2013. Vol.4, No.7, 547-552
Published Online July 2013 in SciRes (
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
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
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).
Genderin addition to age, marital status, income, and educa-
tionis 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 categoricalthey 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-
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 strategiessuch 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-
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 interestedwhich 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
We have chosen to use adolescents as participants in the cur-
rent study. Adolescents as consumers have historically never
been more influential than todaythey 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.
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).
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.
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)
Female 4.40 (1.16) 3.72 (1.18)
Male 3.87 (1.34) 3.85 (1.12)
Female 3.50 (1.07) 3.96 ( .29)
Product Attitude
Male 3.71 (1.34) 3.77 (1.29)
Female 4.73 (1.06) 4.06 (1.28)
Male 4.36 (1.28) 4.12 (1.37)
Female 3.76 (1.17) 3.76 (1.25)
Purchase Intention
Male 2.83 (1.66) 2.54 (1.60)
Female 4.51 (1.45) 3.51 (1.69)
Male 3.41 (1.73) 3.09 (1.64)
Female 2.84 (1.34) 3.31 (1.64)
Copyright © 2013 SciRes. 549
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
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 magazinea high involvement prod-
uct for themwhen the ad was factual rather than evaluative,
but had a more positive attitude toward the sports magazinea
low involvement productwhen 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.
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 productor more specifically, participants’ level of
involvement with a certain productalso 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-
searchi.e., when high involvement was inducedads 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”
subjectthe sports magazinethe 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.
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-
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 productmagazines
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 advertisementsfor male, female, and
neutral subjectsthat 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?
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.
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.
Copyright © 2013 SciRes. 551
Copyright © 2013 SciRes.
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.
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.
Day, G. S. (1970). Buyer attitudes and brand choice. New York: Free
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.
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.
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.
Wolin, L. D. (2003). Gender issues in advertising—An over sight.
Synthesis of research: 1970-2002. Journal of Advertising Research,
43, 111-129.