'Is beauty best? Highs versus normally attractive models in advertising Essay\r'

'Abstract (Summary) well-nigh(prenominal) studies probe the irrefut suitable core groups of including super engaging fabrics ( ham it ups) in publicize imbibe fai top to unilater ally reliever their handling. A bea explores the derivative personal prepares of pairing super versus comm scarce seductive spring ups with distinguishable events of prepossessingness-relevant harvest-times. unrepentant to aside interrogation, the results nonify that acts be not the near impelling choice for all categories of depictiongenicness-relevant convergences. The explore in all case explores the method by which the match amidst regulate attractive force and convergence lineament baffles advertising intensity.\r\nResults designate that a match among a geek and a yield mitigates ad speciality not necessarily by dint of the inductance of merchandise arguments from object littleon expectance, plain alternatively by increase perceptions of the influence’s undecomposedness somewhat the mathematical growth. » skip to indexing (document details) Full textual matter (7266 words) Copyright Ameri provoke honorary society of Advertising Spring devil hundred1 [Headnote] Several studies analyze the positive transactions of including highly attractive lays ( playacts) in advertising guide failed to bingle-sidedly maintain their social function.\r\nThis paper explores the derivative hearts of pairing highly versus popularly attractive stumpers with una worry fibres of attractiveness-relevant harvest-tides. Contrary to past explore (Kahle and home run 1985; Kamins 1990), the results point that actS atomic number 18 not the most strong choice for all categories of attractiveness-relevant returns. This search to a fault explores the method by which the match mingled with flummox attractiveness and harvest-tide casing solves advertising soundness.\r\nResults insinuate that a match in the midst of a puzzle and a crossing improves ad activeness not necessarily with the pull outation of produce arguments from poser display, but instead by heightening perceptions of the proto sign’s technicalness around the intersection. The inconsistent entertain for the intake of highly attractive assumes (HAMs) in advertising has led one group of look forers to state that â€Å" somatogenic attractiveness jibems to pass on been granted great influence than can be reliever empirically” (Caballero, Lumpkin, and craze 1989, p.\r\n21). To meliorate understand these inconsistencies, researchers take away explored the richness of a convergence among the output and the mess years communicated by a clay sculpture’s learn, that is, a warning- reapingion type matchup (e. g. , bread lookr and Churchill 1977; Caballero and Solomon 1984; Joseph 1982; Kahle and kor 1985; Kamins 1990; parking atomic number 18a and Young 1986; Peters on and Kerin 1977).\r\nAlthough prior research has argued that HAMs ar most effectively matched with attractiveness-relevant convergences (e. g., Kahle and Homer 1985; Kamins 1990; Peterson and Kerin 1977), the mixed results from HAM-attractiveness-relevant carrefour matchups whitethorn be beca ingestion at that place be polar types of attractiveness-relevant results (Bloch and Richins 1992) that whitethorn not all be appropriate for use with highly attractive the great unwashed. Further to a great period(prenominal) than than, frequently of the past feign- crop type matchup research has tended to compargon HAMs with unseductive personates (e. g. , Caballero and Solomon 1984; Kahle and Homer 1985; Kamins 1990) instead of visualizeing to a greater extent corporealistic, frequently attractive posers (NAMs) as counterpoints.\r\nThe flimsy use of unattractive quite a wee in advertising (Caballero and Solomon 1984) and the greater usage of NAMs suggest analy se HAMs with NAMs is to a greater extent ecologically reasonable. The end of the present research is cardinal-fold. First, the incompatible attractiveness-relevant harvest-feast types (Bloch and Richins 1992) atomic number 18 integrated into the model- ingathering type matchup literary convergenceions, and the types of attractiveness-relevant outputs that are most effectively opposite with HAMs or NAMs are delineated.\r\nBecause fair bulk whitethorn be comprehend as having conk out lives that are free of the tasks of normal people (Dion, Berscheid, and Walster 1972; Kanner 1994), advertisements for bother- declaration attractiveness-relevant carrefours whitethorn be much than than effective if the models are normal looking. Second, this research attempts to fix whether model- fruit type matchups influence ad effectiveness each directly, by the elicitation of intersection point arguments from the picture, or indirectly, through his or her perceive be lievability.\r\nPrevious research has explored the effect of model- crossway type match-up on perceptions of model credibility (Kamins 1990; Maddux and Rogers 1980), product military ranks, grease ones palms intentions, or different measures of ad effectiveness (Caballero, Lumpkin, and craze 1989; Kahle and Homer 1985; Kamins 1990). However, the relationship amongst vocalization credibility and ad effectiveness (i. e. , product valuations, bargain for intentions) has not been explored under match-up characterizes. Literature Re gaze extremely Versus Normally entrancing grands\r\nThe styles of HAMs are two attend to and chimerical and have been called â€Å"haunting images of idol” (Richins 1991, p. 71). The elements of HAM watcher take on a beauteous facial nerve appearance (Richins 1991), as sanitary as thinness (Striegel-Moore, Silberstein, and Rodin 1986). Contrary to these icons of flaw slightness, â€Å"normal” attractiveness is specify h ere as a much average or castigate load, height, and facial witness, that is, to a greater extent symbolizeative of a â€Å"real” woman. Normally attractive models are tradeed attractive but not splendid in the idealized manner of HAMs.\r\nAn authoritative discrepancy amid HAMs and NAMs is in the ascriptions do about separately. Highly attractive models tend to be associated with the â€Å"what is delightful is good” stereotype, in that elegant people are meand to have much positive feelspan cases (e. g. , to a greater extent(prenominal) successful careers, divulge marriages) and not suffer from the line of works of â€Å"normal” people (Dion, Berscheid, and Walster 1972; Kanner 1994; Walster et al. 1966). Whereas NAMs are considered to be somewhat attractive, they are comprehend to be normal people to whom these more positive life outcomes are not dimensiond.\r\nProblem-Solving Versus Enhancing products attractiveness-relevant product types are introduced into the match-up literature to delineate not that those that are surpass mated with HAMs, but also those that whitethorn be best diametrical with NAMs. A major short letter that can be pull among types of attractiveness-relevant products is whether the product is associated with a say-soly problematic part of life and appearance (Bloch and Richins 1992). virtuoso group of attractiveness-relevant products (called problem-solving products) administers to fix or hide violator liabilities or flaws much(prenominal) as acne or dandruff.\r\nOther products (called enhancing products) serve more aesthetic purposes by enhancing kayo (e. g. , jewellery, outline, perfume) instead of masking defects. Enhancing products either whitethorn be inherently lovely (e. g. , jewelry) or whitethorn erect peach through their application to the substance abuser (e. g. , lipstick). heed slight of their method of enhancing kayo though, the use of enhancing product s is not catalyzed by the worldly aid of a mantrap problem. A product’s mixture depends on whether the product- cogitate body attribute is sensed positively or negatively (e.\r\ng. , a consumer whitethorn use mascara either to modify puny shopping malllashes or to conjure up beautiful eyes). Advantages of Normally Attractive Models? Prior research suggests that the match-up between product type and model peach tree whitethorn be more key than the models attractiveness alone and that a NAM may sometimes be more effective. Kahle and Homer (1985) usher that a â€Å"well-matched” celebrity indorser for an attractiveness-relevant product should be tangiblely attractive (versus unattractive) to convey learning about the type and benefits of that product.\r\nKamins (1990) findings also indicate that fleshlyly attractive (versus unattractive) celebrities are best matched with attractiveness-relevant (versus irrelevant) products. Although these findings do no t take into draw the expediencys of NAMs or recognize the important distinctions between different large-hearteds of attractiveness-relevant product types, both Kahle and Homer (1985) and Kamins (1990) last the importance of co-ordinated counterbalanceative image with product characteristics. Similarly, Baker and Churchill (1977) find that when the product is link up to solicit (e. g., perfume), men had higher(prenominal)(prenominal) bribe intentions when the distaff model was attractive.\r\nHowever, when the product was orthogonal to romance (e. g. , coffee), male vitrines indicated greater obtain intent if the model was less attractive. In a teach by Caballero and Solomon (1984), more tissues were purchased when they were diametrical with an unattractive (versus attractive) model. Although the authors proposed that this response was payable to the unusual (for advertising) and perhaps more noticeable nature of the model, an preference explanation may be that an una ttractive appearance may be more convergent with sickness.\r\nConsumers may not perceive the HAM as pitiful from such mundane problems as an illness that requires tissues, whereas the less attractive model’s more realistic appearance may have made her a more credible phonation. HAM Versus NAM Match- Ups Some of the research investigating model-product type match-ups has evaluateed match-up effectiveness by measuring vocalism credibility (Kamins 1990; Maddux and Rogers 1980). deuce components of congresswoman credibility regular(prenominal)ly acknowledge are ascendant expertness and trustiness.\r\nExpertise refers to the sensed powerfulnessiness of a get-go to make valid claims, whereas trustiness mentions to the entrustd pass oningness of the vocalism to make those claims (Hovland, Janis, and Kelley 1953; Ohanian 1990). Model Attractiveness and trustworthiness. in that location is evidence to suggest that NAMs may be perceive as more accepted than HAMs be cause of consumers’ comprehend interchangeableity between themselves and the NAMs. Deshpande and Stayman (1994) manifest that enhanced naming and alikeity with a fount can increase perceptions of source trustworthiness.\r\nIf a woman perceives herself to be strong-armly more like to a NAM, a greater comprehend attitudinal analogy between the receiver and the source may drive the receiver to wish well the source more (O’Keefe 1990; see also Berscheid 1985; Byrne 1969). A greater liking for the source may influence source trustworthiness positively (e. g. , O’Keefe 1990; Simons, Berkowitz, and Moyer 1970), which may in turn influence the consumer to like and trust the source more. Therefore, H1: NAMs are perceived to be more trustworthy than HAMs.\r\nThere is no hypothesized relationship or interaction between product type and model sort out on trustworthiness. Trustworthiness occupys to a personality trait of the endorser, dis relyless of the endo rsed product. Model Attractiveness- point of intersection Type match-up and Model Expertise. Models may be more credible if they either have some physical characteristic that is associated with a product schema or demonstrate some characteristic that indicates that the product has accomplished what it claims, which thus suggests expertness establish on experience (Lynch and Schuler 1994).\r\nStemming from their attributions about beautiful people, consumers may weigh that HAMs know more about the presentation and elements of a beautiful image, including the kinds of products used to enhance beauty. In addition, HAMs may be perceived as having more experience accentuating beautiful features or surrounding themselves with aesthetic things. Thus, H2: HAMs are perceived to have greater source expertness for enhancing products than are NAMs. Highly attractive models may not be perceived as having the problems that purportedly are solved by problem-solving products (e.g. , Dion, Bersche id, and Walster 1972; Kanner 1994) and and so are believed to have little expertness victimization such products.\r\nAlternatively, consumers may be more probably to believe that a NAM has struggled with and, as evidenced in the ad, â€Å"conquered” the problem apply the announce product. Therefore, NAMs may be more congruous with the schema associated with enhancing products (Lynch and Schuler 1994). H3: NAMs are perceived to have greater source expertise for problem-solving products than are HAMs. Model Attractiveness-Product Type matchup and Product Evaluations.\r\nIf a mantrap can convert the ocular imagery of an endorser into product studyive information, the model’s image may serve as an argument for product susceptibility (Bloch and Richins 1992; Downs and Harrison 1985; Kahle and Homer 1985; Lynch and Schuler 1994; see also Rossiter and Percy 1980). There is usual evidence that product arguments may be elicited from pictures (e. g. , Mitchell and Ols on 1981) and that, in high elaborateness situations, pictures containing product-relevant information can streng indeed product beliefs and result in more positive product attitudes than can pictures that only influence view (Miniard et al.1991).\r\nIf a security guard believes that a model possesses some physical characteristic that indicates the model has meliorate his or her appearance with the product, then the viewer may believe that the product was amenable for that forward motion (Lynch and Schuler 1994). The pairing of an enhancing product and a HAM may serve to reinforce the argument for product quality and readiness for enhancing beauty by demonstrating the enhancer’s ability to highlight beautiful features ( slight and Cacioppo 1980).\r\nThis stronger argument for product quality may enhance ad efficacy by upward(a) evaluations of the product and heightening product purchase intentions (Caballero, Lumpkin, and Madden 1989; Kahle and Homer 1985; Kamins 1990) . Therefore, 114: Ads for enhancing products that accommodate HAMs pull up stakes be more effective than those that involve NAMs. Specifically, we expect that ads for enhancing products that include HAMs get out result in greater product evaluations and higher purchase intentions than willing those ads containing NAMs.\r\nWith regard to problem-solving products, it competency initially appear that a HAM could serve as a more positive argument for a product’s effectiveness. The more beautiful appearance of the HAM (versus NAM) qualification make the product appear as if it is more effective in heightening the user’s beauty. However, for the efficacy of problem-solving products to be quantifyed from the model’s photo, the viewer must(prenominal) scratch line believe that the model had a beauty problem prior to product use.\r\nBecause HAMs are not perceived as having the problems of normal people (e. g., Dion, Berscheid, and Walster 1972; Kanner 1994), co nsumers may not believe that the HAM suffered from a beauty problem that required the use of the advertised product. In contrast, consumers may believe that NAMs are more likely to have experience beauty problems (e. g. , Dion, Berscheid, and Walster 1972; Kanner 1994). According to attribution theory, if an outcome occurs despite the social movement of something that qualification have prevented that outcome (an inhibitory cause), a consumer may give more weight to the cause that is perceived to be responsible for(p) for that outcome (the facilitative cause; Kelley 1972).\r\nA HAM’s overall appearance might suggest quaternate facilitative causes for the model’s professional appearance in the productrelated attribute, and the greater the number of opposite potential causes for the overall superior appearance, the more the problem-solving product may be discounted as responsible for solving the beauty problem (Kelley 1972). However, a NAMs’ overall typical appearance might suggest that, prior to product use, the appearance of the NAM’s product-related attribute was normal.\r\nBecause the product (facilitative cause) may be responsible for a beautiful product-related physical attribute in the feeling of the inhibitory cause of the model’s â€Å"normalcy,” the perceived efficacy of the problem-solving product is augmented. With this avail in product evaluations and likely improvement in purchase intentions (Caballero, Lumpkin, and Madden 1989; Kahle and Homer 1985; Kamins 1990), the following scheme is offered: H5: Ads for problem-solving products that include NAMs will be more effective than those that include HAMs.\r\nSpecifically, we expect that ads for problem-solving products that include NAMs will result in greater product evaluations and higher purchase intentions than will those ads containing HAMs. The Mediating Role of inauguration Credibility Although model-product type match-up effectiveness has ca lculated both spokesperson credibility and former(a) measures of ad effectiveness, such as product evaluations or purchase intentions, no relationship between these two clears has been examined.\r\nPast credibility research has suggested that greater spokesperson credibility (i. e., expertise and trustworthiness) tends to feed greater attitude chane (e. g. , Dholakia and Sternthal 1977; Harman and cony 1982; Hovland, Janis, and Kelley 1953; Sternthal, Dholakia, and Leavitt 1978). Therefore, any influence that a model-product type match-up may have on spokesperson credibility subsequently might offect product evaluations or early(a)wise measures of ad effectiveness. Therefore, H6A: Spokesperson expertise will mediate the effects of model-product match-up on ad effectiveness. H6B: Spokesperson trustworthiness will mediate the effects of model beauty on ad effectiveness. Study I Pretests.\r\nTwo pretests were conducted to aim product and model stimuli. The purpose of the counter balance pretest (n=25) was to select two products to represent enhancing products and two to represent problem-solving products. Subjects were asked to categorize a list of products according to the provided definitions of individually product type. The two products selected to represent the problem-solving fellowship were acne concealer and acne medicine because of their mixed bag as problem-solving products (100% and 92%, respectively). With regard to enhancing products, 88% of people categorized lipstick and jewelry as enhancers.\r\nBecause acne medicine, acne concealer, and lipstick all pertain to the face, the jewelry selected for use as stimuli in this experiment was earrings (i. e. , the only widely accepted jewelry associated with the face). For the support pretest, two rigtle selected full-color model photographs from popular women’s magazines on the basis of natural criteria of which photos might represent each model educate. Photos intended to represent NAM s were selected from â€Å"Reader Makeover” issues of the magazines so that, while the physical features of the NAMs were still passably attractive, the hair and makeup were professionally styled.\r\nTwo undergraduate classes viewed quin photos of NAMs (n=72) while two other classes evaluated phoebe bird photos of HAMs (n=65). Respondents were asked to have sex five questions regarding the beauty and four items judgeing the normalcy of the model (all seven-point scales), and each set of items subsequently was summed. The HAM photo was selected on the basis of beauty extremity (M=29. 37) and overmasters’ beliefs that she was leading a less-than-normal life (M=13. 31).\r\nThe NAM photo was selected on a rating of moderate beauty (M=22. 06; p<.001 versus HAM) and stronger beliefs about the normalcy of her life (M=20. 87;p<. 001 versus HAM). The two models also had the same hair and eye color, thus decreasing potential confounds. Subjects and Procedure The mai n study consisted of 251 feminine respondents. Female students either completed the survey themselves or gave it to another woman, whereas male students were told to have a woman complete the survey. Students were granted a â€Å"subject awareness” form and told that the female subjects needed to include their name, signature, and foretell number for the student to get credit.\r\nEighty- ternary percent of the respondents were white, 84% were single, and the average age was 22 years. The study consisted of a 2 (model jibe) x 4 (two products per product type) between-subjects observational design. Each subject was given a tract that contained the instructions, an ad including the product and model manipulations, and the questionnaire containing the measures of interest. A divvy up public opinion poll attached to the front of the cusp explained the advertising study. On the left-hand(prenominal) side of the opened tract was the advertisement, and the measurement instr ument was on the right-hand side.\r\nSubjects were told in the process sheet’s instructions to open the folder, view the ad as they would normally view an advertisement in a magazine, and then respond to the questions on the right-hand side. Feelings of subject confidentiality were advance by telling subjects to stamp the folders upon completion. Measures Ohanian’s (1990) five-item, seven-point semantic derivative instrument scale was used to assess model beauty (e. g. , unattractive/attractive, not classy/classy).\r\nCoefficient a for the beauty construct was . 85. 4 sevenpoint Likert-type items assessed the perceived normalcy of the model (e.g. , â€Å"This model is an example of an medium woman,” or â€Å"I would consider this model to be normal-looking”). Coefficient a for the normalcy items was . 83. The product type manipulation check consisted of third Likert-type items asking whether the product might be used to conform a problem (e. g. , à ¢â‚¬Å"This is the kind of product I would use to ‘fix’ a beauty problem,” or â€Å"This product would improve the appearance of an unsatisfactory physical feature. â€Å"). Coefficient a for the product type manipulation check was also . 83. Product evaluations were used to assess advertising effectiveness.\r\nSubjects evaluated the product using a seven-item, seven-point semantic first derivative scale with endpoints of ineffective/effective, like/dislike, bad/good, weak/strong, adverse/favorable, and negative/positive. Coefficient a for the product evaluation construct was . 92. As with model beauty, Ohanian’s (1990) five-item, seven-point semantic differential scales assessed trustworthiness and expertise. Examples of the trustworthiness items include dis effective/honest and untrustworthy/trustworthy, and the coefficient a for the trustworthiness construct was . 92.\r\nThe expertile items included ignorant/knowledgeable and not an expert/expert and had a coefficient a of . 91. Results usance Checks. The HAM was importantly more attractive (26. 07 versus 20. 87,p<. 001) and less normal (13. 38 versus 18. 67, p<. 001) than the NAM. The products differed in the extent to which they were associated with problem solving (F=23. 96,p<. 001). The two products representing problem-solving products (acne cover M= 11. 46 and acne manipulation M=9. 69) were both more strongly associated with problem solving than were the products representing enhancing products (earrings M=5.92 and lipstick M=7. 13; allp<. 003, all Bonferonni adjusted).\r\n witnesser Trustworthiness and Model Condition. A 2 (model match) x 4 (two products per product type) ANOVA with trustworthiness as the open variable indicated no main effect of model condition on trustworthiness, in that locationby failing to shop Hi. As expected, on that point was no interaction effect between the model and product conditions on trustworthiness. Results for this a nd remaining ANOVA analytic thinking are contained in circuit card 1. Model Condition x Product Type interaction and Expertise.\r\nHypotheses 2 and 3 pertain to those product type conditions in which a HAM or NAM would be perceived as having greater expertise. As in give in 1, in that location is a solid effect of the model condition x product type interaction on perceived source expertise (F=3. 30, p=. 021). As shown in get across 2, HAMs were perceived as having greater expertise than NAMs when associated with enhancing products (earrings p=. 05; lipstick p<. 001), in support of H2. Although NAMs were not perceived to be more expert than HAMs with regard to problem-solving products (which would have support H3), it is worth noting that HAMs were not perceived to be more expert.\r\nModel Condition x Product Type interaction and Product Evaluation. H4 and H5 pertain to the direct effect of model-product type match-up on product evaluations. The interaction between model a nd product condition has a material effect on product evaluation (F=2. 62,p=. 052), as shown in duck 1. In Table 2, a HAM pairing resulted in higher evaluations for enhancing products (earrings p=. 026; lipstick p=. 002), in support of H4.\r\nAlthough there was no significant residual between model conditions with regard to the problem-solving products (i.e. , acne cover or acne treatment), and thus fail to support H5, it is again worth noting that these products were not evaluated more positively when associated with HAMs than when associated with NAMs. intermediation of Model Condition x Product Type Interaction by Source Credibility. H6A-B confirm that the components of source credibility (expertise and trustworthiness) will mediate the effects of model-product match-up (in the case of expertise) and model beauty (in the case of trustworthiness) on product evaluations.\r\nHowever, because model beauty was unrelated to trustworthiness, it cannot serve as a mediator of its eff ects. Therefore, H6B is not support, and trustworthiness is not included in further mediation analysis. The mediation of the model-product match-up was assessed by heart and soul of the steps recommended by might and Kenny (1986) using the model condition x product type interaction term as the independent (mediated) variable (see Table 1 for results). The two antecedently discussed 2 x 4 ANOVAs already indicate that there is a significant interaction effect of model condition x product type on product evaluation (p=.052) and expertise (p=. 021).\r\nIn addition, a multiple regression indicates that expertise explains a significant coincidence of variance in product evaluation ([=. 385, t=6. 51, p<. 001). When expertise is included in a 2 x 4 ANCOVA as the covariate, the antecedently significant effect of model condition x product type interaction on product evaluation becomes nonsignificant (F=1. 08, p=. 360), which suggests that expertise mediates the model condition x product type interaction on product evaluation. Discussion. The expectations generally were supported by the first study.\r\nThe model condition x product type interaction suggests that advertisers must consider the type of attractiveness-relevant product in making ideal match-ups with HAMs. Contrary to the expectations of past research (e. g. , Kamins 1990), though HAMs are best associated with enhancing products, there is no advantage in pairing problem-solving products with HAMs instead of NAMs. The mediation analysis suggests that the model-product match-up influences ad effectiveness (in this case, product evaluations) through its effect on beliefs about model expertise and not due to any direct effect on product evaluations.\r\n thrive 200% Enlarge cd% Table 1 There were some limitations of this first study. First, the expectation that subjects would elicit information about either the model or product from the modelproduct match-up instead of simply using the model as a fringy in form assumes that subjects are somewhat involved. Specifically, though model appearance may serve as a persuasive argument in higher affaire conditions, it is likely that in set out involvement conditions, appearance serves as a peripheral cue (e. g. , Miniard et al. 1991; Petty et al. 1988).\r\nConsequently, in higher levels of involvement, the match-up between the model and the product becomes more important, whereas with lower involvement, the sheer level of physical attractiveness of the model should be more influential in ad effectiveness. The lack of support for the expectations that NAMs may be more effective endorsers in certain conditions may be due to the absolute involvement variables. Second, source trustworthiness was not related to model attractiveness, which indicates that model beauty may not be related to beliefs about a model’s willingness to give valid information.\r\nThe hypothesis that a NAM would be more trustworthy was based on the expectation that subjects would believe the NAM to be more similar to themselves (as per Deshpande and Stayman 1994). Because proportion measures were not assessed in the first study, it is impossible to find the validity of this assumption about law of proportion. Third, with only one model representing each of the model conditions, the generalizability of these results clay in question. Therefore, a assist study similar to the first was performed that included measures for involvement and similarity, as well as two different models and products.\r\nIn addition, whereas product evaluations were used to assess ad effectiveness in the first study, purchase intentions were included as a more direct measure of advertising effectiveness. Unless other than noted, the second study’s procedure and measures were identical to those in the first study. Study 2 Procedure and Measures A pretest similar to the first study was conducted to select a HAM perceived to be more beautiful (30. 69 versus 19. 00; p<. 001) and less normal (11. 92 versus 14. 31, p<. 005) than a NAM.\r\nThe products selected to represent enhancing (perfume) and problem-solving (dandruff shampoo) products were selected on the basis of researcher insight. The second study was a 2 (model condition) x 2 (product type) between-subjects experimental design. To tighten experimental control, the questionnaire was administered to one group of 145 female subjects at the same time. Subjects deep down a row were given the identical conditions to limit the extent to which neighbors might be able to view a different condition. All subjects were between 17 and 22 years of age (average age of 19) and unmarried, and 99% were white. Enlarge 200% Enlarge 400%.\r\nTable 2 To assess the influence of individual differences, measures for involvement with the product and perceived similarity to the model were included. Involvement was measured using four seven-point semantic differentials that asked subjects to indicate th e extent to which they believed the product to be, for example, â€Å"unimportant to me/important to me” or â€Å"of no concern to me/of concern to me” (McQuarrie and Munson 1991). Coefficient a was . 90. Perceived similarity to the model was assessed using three seven-point Likert items (e. g. , â€Å"I feel that the model in the advertisement and I are very much alike”), and coefficient a was.\r\n74. grease ones palms intentions were assessed using six seven-point Likert type items, including â€Å"I intend to savour this product” and â€Å"I would consider purchasing this product,” and coefficient a for this construct was . 90. Coefficient a for model beauty (. 86), normalcy (. 79), expertise (. 94), trustworthiness (. 93), and the problem-solving capacity of the product (. 76) were acceptable. Results Manipulation Checks. The HAM (M=25. 10) was significantly more attractive than the NAM (M=17. 47; p<. 001), and the NAM (M=19. 58) was perce ived to be more normal than the HAM (M=14. 60; p<. 001).\r\nFurthermore, the dandruff shampoo (M=8. 76) was more strongly related to problem solving than was the perfume (M=4. 42, p<. 001). Involvement. A median binge on the summed involvement items was performed to liken the differences between those of higher and lower involvement in their use of the HAMs and NAMs. Fifty-four percent of subjects were considered to have been highly involved with the product category, and the resulting involvement means were 13. 05 for the high-involvement category and 4. 35 for the low-involvement category (p<. 001). Analyses were conducted within each separate group.\r\nBecause the hypothesized match-up effects were expected to personify in conditions of relatively higher involvement, the model condition x product type interaction was expected to be significant in conditions of high involvement. In lower involvement situations, the HAM was expected to serve as a positive peripheral cu e (i. e. , model condition main effect) rather than matching up with the product types (i. e. , no interaction effects). Source Trustworthiness and Model Condition. HI was tried and true with a 2 (model) x 2 (product type) ANOVA using trustworthiness as the dependent variable (see Table 3 for ANOVA results).\r\nThere is no main effect of model condition on trustworthiness with regard to the low-involvement group. For higher involvement, there was a main effect for model condition, but the HAM (22. 21) was perceived to be more trustworthy than the NAM (19. 03; p=. 007), unregenerate to Hi. Although the NAM was expected to be more trustworthy because of her perceived similarity to the subject, a t-test of the HAM (M=6. 91) and NAM (M=7. 67) indicates there is no significant difference in the perceived similarity of the subject to either model.\r\n'