Understanding the Use of Highly Attractive Models in Magazine Advertising: What Causes Negative Affect?

John B. Ford, Old Dominion UniversitySonia Dickinson, Curtin UniversityDonna Gill, Curtin University

HAMS in Advertising: An IntroductionAttempts have been made to shed light on the negative effects of using highly attractive models in advertising (e.g., Bower 2001, Bower and Landreth 2001).

Most of the research, however, has focused on the outcomes of negative affect rather than the possible antecedents of negative affect.

Negative outcomes have been shown to be: Negative physiological effects (Dittma and Halliwell 2005),Negative self perceptions (Martin and Gentry 1997),Negative self concept (Bjerke and Polegato 2006), andNegative advertising outcomes (Bower and Landreth 2001).

HAMS in Advertising: An Introduction cont’d…

These findings all focused on the effects of negative affect rather than the potential causes.Given the centrality of negative affect to individual processing, understanding the conditions which intensify negative affect is vital for advertisers considering highly attractive models as information sources.

Researchers have called for the need to study the following possible drivers of negative affect:

Comparison behavior (Richins 1991),Model characteristics (Bower 2001), andNature of the product and body part highlighted in the ad (Bower and Landreth 2001).

HAMS in Advertising: An Introduction cont’d…

In order to address these issues, this study will begin by summarizing the factors felt to impact an individual’s negative affect after exposure to a highly attractive model message source as supported by the literature.

Negative AffectAffect is an emotion or experienced feeling (Tomkins 1962).

Affect refers to emotions, moods, feelings and drive (Batra and Ray 1986), and it may include distress, fear anger, disgust, fear and shame (Tomkins 1962).

Individuals experience differing levels of affect daily in their environment, and these levels affect a range of individual behaviors and cognitions (Jundt and Hinsz 2002, Schwarz 1998).

Consumer acceptance of advertising is mediated by affective reactions of the message receiver and not just be the ad content itself (Wright 1973).

Negative Affect cont’d…Negative affect deals with unpleasant feelings and emotions, and in this study, these feelings and emotions are generated by exposures to highly attractive models in magazine ads.

Negative affect occurs here when a highly attractive model (HAM) has the opposite effect on the audience than was intended (Polonsky et al. 2001).

Negative affect has potentially important implications for advertising effectiveness since message recipients would engage in derogation of the highly attractive model featured in the ad (Salovey and Rodin 1984) causing related advertising messages to lose effectiveness (Bower 2001).

Study Antecedents – Literature-Based Model

The literature suggests that the following variables are antecedents of negative affect:

Comparison behavior between the viewer and the model in the adAdvertising skepticism (comprised of mistrust of advertisers and disbelief of ad claims)Beauty TypeComparison MotiveProduct Type

Comparison Behavior

Negative affect is a result of social jealousy stimulated by comparison of the viewer of the ad to the HAMS used in the ad.Richins (1991) found that more than 50% of female respondents compared themselves to the models in the ads when exposed to ads for clothing, personal care products, or cosmetics.Social comparison theory (Festinger 1954; Richins 1991, 1995; Martin and Kennedy 1993) suggests that people have a drive to evaluate their opinions, which in the absence of objective means for comparison, can be satisfied by social comparison with similar others (Festinger 1954).The theory has been refined to note that comparisons may also occur with dissimilar others such as reference groups (Hyman 1968) or social categories (Merton 1957).

Comparison Behavior cont’d…

Social comparison investigations largely relate to how comparisons impact on social psychology issues such as self esteem, self concept, general insecurity and body dissatisfaction, there is a decided lack of investigation of the effect of social comparisons on negative affect (Stice and Shaw 1994).Certain types of self comparison may occur for different reasons: 1) self evaluation, 2) self improvement, and 3) self enhancement (Wood 1989, Martin and Gentry 1997).Upward comparisons such as self evaluation may be considered painful and unpleasant and can result in anger and resentment when it is discovered that ‘similar others’ are better off than the one comparing (Crosby 1976, Martin 1986).

Comparison Behavior cont’d…In the context of advertising, given that models represent an ideal (and perhaps unrealistic) image of beauty, the type of comparison that generally occurs will be upward because the models would normally be considered superior.Therefore, in this research only self-evaluation and self-improvement comparison motives will be considered as downward comparisons (self-enhancement motives) will not normally occur (Martin and Gentry 1994).Self evaluation behavior is likely to result in negative affect as the model is highly attractive and used as a direct point of comparison.Self improvement comparisons (Woods 1989) suggest that the comparer faces their own inferiority but that this can be inspirational when the person that is being compared to is seen as a non-competitor or non-threatening.

Advertising Skepticism

In advertising, skepticism is defined as a feeling of distrust and doubt evoked by stimuli that appear to be unrealistic, exaggerated or phony (Batra and Ray 1986).Obermiller and Pangenberg (1998) define advertising skepticism as the tendency toward disbelief of ad claims, which is related to the quality of accumulated consumer experiences.The more consumers experience advertising deception and exaggeration, the more skeptical they will become.Skepticism is a negatively-valenced attitude learned through interaction with a socialization agent, like parents, peers, or mass media (Mangleburg and Bristol 1998.)

Advertising Skepticism cont’d…

Skepticism is considered a moderator of responses to advertising (Wright 1973, Batra and Ray 1986) where audiences with relatively high levels of skepticism towards advertising will exhibit less positive responses to advertisements, and consequently negative perceptions of the ad and potentially for advertising as a whole.Increased skepticism leads to negative attitudes towards advertising, which results in consumers liking advertising less, relying on advertising less, and therefore processing advertising less (Carl et al. 2005).To date research relating HAMS to advertising skepticism have focused on such individual traits as self esteem and adolescent skepticism (Boush et al. 1994).

Advertising Skepticism cont’d…

Martin and Gentry (1997) suggest that the reluctance of sixth and seventh graders to accept a model’s beauty might be partly due to their having developed a sophisticated level of advertising skepticism. Boush et al. (1994) suggest that adolescents can use their own judgment to separate advertising truth from advertising hype.The literature has shown that advertising skepticism is comprised of two components, mistrust of advertisers and disbelief of ad claims.

Drivers of Negative Affect

Beauty type was suggested to significantly affect negative perceptions of the viewer by Bower (2001). Beauty types that were suggested but not tested included cute beauty, sexy beauty and classic beauty (Englis et al. 1994).Comparison motive was suggested to impact negative affect but was not tested by Bower (2001).Product type was suggested to significantly affect negative perceptions on the part of the viewer but again not tested by Bower and Landreth (2001).

Figure 1Negative Affect Model for Magazine Advertising

Using Highly Attractive ModelsLiterature-Based Model

Beauty Type

ComparisonBehavior

Mistrust ofAdvertisers

Disbelief ofAd Claims

NegativeAffect

Ad Skepticism

ComparisonMotive

ProductType

Exploratory Phase 1 – Qualitative Confirmation of the Literature-Based Model

The second step in the study involved the qualitative confirmation of a list of relevant antecedents of negative affect that could be tested in structural equations modeling.

Following upon the initial review of the literature and the qualitative development of the appropriate beauty type treatments, a series of five focus groups were run with groups of 8-10 females between the ages of 18 and 28 years and stratified by a cross section of ethnic origins (Caucasian and Asian).

Each group ran for 90 minutes, discussions were transcribed and underlying themes were identified.

Focus Group FindingsFrom the qualitative research that was done, there are a number of important findings:

Cute Beauty is considered desirable and attainable.

There appears to be heightened comparison behavior with cute beauty because of the sense of realism that women feel in viewing this beauty type.

Young women relate to cute beauty and aspire to this level.

They notice this type of beauty in ads and would actively process the information contained in the advertisement.

Focus Group Findings cont’d…From the qualitative research that was done, there are a number of important findings:

Sexy Beauty is less desirable – but still desirable at certain times.Young women do not feel threatened by sexy beauty because a magazine ad is not considered “real life.”They want to look like this model if they go out to a night club, but they are only limited in the attention they pay because they do not see this as directly relating to them.Some actually indicated that they did not aspire to look like that at all.Negative affect will be created when sexy beauty is seen and perceived to be undesirable.

Focus Group Findings cont’d…From the qualitative research that was done, there are a number of important findings:

Classic Beauty is seen as very distant from the individual.These types of models are noted to be attractive, but they are not attainable, nor do young women want to obtain that look now. This is something that would apply 5 to 10 years from now.These young women do not take much notice of these types of women, and they are not jealous.They do not relate at all to these women, and as a result, there will be limited processing in this case.

Focus Group Findings cont’d…From the qualitative research that was done, there are a number of important findings:

Cute Models are deemed to be more trustworthy.Classic Models are also seen as trustworthy.Sexy Models are seen as less trustworthy – there was a resulting disbelief of claims used along with sexy models.Cute Beauty is associated with natural, genuine, fresh, real – so they were less likely to be associated with disbelief of ad claims or skepticism.

Focus Group Findings cont’d…From the qualitative research that was done, there are a number of important findings:

Advertising skepticism (mistrust of advertisers motives and disbelief of ad claims) appears to be linked to both beauty type and product type and the two subcomponents should be considered as possibly separate and distinct.The focus group research suggests that cute beauty is believable for skin products (problem solving product) as well as for an enhancing product (lip gloss).Sexy beauty was believable for lip gloss (improvement product).Classic beauty was found to be believable for lip gloss (improvement product) but not for skin care product (problem solving product).

The focus group research suggested that the following variables should be examined as possible antecedents of negative affect:

Comparison behavior between the viewer and the model in the adAdvertising skepticism split into two separate components for testing:• 1) mistrust of advertisers motives and • 2) disbelief of ad claims)

Focus Group Findings cont’d…

The focus group research suggested that the following variables should be examined as possible antecedents of negative affect:

An entirely new antecedent not suggested by the literature: • resistance towards the use of beauty

products

Focus Group Findings cont’d…

The focus group research suggested that the following variables should be examined as possible moderators of negative affect:

Characteristics of the model shown in the advertisement (Beauty Type)Comparison motive (self evaluation vs. self improvement).Nature of the product (lip gloss – makeup – improvement product vs. skin cleanser bar – skin care products – problem solving products).Ethnicity (Caucasian vs. Asian).

Focus Group Findings cont’d…

Figure 2Negative Affect Model for Magazine Advertising

Using Highly Attractive ModelsFocus Group-Based Model

Beauty Type

ComparisonBehavior

Mistrust ofAdvertisers

Disbelief ofClaims

NegativeAffect

Type ofProduct

ComparisonMotive

Resistanceto the Use of

Beauty Products

Ethnicity

Research Hypotheses

H1: Level of Social Comparison will have a significant positive impact upon negative advertising affect for female viewers.H2: Mistrust of Advertiser Motives will have a significant positive impact upon negative advertising affect for female viewers.H3: Disbelief of Advertising Claims will have a significant negative affect upon negative advertising affect for female viewers.H4: Resistance Towards the Use of Beauty Products will have a significant positive impact upon negative advertising affect for female viewers.

Research Hypotheses cont’d…H1a: The impact of the Level of Social Comparison upon negative advertising affect for female viewers will vary by beauty type of the model used in the ad.H2a: The impact of Mistrust of Advertiser Motives upon negative advertising affect for female viewers will vary by beauty type of the model used in the ad.H3a: The impact of Disbelief of Advertising Claims upon negative advertising affect for female viewers will vary by beauty type of the model used in the ad.H4a: The impact of Resistance Towards the Use of Beauty Products upon negative advertising affect for female viewers will vary by beauty type of the model used in the ad.

Exploratory Phase 2 – Development of Experimental Stimuli

The stimulus materials relate to the three moderators that were suggested by the literature as important in the creation of negative affect. The moderators and their various forms are presented below:

Model characteristics (beauty type):• Classic beauty• Sexy beauty• Cute beauty

Type of comparison motive:• Self evaluation• Self improvement

Type of product:• Problem solving• Improvement

Exploratory Phase 2 – Development of Experimental Stimuli cont’d…

Print ads (for magazines) were chosen for the study as they have the advantage of being easily manipulated for experimental design and are cost effective for replication (Arthur and Quester 2003).100 highly attractive models were selected for testing purposes from a variety of women’s fashion magazines targeted towards females aged between 18-28.The 100 images were narrowed down to 30 based on the following criteria:

1) all ads were full page

2) the model’s face was a central visual element

3) the model was deemed to be highly attractive

4) the photograph could be easily manipulated to eliminate product/brand copy for each ad and

5) the model’s could be paired with a cosmetic product.

Exploratory Phase 2 – Development of Experimental Stimuli cont’d…

Ten images were selected to represent each of the three beauty types.Three pretests were carried out to select model and product stimuli as well as to confirm the beauty types.The pretests determined which of the 30 model images were rated as highly attractive.A variety of undergraduate students were identified and asked to view model images and assess their beauty using three seven-point Likert-type scales.Respondents were then asked to categorize each model according to cute/sexy/classic descriptors or “other beauty type.”

Exploratory Phase 2 – Development of Experimental Stimuli cont’d…

Descriptions of the beauty types that were utilized were developed by Solomon et al. (1992):

Cute Beauty: “With casual attire, the model has a cute and youthful appearance. She can also be outdoorsy, in a casual active manner.”Sexy Beauty: “The model is posed in a sexual way. Usually wears sexy attire or tight fitting, revealing clothes.”Classic Beauty: “Slightly older than average, elegant, feminine to look at, fair skin and glamorous. Sophisticated look, she usually wears soft, feminine but not heavily accessorized apparel.”

Exploratory Phase 2 – Development of Experimental Stimuli cont’d…

Respondents were also asked to rate the likelihood of comparing themselves with the model, based again on three seven-point Likert-type scales.Items for each construct were summed and repeated measures analysis was used to select three models representing each beauty type for the study.In order to select two products (to represent a problem solving and an enhancing type of product), respondents were asked to categorize a list of products according to the provided definitions for each type.The product selected to represent a problem solving product was a facial cleansing bar (94% agreement), and lip gloss was chosen as an enhancing product (92% agreement).

Exploratory Phase 2 – Development of Experimental Stimuli cont’d…

The next phase of experimental stimuli identification involved the pre-testing regarding the verification of headline and body copy.Based on Martin and Gentry (1997), comparison motives were manipulated through headline and body copy.20 female undergraduate students were asked to view a montage of images of highly attractive models and then were asked whether they felt inspired or confronted by several different headlines and body copy presented to them.The pre-testing confirmed the headlines and copy shown on the following slide:

Exploratory Phase 2 – Development of Experimental Stimuli cont’d…

Your lips will shine withIntense color and brilliance after using Satin Colors gloss lacquer.

Your lips will shine with intense color and brilliance after using Satin Colors gloss lacquer.

Exploratory Phase 2 – Development of Experimental Stimuli cont’d…

Twelve print ads were subsequently finalized by a graphic designer and used as stimuli for the study.Each of the beauty types had four executions. As an example, the cute model was depicted with two executions for each of the two product types (skin cleansing bar and lip gloss) and two executions for the two comparison motives (self evaluation and self improvement).Finally pilot testing of all developed stimulus material and the final questionnaire was conducted with 50 female undergraduate students.Minor wording refinements were made subsequent to the pre-testing.

Experimental Design

The experimental design used was post-test with control.The overall design involved a 3 x 2 x 2 factorial design with control (three beauty types; two comparison motive types; two product types; and control).Respondents received either the treatment stimulus with an associated questionnaire, or they received no stimulus and a specially-designed control questionnaire.Individuals were randomly assigned to treatment groups.

Data Collection

Female university students from Curtin University of Technology in Perth, Australia were selected for data collection since Richins (1991) and Freedman (1984) argued that they are appropriate for this use since physical attractiveness is particularly important to them. Respondents were primarily between 18 and 28 years of age.This is the first step in a broader study to undertake comparable research in the US and in the UK.Participants were not informed about the aims/objectives of the study; however, they were told that their input in this general study was important but that their responses would be kept in the strictest confidence and kept anonymous.Each of the respondents was randomly assigned to one treatment cell and provided the ad treatment stimulus and a self-administered survey instrument.

Data Collection cont’d…

Each respondent was allowed one minute to view the stimulus and then to proceed to answer the questions.Female student participants were randomly assigned to one of the twelve different stimuli or the control group. For each of the 13 stimuli possibilities, the goal was to get approximately 90 participants. The final sample size was 1066.

Construct Measures

There were a number of assumption checks utilized in the research to show that the beauty type, comparison motive and product type met the proper criteria.Level of Social Comparison – utilized a three-item Likert-type scale developed and tested by Bower (2001).Mistrust of Advertising Motive and Disbelief of Ad Claims utilized scales developed and tested by Bousch et al. (1994) for JCR.

Construct Measures cont’d…

Resistance Towards the Use of Beauty Products was adapted from a scale developed and tested by Crossley (1992) which focused on resistance towards health behaviors and health promotions.The scale was adapted through several qualitative iterations for use in the advertising context using highly attractive models and beauty products.Finally, Negative Affect was measured using the four-item scale developed by Folkman (1984) and later replicated by Bower (2001).

Construct Measures cont’d…

The negative affect scale items involve the following:

“I feel resentful when I encounter advertisements like this one.”“Ads such as this one sometimes make me feel anxious about my appearance.”“The advertisement has negatively influenced how I feel about myself.”“Advertisements like this one sometimes make me feel frustrated.”

Structural Equations Modeling by Beauty TypePath Cute Beauty Sexy Beauty Classic Beauty

N= 311 290 284       

Direct Effects      LSC→NA .62** .65** .39**MAM→NA .03 .10* -.29**DAC→NA -.01 -.06 -.12*RB→NA .19* .32** .29**

       Squared Correlations      

NA .39 .59 .29       

Model Fit             

Χ2 (df) 176.0 (125) 233.5 (125) 328.0 (125)Χ2 /df 1.41 1.86 2.62NFI .921 .900 .928RFI .903 .873 .912IFI .976 .949 .954TLI .970 .937 .944CFI .975 .948 .954

RMSEA .036 .055 .076 Note: LSC= Level of Social Comparison; NA=Negative Affect; MAM=Mistrust of Advertising Motives; DAC=Disbelief of Ad Claims; RB=Resistance Towards the Use of Beauty Products; * = p< .01; ** = p<.001.

Structural Equations Modeling - Beauty Type by Comparison Motive

PathCute

BeautySelf Eval

Cute Beauty

SelfImprove

Sexy Beauty

Self Eval

SexyBeauty

Self Improve

Classic Beauty

SelfEval

Classic Beauty

SelfImprove

N= 151 160 148 142 137 147             

Direct Effects            

LSC→NA .60** .62** .68** .63** .33** .46**MAM→NA .04 .00 .14* .04 .08 -.38**DAC→NA -.17* .14* -.12* -.01 -.37** -.11*RB→NA .17* .02 .38** .24** -.15* .59**

             Squared

Correlations           

NA .39 .41 .61 .54 .35 .34             

Model Fit                         

Χ2 (df) 176.3 (125) 145.3 (125)

215.6 (125) 179.4 (125)

395.2 (125) 254.9 (125)

Χ2 /df 1.41 1.16 1.72 1.44 3.16 2.04IFI .950 .982 .920 .947 .890 .945TLI .937 .978 .900 .934 .860 .931CFI .949 .982 .918 .946 .883 .944

RMSEA .052 .032 .070 .056 .126 .084

Note: LSC= Level of Social Comparison; NA=Negative Affect; MAM=Mistrust of Advertising Motives; DAC=Disbelief of Ad Claims; RB=Resistance Towards the Use of Beauty Products; * = p< .01; ** = p<.001.

ANOVA Analyses - Beauty Type by Comparison Motive by Product (problem solving – skin cleanser bar vs. improvement – lip gloss)

Study Constructs

  

Cute Beauty-

Self Eval

CuteBeauty –

Self Improve

SexyBeauty –

SelfEval

Sexy Beauty –

SelfImprove

ClassicBeauty –

SelfEval

ClassicBeauty –

SelfImprove

Level of SocialComparison

NoDifference P=.089

Higher forProblemSolving

NoDifferenc

e

NoDifferenc

e

NoDifferenc

e

P=.015Higher

forImprove

-ment

Mistrust of Advertising

Motives

NoDifference

NoDifferenc

e

No Differenc

e

NoDifferenc

e

NoDifferenc

e 

NoDifferenc

e

Disbelief of AdClaims

NoDifference

NoDifferenc

e

NoDifferenc

e

No Differenc

e

NoDifferenc

e

P=.044Higher

forProblemSolving

Resistance towards the

Use of Beauty Products

No Difference

NoDifferenc

e

P=.042Higher

forImprove

-ment

NoDifferenc

e

NoDifferenc

e

NoDifferenc

e

NegativeAffect

NoDifference

NoDifferenc

e

NoDifferenc

e

NoDifferenc

e

NoDifferenc

e

NoDifferenc

e

ANOVA Analyses - Beauty Type by Comparison Motive by Ethnicity (Caucasian vs. Asian)

Study Constructs

  

Cute Beauty-Self Eval

CuteBeauty –

Self Improv

SexyBeauty –Self Eval

Sexy Beauty

Self Improv

ClassicBeauty Self Eval

ClassicBeauty

Self Improv

Level of SocialComparison

NoDifference

P=.001Higher for

Asian

P=.003Higher

forCaucasia

n

NoDifference

NoDifference

NoDifference

Mistrust of Advertising

Motives

NoDifference

NoDifference

No Difference

NoDifference

NoDifference

 

NoDifference

Disbelief of AdClaims

NoDifference

NoDifference

NoDifference

No Difference

NoDifference

P=.001Higher

forAsian

Resistance towards the

Use of Beauty Products

P=.025Higher

forCaucasia

n

P=.028Higher

forCaucasia

n

NoDifference

NoDifference

NoDifference

NoDifference

NegativeAffect

P=.010Higher

forCaucasia

n

P=.074Higher

forCaucasia

n

NoDifference

P=.075Higher

ForCaucasia

n

NoDifference

NoDifference

Findings

The modeling was different for each of the three beauty types.For Cute Beauty:

Level of Social Comparison has a significant positive impact upon Negative AffectLevel of Resistance Towards the Use of Beauty Products has a significant positive impact upon Negative AffectMistrust of Advertising Motives and Disbelief of Ad Claims do not have a significant impact upon Negative Affect

Findings cont’d…

For Sexy Beauty:Level of Social Comparison has a significant positive impact upon Negative AffectMistrust of Advertising Motives has a significant positive impact upon Negative AffectLevel of Resistance Towards the Use of Beauty Products has a significant positive impact upon Negative AffectDisbelief of Ad Claims does not have a significant impact upon Negative Affect

Findings cont’d…

For Classic Beauty:Level of Social Comparison has a significant positive impact upon Negative AffectMistrust of Advertising Motives has a significant negative impact upon Negative AffectDisbelief of Ad Claims has a significant negative impact upon Negative Affect Level of Resistance Towards the Use of Beauty Products has a significant positive impact upon Negative Affect