Psychology 2013. Vol.4, No.7, 547-552 Published Online July 2013 in SciRes (http://www.scirp.org/journal/psych) http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/psych.2013.47078 Copyright © 2013 SciRes. 547 Gender Differences in Adolescent Advertising Response: The Role of Involvement and Message Claim Karlijn Massar1, Abraham P. Buunk2,3 1Work & Social Psychology, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands 2Social & Organizational Psychology, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands 3Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, Amsterdam, The Netherlands Email: karlijn.massar@maastrichtuniversity.nl Received April 17th, 2013; revised May 19th, 2013; accepted June 18th, 2013 Copyright © 2013 Karlijn Massar, Abraham P. Buunk. This is an open access article distributed under the Crea- tive Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any me- dium, provided the original work is properly cited. This study investigates whether gender differences in adolescents’ advertising judgments and purchase intentions are due to their level of involvement with the advertised product, and with the claim made in the ad, i.e. whether evaluative versus factual message claims are used. Male (n = 115) and female adoles- cents (n = 127) were randomly assigned to a mixed design. They read either factual or evaluative ads (between-subjects variable) about a product within and about a product outside their area of interests (within-subjects variable). Results show that when an ad contained a description of a high involvement product (i.e. the youth magazine), adolescent females were persuaded most by factual information, whereas when the ad contained a description of a low involvement product (the sports magazine), they were persuaded more by evaluative information. Adolescent males overall indicated a more positive atti- tude towards a high involvement product, but were equally persuaded by evaluative and factual informa- tion. We conclude that gendered advertising responses do exist, and that the level of involvement with the product advertised determines which type of message claim—factual versus evaluative—is most effective for each gender. Discussion focuses on theoretical and practical implications of these results. Keywords: Gender Differences; Advertising Response; Product Involvement; Message Claims Introduction Men and women differ in the things they find interesting and the activities they prefer to engage in. These differences are already evident very early on in life. For example, Alexander, Wilcox, and Woods (2009) report that infants ranging in age from 3 to 8 months show gender differences in visual interest in sex-linked toys. These differences in toy and play preferences remain throughout childhood and adolescence (e.g., Trainor, Delfabbro, Anderson, & Winefield, 2010), with boys spending more time than girls on activities by themselves and on physi- cal past-times such as skating, bowling and riding scooters. On the other hand, girls tend to spend more time than boys on reading, writing and listening to music. Moreover, boys and girls express more positive competence beliefs for these activi- ties (Eccles, Wigfield, Harold, & Blumenfeld, 1993). These gender differences in interests persist during adulthood, and seem to be stable across cultures and over time (Lippa, 2010), with women generally more interested in “people” and men more interested in “things”. One would expect that these differences in interests and lei- sure activities would also translate into consumer behavior. Indeed, men and women have been found to show an interest in, and talk about, different products (Slama & Williams, 1990). Gender—in addition to age, marital status, income, and educa- tion—is one of the variables often used in market segmentation, and gender segmentation has been applied for years in market- ing, especially regarding clothing, cosmetics, and magazines (Kottler & Keller, 2006; Nysveen, Pedersen, & Thorbjørnsen, 2005). Thus, an understanding of gender-based processing dif- ferences of advertisements is important to marketers, since it enables them to communicate with (i.e., access) these different market segments and to produce effective promotions for each segment. Research suggests that there are gender differences in the information processing of messages and ads (for an over- view, see Wolin, 2003), for example, it has been found that women process information more elaborately than men, and that repetitive exposure to ads tends to be more effective for women than single advertising exposure. Much of the research on gender differences in information processing was stimulated by the development of the Selectiv- ity Hypothesis (Meyers-Levy, 1989), which is based on the assumption that both genders differ in the way they interpret the external world and how they process persuasive information. According to this hypothesis, males’ interpretational mode is largely categorical—they adapt to a situation by constructing laws, rules and attitudes. They do not engage in comprehensive processing of all available information, but instead are selective, and tend to use heuristics and simple cues as a basis for their judgment. Females, on the other hand, are thought to form judgments by considering the internal aspects of personal and social situations, and tend to be comprehensive information processors who consider all available product attributes. For example, women are more likely than men to read product la-
K. MASSAR, A. P. BUUNK bels (Mueller, 1991). Though capacity restrictions in active memory may prevent women from accomplishing this goal, the selectivity hypothesis states they give equal attention to all available promotion information (Meyers-Levy, 1989; Meyers- Levy & Maheswaran, 1991; Meyers-Levy & Sternthal, 1991). Support for the selectivity hypothesis has been reported in a number of studies. For example, a study by Laroche, Saad, Cleveland, and Browne (2000) showed that when shopping for a gift, women’s information search process was more system- atic and comprehensive than men’s. Men on the other hand tended to rely more on heuristic strategies—such as relying on brand names and product price, or directly consulting a sales clerk to quickly obtain what was needed. Further support for the selectivity hypothesis comes from a study by Mitchell and Walsh (2004), which showed that males’ consumer decision making style was characterized most by a time-saving orienta- tion, whereas females’ decision making style reflected vari- ety-seeking and recreation. Put differently, males did not give their purchases much thought, did not want to spend much time shopping, and preferred the number of products in their consid- eration set to be limited. Females on the other hand enjoyed the activity of shopping itself, focused on the quality of products, and liked trying out new brands regularly. Thus, to summarize, there seems to be considerable support for the Selectivity Hy- pothesis’ main contention that males make consumer decisions in a heuristic way, whereas women base decisions on all as- pects of the available information. However, there are other factors that may influence informa- tion processing and advertising response. Not only do people differ in the amount of information they can and will process, but advertisements themselves can differ in the way products are described, that is, message claims will influence consumer decisions to a large extent. The claims in a message vary in the nature of the language that is used (Holbrook, 1978; Darley & Smith, 1993), and this in turn has effects on the ad’s persuasive quality. Broadly, two types of message claims can be distin- guished, termed by Holbrook (1978) as factual and evaluative messages. Factual message claims are defined as “logical, ob- jectively verifiable descriptions of tangible product features” (Holbrook, 1978: p. 547), for example: “This lawn mower has a purchase price of $78 and an average life span of 6 years”. In contrast, evaluative message claims are “emotional, subjective impressions of intangible aspects of the product” (Holbrook, 1978: p. 547). An example of an evaluative message would be: “This lawn mower has a surprisingly low purchase price and a lengthy life span”. In the current paper, we will use these terms to refer to the type of message claims used in promotion infor- mation. Most research on advertising claims has found that in general, factual claims are perceived as more credible than evaluative claims (Holbrook, 1978), and evaluative claims evoke more skepticism in consumers (Tan, 2002), and generate less cogni- tive resistance (Edell & Staelin, 1983). However, based on the selectivity hypothesis on gender differences in information processing, men and women are expected to react differently to these different message claims due to their different informa- tion processing styles. Specifically, women, being comprehen- sive processers, are expected to be more likely to attend to both factual and evaluative message claims, whereas men are ex- pected to attend primarily to factual messages, since these pro- vide an opportunity for quick, heuristic processing. A study by Darley and Smith (1995) showed that females showed evidence of being comprehensive processers, responding favorably to both evaluative and factual message claims in terms of ad credibility, argument quality, ad attitude, brand attitude, and purchase decisions. The study provided mixed support of the selectivity hypothesis for men: Like females, males responded equally positive to both the factual and the evaluative claims, and thus did not favor the factual claims as was predicted. The authors reason this could be due to the fact that both the factual and the evaluative claims contained equally salient cues which the males used as heuristics. However, and importantly, in Darley and Smith’s (1995) study, as in the Laroche et al. (2000) study mentioned above, the possible influence of the subject of the product or message, which in turn affects evaluation and consumer purchase deci- sions, was not taken into consideration. The ads used in Darley and Smith’s (1995) study were about ‘female’ products such as weighing scales and electric blankets, possibly causing men to feel less interested—which in turn may have led them to proc- ess the information less comprehensively. Similarly, the results from the Laroche et al. (2000) study show that “Shopping is still an activity in which the female plays a dominant role” (p. 504), suggesting that men might use heuristic cues when shop- ping for a gift because they are not interested in shopping itself. Thus, it may be that the reported differences can be at least in part attributed to gender differences in interests rather than to gender differences in information processing. Interest is com- monly referred to as involvement in the consumer psychology literature, and in the remainder of the paper we shall also use involvement when referring to product interest. To be specific, following Day (1970), involvement is defined as “the general level of interest in the object, or the centrality of the object to the person’s ego-structure” (p. 45). Indeed, research has shown (e.g. Petty & Cacioppo, 1979) that with increasing personal involvement, the likelihood that advertisements will be processed comprehensively also in- creases, whereas low involvement leads to heuristic processing. Based on the literature above, we therefore suggest that when involvement with a product or subject is low, people tend to process the information less comprehensively, and will be more likely to rely on evaluative arguments, since these contain an assessment of the qualities of the product and enable heuristic processing. Conversely, when one is highly involved with a product, advertisements should be processed more comprehen- sively, and factual arguments will be relied on for judgment. Moreover, involvement, in turn, is dependent on one’s gender, and we therefore expect male subjects to be more involved with a male product (i.e. a product aimed specifically at men), whereas female subjects will be most involved with a female product. We have chosen to use adolescents as participants in the cur- rent study. Adolescents as consumers have historically never been more influential than today—they are relatively affluent since most of them have some sort of income of their own and little or no fixed costs. Moreover, research has shown that in addition to making their own consumer decisions, adolescents also have a significant influence on family purchase decisions (Wang, Holloway, Beatty, & Hill, 2007). As stimuli material, we chose to devise magazine ads. With respect to advertising, teens, when asked to recommend the media they thought would be most effective for advertisers to reach them, ranked radio and magazines first, followed by cable television and time slots before movies in theaters. Furthermore, girls ranked magazines Copyright © 2013 SciRes. 548
K. MASSAR, A. P. BUUNK just after friends as the most important source of information on the latest trends, fashions, and lifestyle choices (Brown & Witherspoon, 2002). In the current study, to test our hypotheses we devised ads for magazines: two ads for a male magazine (sports) and two ads for a female magazine (youth general in- terest, e.g. fashion, celebrity gossip, relationships; Bügel & Buunk, 1996). For each type of magazine, one ad described the magazine in evaluative terms and one ad described the maga- zine in factual terms. In the study, type of magazine (hereafter referred to as subject) will be used as a within-subjects variable and message claim will be used as a between-subjects variable, resulting in each participant reading two magazine descriptions containing either factual or evaluative message claims. After reading the descriptions participants answer questions regarding their ad attitudes, product attitudes, and purchase intentions (based on Darley & Smith, 1995). Method Design and Participants Participants were 115 male and 127 female high school stu- dents from a high school in the northern part of The Nether- lands (Mean age = 17.3, SD = .92). They were randomly as- signed to a mixed 2 (participant gender: male/female) × 2 (message claim: evaluative/factual) × 2 (magazine subject: sports/youth) design, with magazine subject as a within-par- ticipants variable, and participant gender and message claim as between-participants variables. Since they were below the legal age of participating in psychological research, our participants, their parents, and the school director signed an informed con- sent form in which the procedure was explained, and anonymity was ensured. All materials and procedures were approved by an Ethics Committee of Psychology. Procedure & Materials The participants completed the questionnaire at their separate desks during a regular social studies class. The study was in- troduced as a survey on opinions about new magazines. The participants read two ads: one for a sports magazine and one for a youth magazine. The order was reversed for half of the par- ticipants. Both ads were either written in evaluative terms or in factual terms. After reading each ad, participants answered a number of questions to measure advertising response (based on Darley & Smith, 1995). Thus, they responded to the following dependent variables twice: Ad attitude was measured by asking participants to indicate on a 7-point scale ([1] = absolutely not, [7] = absolutely) how good, interesting, pleasant, amusing, and fascinating they thought the ad was. Coefficient alpha for these 5 items was .89 for the sport magazine ad and .90 for the youth magazine ad. It was therefore decided to average these items into the single variable Ad Attitude; Msports = 3.79 (SD = 1.16), Myouth = 3.81 (SD = 1.19). Product attitude was measured by asking participants to in- dicate on a 7-point scale ([1] = absolutely not, [7] = absolutely) how good, interesting, pleasant, amusing, and fascinating they thought the magazine they had read about was. Coefficient alpha for these items was .94 for the sport magazine ad and .95 for the youth magazine ad. It was therefore decided to average these items into the single variable Product Attitude; Msports = 4.10 (SD = 1.29), Myouth = 4.10 (SD = 1.30). To measure purchase intention, the participants indicated on a 7-point scale ([1] = definitely not, [7] = definitely) the prob- ability of buying the magazine when it became available, and the likelihood that they would recommend the magazine to a friend. These items were highly correlated (r = .65 for the sport magazine ad, and r = .79 for the youth magazine ad) and it was decided to combine them into a single variable, Purchase Inten- tion. Msports = 3.15 (SD = 1.59), Myouth = 3.38 (SD = 1.77). Finally, as a manipulation check, participants indicated on a 7-point scale ([1] = absolutely not, [7] = absolutely) how fac- tual and how evaluative they thought the ads were. These terms were briefly explained to the participants in the questionnaire booklet, by stating how an evaluative ad contains (value) judg- ments about a product’s qualities, whereas a factual ad only contains factual information but does not provide interpreta- tions or value judgments about this information. After com- pleting the questionnaire, participants were thanked for their participation and thoroughly debriefed. Results The hypotheses were tested in several repeated measures ANOVAs with gender (male/female), message claim (evalua- tive/factual) and subject (within participants: sports/youth) as the independent variables, and the manipulation check items, ad attitude, product attitude, and purchase intention as the de- pendent variables. For an overview of all means and SD’s, see Table 1. First, we performed manipulation checks. The analysis for the item “evaluative” showed a significant main effect of mes- sage claim: F(1, 235) = 70.29, η² = .23, p < .001. As expected, Table 1. Mean scores (and SD’s) on Ad Attitude, Product Attitude, and Purchase Intention for a factual or evaluative sports or youth magazine ad, as judged by males (N = 115) and females (N = 127). SubjectGender Factual Ad Evaluative Ad Ad Attitude Male 3.43 (1.14) 3.60 (1.08) Youth Female 4.40 (1.16) 3.72 (1.18) Male 3.87 (1.34) 3.85 (1.12) Sports Female 3.50 (1.07) 3.96 ( .29) Product Attitude Male 3.71 (1.34) 3.77 (1.29) Youth Female 4.73 (1.06) 4.06 (1.28) Male 4.36 (1.28) 4.12 (1.37) Sports Female 3.76 (1.17) 3.76 (1.25) Purchase Intention Male 2.83 (1.66) 2.54 (1.60) Youth Female 4.51 (1.45) 3.51 (1.69) Male 3.41 (1.73) 3.09 (1.64) Sports Female 2.84 (1.34) 3.31 (1.64) Copyright © 2013 SciRes. 549
K. MASSAR, A. P. BUUNK participants judged the evaluative ads as more evaluative (M = 4.63) than the factual ads (M = 3.17). Analysis for the item “factual” also revealed a main effect of message claim: F(1, 135) = 103.17, η² = .30, p < .001 Participants judged the factual ads as more factual (M = 5.42) than the evaluative ads (M = 3.65). Based on these results, it is concluded that the ads were judged as they were intended, and that further analyses were justified. The ANOVA on ad attitude yielded no significant main ef- fects (F’s < 2.84, ns), nor a significant two-way interaction between message claim and gender (F(1, 236) = .56, ns). How- ever, the two-way interaction between magazine subject and gender was significant (F(1, 236) = 16.95, η² = .07, p < .001), as was the two-way interaction between subject and message claim: F(1, 236) = 7.83, η² = .03, p < .01. Participants had a more positive attitude toward the evaluative than to the factual sports magazine ad, and a more positive attitude toward the factual than to the evaluative youth magazine ad. Finally, as predicted, the three-way interaction between gender, subject and message claim was highly significant: F(1, 236) = 15.38, η² = .06, p < .001 (for means, see Table 1). This interaction showed that Hypothesis 2 and 3 were confirmed for females: they had a more positive attitude towards the factual ad than towards the evaluative ad for the youth magazine (F(1, 125) 20.31, η² = .14, p < .001), i.e. towards an ad about a high in- volvement product. However, towards the sports magazine, they reported a more positive attitude towards the evaluative ad than towards the factual ad. Males did not differ in their atti- tudes toward evaluative and factual ads for either magazine (F(1, 113) = .98, ns), so for males the hypotheses could not be confirmed. Similar results were found for product attitude: no signifi- cant main effects (F’s < 2.86, ns), and no significant two-way interaction between message claim and gender (F(1, 237) = .002, ns). The two-way interaction between subject and gen- der was significant: F(1, 237) = 20.71, η² = .08, p < .001, as was the two-way interaction between subject and message claim: F(1, 237) = 4.68, η² = .02, p < .05. Both male and female participants had a more positive attitude toward the sports magazine when the ad was evaluative rather than factual, whereas they had a more positive attitude toward the youth magazine when the ad was factual rather than evaluative. Fi- nally, the three-way interaction between gender, subject and description was significant: F(1, 237) = 12.95, η² = .05, p < .001, revealing that again, Hypotheses 2 and 3 could be con- firmed for female participants. Females had a more positive attitude toward the youth magazine—a high involvement prod- uct for them—when the ad was factual rather than evaluative, but had a more positive attitude toward the sports magazine—a low involvement product—when the ad was evaluative rather than factual (F(1, 125) = 16.21, η² = .12, p < .001). For males, this interaction was not significant (F(1, 112) = 1.08, ns), and the hypotheses could not be confirmed. A purchase intention ANOVA yielded a significant main ef- fect for gender (F(1, 237) = 13.35, η² = .05, p < .001): female participants had a greater intention to buy magazines than male participants. No other main effects were significant (F’s < 3.31, ns). There were significant two-way interactions between gen- der and subject (F(1, 237) = 31.16, η² = .12, p < .001), and between subject and message claim: F(1, 237) = 6.99, η² = .03, p < .01. Participants had a larger intention to buy the youth magazine when the ad was factual rather than evaluative, whereas the reverse was true for the sports magazine. The two-way interaction between gender and description was not significant (F(1, 237) = .02, ns). Again, there was a significant three-way interaction: F(1, 237) = 8.51, η² = .04, p < .01. Fe- male participants reported a higher purchase intention for the youth magazine when the ad was factual rather than evaluative (F(1, 125) = 14.51, η² = .10, p < .001), whereas they indicated a higher purchase intention for the sports magazine when the message claims in the ad were evaluative as opposed to factual. Again, for male participants, this interaction was not significant (F(1, 112) = .04, ns), and only magazine subject influenced their purchase intentions. Male participants were more likely to buy a sports magazine than a youth magazine. Discussion Research based on the selectivity hypothesis has previously reported gender differences in the information processing of ads (e.g., Meyers-Levy, 1989; Darley & Smith, 1995), and authors have suggested these differences could be attributed to females’ more comprehensive information processing and males’ ten- dency to rely on salient cues and heuristics. The current study has attempted to add to this literature by investigating whether the type of product—or more specifically, participants’ level of involvement with a certain product—also influences ad and product judgments and purchase intentions. The current results support our hypotheses: in addition to message claims, we found that indeed, product involvement plays a role in determining advertising response among males and females. In other words, we suggest that the subject of the message largely influences which information will be processed. More specifically, we found that when the ad contained a de- scription of a high involvement product, females were per- suaded most by factual information, whereas when the ad con- tained a description of a low involvement product, they were more likely to be persuaded by evaluative information. This result fits in with research by Brunel and Nelson (2000, 2003), who reported that when participants were told that they were participating in a copy-testing study for a real international aid agency, and that their responses would be essential to the re- search—i.e., when high involvement was induced—ads were scrutinized on their content and assessed for a fit with one’s attitudes and values. Their results showed that both males and females rated ads that were congruent with their world-view values more positively than ads that were incongruent with their values. However, and contrary to our expectations, in the current study males were not to such an extent as females influenced by the way in which low and high involvement products were described, i.e. by the type of message claim. Although males overall did indicate a more positive attitude toward the “male” subject—the sports magazine—the results suggest that this judgment was not influenced by the description of the adver- tisements: males were persuaded by both evaluative and factual message claims. This finding however is consistent with results from other investigations into gender differences in information processing. For example, Darley & Smith (1995) also found that males showed consistent response patterns over the two levels of product risk that were induced. These authors showed no significant differences in responses to objective (factual) and subjective (evaluative) claims for four out of five measures, although also no product preference emerged, which could be due to the use of primarily female products (electric blanket and Copyright © 2013 SciRes. 550
K. MASSAR, A. P. BUUNK weighing scale). Apparently, then, men’s purchase intention depends more on the product (high or low involvement) than on the way this product is described in the advertisements. This has also been found by Alreck, Settle, and Belch (1982), who showed that generally, men preferred masculine soap brands and did not readily accept female soap brands, especially when they held strong attitudes about gender roles. However, an alternative explanation for this finding might be that, even though we have taken care to choose subjects for the magazines that would appeal both to females and males, females generally are more interested in magazines than males. Indeed, as the results indi- cated, females did report a greater overall purchase intention, and previous research has also shown that females consider magazines more often as sources of information than males do (Brown &Witherspoon, 2002). Thus, in this sense, the in- volvement of our male participants could have been lower than we intended, which in turn could have caused them to consider merely the product rather than the message claims. Moreover, the result also fits in with research by Mitchell and Walsh (2004) who found that men’s consumer behavior is character- ized by a time-saving orientation. Perhaps males are focused only on finding a product they prefer, focusing only on this factor, and, as it were, ignoring the way the product is described or sold to them. This issue should be investigated in future re- search. Based on these results, we suggest that it is not gender per se that influences information processing style, but one’s level of product involvement, and the way the product is presented, i.e. the message claims that are made in the ad. This conclusion has consequences for the marketing practice. Marketers should not only take the “gender” of the product they are selling into con- sideration, but also how they would advertise this product to males or females (see also Buunk & Dijkstra, 2011). As the current study suggests, a male product advertised to a female audience requires a different description than a female product for the same audience. For the male target group it seems not to matter in which way the product is described: males in general seem to favor a male product rather than a female product, in- dependent of the description. Limitations and Future Research As with any empirical study, the current one has several limitations that need to be addressed. Since this study was conducted among high school students, the current study may not be representative of the broad range of today’s consumers. Variables like social class and income may have an impact on ad evaluation and preferences. It is therefore important that this study is replicated with “real” consumers, and preferably with consumers from different ethnicities and cultures. Moreover, the current study focuses only on written ads. Nowadays, con- sumers are confronted with a vast amount of persuasive mes- sages, on the radio, in newspapers and magazines, on the tele- vision, and, not unimportantly, on the internet. Future studies should investigate the combined effects of message claims, gender and the subject of the advertisements to determine whether it is possible to generalize the results reported here to different media. Finally, the choice of product—magazines— could have influenced the results as women are in general more interested in reading magazines than men, causing them to be more involved with the ads. The results from the current study provide several implica- tions for future research. In the current study a male and a fe- male topic were compared, and the results suggest that this comparison is a useful theoretical method to test the influence of the subject on the way of information processing. However, although the results clearly indicate that women were more interested in the youth magazine and men in the sports maga- zine, this assumption was not explicitly tested. In future re- search, it is important to explicitly ask participants about their interests and preferably tailor the ads to these, in addition to controlling for their level of interest in the issue at hand: do the reported differences disappear when controlling for interest? Moreover, research using gender neutral topics would be an addition to the insights of this study. If females and males do not use different information processing strategies, or focus on different types of message claims when evaluating an ad for a gender neutral subject, this would strengthen the assumption that one’s involvement with the product described in the mes- sage is responsible for the way of information processing, and not gender. One of the central hypotheses of the current study was that males and females respond differently to evaluative and factual information under the influence of their involve- ment with the product advertised. One further test of this hy- pothesis is to design advertisements—for male, female, and neutral subjects—that contain both evaluative and factual ar- guments. Message recall could then be a way to determine which type of claims appeal most to which gender, and for which subject. And, finally, future research should focus on the information processing strategies of males: which factors de- termine the finding that females do make a difference between message claims about products within and outside their area of interests and males do not? Conclusion To conclude, the current study shows that when an ad con- tained a description of a high involvement product, females were persuaded most by factual information, whereas when the ad contained a description of a low involvement product, they were more likely to be persuaded by evaluative information. For males, the results were less clear. Although males overall did indicate a more positive attitude toward the male subject, they were persuaded equally by evaluative and factual informa- tion. The current study clearly shows that gendered advertising responses exist, and that they interact with message claims, and that marketers would benefit from designing ads for females differently than ads for men. REFERENCES Alexander, G. M., Wilcox, T., & Woods, R. (2009). Sex differences in infants’ visual interest in toys. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38, 427-433. doi:10.1007/s10508-008-9430-1 Alreck, P. L., Settle, R. B., & Belch, M. A. (1982). Who responds to “gendered” ads, and how? Masculine brands versus feminine brands. Journal of Advertising Research, 22 , 25-32. Brown, J. D., & Witherspoon, E. M. (2002). The mass media and American adolescents’ health. Journal of Adolescent Health, 31, 153-170. doi:10.1016/S1054-139X(02)00507-4 Brunel, F. F., & Nelson, M. R. (2000). Explaining gendered responses to “help-self” and “help-others” charity adappeals: The mediating role of world-views. Journal of Advertising, 29, 15-28. doi:10.1080/00913367.2000.10673614 Copyright © 2013 SciRes. 551
K. MASSAR, A. P. BUUNK Copyright © 2013 SciRes. 552 Brunel, F. F., & Nelson, M. R. (2003). Message order effects and gen- der differences in advertising persuasion. Journal of Advertising Re- search, 43, 330-341. doi:10.1017/S0021849903030320 Bügel, K., & Buunk, B. P. (1996). Sex differences in foreign language text comprehension: The role of interests and prior knowledge. The Modern Language Journal, 80, 15-31. Buunk, A. P., & Dijkstra, P. (2011). Does attractiveness sell? Women’s attitude towards a product as a function of model attractiveness, gender priming and social comparison orientation. Psychology and Marketing, 28, 958-973. doi:10.1002/mar.20421 Darley, W., & Smith, R. (1993). Advertising claim objectivity: Ante- cedents and effects. Journal of Marketing, 57, 100-113. doi:10.2307/1252222 Darley, W., & Smith, R. (1995). Gender differences in information processing strategies: An empirical test of the selectivity model in advertising responses. Journal of Advertising, 24, 41-56. doi:10.1080/00913367.1995.10673467 Day, G. S. (1970). Buyer attitudes and brand choice. New York: Free Press. Eccles, J., Wigfield, A., Harold, R. D., & Blumenfeld, P. (1993). Age and gender differences in children’s self- and task perceptions during elementary school. Child Development, 64, 830-847. Edell, J. A., & Staelin, R. (1983). The information processing of pic- tures in print advertisements. The Journal of Consumer Research, 10, 45-61. doi:10.2307/1131221 Holbrook, M. B. (1978). Beyond attitude structure: Toward the infor- mational determinants of attitude. Journal of Marketing Research, 15, 545-556. doi:10.2307/3150624 Kottler, P., & Keller, K. L. (2006). Marketing management (12th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Laroche, M., Saad, G., Cleveland, M., & Browne, E. (2000). Gender differences in information search strategies for a Christmas gift. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 17, 500-524. doi:10.1108/07363760010349920 Lippa, R. A. (2010). Gender differences in personality and interests: When, where, and why? Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4, 1098-1110. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00320.x Meyers-Levy, J. (1989), Gender differences in information processing: A selectivity interpretation. In P. Cafferata, & A. M. Tybout (Eds.), Cognitive and affective responses to advertising. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books/DC Heath & Com. Meyers-Levy, J., & Maheswaran, D., (1991). Exploring differences in males’ and females’ processing strategies. Journal of Consumer Re- search, 18, 63-70. doi:10.1086/209241 Meyers-Levy, J., & Sternthal, B. (1991). Gender differences in the use of message cues and judgments. Journal of Marketing Research, 28, 84-96. doi:10.2307/3172728 Mitchell, V. W., & Walsh, G. (2004). Gender differences in German consumer decision-making styles. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 3, 331-346. doi:10.1002/cb.146 Nysveen, H., Pedersen, P. E., & Thorbjørnsen, H. (2005). Explaining intention to use mobile chat services: Moderating effects of gender. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 22, 247-256. doi:10.1108/07363760510611671 Petty, R., & Cacioppo, J. (1979). Issue involvement can increase or decrease persuasion by enhancing message-relevant cognitive re- sponses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1915- 1926. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.37.10.1915 Slama, M. E., & Williams, T. G. (1990). Generalization of the market maven’s information provision tendency across product categories. In: M. E. Goldberg, G. Gorn, & R. W. Pollay (Eds.), Advances in consumer research (Vol. 17, pp. 48-52). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research. Tan, S. J. (2002). Can consumers’ skepticism be mitigated by claim objectivity and claim extremity? Journal of Marketing Communica- tions, 8, 45-64. doi:10.1080/13527260210122097 Trainor, S., Delfabbro, P., Anderson, S., & Winefield, A. (2010). Lei- sure activities and adolescent psychological well-being. Journal of Adolescence, 33, 173-186. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2009.03.013 Wang, S., Holloway, B. B., Beatty, S. E., & Hill, W. W. (2007). Ado- lescent influence in family purchase decisions: An update and cross- national extension. Journal of Business Research, 60, 1117-1124. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.04.004 Wolin, L. D. (2003). Gender issues in advertising—An over sight. Synthesis of research: 1970-2002. Journal of Advertising Research, 43, 111-129.
|