Beauty as a tool: The effect of model attractiveness, product relevance, and elaboration likelihood on advertising effectiveness

Psychology and Marketing

Volumn 27, Issue 12, 2010, Pages 1101-1121

  Trampe, Debra ^a   Stapel, Diederik A ^b   Siero, Frans W ^a   Mulder, Henriëtte ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GRONINGEN   (Netherlands)

^b TILBURG UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 78149372422     PISSN: 07426046     EISSN: 15206793     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/mar.20375     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Bower, A. B. (2001). Highly attractive models in advertising and the women who loathe them: The implications of negative affect for spokesperson effectiveness. Journal of Advertising, 30, 51-63.
2. Bower, A. B., & Landreth, S. (2001). Is beauty best? Highly versus normally attractive models in advertising. Journal of Advertising, 30, 1-12.
3. Caballero, M. J., & Pride, W. M. (1984). Selected effects of salesperson sex, and attractiveness in direct mail advertising. Journal of Marketing, 48, 94-100.
4. Caballero, M. J., & Solomon, P. J. (1984). Effects of model attractiveness on sales response. Journal of Advertising, 13, 17-23.
5. Caballero, M. J., Lumpkin, J. R., & Madden, C. S. (1989). Using physical attractiveness as an advertising tool: An empirical test of the attraction phenomenon. Journal of Advertising Research, 29, 16-22.
6. Chaiken, S. (1987). The heuristic model of persuasion. In M. P. Zanna, J. L. Olson, & P. C. Herman (Eds.), Social influence: The Ontario symposium, Vol. 5 (pp. 3-39). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
7. Chaiken, S. (1979). Communicator physical attractiveness and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 1387-1397.
8. Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 752-766.
9. Chaiken, S., & Maheswaran, D. (1994). Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing: Effects of source credibility, argument ambiguity, and task importance on attitude judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 460-473.
10. Cialdini, R. B. (1987). Compliance principles of compliance professionals: Psychologists of necessity. In M. P. Zanna, J. L. Olson, & P. C. Herman (Eds.), Social influence: The Ontario symposium, Vol. 5 (pp. 165-184). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
11. Dion, K., Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1972). What is beautiful is good. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 285-290.
12. Garner, D. M. (1997). The 1997 body image survey results. Psychology Today, 30, 30-46.
13. Groesz, L. M., Levine, M. P., & Murnen, S. K. (2002). The effect of experimental presentation of thin media images on body satisfaction: A meta-analytic review. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 31, 1-16.
14. Häfner, M., & Trampe, D. (2009). When thinking is beneficial and when it is not: The effects of thin and round advertising models. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19, 619-628.
15. Higgins, E. T. (1996). Knowledge activation: Accessibility, applicability, and salience. In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 133-168). New York: Guilford Press.
16. Johnson, B. T., & Eagly, A. H. (1989). Effects of involvement on persuasion: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 290-314.
17. Kahle, L. R. & Homer, P. M. (1985). Physical attractiveness of the celebrity model: A social adaptation perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 11, 954-961.
18. Kamins, M. A. (1990). An investigation into the "match-up" hypothesis in celebrity advertising: When beauty may be only skin deep. Journal of Advertising, 19, 4-13.
19. Kamins, M. A., & Gupta, K. (1994). Congruence between spokesperson and product type: A match-up hypothesis perspective. Psychology & Marketing, 11, 569-586.
20. Kang, Y., & Herr, P. M. (2006). Beauty and the beholder: Toward an integrative model of communication source effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 33, 123-130.
21. Kirmani, A., & Shiv, B. (1998). Effects of source congruity on brand attitudes and beliefs: The moderating role of issue-relevant elaboration. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 7, 25-47.
22. Koernig, S. K., & Page, A. L. (2002). What if your dentist looked like Tom Cruise? Applying the match-up hypothesis to a service encounter. Psychology & Marketing, 19, 91-110.
23. MacCallum, R. C., Zhang, S., Preacher, K. J., & Rucker, D. D. (2002). On the practice of dichotomization of quantitative variables. Psychological Methods, 7, 19-40.
24. Maheswaran, D., & Chaiken, S. (1991). Promoting systematic processing in low motivation settings: The effect of incongruent information on processing and judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 13-25.
25. Mills, J. S., Polivy, J., Herman, P. C., & Tiggemann, M. K. (2002). Effects of exposure to thin media images: Evidence of self-enhancement among restrained eaters. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1687-1699.
26. Miniard, P. W., Bhatla, S., Lord, K. R., Dickson, P. R., & Unnava, H. R. (1991). Picture-based persuasion processes and the moderating role of involvement. Journal of Consumer Research, 18, 92-107.
27. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, Vol. 19 (pp. 123-205). New York: Academic Press.
28. Petty, R. E., & Wegener, D. T. (1998). Attitude change: Multiple roles for persuasion variables. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology, Vol. 1, 4th ed. (pp. 323-390). New York: McGraw-Hill.
29. Petty, R. E., & Wegener, D. T. (1999). The elaboration likelihood model: Current status and controversies. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 37-72). New York: Guilford Press.
30. Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Schumann, D. (1983). Central and peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness: The moderating role of involvement. Journal of Consumer Research, 10, 135-146.
31. Petty, R. E., Harkins, S. G., & Williams, K. D. (1980). The effects of group diffusion of cognitive effort on attitudes: An information-processing view. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 81-92.
32. Petty, R. E., Wegener, D. T., & White, P. H. (1999). Flexible correction processes in social judgment: Implications for persuasion. Social Cognition, 16, 93-113.
33. Reingen, P. H., & Kernan, J. B. (1993). Social perception and interpersonal influence: Some consequences of the physical attractiveness stereotype in a personal selling situation. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 2, 25-38.
34. Schwarz, N. (2006). Attitude research: Between Ockham's razor and the fundamental attribution error. Journal of Consumer Research, 33, 19-21.
35. Scott, L. M. (1994). Images in advertising: The need for a theory of visual rhetoric. Journal of Consumer Research, 21, 252-273.
36. Shavitt, S., Swan, S., Lowrey, T. M., & Wänke, M. (1994). The interaction of model attractiveness and involvement in persuasion depends on the goal that guides information processing. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 3, 137-162.
37. Smeesters, D., & Mandel, M. (2006). Positive and negative media image effects on the self. Journal of Consumer Research, 32, 576-582.
38. Staats, A. W., & Staats, C. K. (1958). Attitudes established by classical conditioning. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 57, 37-40.
39. Till, B. D., & Busler, M. (2000). The match-up hypothesis: Physical attractiveness, expertise, and the role of fit on brand attitude, purchase intent, and brand beliefs. Journal of Advertising, 29, 1-13.
40. Trampe, D., Stapel, D. A., & Siero, F. W. (2007). On models and vases: Body dissatisfaction and proneness to social comparison effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 106-118.