Who Cares About Dads In Ads And Why? Gender Similarities And Differences In Effectiveness and Elaboration Of Advertisements Which Use (non)traditional Male Portrayals. Magdalena Zawisza, PhD; The University of Winchester & Marco Cinnirella, PhD; Royal Holloway, University of London Research sponsored by Thomas Holloway & RKT Researcher Grants IAREP Conference, Rome, 5 Sept 2008

2 Research questions Three main research questions were investigated: 1. Which ads (traditional vs non-traditional) are more effective? 2. What is the role of gender attitudes in the effectiveness of gendered ads? 3. Who elaborates such advertisements and why?  Traditionals or Liberals?  Women or Men?

3 1. Which ads are more effective? - predicting main Ad Type effects (AT) Early theorising (Fiske & Stevens, 1993; Eagly, Mladanic & Otto, 1991) Any diversion from the prescriptive element of traditional gender stereotype will result in negative responses. Prediction: Bm > Hh Recent theorising (Fiske, Cuddy, Glick & Xu, 2002) What really matters is not so much breaking (gender) stereotypes but their content Exemplars of paternalistic stereotypes are liked more (but respected less) than exemplars of envious ones Prediction: Bm<Hh

4 (mixed/ ambivalent) Stereotype Content Model (Fiske, et al. 2002; Clausell & Fiske, 2005; Cuddy, Fiske & Glick, 2008) Warmth Competence Paternalistic stereotypes Contemptuous stereotypes Admiration stereotypes Envious stereotypes Househusband (Hh) Housewife Businessman (Bm) Businesswoman

5 1. Which ads are more effective? - predicting main Ad Type effects (AT) Given that:  series of past research shows the applicability of the SCM over traditional theorising on gender to advertising context (Zawisza, 2006)  Hh type is an example of paternalistic stereotype which is liked (but not respected) (Eckes, 2002), and that  Ad liking has been identified as one of the most important factors in ad effectiveness (Du Plessis, 2005), We propose a Stereotype Content Hypothesis:  H1: Non-traditinal ad strategies (paternalistic Hh portrayals) will be more effective than traditional ones (envious Bm portrayals) (H1: Hh > Bm)

6 2. What is the role of gender attitudes in ad effectiveness? - predicting AT x GA interaction Previous research has returned inconsistent results where gender-related variables were found:  predictive of ad effectiveness by some researchers (Ford & Latour, 1993; Jaffe, 1991, 1992; Morrison & Shaffer, 2003) but  not predictive of ad effectiveness by others ( Bellizzi & Milner, 1991; Garst & Bodenhousen, 1997; Zawisza, 2006) However, Social Judgement Theory (Sherif & Hovland, 1961) suggests that if the ad uses a counter-attitudinal appeal, it could be rejected, which will in turn decrease the ad effectiveness. Therefore we propose The Match Hypothesis which predicts Ad Type x Gender Attitude interaction: H2: Liberals will prefer Progressive (Hh) ads while Traditionals will favour Traditional ones. H2a: Tr: Bm>Hh & H2b: Lb: Hh>Bm

3. 1. Who elaborates such ads to a greater extent: Traditionals or Liberals? - testing AT x GA x AS interaction Watch-dog hypothesis (Devine, 1989)  Liberal individuals elaborate message from stigmatised source to a greater extent than Traditional ones (as they want to prevent prejudice). Petty, White & Flaming (1999) confirmed Watch-dog H. for stigmatised minority sources (Afro-Americans and Homosexuals). Non-traditional males are also stigmatised (Brescoll & Uhlmann, 2005; Rost, 2002) Thus the Watch-dog Hypothesis here predicts Ad Type x Gender Attitude x Argument Strength interaction: H3: Liberals should elaborate the ‘non-traditional’ ads to a greater extent (higher thoughts number) when the arguments in it are weak  than when they are strong (H3a: Lib: Hh: W>S)  than Traditionals (H3b: Hh:W: Lib>Trad) 7

3. 2. Who elaborates such advertisements and why: Liberal Men or Women? – testing the moderating role of gender Meyers-Levy ‘s (1989) Selectivity Hypothesis suggests that:  M & W have different processing strategies: M are ‘selective (heuristic) processors’ and W are ‘comprehensive processors’  Thus, the elaboration threshold for women is higher than for men. This gender difference in processing has been demonstrated in:  children and adults alike (McGivern et al., 2002) and  in advertising (Putrevu, 2001, 2004). Thus we propose gender is a moderator of the watch-dog hypothesis such that:  H4: The elaboration processes described by the watch-dog hypothesis will only emerge for W but not M. 8

9 Methods & Procedures Sample  N = 214 (students)  108 F &106 M  Average age 21  72% white British  47% studied psychology Mixed Factorial Design  2 (Ad Type) - WS  x2 (Argument Strength) - WS  x2 (Gender Attitude)- BS Analysis  Mixed 3 way ANOVA separately for M & W Instructions, Demographics & Consent Ad Hh1/Hh2 (self-paced) Number of Thoughts Ad and Brand responses Attitudes & Ambivalence to Men Debrief Ad Bm1/Bm2 (self-paced) Number of Thoughts Ad and Brand responses

10 Stimuli Pre-selection:  Ads: competence & warmth, traditional vs progressive; feminine vs masculine roles and attractiveness  Arguments: 4 strong and 4 weak;  Products: low-involving and unisex Manipulation checks: Ad Type and Arguments Strength confirmed Progressive (Hh) Traditional (Bm)

Outcomes: Stereotype Content & Match Hypotheses - Ad Effectiveness: affect, cognitions & PI Affect: AT_W: F(1,67)=6.641, p <.01 AT:_M: F(1,77)=8.52, p<.01 AT x GA: ns Judgments: AT_W: F(1,67)=13.346, p <.001 AT_M: F(1,77)=13.137, p<.001 AT x GA: ns Purchase Intent: no sign. effects but PI correlated positively and sign with Affect and Judgement (rs>.56)

12 Outcomes: Watchdog & Selectivity Hypotheses - Ad Elaboration: number of thoughts Women Men Sign ATxGAxAS interaction for W on Thought #: F(1,65)=16.622, p <.001: Lib: Hh: W>S, p Trad, p<.001 Ns ATxGAxAS interaction for M on Thought #: F(1,75)=1.546, p =.218:

13 Conclusions Support for SCM: Hh portrayals (paternalistic stereotypes) are more effective than Bm (envious stereotypes) in terms of ad affect and judgements for both genders Support for Watch-dog h: Liberals elaborate messages from Hh to a greater extent than Traditionals Support for Selectivity Hypothesis: the Watchdog h. held for women only, who, being ‘comprehensive processors’, have higher elaboration threshold compared to men who are ‘heuristic’ processors

14 Practical Implications Non-traditional ad strategies involving male characters can be more effective than the traditional ones for both men and women. Using gender attitudes to predict the effectiveness of gendered ads may be problematic. Thus:  other, less sensitive to egalitarian norms, gender related concepts should be used (e.g. gender identity) Ads targeted at Liberal women should use central as well as simple cues for persuasion (since the non- traditional male gender role ad messages were elaborated to higher extent by this group)

15 Limitations & Further Directions Student sample – may be more egalitarian then the general sample and thus the watch-dog hypothesis may not hold for less egalitarian women. Female gender role attitudes and stereotypes - there is some evidence that non-traditional males are stigmatised to greater extent then non-traditional females. Thus the watch-dog hypothesis, which depends on the strength of egalitarian norms, may not hold for non- traditional ad types featuring female characters. Manipulation of involvement – the outcomes here may not hold for high-involving products where simple cues (AT, GA) may play little role SCM predictions – envious stereotypes may be more effective with high-involving products where respecting (and not so much liking) the model could be more desirable

16 Thank you