1. Christian Dianoux CEREFIGE - University of Paul Verlaine-Metz - France Zdenek Linhart Czech University of Life Sciences Prague Galjina Ognjanov Faculty of Economics - University of Belgrade - Serbia

2.  Lutz, MacKenzie et Belch, 1983 ha ve shown the importance of Aad on attitude toward the brand (dual mediation hypothesis) Cad Aad Cb Ab Ib

3.  MacKenzie and Lutz (1989) found that Aad is notably influenced among several factors by Attitude toward advertising in general : AG Aad  Moreover, AG is seen as a multi-dimensional concept like attitudes toward the institution or the instrument (Muehling, 1987)

4.  In an international context, the question is : ◦ is AG constant in all countries?  The answer is apparently NO  The researches which have focused on show a difference between countries: ◦ Russia and USA (Andrews et al., 1994) ◦ Denmark, New Zealand, Greece and India (Durvasula et al. 1993) ◦ Singapore and India (Durvasula et al., 1999)

5.  So, our first hypothesis is: ◦ H1: AG differ s significantly between European countries

6.  In addition, AG may be more favorable in the countries with a shorter history of advertising practice and less developed advertising industry as shown by Andrews et al. (1994) between Russia and USA ◦ H2: In Europe, AG is more positive in less developed market economies of Eastern Europe than in more developed market economies.

7.  Finally, Mehta (2000) has shown that positive AG is linked with positive Aad.  We can advance that it is true in an international context and formulate: ◦ H3: Regardless the country, positive AG is followed by positive Aad with more positive AG leading to more positive Aad and vice versa.

8.  Countries studied: Czech Republic, France, Serbia and Spain. ◦ France and Spain  Both are representing developed market economies of Western Europe  Advertising ha s a longer history ◦ Czech Republic and Serbia  Both are sharing similar economic and social values deeply rooted in all former socialist economies of the Eastern Europe  Advertising ha s a shorter history

9.  The sample is based on students due to their homogeneity which is acknowledged highly important (Durvasula, 1993).  The main measures ◦ Muehling’s scale (1987) to measure the overall AG ◦ Durvasula et al.’s scale (1993) to measure attitude institution and attitude instrument ◦ Durvasula et al.’s Scale (1999) to measure the beliefs on economic issues and on social issues ◦ Mehta’s scale (2000) ◦ Coulter (1998) to measure Aad

10.  The process: ◦ 1- During a business course respondents from each country were asked to answer some questions about AG ◦ 2- When they have finished reading a mock-up magazine, they ha d to open a folder with hidden ad for a mobile phone ◦ 3- they had to answer some questions about the ad and verbal measures of their affective reactions

11. H1 is confirmed. Except for first item, there are globally significant differences between countries (p.<0.05) AG in France, Spain, Czech Republic and Serbia differ significantly.

12. H2: In Europe, AG is more positive in less developed market economies of Eastern Europe than in more developed market economies. H2 is partially confirmed because the figures show a trend conform with H2: AG for CR and Serbia > AG for Spain and France but post hoc tests shown that it is rarely significant at p.<0.05

13. H3: Regardless the country, the more positive AG the more positive Aad and vice versa. H3 is partially confirmed because: All correlations between AG and Aad are positive H3 is validated for all countries but not for each country separately

14.  We can resume our hypotheses: H1: AG in France, Spain, Czech Republic and Serbia differ significantly Confirmed H2: AG is more positive in less developed market economies of Eastern Europe than in more developed market economies of Western Europe Partially H3: Regardless the country, more positive AG leading to more positive Aad and vice versa Partially

15.  Three principal limits: ◦ The size of the sample ◦ Need for more countries to reinforce our results ◦ Need for more advertising to study correlations between AG and Aad

16. Possible explanation through Hofstede STO LTO IDV – CZ, SE? (Lost personality in new entreprenerial legal forms) PDI – CZ, SE? (Socialism and state capitalism) MAS – FR, SP? (Enron, Lehman Brothers a poprivatisation cases) UA – FR, SP? Saving national packages, collections for Greece and Ireland and unlimited power of executors and officers