactance: A theory of freedom and
control. New York: Academic Press.

Brehm, S. S., & Weinraub, M. (1977). Physical barriers and Psychological Reactance: 2-

year-olds’ responses to threats to freedom. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
35(1 1), 830-836.

Brennan, 1., & Babin, L. A. (2004). Brand placement recognition: The influence of
presentation mode and brand familiarity. Journal of Promotion Management: Innovations
in Planning and Applied Research, 10(1/2), 185-202.

Brennan, 1., Dubas, K. M., & Babin, L. A. (1999). The influence of product placement
type and exposure time on product placement recognition. International Journal of
Advertising, 18(3), 323-337.

Brett, S. J. (1995). The shrinking screen: The increasing intersection of Hollywood film
and television programming. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Northwestern
University, Evanston.

Brickle, G. (2003). Some outcomes of pressure, ingratiation, and rational persuasion used
with peers in the workplace. Journal oprplied Social Psychology, 33(3), 648-665.

Brockner, J ., & Elkind, M. (1985). Self-esteem and reactance: Further evidence of

attitudinal and motivational consequences. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
21(4), 346-361.

155

Brockner, J ., Gardner, M., Bierman, J ., Mahan, T., Thomas, B., Weiss, W., Winters, L.,
& Mitchell, A. ( 1983). The roles of self-esteem and self-consciousness in the Wortman-

Brehm model of reactance and learned helplessness. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 45( 1), I99-209.

Brooke, P. (1995). Communication through story characters: Radio social drama.
Lanham, MD: Institute for International Research: University of America Press.

Brooks, J. L. (Producer), Greenhut, R. (Producer), & Marshall, P. (Director). (1988). Big
[Motion picture]. United States: Twentieth Century Fox.

Brown, S. L. (2001). Emotive health advertising and message resistance. Australian
Psychologist, 36(3), 193-199.

Brown, T. J ., Rothschild, M. L. (1993). Reassessing the impact of television advertising
clutter. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(1), 138-146.

Buboltz, W. C. Jr., Johnson, P., & Woller, K. M. P. (2003). Psychological Reactance in
college students: Family-of-origins predictors. Journal of Counseling and Development,
81(3), 311-317. .

Buboltz, W. C. Jr., Thomas, A., & Donnell, A. J. (2002). Evaluating the factor structure
and internal consistency reliability of the Therapeutic Reactance scale. Journal of
Counseling and Development, 80(1), 120-125.

Buboltz, W. C. Jr., Williams, D. J ., Thomas, A., Seemann, E. A., Soper, B., & Woller, K.
(2003). Personality and Psychological Reactance: Extending the nomological net.
Personality and Individual Diflerences, 34(7), 1 167-1177.

Buboltz, W. C. Jr., Woller, K. M. P., Pepper, H. (1999). Holland code type and
Psychological Reactance. Journal of Career Assessment, 7(2), 161-172.

Buell, J. (2001). Reflections on TWO. The Humanist, 61(4), 40-41.

Buijzen, M, & Valkenburg, P. M. (2003). The unintended effects of television
advertising. Communication Research, 30(5), 483-503.

Buller, D. B., Burgoon, M., Hall, J. R., Levine, N., Taylor, A. M., Beach, 3., Buller, M.
K., & Melcher, C. (2000). Long-term effects of language intensity in preventive
messages on planned family solar protection. Health Communication, 12(3), 261-275.

Burger, J. M. (1999)..The foot-in-the-door compliance procedure: A multiple-process
analysis and review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3(4), 303-325.

Burgoon, M., Alvaro, E. M., Broneck, K., Miller, C., Grandpre, J. R., Hall, J. R., &
Frank, C. A. (2002). Using interactive media tools to test substance abuse prevention

156

messages. In W. D. Crano & M. Burgoon (Eds), Mass media and drug prevention:
Classic and contemporary theories and research. (pp. 67-87). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.

Burgoon, M., Fraedrich, L., & Bachman, S. (1979). Credibility of communicators and
distraction as predictors of change in attitude. Psychology Reports, 45(2), 479-482.

Burke, A., & Haslam, N. (2001). Relations between personality and depressive

symptoms: A multimeasure study of dependency, autonomy, and related constructs.
Journal of Clinical Psychology, 5 7(7), 953-961.

Bushman, B. J., Bonacci, A. M., van Dijk, M., Baumeister, R. F. (2003). Narcissism,
sexual refusal, and aggression: Testing a narcissistic reactance model of sexual coercion.
Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 84(5), 1027-1040.

Bushman, B. J., & Stack, A. D. (1996). Forbidden fruit versus tainted fruit: Effects of
warning labels on attraction to television violence. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Applied, 2(3), 207-226.

Calder, B. J., & Bumkrant, R. E. (1977). Interpersonal influence on consumer behavior:
An attribution theory approach. Journal of Consumer Research, 4(1), 29-38.

Calder, B. J., & Stemthal, B. (1980). Television commercial wearout: An information
processing view. Journal of Marketing Research, 17(2), 173-186.

Caldwell, D. P., O’Reilly, C. A. III, Morris, J. H. (1983). Responses to an organizational
reward: A field test to the sufficiency justification hypothesis. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 44(3), 506-514.

Cameron, K. A., Jacks, J. 2., & O’Brien, M. E. (2002). An experimental examination of
strategies for resisting persuasion. Current Research in Social Psychology, 7(12), 205-
224.

Campbell, M. C ., & Keller, K. L. (2003). Brand familiarity and advertising repetition
effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(2), 292-304.

Campbell, M. K., Bernhardt, J. M., Waldmiller, M., Jackson, 8., Potenziani, D.,
Weathers, B., & Demissie, S. (1999). Varying the message source in computer-tailored

nutrition education. Patient Education and Counseling, 36(2), 157- l 69.

Carter, J. E., & Kelly, A. E. (1997). Using traditional and paradoxical imagery
interventions with reactant intramural athletes. The Sport Psychologist, 11(2), 175-189.

Carver, C. S. (1977). Self-awareness, perception of threat, and the expression of
reactance through attitude change. Journal of Personality, 45(4), 501-512.

157

Carver, C. S. (1980). Perceived coercion, resistance to persuasion, and the Type A
behavior pattern. Journal of Research in Personality, 14(4), 467-481.

Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1981). Self-consciousness and reactance. Journal of
Research in Personality, 15(1), 16-29.

Chang, 8., Salmon, C. T., & Newell, J. (2004). Product Placement in Entertainment
Media: Proposing Business Process Models. lntemational Communication Association.
May 27-31. New Orleans, Louisiana.

Charmaz, K. (2000). Grounded theory: Objective and constructivist methods. In N. K.
Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds) Handbook of qualitative research, Second Edition (pp.
509-535). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Cheng, T. (Producer), Soria, M. (Producer), Darnell, E. (Director), & McGrath, T.
(Director). (2005). Madagascar [Motion Picture]. United States: Dreamworks SKG.

Chenitz, C. (1983). Entry into a nursing home as status passage: A theory to guide
nursing practice. Geriatric Nursing, 4(2), 92-97.

Cherulnik, P. D., & Citrin, M. M. (1974). Individual difference in Psychological
Reactance: The interaction between locus of control and mode of elimination of freedom.
Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 29(3), 398-404.

Cho, C. H., & Cheon, H. J. (2004). Why do people avoid advertising on the Internet?
Journal of Advertising, 33(4), 89-97.

Cialdini, R. B. (2001). Influence: Science and practice. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Clark, L. K., & Miller. S. M. (1990). Self-reliance and desire for control in the Type A
behavior pattern. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 5(1), 405-418.

Clark, R. D. 111 (I994). The role of censorship in minority influence. European Journal
of Social Psychology, 24(3), 331-338.

Clee, M. A., & Wicklund, R. A. (1980). Consumer behavior and Psychological
Reactance. Journal of Consumer Research, 6(4), 389-405.

Clifford, M. M., Chou, F. C., Mao, K. N., Lan, W. Y., & Kuo, S. Y. (1990). Academic
risk taking, development, and external constraint. Journal of Experimental Education,
59(1), 45-64.

Cole, T., & Leets, L. (1999). Attachment styles and intimate television viewing:
Insecurely forming relationships in a parasocial way. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 16(4), 495-51 1.

158

Commercial Alert. (2005). Product placement. Retrieved June 20, 2005 from

http://www.commercialalert.org/index.php/category_id/ l /subcategory_id/79/artic1e_id/ 19
1

Coulter, R. H., & Pinto, M. B. (1995). Guilt appeals in advertising: What are their
effects? Journal o/‘Applied Psychology. 80(6), 697-705.

Craig, C. S., Stemthal, B., & Leavitt, C. (1976). Advertising wearout: An experimental
analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, 13(4), 365-372.

Crawford, M. T., McConnell, A. R., Lewis, A. C., & Sherman, S. J. (2002). Reactance,
compliance, and anticipated regret. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38(1),
56-63.

Cruise, T. (Producer), Wagner, P. (Producer), & Spielberg, S. (Director). (2002).
Minority Report [Motion picture]. United States: Twentieth Century Fox Film
Corporation.

D‘Arcy, D. (1991). When products are the stars. The World and 1, 6, 190. Retrieved June
1, 2003 fi'om http://www.wor1dandi.com/public/1991/apri1/ar7.cfm

D’Astous, A., & Seguin, N. (1999). Consumer reaction to product placement strategies in
television sponsorship. European Journal of Marketing, 33(9/10), 896-910.

Dattilo, J ., & Kleiber, D. A. (1993). Psychological Reactance and Ieamed helplessness. In
M. J. Malkin 8L C. Z. (Eds.), Research in therapeutic recreation: Concepts and methods,
(pp. 57-76). State College, PA: Venture Publishing, Inc.

Dayton, T. (2000). Trauma and addiction: Ending the cycle of pain through emotional
literacy. Deerfield Beach, FL: Health Communications, Inc.

Deighton, J ., Romer, D., & McQueen, J. (1989). Using drama to persuade. Journal of
Consumer Research, 16(3), 335-343.

deCharms, R., & Muir, M. S. (1978). Motivation: Social approaches. Annual Review of
Psychology, 29, 91-1 13.

DeHouwer, J. (2001). Contingency awareness and evaluative conditioning: When will it
be enough? Consciousness and Cognition, 10(4), 550-558.

DeLorme, D. E. (1995). Brands in films: Moviegoers ’ experiences and interpretations.
Athens, GA: The University of Georgia.

DeLorme, D. E., & Reid, L. N. (1999). Moviegoers’ experiences and interpretations of
brands in films revisited. Journal of Advertising, 28(2), 71-95.

159

De Marco, D. (2003, January 21). Commercials steal show at movie theaters. Knight
Ridder Tribune Business News, l.

Derbyshire, D. L. (1997). The impact of differential levels of marital partners’
Psychological Reactance on marital satisfaction (Doctoral dissertation, Kent State
University, 1996). Dissertation Abstracts International, 5 7, 4272.

Dickenberger, D., & Grabitz-Gniech, G. (1972). Restrictive conditions for the occurrence
of Psychological Reactance: Interpersonal attraction, need for social approval, and a
delay factor. European Journal of Social Psychology, 2(2), 177-198.

Dodds, J. A. (1997). Anger, hostility and Psychological Reactance: Implications for
intervention and medical adherence in the coronary patient (Doctoral dissertation, Kent
State University, 1996). Dissertation Abstracts International, 5 7, 7722.

Donham, G. W., Ludenia, K., Sands, M. M., & Holzer, P. D. (1983). Personality
correlates of health locus of control with medical inpatients. Psychological Reports,
52(2), 659-666.

Donne], A. J., Thomas, A. & Buboltz, W. C. (2001). Psychological reactance: Factor
structure and internal consistency of the questionnaire for the measurement of
psychological reactance. Journal of Social Psychology, 141(5), 679-687.

Donoghue, E. E., McCarrey, M. W., & Cle'ment, R. (1983). Humour appreciation as a
function of canned laughter, a mirthful companion, and field dependence: Facilitation and
inhibitory effects. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 15(2), 150-162.

Dowd, E. T. (1989). Stasis and change in cognitive psychotherapy: Client resistance and
reactance as mediating variables. In W. Dryden & P. Trower (Eds.), Cognitive
psychotherapy: Stasis and change (pp. 139-158). New York: Springer Publishing
Company.

Dowd, E. T., Hughes, S. L., Brockbank, L., Halpain, D., Seibel, C., & Seibel, P. (1988).
Compliance-based and defiance-based intervention strategies and Psychological
Reactance in the treatment of free and unfree behavior. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 35(4), 370-376.

Dowd, E. T., Milne, C. R., & Wise, S. L. (1991). The therapeutic reactance scale: A
measure of psychological reactance. Journal of Counseling and Development. 69 (6),
541-545.

Dowd, E. T., Pepper, H. F., & Seibel, C. (2001). Development correlates of

Psychological Reactance. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy: An International
Quarterly, 15(3), 239-252.

160

Dowd, E. T., & Sanders, D. (1994). Resistance, reactance, and the difficult client.
Canadian Journal ofCounseling, 28(1), 13-24.

Dowd, E. T., Trutt, S. D., & Watkins, C. E. Jr. (1992). Interpretation style and reactance
in counselor’s social influence. Psychological Reports, 70(1), 247-254.

Dowd, E. T., & Wallbrown, F. (1993). Motivational components of client reactance.
Journal of Counseling and Development, 71(5), 533-537.

Dowd, E. T., Wallbrown, F ., Sanders, D., & Yesenosky, J. M. (1994). Psychological
Reactance and its relationship to normal personality variables. Cognitive Therapy and
Research, 18(6), 601-612.

Duhan, D. F., Krown, C. F., & F alkenberg, A. W. (1988). Effect of biasing an attitude
scale: Acquiescence, reactance, or balancing? Psychological Reports, 62(2), 567-574.

Dupagne, M., Salwen, M. B., & Paul, B. (1999). Impact of question order on the third-
person effect. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 11(4), 334-345.

Duvall. (2004, March 25). Fashioning an American idol. Chicago Defender, 98, 9.

Eastman, S. T., & Newton, G. D. (1999). Hitting promotion hard: A network response to
channel surfing and new competition. Journal of Applied Communication Research,
27(1), 73-85.

Eckrich, R. S. (1984). New perspectives on the discounting principle (Doctoral
dissertation, University of Texas Arlington, 1983). Dissertation Abstracts International,
44, 2282.

Edwards, S. M., Li, H., & Lee, J. H. (2002). Forced exposure and Psychological
Reactance: Antecedents and consequences of the perceived intrusiveness of pop-up ads.
Journal of Advertising, 31(3), 83-95.

Egan, K. (2001). Despite ban, actors continue to light up on screen. CA: A Cancer
Journal for Clinicians, 51(2), 142-143.

El-Alayli, A., Messe’, L. A. (2004). Reactions toward an unexpected or countemormative
favor-giver: Does it matter if we think we can reciprocate? Journal of Experimental

Social Psychology, 40(5), 633-641.

Elkin, T. (2002, May 20). Video games try product placement. Advertising Age, 73(20),
157.

Elliot, M. T., & Speck, P. S. (1998). Consumer perceptions of advertising clutter and its
impact across various media. Journal of Advertising Research, 38(1), 29-41.

161

Elliot, S. (2001, May 23). Remus may become a testing ground for digital insertion of
sponsor’s products and images. New York Times, C6.

Elliot, S. (2004, October I). Group criticizes product placement. New York Times, C6.

Engs, R., & Hanson, D. J. (1989). Reactance theory: A test with collegiate drinking.
Psychological Reports, 64(3, Pt. 2), 1083-1086.

Englis, B. G., Solomon, M. R., & Olofsson, A. (1993). Consumption imagery in music
television: A bicultural perspective. Journal of Advertising, 22(4), 21-33.

Erdem, T., & Sun, B. (2002). An empirical investigation of the spillover effects on
advertising and sales promotions in umbrella branding. Journal ofMarketing Research,
3 9(4), 408-420.

Feldman-Summers, S. (1977). Implications of the buck—passing phenomenon for
reactance theory. Journal of Personality, 45(4), 543-553.

Fennis, B. M., & Bakker, A. B. (2001). “Stay tuned — we will be back right after these
messages”: Need to evaluate moderates the transfer of irritation in advertising. Journal of

Advertising, 30(3), 15-25.

Ferraro, R., & Avery, R. J. (2000). Brand appearances on prime-time television. Journal
of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 22(2), 1-15.

F estinger, L. (1975). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University
Press.

Fiala, J. F. (1983). Reactance effects in individual decision making (Doctoral dissertation,
University of Kentucky, 1984). Dissertation Abstracts International, 45, 720-721.

Field, A. P. (2001). When all is still concealed: Are we closer to understanding the
mechanisms underlying evaluative conditioning? Consciousness and Cognition, 10(4),
559-566.

F iore, R. (2003, November 14). Dough-re-mi. Entertainment Weekly, 373, 22.

Fisher, J. D., Nadler, A., & Whitcher-Alagna, S. (1982). Recipient reactions to aid.
Psychological Bulletin, 91(1), 27-54.

F ogarty, J. S. (1997). Reactance theory and patient noncompliance. Social Science and
Medicine, 45(8), 1277-1288. '

Forgas, J. P., & Moylan. S. ( 1988). After the movies: Transient mood and social
judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 13(4), 467-477.

162

Foumier, S. (1998). Consumers and their brands: Developing relationship theory in
consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(2), 343-373.

F oumier, S. M. (1994). A Consumer-Brand Relationship Framework for Strategic Brand
Management. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville.

Fowler, G. A. (2004, June 2). Product placements now star on Chinese TV. Wall Street
Edition, Eastern edition, Bl.

Frank, S. J ., Jackson-Walker, S., Marks, M., Van Egeren, L. A., L00p, K., & Olson, K.
(1998). From the laboratory to the hospital, adults to adolescents, and disorders to

personality: The case of Psychological Reactance. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 54(3),
361-381.

Fraser, S. C., & Fujitomi, I. (1972). Perceived prior compliance, Psychological
Reactance, and altruistic contributions. Proceedings of the Annual Convention ofthe
American Psychological Association, 7(Pt. 1), 247-248.

Friedman, M. (1986). Commercial influences in the lyrics of popular American music of
the postwar era. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 20(2), 193-213.

\/ Friedman, T. (2004). Cast Away and the contradictions of product placement. Journal of
Promotion Management: Innovations in Planning and Applied Research, 10(1/2), 171-
183.

Fritz, N. K. (1979). Claim recall and irritation in television commercials: An advertising
effectiveness study. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, [(1 ), 1-13.

Fry, T; R. L. (1996). Advertising wearout in the transport accident commission road
safety campaigns. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 28(1), 123-129.

F ukada, H. (1986). Psychological processes mediating persuasion-inhibiting effect of
forewaming in fear-arousing communication. Psychological Reports, 58(1), 87-90.

Fulcher, E. P., & Hammerl, M. (2001). When all is revealed: A dissociation between
evaluative learning and contingency awareness. Consciousness and Cognition, 10(4),
524-549.

Fulcher, E. P., & Hammerl, M. (2001). When all is considered: Evaluative learning does
not require contingency awareness. Consciousness and Cognition, 10(4), 567-573.

Fuller, S. (Creator/Executive Producer). (2002). American Idol [Television series]. New
York: Fox Network.

163

 

Galician, M. (2004). A Pulitzer Prize-winning media critic discusses product placement:
An interview with Howard Rosenberg. Journal of Promotion Management: Innovations
in Planning and Applied Research, 10(1/2), 233-235.

Galician, M. (2004). A rising independent filmmaker argues for product placement: An
interview with Samuel A. Turcotte. Journal of Promotion Management: Innovations in
Planning and Applied Research, 10(1/2), 223-226.

Galician, M. (2004). Harry Potter, Coca-Cola, and the Center for Science in the public
interest: An interview with Michael F. Jacobson. Journal of Promotion Management:
Innovations in Planning and Applied Research, 10(1/2), 227-231.

Galician, M. (2004). Screening MEF’s Behind the Screens: Hollywood goes
Hypercommercial (2002). Journal of Promotion Management: Innovations in Planning
and Applied Research, 10(1/2), 23 7-240.

Galician, M., & Bourdeau, P. G. (2004). The evolution of product placements in
Hollywood cinema: Embedding high-involvement “heroic” brand images. Journal of

Promotion Management: Innovations in Planning and Applied Research, 10(1/2), 15-36.

Gannon, L., Heiser, P., & Knight, S. (1985). Learned helplessness versus reactance: The
effects of sex-role stereotypy. Sex Roles, 12(7/8), 791-806.

Garcia, F. N. (1982). Reactivity. Transactional Analysis Journal, 12(2), 123-126.
Gardyn, R. (2002). Target practice. American Demographics, 24(9), 18.

Garson, A. Jr., Benson, 8., 1vler, L., & Patton, C. (1978). Parental reactions to children
with congenital heart disease. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 9(2), 86-94.

Gerbner, G., & Goss, L. (1976). Living with television: The violence profile. Journal of
Communication, 26(2), 173-199.

Geller, E. S., Koltuniak, T. A., & Shilling, J. S. (1983). Response avoidance prompting:
A cost-effective strategy for thefi deterrence. Behavioral Counseling and Community
Interventions, 3(1), 28-42.

Gibbins, K. (1976). Social constraints as a determinant of attitudes of freedom.
Australian Journal of Psychology, 28(1), 1-9.

Gibson, 3., & Maurer, J. (2000). Cigarette smoking in the movies: The influence of
product placement on attitudes toward smoking and smokers. Journal oprplied Social
Psychology, 30(7), 1457-1473.

Gibson, L. D. (1996). What can one TV exposure do? Journal of A dvertising Research,
36(2), 9-18.

164

Giles, D. (2003). Media Psychology. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.

Glaser, B. G. (1992). Basics ofgrounded theory analysis. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology
Press.

Gody, D. S. (1978). Sex difference in reactance and Ieamed helplessness (Doctoral
dissertation, Loyola University, 1978). Dissertation Abstracts International, 38, 5566.

Goldman, M., Pulcher, D., & Mendez, T. (1983). Appeals for help, prosocial behavior,
and Psychological Reactance. The Journal of Psychology, 113(2), 265-269.

Goldman, M., & Wallis, D. (1979). Restoring freedom when pressured not the select
alternatives. Psychological Reports, 44(2), 563-566.

Goldsmith, C. (2004, December 6). Dubbing in product plugs; How Spider-Man 2 made
Dr. Pepper 3 star in the US. and Mirinda a star overseas. Wall Street Journal, B1.

Goodstadt, M. S. (1971). Helping and refusal to help: A test of balance and reactance
theories. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 7(6), 610-622.

Gordon, D. A. (1973). Some limiting conditions for the theory of Psychological
Reactance: The function of meaningfulness of task and personality (Doctoral dissertation,
Indiana University, 1973). Dissertation Abstracts International, 34, 6210.

Gordon, R. M. (1978). Imprecision or dissonance? A reply to Harris and Harvey. Journal
of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46(2), 329-330.

Gom, G. J. (1982). The effects of music in advertising on choice behavior: A classical
conditioning approach. Journal of Marketing, 46(1), 94-101.

Gorn, G. J ., & Goldberg, M. E. (1980). Children’s responses to repetitive television
commercials. Journal of Consumer Research, 6(4), 421-424.

Gorton, D. A. (1975). Response to threats as a function of tasks and personality. Journal
of Behavioural Science, 2(4), 121-129.

Gottlieb, B. S. (1982). The role of experimental demand in the reactive effects of self-
monitoring (Doctoral dissertation, Ohio University, 1981). Dissertation Abstracts
International, 42, 4191 .

Gough, P. J. (2003, October 28). New TV ratings systems tracks product placement,

sponsorship. MediaPost Communications, Retrieved July 10, 2004 from
www.mediapost.com

165

Gould, S. J ., Gupta, P. B., & Grabner-Krauter, S. (2000). Product placements in movies:
A cross cultural analysis of Austrian, French, and American consumers’ attitudes toward
this emerging, international promotional medium. Journal of Advertising, 29(4), 41-58.

Grabitz-Gniech, G. (1971). Some restrictive conditions for the occurrence of
Psychological Reactance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 19(2), 188-196.

Graham, J. W. (1983). A reinterpretation of reactance (Doctoral dissertation, University
of Southern California, 1982). Dissertation Abstracts International, 44, 646.

Grandpre, J., Alvaro, E. M., Burgoon, M., Miller, C. H., & Hall, J. R. (2003). Adolescent
reactance and anti-smoking campaigns: A theoretical approach. Health Communication,
15(3), 349-366.

Graybar, S. R., Antonuccio, D. O., Boutilier, L. R., Varble, D. L. (1989). Psychological
Reactance as a factor affecting patient compliance to physician advice. Scandinavian
Journal of Behaviour Therapy, 18(1), 43-51.

Greenberg, A., & Suttoni, C. (1973). Television commercial wearout. Journal of
Advertising Research, 13(5), 47-54.

Greenberg, B., & Tannenbaum, P. (1961). The effects of bylines on attitude change.
Journalism Quarterly, 38(Autumn), 535-537.

Gresham, L. G., & Shimp, T. A. (1985). Attitude toward the advertisement and brand
attitudes: A classical conditioning perspective. Journal of Advertising, 14(1), 10-17.

Griffin, E. (2002). Attribution theory of Fritz Heider. In A first look at communication
theory, pp. 137-146. New York: McGraw Hill.

Grossman, R. P., & Till, B. D. (1998). The persistence of classically conditioned brand
attitudes. Journal of Advertising, 2 7(1), 23-31.

Gulas, C. S., & McKeage, K. (2000). Extending social comparison: An examination of
the unintended consequences of idealized advertising imagery. Journal of Advertising,
29(2), 17-28.

Gupta, P. B., Balasubramanian, K. S., & Klassen, M. L. (2000). Viewers’ evaluations of
product placements in movies: Public policy issues and managerial implications. Journal
of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 22(2), 41 -53.

Gupta, P. B., & Gould, S. J. (1997). Consumers’ perceptions of the ethics and

acceptability of product placement in movies: Product category and individual
differences. Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 19(1), 31-50.

166

Gupta, P. B., & Lord, K. R. (1998). Product placement in movies: The effect of
prominence and mode on audience recall. Journal of Current Issues and Research in
Advertising, 20(1), 47-59.

Gutteling, J. M. (1993). A field experiment in communicating a new risk: Effects of the
source and a message containing explicit conclusions. Basic and Applied Social
Psychology, 14(3), 295-316.

Guttman, N., & Salmon, C. T. (2004). Guilt, fear, stigma, and knowledge gaps: Ethical
issues in public health communication interventions. Bioethics, 18(6), 531-552.

Guydosh, R. M. (1974). Overcompliance as a response mode to Psychological Reactance
(Doctoral dissertation, Camegie-Mellon University, 1973). Dissertation Abstracts
International, 34, 6745.

Ha, L. (1996). Advertising clutter in consumer magazines: Dimensions and effects.
Journal of Advertising Research, 36(4), 76-84.

Hall, E. (2004, May 29). Young consumers receptive to movie product placement.
Advertising Age, 75(13), 8.

Hammock, T. E. Jr. (1972). The effect of barriers upon the attractiveness of goal objects
(Doctoral dissertation, Duke University, 1970). Dissertation Abstracts International, 32,
4709.

Hannah, T. E., Hannah, E. R., & Wattie, B. (1975). Arousal of Psychological Reactance
as a consequence of predicting an individual’s behavior. Psychological Reports, 37(2),
411-420.

Hargrove Ladner, M. T. (2003). Psychological Reactance as a personality characteristic:
Relationships to attachment and autonomy (Doctoral dissertation, Louisiana Tech, 2002).
Dissertation Abstracts International, 63, 6120.

Harris, B., & Harvey, J. H. (1978). Social psychological concepts applied to clinical
processes: On the need for precision. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
46(2), 1978.

Hass, R. G., & Grady, K. (1975). Temporal delay, type of forewaming, and resistance to
influence. Journal ofExperimental Social Psychology, 11(5), 459-469.

Hastings, G., Stead, M., & Webb, J. (2004). Fear appeals in social marketing: Strategic
and ethical reasons for concern. Psychology and Marketing, 21 (1 1), 961-988.

Hecker, S., & Stewart, D. W. (1988). Nonverbal communication: Advertising’s forgotten

elements. In S. Hecker & D. W. Stewart (Eds.), Nonverbal Communication in Advertising
(pp. 3-7). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

167

Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of'interpersonal relations. New York: John Wiley and
Sons.

Heller, J. F ., Pallack, M. S., & Picek, J. M. (1973). The interactive effects of intent and
threat on boomerang attitude change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
26(2), 273-279.

Hellman, C. M., & McMillin, W. L. (1997). The relationship between Psychological
Reactance and self-esteem. The Journal of Social Psychology, 137(1), 135-138.

Hey, D. W. (2002). Virtual product placement. Television Quarterly, 32(4), 24-29.

Hockenberry, S. L., & Billingham, R. E. (1993). Psychological Reactance and violence
within dating relationships. Psychological Reports, 73(3, Pt. 2), 1203-1208.

Hoffner, C., & Cantor, J. (1991). Perceiving and responding to mass media characters. In
J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Responding to the screen: Reception and reaction
processes (pp. 63-101). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.

Holden, S. J. S., & Vanhuele, M. (1999). Know the name, forget the exposure: Brand
familiarity versus memory of exposure context. Psychology and Marketing, 16(6), 479-
496.

Hollander, S. W., & Jacoby, J. (1973). Recall of crazy, mixed-up TV commercials.
Journal of Advertising Research, 13(3), 39-42.

Homer, P. M., & Kahle, L. R. (1990). Source expertise, time of source identification, and
involvement. Journal ofAdvertising, 19(1), 30-39.

Hong, S. M. (1990). Effects of sex and church attendance on Psychological Reactance.
Psychological Reports, 66(2), 494.

Hong, S. M. (1992). Hong’s Psychological Reactance scale: A further factor analytic
validation. Psychological Reports, 70(2), 512-514.

Hong, S., & Faedda, S. (1996). Refinement of the Hong Psychological Reactance scale.
Education and Psychological Measures, 56(1), 173-182.

Hong, S. M., & Giannakopoulos, E. (1994). The relationship of satisfaction with life to
personality characteristics. The Journal of Psychology, 128(5), 547-558.

Hong, S. M., Giannakopoulos, E., Laing, D., & Williams, N. A. (1994). Psychological

Reactance: Effects of age and gender. The Journal of Social Psychology, 134(2), 223-
228.

168

Hong, S. M., & Langovski, N. (1994). Sex difference in Psychological Reactance
amongst Korean students in Australia. Psychological Reports, 75(1, Pt. 2), 578.

Hong, S. M., & Ostini, R. (1989). Further evaluation of Merz’s Psychological Reactance
scale. Psychological Reports, 64(3), 707-710.

Hong, S. M., & Page, S. (1989). A Psychological Reactance scale: Development, factor
structure and reliability. Psychological Reports, 64(3), 1323-1326.

Horowitz, 1. A. (1968). Effect of choice and locus of dependent on helping behavior.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8(4, Pt. 1), 373-376.

Horsley, A. D. (1988). The unintended effects of a posted sign on littering attitudes and
stated intentions. Journal of Environmental Education, 19(3), 10-14.

Horton, D., & Wohl, R. R. (1956). Mass communication and para-social interaction:
Observations on intimacy at a distance. Psychiatry, 19, 215-229.

Horvath, A. O., & Goheen, M. D. (1990). Factors mediating the success of defiance- and
compliance-based interventions. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 3 7(4), 363-371.

Hughes, G. D. (1992). Real time response measures redefine advertising wearout.
Journal of Advertising Research, 32(3), 61 -77.

Hughes, J. N., & Falk, R. S. (1981). Resistance, reactance, and consultation. Journal of
School Psychology, 19(2), 134-142.

Hunsley, J. (1993). Treatment acceptability of symptom prescription techniques. Journal
of Counseling Psychology, 40(2), 139-143.

Hunsley, J. (1997). Defiance-based symptom prescription and Psychological Reactance:
A critical evaluation. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 28(1), 36-43.

Hurwitz, M. (Creator/Executive Producer). (2003). Arrested development [Television
series]. New York: Twentieth Century Fox.

Ives, N. (2005, January 13). That abundance of Volkswagens on TV shows with be
product placement, not coincidence. New York Times, C9.

Janiszewski, C. (1993). Preattentive mere exposure effects. Journal of Consumer
Research, 20(3), 376-392.

Janiszewski, C., & Warlop, L. (1993). The influence of classical conditioning procedure
on subsequent attention to the conditioned brand. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(2),
171-188.

169

Janiszewski, C., Noel, H., & Sawyer, A. G. (2003). A meta-analysis of the spacing effect
in verbal learning: Implications for research on advertising repetition and consumer
memory. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(1), 138-149.

Jardine, E., & Winefield, A. H. (1981). Achievement motivation, Psychological
Reactance, and Ieamed helplessness. Motivation and Emotion, 5(2), 99-1 13.

Jaspars, J. H. F. (1978). Determinants of attitudes and attitude change. In H. Tajfel & C.
Fraser ( Eds.) Introducing social psychology. New York: Penguin Books.

Johnson, K. F. (1981). Cinema advertising. Journal of Advertising, 10(4), 1 1-19.

Johnson, P., Buboltz, W. C. Jr. (2000). Differentiation of self and Psychological
Reactance. Contemporary Family Therapy, 22(1), 91-102.

Johnson, R. L., & Cobb-Walgren, C. J. (1994). Aging and the problem of television
clutter. Journal of A dvertising Research, 34(4), 54-62.

Johnstone, E., & Dodd, C. A. (2000). Placements as mediators of brand salience within a
UK cinema audience. Journal of Marketing Communications, 6(3), 141-158.

Jones, R. A. (1969). Choice, degree of dependence, and possibility of future dependence
as determinants of helping behavior. Proceedings of the Annual Convention of the
American Psychological Association, 4(Pt. 1), 381-382.

Joseph, C. A., Joseph, C. R., Barto, J., & McKay, T. D. (1982). Effects of sex of subject
and emotional role-playing on reactance. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 54(3, Pt. 2), 1281-
1282.

Joubert, C. E. (1990). Relationship among self-esteem, Psychological Reactance, and
other personality variables. Psychological Reports, 66(3, Pt. 2), 1 147-1151.

Joubert, C. E. (1992). Antecedents of narcissism and Psychological Reactance as
indicated by college students’ retrospective reports of their parents’ behaviors.
Psychological Reports, 70(3, Pt. 2), 1111-1115.

Joubert, C. E. (1995). Associations of social personality factors with personal habits.
Psychological Reports, 76(3, Pt. 2), 1315-1321.

Jurow, M. (Producer), Shepard, R. (Producer), & Edwards, B. (Director). (1961).
Breakfast at T iflany ’s [Motion picture]. United States: Paramount Pictures.

Kamins, M. A., Alpert, F. H., & Elliott, M. T. (2000). Independent and interactive effects

of exposure sequence, pioneership awareness, and product trial on consumer evaluation
of a pioneer brand. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 9(4), 223-229.

170

Kaminski, M. (2001). Unintended consequences: Organizational practices and their
impact on workplace safety and productivity. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, 6(2), 127-138.

Kandel, H. J. (1978). Paradoxical intention: An empirical investigation (Doctoral
dissertation, Georgia State University, 1977). Dissertation Abstracts International, 3 9,
384-385.

Karpf, R. J. (1978). Altering values via Psychological Reactance and reversal effects. The
Journal ofSocial Psychology, 106(1), 131-132.

Karrh, J. A. (1998). Brand placement: A review. Journal of Current Issues and Research
in Advertising, 20(2), 31-49.

Karrh, J. A. (1998). Brand placement: Impression management explanations of its
potential audience impact. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Florida,
Gainesville.

Karrh, J. A., Frith, K. T., Callison, C. (2001). Audience attitudes toward brand (product)
placement: Singapore and the United States. International Journal of Advertising, 20(1),
3-24.

Karylowski, J. (1979). Self-focused attention, prosocial norms, and prosocial behavior.
Polish Psychological Bulletin, 10(1), 57-66.

Katzenberg, J. (Executive Producer), Adamson, A. (Director/Writer), Vernon, C.
(Director), & Asbury, K. (Director). (2004). Shrek 2 [Motion picture]. United States:
Dreamworks Animation SKG.

Katzenberg, J. (Executive Producer), Letterman, R. (Director/Writer), Bergeron, B.
(Director), & Jenson, V. (Director). (2004). Shark tale [Motion picture]. United States:
Dreamworks Animation SKG.

Kehr, H. M., (2004)..1mplicit/explicit motive discrepancies and volitional depletion
among managers. Personality and Social Psychology, 30(3), 315-327.

Keller, K. L. (1987). Memory factors in advertising: The effect of advertising retrieval
cues on brand evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 14(3), 316-333.

Keller, K. L. (1993). Memory retrieval factors and advertising effectiveness. In A. A.
Mitchell (Ed.), Advertising exposure, memory, and choice (pp. 1 1-48). Hillsdale, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Kelly, A. E., & Nauta, M. M. (1997). Reactance and thought suppression. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(1 1), 1123-1 132.

171

Kent, R. J. (1995). Competitive clutter in network television advertising: Current levels
and advertiser responses. Journal ofAdvertising Research, 35(1), 49-57.

Kiesler, C. A., & Kiesler, S. B. (1964). Role of forewaming in persuasive
communications. Journal of A bnormal and Social Psychology, 68(5), 547-549.

Kilboume, J. (2003). Advertising and disconnection. In T. Reichert & J. Lambiase (Eds.),
Sex in advertising: Perspectives on the erotic appeal (pp. 173-180). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Kohn, P. M., & Barnes, G. E. (1977). Subject variables and reactance to persuasive
communications about drugs. European Journal of Social Psychology, 7(1), 97-109.

Kray, L. J., Reb, J., Galinsky, A. D., & Thompson, L. (2004). Stereotype reactance at the
bargaining table: The effect of stereotype activation and power on claiming and creating
value. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(4), 399-41 1.

Kremar, M., & Cantor, J. (1997). The role of television advisories and ratings in parent-

child discussion of television viewing choices. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic
Media, 41(3), 393-411.

Kretchmer, S. B. (2004). Advertainment: The evolution of product placement as a mass

media marketing strategy. Journal of Promotion Management: Innovations in Planning
and Applied Research, 10(1/2), 37-54.

Kroll, P., Silk, K, Chamberlain, D., & Ging, R. (1977). Denying the incredible:
Unexplained deaths in a veterans administration hospital. American Journal of
Psychiatry, 134(12), 1376-1380.

Kruckenberg, D., & Starck, K. (2004). The role and ethics of community building for
consumer products and services. Journal of Promotion Management: Innovations in
Planning and Applied Research, 10(1/2), 133-146.

Krugman, H. E. ( I965). The impact of television advertising: Learning without
involvement. Public Opinion Quarterly, 29(3), 349-394.

Kuhlman, T. L. (1997). Reactance and the psychotherapeutic alliance. In B. Blackwell
Treatment Compliance and the Therapeutic Alliance (p. 181 -200). Amsterdam, The
Netherlands: Harwood Academic Publishers.

Kumar, A. (2000). Interference effects of contextual cues in advertisements on memory
for ad content. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 9(3), 155—166.

Kumar, A., & Krishnan, S. (2004). Memory interference in advertising: A replication and
extension. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(4), 602-61 1.

172

Kuczynski, A. (2000, January 12). On CBS News, some of what you see isn’t there. New
York Times, A1.

La Pastina, A. C. (2001). Product placement in Brazilian prime time television: The case
of the reception of a Telenovela. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 45(4),
541-557.

LaTour, M. S., & Henthome, T. L. (1994). Ethical judgments of sexual appeals in print
advertising. Journal of Advertising, 23(3), 81-90.

Lane, V. R. (2000). The impact of ad repetition and ad content on consumer perceptions
of incongruent extensions. Journal of Marketing, 64(2), 80-91.

Lasswell, M. (2004, August 23). Brand me, baby! Broadcasting and Cable, 134(34), l.

Latting, J. K. (1994). Soliciting individual change in an interpersonal setting: The case of
racially or sexually offensive language. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 29(4),
464-484.

Law, S. (2002). Can repeating a brand claim lead to memory confusion? The effects of
claim similarity and concurrent repetition. Journal of Marketing Research, 39(3), 366-
378.

Law, 8., & Braun, K. A. (2000). I’ll have what she’s having: Gauging the impact of
product placements on viewers. Psychology and Marketing, 1 7(12), 1059-1075.

Law, 8., & Braun-LaTour, K. A. (2004). Product placements: How to measure their
impact. In L. J. Shrum (Ed.), The psychology of entertainment media (pp. 63-78).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Lieberman, J. D., & Amdt, J. (2000). Understanding the limits of limiting instructions:
Social psychological explanations for the failures and other inadmissible evidence.
Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 6(3), 677-71 1.

Lenehan, G. E., & O’Neill, P. (1981). Reactance and conflict as determinants of
judgment in a mock jury experiment. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 11(3), 23 1 -
239.

Lewis, P., Blanchard, E. B. (1971). Perception of choice and locus of control.
Psychological Reports, 28(1), 67-70.

Li, H., Edwards, S. M., & Lee, J. H. (2002). Measuring the intrusiveness of
advertisements: Scale development and validation. Journal of Advertising, 31(2), 37-47.

Linder, D. E., Crane, K. A. (1970). Reactance theory analysis of predecisional cognitive
processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 15(3), 258-264.

173

Long, S. (1978). Political alienation: Reality and reactance. The Journal ofSocial
Psychology, 104(1), 115-121.

Longman, K. A. (1997). If not effective frequency, then what? Journal ofAdvertising
Research, 37(4), 44-50.

Lord, K. R. (1994). Motivating recycling behavior: A quasiexperimental investigation of
mess and source strategies. Psychology and Marketing, 11(4), 341-358.

Lubbers, C. A., & Adams, W. J. (2004). Merchandising in the major picture industry:
Creating brand synergy and revenue streams. Journal of Promotion Management:
Innovations in Planning and Applied Research, 10(1/2), 55-63.

Lukin, M. E., Dowd, T., Plake, B. S., Krafi, R. G. (1985). Comparing computerized
versus traditional psychological assessment. Computer in Human Behavior, 1(1), 49-58.

Lumsden, D. L. (1977). An experimental study of source-message interaction in a
personality impression task. Communication Monographs, 44(2), 121-129.

Mack, A. M. (2004, June 28-July 5). Gaming scores with advertisers. Mediaweek, 14(26),
18-20.

MacKenzie, S.B., Lutz, & Belch, G. E. (1986). The role of attitude toward the ad as a
mediator of advertising effectiveness: A test of competing explanations. Journal of
Marketing Research. 23, 130-143.

MacLachlan, J. H., & Siegel, M. H. (1980). Reducing the costs of TV commercials by
use of time compressions. Journal ofMarketing Research, 17(1), 52-57.

Madden, N. (2003, September 15). Whiskey stars in Bollywood flick. Advertising Age,
74(37), 6.

Mallon, K. F. (1992). A scale for assessing Psychological Reactance proneness:
Reliability and validity (Doctoral dissertation, University of Nebraska, 1992).
Dissertation Abstracts International, 53, 2099.

Maltz, E., Souder, W. E., & Kumar, A. (2001). Influencing R&D/marketing integration
and the use of market information by R&D managers: Intended and unintended effects of

managerial actions. Journal of Business Research, 52(1), 69-82.

Manikowske, L., & Winakor, G. (1994). Equity, attribution, and reactance in giving and
receiving gifts of clothing. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 12(4), 22-30.

174

Marshall, A. A., Smith, S. W., & McKeon, J. K. (1995). Persuading low-income women
to engage in mammography screening: Source, message, and channel preferences. Health
Communication, 7(4), 283-299.

Mavis, B. E., & Stoffelmayr, B. E. (1994). Multidimensional evaluation of monetary
incentive strategies for weight control. The Psychological Record, 44(2), 239-252.

Mayes, B. T., Sime, W. E., & Ganster, D. C. (1984). Convergent validity of Type A
behavior pattern scales and their ability to predict physiological responsiveness in a
sample of female public employees. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 7(1), 83-108.

Mazis, M. B. (1975). Antipollution measures and Psychological Reactance theory: A
field experiment. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 31(4), 654-660.

Mazis, M. B., Settle, R. B., & Leslie, D. C. (1973). Elimination of phosphate detergents
and Psychological Reactance. Journal of Marketing Research, 10(4), 390-395.

Mazursky, D. (2000). The effects of time delays on consumers’ use different criteria for
product purchase decisions. Journal of Business and Psycholog’, 18(1), 163-175.

McCarthy, M. (2001). Tobacco’s long-time adversary takes on Tinseltown. The Lancet,
358, 44.

McCarty, J. A. (2004). Product placement: The nature of the practice and potential
avenues of inquiry. In L. J. Shrum (Ed.), The psychology of entertainment media (pp. 45-
61). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

McCracken, G. (1988). Culture and consumption: New approaches to the symbolic
character of consumer good and activities. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

McKechnie, S. A., & Zhou, J. (2003). Product placement in movies: A comparison of
Chinese and American consumers’ attitudes. International Journal of Advertising, 22(3),
349-374.

McKillip, J ., & Edwards, J. D. (1974). Source characteristics and attitude change.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1(1), 1.35-137.

Melton, G. B. (1987). Legal regulation of adolescent abortion. American Psychologist,
42(1), 79-83.

Merz, J. (1983). F ragebogen zur messung der psychologischen reactanz. Diagnostica, 29,
75-82.

Mikuluncer, M., Kedem, P., Zilkha-Segal, H. (1989). Learned helplessness, reactance,
and one utilization. Journal of Research in Personality, 23(2), 235-247.

175

 

Milchan, A. (Executive Producer), & Schumacher, J. (Director). (1993). Falling down
[Motion picture]. United States: Warner Brothers.

Mills, J. (1966). Opinion change as a function of the communicator’s desire to influence
and liking for the audience. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2(2), 152-159.

Minor, K. 1. (1987). Reactance and recidivism: Implications for probation policy and
research. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 64(3, Pt. 2), 1047-1050.

Moore, A., Sellwood, W., & Stirling, J. (2000). Compliance and Psychological Reactance
in schizophrenia. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 39(3), 287-295.

Morgan, R. D. (1987). Individual differences in the occurrence of Psychological
Reactance and therapeutic outcome (Doctoral dissertation, University of Nebraska,
1986). Dissertation Abstracts International, 4 7, 2961-2962.

Moyer, W. W. (1978). Effects of loss of freedom on subjects with internal or external
locus of control. Journal of Research in Personality, 12(3), 253-261.

Mullen, B. (1984). Social psychology models of impression formation among consumers.
Journal of Social Psychology, 124(1), 65-77.

Mullin, C., Imrich, D. J., & Linz, D. (1996). The impact of acquaintance rape stories and
case-specific pretrial publicity on juror decision making. Communication Research,
23(1), 100-135. -

Mulry, G., Fleming, R., Gottschalk, A. C. (1994). Psychological Reactance and brief
treatment of academic procrastination. Journal of College Student Psychotherapy, 9(1),
41-56.

Nail, P. R., & Scott, G. (2000). A social-psychological analysis of President Clinton’s

remarkable 1998 job approval ratings. North American Journal of Psychology, 2(2), 393-
402.

Nail, P. R., Correll, J. S., Drake, C. E., Glenn, S. B., Scott, G. M., & Stuckey, C. (2001).
A validation study of the preference for consistency scale. Personality and Individual
Differences, 31(7), 1 193-1202.

Nail, P. R., Van Leeuwan, M. D., & Powell, A. B. (1996). The effectance versus the self-

presentational view of reactance: Are important ratings influenced by anticipated
surveillance? Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 11(3), 573-584.

Natharius, D. (2004). When product placement is not product placement: Reflections of a

movie junkie. Journal of Promotion Management: Innovations in Planning and Applied
Research, 10(1/2), 213-222.

176

Nebenzahl, I. D., & Secunda, E. (1993). Consumers’ attitudes toward product placement
in movies. International Journal of Advertising, 12(1), 1-1 1.

Nelson, M. R. (2000). Recall of brand placements in computer/video games. Journal of
Advertising Research, 42(2), 80-92.

Nelson, R. A. (2004). The Bulgari collection: A novel form of product placement.

Journal of Promotion Management: Innovations in Planning and Applied Research,
10(1/2), 203-212.

Nimmer, J. G., & Handelsman, M. M. (1992). Effects of subject pool policy on student

attitudes toward psychology and psychological research. Teaching of Psychology, 19(3),
141-144.

O’Connell, W. (2004, June 14). Tobacco makers want cigarettes cut from films. Wall
Street Journal, B 1.

Olson, E. L., & Thjomoe, H. M. (2003). The effects of peripheral exposure to information
on brand preference. European Journal of Marketing, 3 7( 1/2), 243-255.

Olson, S. R. (2004). The extensions of synergy: Product placement through theming and
environmental simulacra. Journal of Promotion Management: Innovations in Planning
and Applied Research, 10( 1/2), 65-88.

Ong, B. S., Meri, D. (1994). Should product placement in movies be banned? Journal of
Promotion Management, 2(3/4), 159-175.

Ong, B. S. (2004). A comparison of product placements in movies and television
programs: An online research study. Journal of Promotion Management: Innovations in
Planning and Applied Research, 10(1/2), 147-158.

Pallak, M. S., & Heller, J. F. (1971). Interactive effects of commitment to future

interaction and threat to attitudinal freedom. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 17(3), 325-331.

Palmer, B. (1998, December 21 ). When product placement goes horribly, horribly wrong.
Fortune, 138(12), 48.

Parish, J. G., & Parish, T. S. (1991). Rethinking conditioning strategies: Some tips on
how educators can avoid “Painting themselves into a corner.” Journal of Instructional

Psychology, 18(3), 159-166.

Pashupati, K. (2003). “I know this brand, but did I like the ad?” An investigation of the
familiarity-based sleeper effect. Psychology and Marketing. 20(] 1), 1017-1043.

177

Pearlin, L. 1., Yarrow, M. R., & Scarr, H. A. (1967). Unintended effects of parental
aspirations: The case of children’s cheating. American Journal of Sociology, 73(1), 73-
83.

Peebles, M. E. (2003). HBR case study: And now, a word from our sponsor. Harvard
Business Review, 81(10), 31-42.

Peltzer, K., & Promtussananon, S. (2003). Evaluation of Soul City school and mass

media life skills education among junior secondary school learners in South Africa.
Social Behavior and Personality, 31(8), 825-834.

Pepper, H. F. 111 (1997). An investigation of the psychological developmental precursors
of Psychological Reactance (Doctoral dissertation, Kent State University, 1996).
Dissertation Abstracts International, 5 7, 5064.

Perloff, R. M. (2003). The dynamics of persuasion. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.

Perlman, L. M. (2001). Nonspecific, unintended, and serendipitous effects in
psychotherapy. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 32(3), 283-288.

Perlman, L. M. (1967). Unintended effects of parental aspirations: The case of children’s
cheating. American Journal ofSociology, 73(1), 73-83.

Pervan, S. J., & Martin, B. A. S. (2002). Product placement in US. and New Zealand
television soap operas: An exploratory study. Journal of Marketing Communications,
8(2), 1-13.

Peterson, C. (1992). Learned helplessness and school problems. In F. J. Medway & T. P.
Cafferty (Eds.) School psychology: A social psychological perspective (pp. 359-376).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Parkes, C. (2004, June 22). Product placement: Christopher Parkes reports on the blurring
of boundaries between advertising endorsement and TV and film production. Financial

Times, 1 1.

Perse, E. M. (1986). Soap opera viewing patterns of college students and cultivation.
Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 3 0(2), 175-193.

Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1981). Attitudes and persuasion: Classic and
contemporary approaches. Dubuque, IA: William C. Brown Company Publishers.

Pham, M. T., & Johar, G. V. (1997). Contingent processes of source identification.
Journal of Consumer Research, 24(3), 249-265.

178

Pieters, R., Warlop, L, & Wendel, M. (2002). Breaking through the clutter: Benefits of
advertisement originality and familiarity for brand attention and memory. Management
' Science, 48(8), 765-781.

Piliavin, I. M. (1979). Reactance, attribution, equity, and the help recipient. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 9(4), 297-313.

Pillai, S. (1990). Impact of clutter on advertising viewership and recall: An Indian
experiment. Journal of Market Research Society, 32(2), 187-196.

Poe, D. B. Jr. (1977). The giving of gifts: Anthropological data and social psychological
theory. Cornell Journal of'Social Relations, 12(1), 47-63.

Pollay, R. W. (1986). The distorted mirror: Reflections on the unintended consequences
of advertising. Journal of Marketing, 50(2), 18-36.

Poorman, M. O. (2000). The impact of reactance on the treatment progress of
incarcerated male adolescent offenders (Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University,
1999). Dissertation Abstracts International, 60, 3576.

Pornpitakpan, C. (2004). The persuasiveness of source credibility: A critical review of
five decades’ evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(2), 243-281.

Pracejus, J. W. (1995). Is more exposure always better? Effects of incidental exposure to
a brand name on subsequent processing of advertising. In F. Kardas & M. Sujan (Eds.),
Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 22, pp. 319-322. Provo, UT: Association for
Consumer Research.

Prandoni, J. R., Wall, S. M. (1990). Effects of mental health and reactance-reducing
information on offenders’ compliance with court-mandated psychiatric evaluations.
Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 21(3), 204-209.

Priluck, R., & Till, B. D. (2004). The role of contingency awareness, involvement, and
need for cognition in attitude formation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,

32(3), 329-344.

Propst, D. B., & Kurtzz, M. E. (1989). Perceived control/reactance: A framework for
understanding leisure behaviour in natural settings. Leisure Studies, 8(3), 241-248.

Quinn, P., & Kivijarv, L. (2005). Product placement spending in media 2005: History,
analysis and forecast, 1974-2009. PQ Media LLC: Stamford, CT.

Redman, S., Dickinson, J. A., Cockbum, J., Hennrikus, D., Sanson-Fisher, R. W. (1989).

The assessment of reactivity in direct observation studies of doctor-patient interactions.
Psychology and Health, 3(1), 17-28.

179

Reitenbach, D. M. (2000). The effect of metaphor and Psychological Reactance on the
counseling relationship (Doctoral dissertation, Kent State University, 1999). Dissertation
Abstracts International, 60, 3577.

Reiter, S. M., & Samuel, W. (1980). Littering as a function of prior litter and the presence
or absence of prohibitive signs. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 10(1), 45-55.

Rhodewalt, F ., & F airchild, M. (1990). An alternative approach to Type A behavior and
health: Psychological Reactance and medical noncompliance. Journal of Social Behavior
and Personality. 5(1), 323-342.

Rhodewalt, F., & Marcroft, M. (1988). Type A behavior and diabetic control:
Implications of Psychological Reactance for health outcomes. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 18(2), 139-159.

Rhodewalt, F ., & Strube, M. J. (1985). A self-attribution-reactance model of recovery
from injury in Type A individuals. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 15(4), 330-344.

Rice, D. P., & Schoenfeld, L. S. (1975). Aversive conditioning and cognitive mediators
with alcoholic respondents. British Journal of Addiction, 70(2), 165-174.

Ringold, D. J. (1988). Consumer response to product withdrawal: The reformulation of
Coca-Cola. Psychology and Marketing, 5(3), 189-210.

Ritchie, E., & Phares, E. (1969). Attitude change as a function of intemal-extemal control
and communicator status. Journal of Personality, 37(3), 429-443.

Riter, C. B., Balducci, P. J ., & McCollum, D. (1983). Time compression: New evidence.
Journal of Advertising Research, 22(6), 39-43.

Robert, D. G. (1983). An analog study of paradoxical intention: The interaction of
Psychological Reactance and locus of control (Doctoral dissertation, Ball State
University, 1982). Dissertation Abstracts International, 43, 2320.

Robinson, R. J. (1992). To have and have not: Post-allocation reactance versus
dissonance reduction (Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, 1991). Dissertation
Abstracts International, 52, 5020.

Rodriguez, A. (1970). Motivational forces of cognitive dissonance and Psychological
Reactance. International Journal of Psychology, 5(2), 89-98.

Roehm, M. L., Roehm, H. A. Jr., & Boone, D. S. (2004). Plugs versus placements: A

comparison of alternatives for within-program brand exposure. Psychology and
Marketing, 21(1), 17-28.

180

Rosen, D. L. (1978). The development and effect of Psychological Reactance in a
personal sales simulation (Doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, 1977).
Dissertation Abstracts International, 3 9, 447.

Rosenkjar, S. (2000). Psychological Reactance and the ability to decode nonverbal
communication (Doctoral dissertation, The Fielding Institute, 1999). Dissertation
Abstracts International, 60, 6382.

Rubin, A. M. (1984). Ritualized and instrumental television viewing. Journal of
Communication, 34(3), 67-77.

Rubin, A. M., Perse, E. M., & Powell, R. A. (1985). Loneliness, parasocial interaction,
and local television news viewing. Human Communication Research, 12(2), 155-180.

Rumbo, J. D. (2002). Consumer resistance in a world of advertising clutter: The case of
AdBusters. Psychology and Marketing, 19(2), 127-148.

Russell, C. A. (1998). Toward a framework of product placement: Theoretical
propositions. In J. W. Alba & W. Hutchinson (Eds.), Advances in Consumer Research,
Vol. 25, pp. 357-362, Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.

Russell, C. A. (1999). Popular culture and persuasion: An investigation of product
placements’ effectiveness. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Arizona,
Tucson.

Russell, C. A. (2002). Investigating the effectiveness of product placements in television
shows: The role of modality and plot connection congruence on brand memory and
attitude. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(3), 306-317.

Russell, C. A., & Puto, C. P. (2000). Exploring the relationship between popular culture
and consumer behavior: Insights from multiple perspectives. Advances in Consumer
Research, 27, 254.

Sachau, D. A., Houlihan, D., & Gilbertson, T. (1999). Predictors of employee resistance
to supervisors’ requests. The Journal of Social Psychology, 139(5), 611-621.

Salmon, C. T., Reid, L. N., Pokrywczynski, J, & Willett, R. W. (1985). The effectiveness
of advocacy advertising relative to news coverage. Communication Research, 12(4), 546-
567.

Salmon, C. T., & Murray-Johnson, L. (2001). Communication campaign effectiveness:
Critical distinctions. In R. E. Rice & C. K. Atkin ( Eds.) Public Communication
Campaigns (3rd ed.) (pp. 168-180). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

181

Samu, S., Shanker, K. H., & Smith, R. E. (1999). Using advertising alliances of new
product information: Interactions between product complementarily and promotional
strategies. Journal of Marketing, 63(10), 57-74.

Sanders, L. (2004, June 19). Ford SUV gets starring role in film. Advertising Age, 75(16),
8.

Sandler, D. M., & Secunda, E. (1993). Point of view: Blurred boundaries — Where does
editorial end and advertising begin? Journal of Advertising Research, 33(3), 73-80.

Sargent, J. D., Tickle, J. J., Beach, M. L., Dalton, M. A., Ahrens, M. B., & Heatherton, T.
F. (2001). Brand appearances in contemporary cinema films and contribution to global
marketing of cigarettes. The Lancet, 35 7(9249), 29-32.

Schwarz, N. (1984). When reactance effects persist despite restoration of freedom:
Investigations of time delay and vicarious control. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 14(4), 405-419.

Schwartz, S. H. (1970). Elicitation of moral obligation and self-sacrificing behavior: An
experimental study of volunteering to be a bone marrow donor. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 15(4), 283-293.

Scott, D. R., & Solomon, D. (1998). What is wearout anyway? Journal of Advertising
Research, 38(5), 19-27.

Sedikides, C., & Jackson, J. M. (1990). Social impact theory: A field test of source
strength, source immediacy and number of targets. Basic and Applied Social Psychology,
11(3), 273-281.

Seemann, E. A. (2003). Personality style and Psychological Reactance: Theory
confirmation and empirical prediction of reactant personalities (Doctoral dissertation,
Louisiana Tech, 2002). Dissertation Abstracts International, 64, 2939.

Segrave, K. (2004). Product placement in Hollywood films: A history. Jefferson, NC:
McFarland and Company.

Seibel, C. A. (1995). Reactance, noncompliance, and the identity process: Conceptual
integration and empirical validation (Doctoral dissertation, Kent State University, 1994).

Dissertation Abstracts International, 55, 4594.

Seibel, C. A., & Dowd, E. T. (1999). Reactance and therapeutic noncompliance.
Cognitive Theory and Research, 23(4), 373-379.

Seinfeld, J. (Creator/Executive Producer), & David, L. (Creator/ Executive Producer).
Seinfeld [Television series]. New York: NBC Network.

182

Sherman, S. J ., Lynn, S. J. (1990). Social-psychological principles in Milton Erickson’s
psychotherapy. British Journal of Experimental and Clinical Hypnosis, 7(1), 37-46.

Sherman-Palladino, A. (Creator/Executive Producer). (2000). Gilmore Girls [Television
series]. New York: WB Network.

Shimp, T. A. (1991). The role of subject awareness in classical conditioning: A case of
opposing ontologies and conflicting evidence. Advances in Consumer Research, 18(1),
158-163.

Shimp, T. A., Stuart, E. W., & Engle, R. W. (1991). A program of classical conditioning
experiments testing variations in the conditioned stimulus and context. Journal of
Consumer Research, 18(1), 1-12.

Siebel, C. A., & Dowd, E. T. (2001). Personality characteristics associated with
Psychological Reactance. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 57(7), 963-969.

Siegel, P. (2004). Product placement and the law. Journal of Promotion Management:
Innovations in Planning and Applied Research, 10(1/2), 89- 100.

Simon, H. (1982). ADPULS: An advertising model with wearout and pulsation. Journal
of Marketing Research, 19(3), 352-363.

Singh, S. N., & Cole, C. A. (1993). The effects of length, content, and repetition on
television commercial effectiveness. Journal of Marketing Research, 30(1), 91-104.

Singh, S. M., Lessig, V. P., Kim, D., Gupta, R., & Hocutt, M. A. (2000). Does your ad
have too many pictures? Journal of Advertising Research, 40(1-2), 1 1-27.

Singh, S. N., Rothschild, M. L., & Churchill, G. A. Jr. (1988). Recognition versus recall
as measures of television commercial forgetting. Journal of Marketing Research, 25(1),
72-80.

Smith, M. J. (1977). The effects of threats to attitudinal freedom as a function of message
quality and initial receiver attitude. Communication Monographs, 44(3), 196-206.

Smith, S. L., & Atkin, C. (2003). Television advertising and children: Examining the
intended and unintended effects. In E. L. Palmer, & B. M. Young (Eds.) T he faces of
televisual media: Teaching, violence, selling to children (2nd ed.) (pp. 301-325). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Snyder, M. L., & Wicklund, R. A. (1976). Prior exercise of freedom and reactance.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 12(2), 120-130.

Snyder, S. L. (1992). Movies and product placement: Is Hollywood turning films into
commercial speech? University of Illinois Law Review, 1 , 301 -337.

183

Solomon, M. R., & Englis, B. G. (1994). Reality engineering: Blurring the boundaries
between commercial signification and popular culture. Journal of Current Issues and
Research in Advertising, 16(2), 1-17.

Sosnowski, T. (1978). Reactivity, level of stimulation, and some features of verbal
behavior in small, task-oriented groups. Polish Psychological Bulletin, 9(3), 129-137.

Spielberg, S. (Producer/Director), & Kennedy, K. (Producer). (1982). E. T.: The extra-
terrestrial [Motion picture]. United States: Universal Studios.

Stanley, T. L. (2003, November 6). Etch a Sketch gets a starring role in Elf. Advertising
Age, 74(45), 6.

Steensma, H., & Erkel, D. (1999). Reactance to perceived external pressure to introduce

quality assurance standards in organizations. Psychological Reports, 85(3, Pt. 2), 1077-
1080.

Steinberg, B. (2005, June 20). A new wave of “advertising” pays producer, not network.
Wall Street Journal, BI .

Steinberg, B. (2004, May 12). “Frasier” finale, amid nostalgia, plugs a product. Wall
Street Journal, BI.

Steininger, M. (1973). In defense of measuring attitudes. The Journal of Psychology,
85(1),131-136.

Stern, P. C., & Kirkpatrick, E. M. (1977). Energy behavior: Conservation without
coercion. Environment, 10(9), 10-15.

Stemthal, B., Dholakia, R. R., & Leavitt, C. (1978). The persuasive effect of source
credibility: Tests of cognitive response. Journal of Consumer Research, 4(4), 252-260.

Stewart, D. W. (1999). Advertising wearout: What and how you measure matters.
Journal of Advertising Research, 3 9(5), 39-42.

Stoll-Kleemann, S. (2001). Barriers to nature conservation in Germany: A model
explaining opposition to protected areas. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21(4),
369-385.

Strauss, G. (1999, February 24). Seinfeld gives mixed signs. USA Today, 1B.

Strykowska, M. (1978). Effect of reactivity on choice of strategy in solving typical
operators’ tasks. Polish Psychological Bulletin, 9(3), 139-145.

184

Swart, C., Ickes, W., & Morgenthaler, E. S. (1978). The effect of objective self awareness
on compliance in a reactance situation. Social Behavior and Personality, 6(1), 135-139.

Swoboda, J. S., Dowd, E. T., Wise, S. L. (1990). Reframing and restraining directives in
the treatment of clinical depression. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 37(3), 254-260.

Tennen, H., & Eller, S. J. (1977). Attributional components of Ieamed helplessness and
facilitation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35(4), 265-271.

Tennen, H., Rouhrbaugh, M., Press, 8., & White, L. (1981). Reactance theory and
therapeutic paradox: A compliance-defiance model. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research,
and Practice, 18(1), 14-22.

Thomas, A., Donnell, A. J ., & Buboltz Jr, W. (2001). The Hong Psychological Reactance
scale: A confirmatory factor analysis. Measurement in Evaluation in Counseling and
Development, 34( 1 ), 2-13.

Thomas, D. E., Milne, C. R., & Wise, S. L. (1991). The Therapeutic Reactance scale: A
measure of Psychological Reactance. Journal of Counseling and Development, 69(6),
541-545.

Thumin, F. J. (1972). The relation of liberalism to sex, age, academic field and college
grades. Journal ofClinical Psychology, 28(2), 160-164.

Tilson, D. J. (2003). Public relations and Hollywood: A fistful of publicity. Public
Relations Quarterly, 48(1), 10-13.

Tingstrom, D. H., Little, S. G., & Stewart, K. J. (1990). School consultation from a social
psychological perspective: A review. Psychology in the Schools, 27(1), 41-50.

Trice, A. D., & Woods, P. J. (1979). The role of pretest and test similarity in producing
helpless or reactant responding in humans. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 14(6),
457-459.

Tucker, R. K., & Byers, P. Y. (1987). Factorial validity of Merz’s Psychological
Reactance scale. Psychological Reports, 61(3), 811-815.

Turner, C. R. (2004). Product placement of medical products: Issues and concerns.

Journal of Promotion Management: Innovations in Planning and Applied Research,
10(1/2), 159-170.

Turner, K. J. (2004). Insinuating the product into the message: An historical context for

product placement. Journal of Promotion Management: Innovations in Planning and
Applied Research, 10(1/2), 9-14.

185

Vollmers, S. M. (1995). The impact on children of brand and product placements in films
(recall, affect, preference). Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Florida State University,
Tallahassee.

Von Bergen, C. W., Soper, B., & Foster, T. (2003). Unintended negative effects of
diversity management. Public Personnel Management, 31(2), 239-251.

Von Restorff, G. (1983). Uber die wirkung von bereichsbildungen in spurenfeld.
Psychologisch F orschung, 18, 299-342.

Vrugt, A. ( I992). Preferential treatment of women and Psychological Reactance theory:
An experiment. European Journal of Social Psychology, 22(3), 303-307.

Wallace, W. A., & Hall, D. L. (1996). Resistance and reactance to the consultation
process. In Psychological consultation: Perspectives and applications (pp. 116-132).
Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.

Waller, D. S. (1999). Attitudes towards offensive advertising: An Australian study.
Journal of Consumer Marketing, 16(3), 288-295.

Ward, W. D. Jr. (1982). The interaction effects of Ieamed helplessness, Psychological
’ Reactance, and locus of control: An in vivo study (Doctoral dissertation, University of
Mississippi, 1981). Dissertation Abstracts International, 42, 3038.

Webb, P. H. (1979). Consumer initial processing in a difficult media environment.
Journal of Consumer Research, 6(3), 225-236.

Webb, P. H., & Ray, M. L. (1979). Effects of TV clutter. Journal of Advertising
Research, 19(3), 7-12.

Weber, S. J. (1971). Source primacy-recency effects and the sleeper effect. Proceedings
of the annual convention of the American Psychological Association, 6(Pt. I), 385-386.

Weilbacher, W. (1970). What happens to advertisements when they grow up. Public
Opinion Quarterly, 34(2), 216-223.

Wenner, L. A. (2004) On the ethics of product placement in media entertainment.
Journal ofPromotion Management: Innovations in Planning and Applied Research,

10(1/2),101-132.

West, S. G. (1975). Increasing the attractiveness of college cafeteria food: A reactance
theory perspective. Journal oprplied Psychology, 60(5), 656-658.

Westcott, M. R. (1978). Toward psychological studies of human freedom. Canadian
Psychological Review, 19(4), 277-290.

186

Westcott, M. R. (1988). The psychology ofhumanjreedom. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Whatley, J. L. (1975). Consistency and dependence as sources of conformity influence
and the relation to Psychological Reactance (Doctoral dissertation, Duke University,
1974). Dissertation Abstracts International, 35, 5704.

White, G. L, & Zimbardo, P. G. (1980). The effects of threat of surveillance and actual
surveillance on expressed opinions toward marijuana. The Journal of Social Psychology,
111(1), 49-61.

White, R. A., & Brehm, S. S. (1982). Reactance as impression management: A critical
review. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42(4), 608-618.

Whitehead, J. L. Jr. (1968). Factors of source credibility. Quarterly Journal of Speech,
54(1), 59-63.

Wicklund, R. A. (1974). Freedom and reactance. Potomac, MD: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.

Wicklund, R. A. (1997). The Theory of Psychological Reactance: A reliably
revolutionary perspective. Contemporary Psychology, 42(8), 679-681.

Wicklund, R. A., Slattum, V., & Solomon, E. (1970). Effects of implied pressure toward
commitment on ratings of choice alternatives. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 6(4), 449-457.

Williams, J. G. (1986). Reactance arousal in health-related interventions (Doctoral
dissertation, Vanderbilt University, 1985). Dissertation Abstracts International, 46, 2829.

Wilson, E. J., & Sherrell, D. L. (1993). Source effects in communication and persuasion

research: A meta-analysis of effect size. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
21(2), 101-112.

Winefield, A. H., & Norris, P. J. (1981). Effects of exposure to uncontrollable events as a

function of achievement motivation and initial expectation of success. Motivation and
Emotion, 5(3), 235-248.

Winter, F. W. (1973). A laboratory experiment of individual attitude response to
advertising exposure. Journal of Marketing Research, 10(2), 130-140.

Wolf, S., & Montgomery, D. A. (1977). Effects of inadmissible evidence and level of

judicial admonishment to disregard on the judgments of mock jurors. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 7(3), 205-219.

187

Woller, K. M. P. (2000). The combination of two scales of Psychological Reactance

(Doctoral dissertation, Kent State University, 1999). Dissertation Abstracts International,
61, 1131. '

Worchel, S., & Arnold, S. E. (1973). The effects of censorship and attractiveness of the
censor on attitude change. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 9(4), 365-377.

Worchel, S., & Brehm, J. W. (1970). Effect of threats to attitudinal freedom as a function
of agreement with the communicator. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
14(1), 18-22.

Wortman, C. B., & Brehm, J. W. (1975). Responses to uncontrollable outcomes: An
integration of reactance theory and the Ieamed helplessness model. Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology, 8(1), 277-336.

Wright, R. A. (1986). Attitude change as a function of threat to attitudinal freedom and

extent of agreement with a communicator. European Journal of Social Psychology,
16(1), 43-50.

Wright, R. A., Wadley, V. G., Danner, M., & Phillips, P. N. (1992). Persuasion,
reactance, and judgments of interpersonal appeal. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 22( 1), 85-91 .

Wyer, R. S. Jr., & Adaval, R. (2004). Pictures, words, and media influence: The
interactive effects of verbal and nonverbal information on memory and judgments. In L.
J. Shrum (Ed.), The psychology of entertainment media (pp. 137-159). Mahwah, NJ:

. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Wynne, C. P. (2002). The explanatory value of Psychological Reactance and cognitive
dissonance theory in mandated consultation in schools (Doctoral dissertation, Fordham

University, 2002). Dissertation Abstracts International, 63 , 89.

Zeedyk, M. S., Wallace, L. (2003). Tackling children’s road safety through edutainment:
An evaluation of effectiveness. Health Education Research, 18(4), 493-505.

Zhao, X. (1997). Clutter and serial order redefined and retested. Journal of Advertising
Research, 37(5), 57-73.

Zippay, A. (1995). Tracing behavioral changes among discouraged workers: What
happens to the work ethic? Psychology Reports, 76(2), 531-543.

Zufryden, F. S., Pedrick, J. H., & Sankaralingam, A. (1993). Zapping and its impact on
brand purchase behavior. Journal of Advertising Research, 33(1), 58-66.

188

   

1"filillljllljflljllll[1111]]