The Effects of Emotionally Charged Pet Images on

Viewers’ Intentions to Act

By Katrin HallerDepartment of Psychology

Lindenwood University

Overview

This presentation will include the following:

• Introduction• My Study

- Hypotheses- Participants- Materials- Results- Discussion

• Acknowledgement• References

Introduction

• Advertisements today require much thought and creativity (Alwitt, 2002)

• There are several methods to get the attention of the viewers (Alwitt, 2002), including- Emotional framing, either positively or

negatively (Zhang & Buda, 1999)- Negative framing seems to be used quite often and

there are several arguments for and against its usage

For Negativity

• There are more donations after negative associations with a poster (Barnett & Hammond, 1999)

• Negative ads receive more attention from the viewer (Bradley, Angelini, & Lee, 2007)

• Negative messages are remembered better (Bradley et al., 2007)

Against Negativity

• Donation after negative associations was from people who were least likely to donate overall (Barnett & Hammond, 1999)

• Details of remembered negative ads are often lost (Bradley et al., 2007)

• Information is added to remembered negative ads which was not available (Bradley et al., 2007)

• Negative attitudes may be created in viewers if they perceive the ad as untruthful, unfair, repulsive, and disgusting (Bradley et al., 2007)

• The source of the ad may be perceived negatively (Bradley et al., 2007)

Against Negativity

• Negative political ads:- There might be a relation to a

decrease in political participation

- Viewers show physiological signs of wanting to move away while watching negative ads

- Viewers show and self-report physiological arousal while watching these ads (Bradley, et al., 2007)

Combination?

Some studies have shown that acombination of negative and positive instead of using just either one may be beneficial:

• Better recall for ads which elicit positive and negative emotions (Alwitt, 2002)

• Switch from evoking negative affect to positive affect may be a win-win communcations strategy: - the negativity creates a perception of seriousness,

while the positivity allows hope (Olsen & Pracejus, 2004)

Other Influences

Zhang and Buda (1999):• Need for cognition: “The statistical tendency of and

intrinsic enjoyment individuals derive from engaging in effortful information processing” (p. 3)

• Negative messages seem more influential for people with a low need for cognition

• Many variables play into advertisements including the mentioned ones, but also positioning, presentation, etc.

Aid Advertisements• Aid advertisements often show images which would be

rated rather negatively (Kennedy & Hill, 2010)

• Animal welfare organizations especially, such as the Humane Society, seem to use negative advertisements in order to raise donations and find adopters

• But does it really work?

My Study

• The study focuses on the effects of emotionally charged pet images on viewers’ impressions and intentions to act

• The results of the study could:- Be beneficial to animal welfare organizations;

so they may know what type of ads speak to the audience and with which they are most likely to achieve their goals, including receiving donations

- Inspire future research in the topic and for other organizations which also use advertisements for their purpose

Hypotheses

1) Positively charged images or a mix of positively and negatively charged images will elicit more attention, donation, contact, and adoption than negatively charged images

2) Negatively charged images will be rated the worst and thus liked the least

Participants

• 63 Lindenwood Undergraduate Students• 44 women, 19 men• Between 18-28 years; M=19.76, SD=1.97• 26 Freshmen, 15 Sophomores, 13 Juniors, 9 Seniors• 89% fond of pets, 5% not fond of pets, 6% other• 44 own a pet/pets, 19 do not own a pet• Exposed to ads mostly on TV (M=4.1, SD=1.22),

followed by the Internet (M=3.6, SD=1.29)

Materials & Procedure

• Three PowerPoint slide shows were shown to each participant in random order; each contained different images with each image being shown for 5 seconds

- 8 positive images (4 cat images, 4 dog images)- 8 negative images (4 cat images, 4 dog images)- 8 positive and negative images (4 cat images, 4 dog

images)

Image Examples

Materials & Procedure

• Attitude Survey: was given to the participants after watching each slide show

• Ranking Survey: was given to the participants once they watched all three slide shows

• Demographic Survey: was given to the participants at the end of the study

Attitude Survey

Attitude Survey

Ranking Survey

Demographic Survey

Image Examples

Results Attitude SurveyThe following two questions were analyzed using the Cochran’s Q analysis

because they were dichotomous but had more than two conditions (emotional charge):

• Do people pay more attention to negative, positive, or mixed images?

Cochran’s Q: 2(2) = 1.448, p = .485

• Are people more likely to adopt after watching negative, positive, or mixed images?

Cochran’s Q: 2(2) = 4.174, p = .124

There were no significant differences between the three conditions and the likelihood of paying attention/changing the channel and willingness/unwillingness to adopt

Results Attitude SurveyThe following two questions were analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA as

they were on a Likert scale with three conditions. The degrees of freedom were

adjusted according to the Greenhouse-Geisser correction due to the data violating

the assumption of sphericity.

• Are people more likely to donate after watching negative, positive, or mixed images?

ANOVA: F(1.82, 112.84) = 12.25, p < .001- Post Hoc: Negative significantly different from both, positive (p<.001) and mix

(p=.001)

• Are people more likely to contact the organization after watching negative, positive, or mixed images?

ANOVA: F(1.67, 102.11) = 3.75, p = .034- Post Hoc: Negative significantly different from both, positive (p=.039) and mix

(p=.008)

Students were significantly more willing to donate/contact if negative images were used compared to positive and a mix of positive/negative images

Results Ranking SurveyFor the ranking a Friedman’s ANOVA was conducted because of it compares

frequencies and the repeated measures.

• Friedman’s ANOVA: 2(2) = 15.859, p < .001

- Post Hoc: Positive ranked significantly higher than both, negative (p=.005) and mix (p<.001)

The positive images were ranked as liked the most significantly more than were the negative and the mix of negative/positive images

Discussion

There are several reasons for the results:

• The first hypothesis, that students would indicate that they were more likely to pay attention, donate, contact, and adopt when positively or a mix of images were to be used, was not supported:- Different emotions (negative is perceived as more serious)- Need/Urgency for help more prevalent in negative images- Exposure effect (negative is seen as more effective)

• The second hypothesis, that of the three slide shows the negative one would be ranked worst, was supported:- People usually prefer happy over sad images

Limitations & Future Research

These are limitations of the study which should be addressed in the future:

• Convenience sampling - limits sample variability

• Self-made surveys - problems with reliability & validity

• Use of image slide shows instead of actual advertisements- influence of other variables (i.e.

music)

Acknowledgement

My appreciation and thanks goes to Dr. Michiko Nohara-LeClair from Lindenwood University who has supervised and supported me throughout this study and has been a tremendous help to me throughout my career at Lindenwood.

Arigatou gozaimasu!

References

Alwitt, L.F. (2002). Suspense and advertisement responses. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 12(1), 35-39.

Barnett, J. & Hammond, S. (1999). Representing disability in charity promotions. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 9(4), 309-314.

Bradley S.D., Angelini, J.R., & Lee, S. (2007). Psychophysiological and memory effects of negative political ads. Journal of Advertising, 36(4), 115-127.

Kennedy, S. & Hill, S. (2010). Global poverty, aid advertisements, and cognition: Do media images of the developing world lead to positive or negative responses in viewers. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 39(2), 56-66.

Olsen, G.D. & Pracejus, J.W. (2004). Integration of positive and negative affective stimuli. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(4), 374-384.

Zhang, Y. & Buda, R. (1999). Moderating effects of need for cognition on responses to positively versus negatively framed advertising messages. Journal of Advertising, 28(2), 1-15.