RUNNING HEAD: CULTURE AND ADVERTISING APPEALS

Abstract

Fifty-four Singaporean respondents received either positive or negative feedback and then evaluated advertisements that promoted self-enhancing beliefs. The results revealed that the type of feedback had no effect on evaluations of the advertisements. The role of motivation to self-enhance, and cultural definitions of the self in consumer responses to advertisements, will be discussed.

In our everyday experiences, we are exposed to a variety of advertising appeals. These appeals are aimed at influencing our attitudes toward a wide range of consumer products and behaviors. Through television, radio, and the Internet, they reach large numbers of individuals who represent a wide range of cultural and ethnic backgrounds. Is there any relationship between an individual’s cultural values and beliefs and how she might respond to different types of advertising appeals? A growing body of research on cultural definitions of the self and advertising appeals is providing some interesting and insightful answers to this question.

According to Markus and Kitayama (1991), people in different cultures have strikingly different definitions of the self, of others, and of the interdependence of the two. For example, many Asian, African, and Latin American cultures promote a definition of the self that emphasizes the relatedness of individuals to each other as well as the need to attend to, to fit in with, and to maintain harmony with others. These cultures have been characterized as being collectivistic. In contrast, American culture has been characterized as being individualistic because it promotes a definition of the self that emphasizes maintaining independence from others and encourages individuals to express their unique inner attributes. These different cultural definitions of the self can have a significant impact on the experience of cognitive, motivational, and emotional processes (Fiske et al., 1997; Miller, 1984; Triandis, 1989; Triandis et al., 1984). They can also influence the manner in which individuals respond to different types of advertising appeals.

For example, Gregory and Munch (1997) examined the effect of (in)consistencies in collectivist values (e.g., familial norms and roles) in attitudes and behaviors toward advertised products within Mexico. Their findings revealed that the advertisements that depicted attitudes and behaviors that were consistent with local cultural norms and roles were viewed more favorably and the subjects’ purchase intentions were higher after exposure to those same advertisements than for the advertisements that depicted values and behaviors that were culturally inconsistent with local values and behaviors. Similarly, Han and Shavitt (1994) examined the extent to which individualistic and collectivistic values were reflected in the types of advertising appeals that tend to be used and that tend to be effective in different countries. Their results indicated that whereas magazine advertisements in the United States used appeals that stressed individual benefits and preferences, personal success, and independence, magazine advertisements in Korea used appeals that stressed family or in-group benefits, harmony, and family integrity. Furthermore, several other studies have reported cross-cultural differences in advertising appeals and persuasion techniques (Burgoon et al., 1982; Hong et al., 1987; Marquez, 1975; Mueller, 1987). Still, more research is needed to acquire a better understanding of the complex interaction between cultural values and beliefs and advertising. Our study seeks to inform this understanding by focusing on the relationship between cultural definitions of the self, the motivation to self-enhance, and responses to advertising appeals. We believe that the motivation (or lack of motivation) to self-enhance plays an important role in how consumers perceive advertising appeals and how they respond to them.

Previously, it was assumed that the motivation to self-enhance reflected a universal human need for a positive self-regard (Maslow, 1943; Tesser, 1988; Greenwald, 1980; Taylor and Brown, 1988). However, recent findings from cross-cultural studies have revealed that the motivation to self-enhance varies cross-culturally (Triandis, 1995; Triandis, 1989; Fiske et al., 1997; Kitayama et al., 1995; Bong and Cheung, 1983). For example, a number of cross-cultural studies that compared Japanese respondents with North American respondents have found that self-enhancing biases exhibited when comparing the self with others, such as false uniqueness (Markus and Kitayama, 1991), unrealistic optimism (Heine and Lehman, 1995; Weinstein, 1980), causal attributions for success and failure (Kitayama et al., 1995) and social comparison (Takata, 1987) do not replicate in Japan and some other Asian cultures (Stevenson and Stigler, 1992; Heine and Lehman, 1997; Takata, 1987; Heine and Lehman, 1997).

To examine the effects of the motivation to self-enhance on responses to advertising appeals that promote an independent definition of the self, we presented Singaporean respondents with either positive or negative feedback regarding their performance on a task. They were later asked to evaluate a group of advertising appeals that promoted an independent definition of the self and self-enhancing beliefs. As mentioned previously, research on the motivation to self-enhance has revealed that individuals from East Asian and Southeast Asian cultures are more likely than their American counterparts to subscribe to an interdependent definition of the self. Also, they are less likely than their American counterparts to engage in self-enhancing strategies, even when faced with a threat to a positive view of the self. Therefore, we expected that regardless of the type of feedback the Singaporean respondents in our study received, they would not show an attitudinal preference for advertising appeals that promote an independent definition of the self and self-enhancing beliefs.

Method

Overview and Design

The experimental design was closely modeled after Study 1 of Heine and Lehman (1997) and Shavitt (1994). The experiment was presented to the participants as an organizational study designed to assess their ability to perform successfully in a corporate environment. The participants participated in the study during two sessions. During the first session held on day one, the participants were given a bogus 80-item inventory that was said to be frequently used by companies to identify applicants who were able to work well with others in a corporate setting. They also completed the Singelis (1994) self-construal scale. During the second session held several days later, the participants received either positive or negative feedback regarding their performance on the inventory. After reviewing their feedback, the participants were asked to evaluate advertisements (for a cellular phone, a pager, and a CD/cassette player) that were part of a fictitious advertising campaign. The advertisements promoted an independent definition of the self and self-enhancing beliefs. For example, the copy in one advertisement read, “It’s your world…your life…your style!” Similarly, the copy in another advertisement read, “Now that you have everyone’s attention, show them that you have what it takes to be a leader!” Each participant was asked to indicate if they thought the advertisement appealed to an independent definition of the self and how much they liked or disliked the advertisement. The participants also were asked to indicate if they would purchase the advertised product.

Participants

A total of 102 students from a technical university in Singapore participated in the study as a part of their course experience.

Procedure

The respondents participated in the study during two sessions. During session 1, the participants completed a bogus 80-item inventory that was frequently used by corporations to identify individuals who would be successful in a corporate setting. They were asked to code their responses on a form that could be computer-graded; thus, making it possible for them to receive their results in a short period of time. Prior to the experiment, each participant was randomly assigned to receive either positive or negative feedback about their performance on the inventory. They also completed the Singelis (1994) measure of self-construal.

During session 2, each participant received either positive or negative feedback regarding their performance on the inventory. The feedback sheet included a graph that depicted the participant’s score in comparison to others who previously had taken the inventory. The negative feedback sheet informed the participant that her score was “just below” the average score of those who had previously taken the inventory and that the results indicated that her performance in a corporate setting would be “just below” average. The positive feedback sheet informed the participant that her score was “well above” the average of those who had previously taken the inventory and that the results indicated that her performance in a corporate setting would be “very good”.

After reviewing their feedback, the participants were presented with three advertisements (one for a cellular phone, one for a pager, and one for CD/cassette player) that promoted an independent definition of the self and self-enhancing beliefs. They were asked to indicate: how persuasive they found the advertisement to be (1 = not persuasive at all and 7 = very persuasive); much they liked the advertisements (1 = strongly dislike and 7 = strongly like) and if they would purchase the product (1 = definitely would not buy and 7 = definitely would buy). Finally, as a manipulation check, each subject was asked to indicate how positive her feedback was (1 = mostly negative and 7 = mostly positive) and how she felt after viewing her feedback (1 = very bad and 7 = very good). After completing the questionnaires, the participants were fully debriefed. It was stressed that both the inventory as well as their feedback was fictitious and that they were not accurate assessments of their decision-making skills or personality. They were thanked for their participation in the study.

Results

Manipulation Check

The respondents who received the negative feedback reported that their feedback was significantly worse (M = 3.73, SD = 1.08) than those who received the positive feedback (M = 5.04, SD = 1.06), t (49) = 4.37, p=.000. Also, the respondents who received negative feedback reported that they felt significantly worse (M = 3.81) than those who received positive feedback (M = 5.48, SD = 1.23), t(49) = 5.21, p=.000. These results may be found in Table 2. A one-way ANOVA was conducted on each product advertisement to determine the influence of feedback (positive versus negative) on attitudinal responses to the advertisements and product purchase intent. The results are reported below and may be found in Tables 3, 4, and 5.

Pager Advertisement

As expected, an ANOVA revealed that type of feedback had no influence on how persuasive the respondents found the advertisement to be, F (1, 52) = 1.46, ns. Also, type of feedback had no influence on how much the respondents liked the advertisement, F (1, 49) < 1, ns. Finally, type of feedback had no influence on the respondents’ reported intention to purchase the advertised product, F (1, 52) < 1, ns.

Cell Phone Advertisement

As expected, an ANOVA revealed that type of feedback had no influence on the how persuasive the respondents found the advertisement to be, F (1, 52) = 1.50, p < 1, ns. Also, type of feedback had no influence on how much the respondents liked the advertisement, F (1, 52) < 1, ns. Finally, type of feedback had no influence on the respondents’ intention to purchase the advertised product, F (1, 52) = 2.18, ns.

CD/ Cassette-Tape Player

As expected, an ANOVA revealed that type of feedback had no influence on the how persuasive the respondents found the advertisement to be, F (1, 51) < 1, ns. Also, type of feedback had no influence on how much the respondents liked the advertisement F (1, 50) < 1, ns. Finally, type of feedback had no influence on the respondents’ intention to purchase the advertised product, F (1, 51) <1, ns.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to examine the influence of motivation to self-enhance on responses to advertising appeals that promote an interdependent definition of the self and self-enhancing beliefs. We gave our respondents positive and negative feedback regarding their performance on a task and subsequently asked them to evaluate advertising appeals that promoted self-enhancing beliefs. As expected, the type of feedback received by the respondents neither effected their evaluations of the advertisements nor their purchase intentions. These preliminary results suggests that even when they are faced with a threat to a positive view of themselves (e.g., they receive negative feedback), consumers who have an interdependent definition of the self remain unlikely to show a preference for advertising appeals that promote self-enhancing beliefs. These findings raise interesting questions regarding the influence of cultural definitions of the self and motivation to self-enhance on consumer responses to advertising appeals that encourage self-enhancing beliefs. In what type of cultural contexts will self-enhancing appeals be most effective? Also, do consumer with interdependent and independent definitions of the self respond similarly to advertising appeals that promote an interdependent definition of the self when faced with a motivation to self-enhance? In subsequent studies, these questions will be addressed through a series of experimental studies designed to examine how American, Korean, and Singaporean consumers respond to advertising appeals that promote an independent and interdependent definition of the self.

Appendix

TABLE 1

Sample Characteristics (N = 53)

Type of Advertising Appeal	Positive Feedback	Negative Feedback
Independent	27	26

TABLE 2

T-test Results Feedback Manipulation

Question	Positive Feedback^a M/SD	Negative Feedback^bM/SD	t
How positive was your feedback?	5.04/1.06	3.73/1.08	4.37***
How did you feel after viewing your feedback?	5.48/1.23	3.81/1.06	5.21***
How accurate do you think the results were?	4.92/.90	3.46/1.24	4.77***

Note: ^an = 25, ^bn = 26.
t refers to t-values on a two-tailed test of means for each question.
***P < .001, two-tailed.

TABLE 3

T-test Results Regarding the Effect of Type of Feedback

on Evaluations of Persuasiveness of AD

Product	Positive Feedback^a M/SD	Negative Feedback^b M/SD	t
Phone	4.26/1.23	3.85/1.22	1.23
Pager	4.96/1.02	4.5/1.70	1.21
Radio	4.59/1.34	4.35/1.26	.69

Note: ^an = 27, ^bn = 26.
t refers to t-values on a two-tailed test of means for each question.

TABLE 4

T-test Results Regarding the Effect

of Type of Feedback on Purchase Intent

Product	Positive Feedback^a M/SD	Negative Feedback^b M/SD	t
Phone	4.00/2.40	3.08/2.15	1.47
Pager	5.60/2.00	5.90/2.20	.57
Radio	5.00/2.20	5.04/2.00	.00

Note: ^an = 27, ^bn = 26.
t refers to t-values on a two-tailed test of means for each question.

References

M. H. Bond and T. Cheung, (1983) “College Student’s Spontaneous Self-Concept: The Effect of Culture Among Respondents in Hong Kong, Japan, and the United States,” Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 14, 153-171.

A. P. Fiske, S. Kitayama, H. R. Markus, and R. E. Nisbett, (1997) “The Cultural Matrix of Social Psychology.” In D. Gilbert, S. Fiske, and G. Lindzey (Eds.) Handbook of Social Psychology.

M. Burgoon, J. P. Dillard, and N. E. Doran, (1982) “Cultural and Situational Influences on the Process of Persuasive Strategy Selection,” International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 6, 85-100.

A. G. Greenwald, (1980), “The Totalitarian Ego: Fabrication and Revision of Personal History,” American Psychologist, 35, 603-618.

S. Heine and D. R. Lehman, (1995) “Cultural Variation in Unrealistic Optimist: Is the West More Vulnerable Than the East?” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 595-607.

S. Heine and D. R. Lehman, (1997) “Culture, Dissonance, and Self-Affirmation,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 389-400.

J. W. Hong, A. Muderrisoglu, and G. Zinkhan, (1987) “Cultural Differences and Advertising Expression: A Comparative Content Analysis of Japanese and US Magazine Advertising,” Journal of Advertising, 16 (1), 55-62.

G. W. M. Ip and M. H. Bond, “Culture, Values, and the Spontaneous Self-Concept,” The Asian Journal of Psychology, 1(1), 29-35.

H. H. Kassarjian, (1977) “Content Analysis in Consumer Research,” Journal of Consumer Research, 4, 8-18.

S. Kitayama, H. R. Markus, and C. Lieberman, (1995) “The Collective Construction of Self-Esteem: Implications for Culture, Self, and Emotion. In J. Russel, J. Wellenkamp, T. Manstead, and J. M. F. Dols (Eds.) Everyday Conceptions of Emotions (pp. 523-550). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.

S. Kitayama, H. Takagi, and H. Matsumoto, (1995) “Causal Attribution of Success and Failure: Cultural Psychology of Japanese,” Japanese Psychological Review, 38, 247-280.

H. R. Markus and S. Kitayama, (1991) “Cultural Variation in the Self-Concept. In G. R. Goethals and J. Strauss (Eds.) Multidisciplinary Perspectives on the Self (pp. 18-48). New York: Springer-Verlag.

H. R. Markus and S. Kitayama, (1991) “Culture and the Self: Implications for Cognition, Emotion, and Motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224-253.

F. T. Marquez, (1975) “The Relationship of Advertising and Culture in the Philippines,” Journalism Quarterly, 52(3), 436-442.

A. Maslow, (1943) “A Theory of Human Motivation,” Psychological Review, 50, 370-396.

B. Mueller, (1987) “Reflections of Culture: An Analysis of Japanese and American Advertising Appeals,” Journal of Advertising Research, 27, 51-59.

H. W. Stevenson, S. Y. Lee, and J. W. Stigler, (1986) “Mathematics Achievements of Chinese, Japanese, and American Children,” Science, 236, 693-698.

T. Takata, (1987) “Self-depreciative Tendencies in Self-Evaluation Through Social Comparison,” Japanese Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 27 (1), 27-36.

S. E. Taylor and J. D. Brown, (1988) “Illusion and Well-Being: A Social Psychological Perspective on Mental Health,” Psychological Bulletin, 103, 193-210.

A. Tesser, (1988) “Toward a Self-Evaluation Maintenance Model of Social Behavior. In L. Berkowitx (Ed.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 21, pp. 181-227). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

H. C. Triandis, (1995) Individualism and Collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

H. C. Triandis, (1989) “The Self and Social Behavior in Differing Cultural Contexts,” Psychological Review, 96, 506-520.

D. Weinstein, (1980) “Unrealistic Optimism About Future Life Events,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 806-820.