Psychological Reports, 1992, 70, 19-22. O Psychological Reports 1992

NOTE O N GUILT APPEALS IN ADVERTISING: COVARIATE EFFECTS OF SELF-ESTEEM AND LOCUS O F CONTROL' MARY BETH PINTO AND N. DAN WOROBETZ College of Business Administration UniversiQ of Maine Summary.-A 1991 study by Pinto and Priest demonstrated the effectiveness of advertisements employing moderate levels of gudt in inducing gudt responses in subjects. Because individuals' responses to gudt are often influenced by their specific personality characteristics, researchers have pointed to the potential moderating effects of individual difference variables such as level of self-esteem and locus of control on individuals' susceptibility to gudt appeals. A study was conducted to evaluate the possibility that self-esteem and locus of control can act as covariates across three treatment levels of g d t advertising. From a sample of 57 working mothers, advertisements stimulating medium and high levels of gudt elicited signi£icantly greater feelings of gudt in subjects than the control advertisement stimulating low d t . However, the relationship between susceptibility to gudt appeals and self-esteem and locus of conml was not observed to covary.

Questions concerning the effectiveness of using gullt appeals in advertising have continued to generate considerable attention and research. A recent study by Pinto and Priest (11) supported an empirical distinction between the emotions of guilt and anger, demonstrating that guilt is a separate construct which may be induced through advertising. Their research further demonstrated that advertisements containing moderate levels of gullt, as opposed to either low or high guilt levels, may be most useful for creating feelings of guilt within subjects. While their study offered some important insights and directions for additional research, it also suggested that researchers must consider the possibility that certain personality characteristics or individual difference variables may influence subjects' susceptibility to gullt advertising. A number of individual difference variables may be hypothesized to moderate the effectiveness of a guilt appeal in advertising. According to Ruth and Faber (14), "Personality . . . plays a key role in determining one's susceptibility to guilt, the anxiety aroused by guilt, and the likelihood that one would follow the recommendations of the guilt inducer" (p. 86). Two such variables are self-esteem (3, 5) and locus of control (2, 7, 13). Durgee (3) suggested that consumers' feelings of self-esteem can affect their buying. For example, individuals high in self-esteem think positively of themselves and are more likely than those with low self-esteem to spend 'Address correspondence to Mary Beth Pinto, Ph.D., College of Business Administration, Stevens Hall South, University of Maine, Orono, ME 04469-0158.

20

M. B. PINTO

&

N.D.WOROBETZ

money on products and services that make them feel good (e.g., clothing, cosmetics, and alcoholic beverages) (6). Research on the relation of guilt to self-esteem supports the notion that individuals with high self-esteem may reject guilt-arousing advertising appeals and be more receptive to positive communications. To illustrate, Leventhal and Perloe (9) reported that individuals high in self-esteem were influenced more by "optimistic, gratifying, potentially self-enhancing communications than by threatening ones" (p. 388). Individuals low in self-esteem showed the opposite pattern. Another individual difference variable hypothesized as a potential covariate to explain the guilt-compliance phenomenon is locus of control. Locus of control deals with general beliefs in the controllability of events in one's life (2, 5, 13, 15). "Those who are self-directed and perceive themselves as the primary determiners of their own fate are said to hold internal-control expectancies" (16, p. 802). Conversely, individuals with external locus of control expect outside forces to control the events in their life. Lefcourt (8) has suggested that an internal orientation may be positively associated with a resistance to influence. Therefore, individuals with internal locus of control may be less likely to be responsive to guilt appeals. On the other hand, individuals with an external locus of control are more likely to adhere to the recommendations contained in the guilt-arousing advertising appeals. As a follow-up to the research of Pinto and Priest (ll),we sought to test the proposition that the individual difference variables of locus of control and self-esteem will covary with the level of guilt individuals feel toward an advertisement. That is, because some people have a greater sense of self-esteem and internal locus of control, they may not be as receptive and responsive to guilt-laden messages. A sample of 57 working mothers from two locations in the northeast participated in the study. Working mothers were selected as appropriate subjects because considerable research suggests that working mothers experience a variety of guilt-induced forms of stress (10, 11). Participation was voluntary and no compensation was offered. The average age of the subjects was 37.7 yr. (SD= 6.5), with a range from 28 to 59 years. For household income, subjects were asked to indicate a range rather than to give a specific figure. The median household income was between $35,000 and $49,000. All subjects were high school graduates, and 47 had completed some college or vocational training. Eighty percent of the subjects were employed full time, and 75.4% were married. Using a research methodology similar to that employed by Pinto and Priest ( l l ) , this study was conducted in two phases. In Phase One, a food product was chosen as the subject of the advertisements and three advertisements were developed. Two of the advertisements were designed to evoke varying levels of guilt, medium and high. The third advertisement had no guilt message and was intended to act as the control. For example, the high

GUILT APPEALS IN ADVERTISING

21

guilt advertisement pictured a young child slumped over his school desk with a caption that read, "Mothers who don't teach their kids to eat a good breakfast have kids who don't always learn." As a manipulation check, the relative guilt levels of the low, medium, and high advertisements were evaluated by a panel of 10 working mothers who served as independent judges. They were asked the question, "In your opinion, how was the advertisement attempting to make the reader feel?" On the basis of their responses, the three advertisements were identified as evoking different levels of guilt. The control advertisement had a low rating (M = 1.2, SD = .8) on induction of guilt. The other two advertisements were judged to contain medium (M = 2.8, SD = 1.0) and high (M = 3.9, SD = .8) gullt. In Phase Two, booklets which contained one of the three printed advertisements were randomly distributed to each subject. The respondents were instructed to read each advertisement in the booklets and then respond to two questions. The first asked for the subjects' message-evoked thoughts, "Please write down any thoughts, ideas, reactions you had while reading the advertisement." The second question asked respondents, "Please indicate how well each word below describes how you felt while reading the advertisement." A set of 18 adjectives covering a wide range of responses was provided for each of the advertisements. The adjective list contained both guilt- (e.g., ashamed, regretful, guilty) and nonguilt-related items (e.g., angry, annoyed, pleased, good) to test for convergent and discriminant validity and followed a procedure used by Edell and Burke (4) and Bozinoff and Ghingold (1). The adjective list had a five-point response range, with endpoints labeled "Not at All" to "Very." At the same time, subjects also completed Rosenberg's (12) self-esteem scale and a short version of Rotter's (13) locus of control scale, as modified by Wolfle and Robertshaw (16). Rosenberg's scale contains ten items, scored on a 5-point Likert response scale, with endpoints labeled "Strongly Disagree" to "Strongly Agree." Five of the items were reverse-coded. The modified locus of control scale consisted of four items and also used a 5-point Likert format, with endpoints labeled "Strongly Disagree" to "Strongly Agree." Wolfle and Robertshaw's (16) modification is interpreted such that high scores on the scale indicate a high external locus of control, whde low scores suggest a strong internal locus of control. Mean responses for the self-esteem scale were 4.24 (SD = .56) and ranged from 2.8 to 5.0. Mean responses for the locus of control scale were 1.84 (SD = .66) and ranged from 1.0 to 4.0. A between-subjects design was employed. Analysis of covariance was used to test the effects of self-esteem and locus of control across the three treatment levels of guilt advertising. The F test for the guilt attitude factor indicated significant changes across the three treatment levels of guilt advertising (F,,,,= 3.97, p < .05). On

22

M. B. PINTO & N. D. W R O B E T Z

the other hand, the results of the F tests for covariance indicated no significant effect of self-esteem (Fl,5,= .78) or locus of control (Fl,5,= .45) on the subjects' reported guilt from viewing the advertisements. We also found no significant effect in a test for interaction between locus of control and selfesteem (locus of control x self-esteem) (F,,5, = .24). As a result, neither self-esteem nor locus of control appears likely to affect individuals' guilt. This finding is important because it suggests that the ability of an advertisement to induce feelings of guilt in respondents may not be significantly affected by individual difference or personality variables such as locus of control or self-esteem. The results further serve to reinforce the need to gain a better understanding of the role of guilt advertising in our media and its effects on consumers. REFERENCES 1. BOZINOFF, L., & GHINGOLD,M. (1983) Evaluating guilt arousing marketing communications. Journal of Business Research, 11, 243-255. 2. BROWNELL, P. (1982) A field study examination of budgetary participation and locus of control. The Accounting Rmiew, 4, 766-777. 3. DURGEE,J. F. (1986) Self-esteem advertising. Journal of Advertising, 15(4), 21-27. 4. EDELL,J. A,, & BURKE,M. C. (1987) The power of feelings in understanding advertising effects. lournal of Consumer Research, 14, 42 1-433. 5. GHINGOLD, M. (1980) Guilt arousing marketing communications: an unexplored variable. In K. B. Monroe (Ed.), Advances in consumer research. Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research. Pp. 442-448. 6. GIGES,N. (1987) Buying linked to self-esteem. Advertising Age, 58(16), 68. J. B., C H A ~ R J E EA,, , & FLORSHEIM,R. A. (1990) Locus of con7. HUNT,J. M., KERNAN, trol as a personality correlate of materialism: an empirical note. Psychological Reports, 67, 1101-1102. H. M. (1976) LOCUSof conb01. W s d a l e , NJ: Erlbaum. 8. LEFCOLIRT, 9. LEVENTHAL, S., & PERLOE,S. (1962) A relationship between self-esteem and persuasibility. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 64, 385-388. 10. MARSHALL, N., BARNETT,R. C., BARUCH,G. K., & PUCK, J. H. (1990) Double jeopardy: the costs of caring at work and at home. I n E. K. Abel & M. K. Nelson (Eds.), C i r c b of care. New York: State Univer. of New York Press. Pp. 266-277. 11. F'INTO, M. B., & PRIEST, S. (1991) Guilt appeals in advertising: an exploratory study. Psychological Reporb, 69, 375-385. 12. ROSENBERG, M. (1965) Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univet. Press. 13. R o m , J. B. (1966) General ex ectandes for internal versus external contml of reinforcement. Psychological A4onograpt, 80, No. 1 (Whole No. 609). 14. RUTH, T., & FABER,R. (1988) Guilt: an overlooked advertisin ap eal American Academy of Advertising Proceedings. Austin, TX: American Academy of A&eriising. Pp. 83-89. 15. SWEENEY,P. D., MCFARUN,D. B., & COTTON,J. L. (1991) Locus of control as a moderator of the relationship between perceived influence and procedural justice. Human Relations, 44, 333-342. D.(1982) Effects of college attendance on locus of con16. WOLKE, L. M., & ROBERTSHAW, trol. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 802-810.

Accepted December 5, 199 1 .

Note on guilt appeals in advertising: covariate effects of self-esteem and locus of control.

A 1991 study by Pinto and Priest demonstrated the effectiveness of advertisements employing moderate levels of guilt in inducing guilt responses in su...
169KB Sizes 0 Downloads 0 Views