Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An empirical analysis of spokesperson characteristics on advertisement and product evaluations

  • Published:
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article reports the results of an experimental investigation of the influence of a communicator’s characteristics on respondent’s evaluation of an advertisement when the communicator is in the role of a spokesperson. Specifically, the author assesses the impact of the physical attractiveness, sex and race of a spokesperson, the sex of the respondent and product advertised on respondent’s attitude toward the advertisement, and respondent’s perceptions of the advertised product.

The results presented indicate that the effectiveness of the factors mentioned are dependent on the specific objective of the communication. A main effect of physical attractiveness was noted on a subject’s attitude toward the advertisement, on perceptions of product quality and intent to purchase. The sex of the communicator impacted on a subject's perception of product quality and interacted with the race of the communicator to effect the intent to purchase variable. Race was shown to effect the subject’s perception of product quality. A main effect of the sex of the subject was noted for the cognition variable.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Baker, Michael J. and Gilbert A. Churchill, Jr. 1977. “The Impact of Physically Attractive Models on Advertising Evaluations.”Journal of Marketing Research XIV (November): 538–555.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barban, Arnold and Edward W. Cundiff 1964. “Negro and White Response to Advertising Stimuli.”Journal of Marketing Research 1 (November): 53–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barban, Arnold M. 1969. “The Dilemma of Integrated Advertising.”The Journal of Business of the University of Chicago 42 (October): 477–496.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benoy, Joseph W. “The Credibility of Physically Attractiveness Communicators: A Review.”Journal of Advertising 11: 15–24.

  • Berscheid, E.K. and E. Walster 1974. “Physical Attractiveness.” In L. Berkowitz, ed.Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Block, Carl E. 1972. “White Backlash to Negro Ads: Fact or Fantasy?”Journalism Quarterly 49 (Summer): 253–262.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bush, Ronald F., Joseph F. Hair, Jr., and Paul J. Solomon 1979. “‘Consumers’ Level of Prejudice and Response to Black Models in Advertisements.”Journal of Marketing Research 16 (August): 341–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caballero, Marjorie and William M. Pride 1984. “Selected Effects of Salesperson Sex and Attractiveness in Direct Mail Advertisements.”Journal of Marketing (Winter): 94–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caballero, Marjorie and Paul J. Solomon 1984. “Effects of Model Attractiveness on Sales Response.”Journal of Advertising 13 (1): 17–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cagley, James W. and Richard N. Cardozo 1970. “White Responses to Integrated Advertising.”Journal of Marketing Research 10 (April): 35–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cavior, N. 1970. “Physical Attractiveness, Perceived Attitude Similarity, and Interpersonal Attraction Among Fifth and Eleventh Grade Boys and Girls.” Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Houston.

  • Clifford, M.M. and E. Walster. 1973. “The Effect of Physical Attractiveness on Teacher Expectations.”Sociology of Education 46: 248–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Debevec, Kathleen and Jerome B. Keman 1984. “More Evidence on the Effects of a Presenter’s Physical Attractiveness.”Advances in Consumer Research. Thomas Kinnear, ed., 11: 127–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dion, Karen K. and E. Berscheid 1972. “Physical Attractiveness and Social Perception of Peers in Preschool Children.” Unpublished Research Report available from the authors.

  • Dion, Karen K., E. Berscheid, and E. Walster 1972. “What is Beautiful is Good.”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 24: 285–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frieden, Jon B. 1984. “Advertising Spokesperson Effects: An Examination of Endorser Type and Gender on Two Audiences.”Journal of Advertising Research 24 (October/November): 33–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, Paul 1978.Analyzing Multivariate Data. Hinsdale, Illinois: The Dryden Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guest, Lester 1979. “How Negro Models Affect Company Image.”Journal of Marketing Research 10 (April): 29–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hair Jr,, Joseph F. et al. 1979.Multivariate Data Analysis. Tulsa, Oklahoma: Petroleum Publishing Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horai, J., N. Naccari and E. Fatoullah 1974. “The Effects of Expertise and Physical Attractiveness Upon Opinion Agreement and Liking.”Sociometry 37: 601–606.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Humphrey, Ronald and Howard Schuman 1984. “The Portrayal of Blacks in Magazine Advertisements: 1950–1982.”Public Opinion Quarterly 48 (Fall): 551–563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacoby, Jacob 1978. “Consumer Research: A State of the Art Review”,Journal of Marketing 42 (April): 87–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahle, Lynn R. and Pamela M. Homer 1985. “Physical Attractiveness of the Celebrity Endorser: A Social Adaptation Perspective.”Journal of Consumer Research 11 (March): 954–961.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kanungo, R.N. and S. Pang 1973. “Effects of Human Models on Perceived Product Quality.”Journal of Applied Psychology 57: 172–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, Harold 1973. “The Processes of Causal Attribution.”American Psychologist 28: 107–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landy, D. and H. Sigall 1974. “Beauty is Talent: Task Evaluation as a Function of the Performer’s Physical Attractiveness.”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 29: 299–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, A.G. 1978. “Role of Physical Attractiveness in Impression Formation.”Psychonomic Science, 103–110.

  • Muse, William W. 1971. “Product-Related Response to Use of Black Models in Advertising.”Journal of Marketing Research 8 (February): 107–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olson, Jerry C. 1974. “Cue Properties of Price: Literature Review and Theoretical Considerations.” Paper No. 20, Working Series in Marketing Research, College of Business Administration, Pennsylvania State University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patzer, Gordon L. 1983a. “Product Perception as a Function of Communicator Sex.” Educators’Proceedings. Patrick E. Murphy et al., ed., Chicago: American Marketing Association, 41–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • —, 1983b. “An Experiment Investigating the Influence of Communicator Physical Attractiveness on Attitudes,” Educators’Proceedings. Patrick E. Murphy et al., ed., Chicago: American Marketing Association, 25–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, Robert A. and Roger A. Kerin 1977. “The Female Rose in Advertisements: Some Experimental Evidence.”Journal of Marketing (October): 59–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richmond, David and Timothy P. Hartman 1982. “An Exploratory Study of Sex Appeal in Advertising.”Journal of Marketing Research 22: 5 (October/November): 53–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlinger, Mary Jane and Joseph T. Plummer 1972. “Advertising in Black and White.”Journal of Marketing Research 9 (May): 149–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sibley, Stanley D., Ralph B. Weller and Eldon L. Little 1982. “An Exploratory Study of the Effect of the Female Model Upon Respondents’ Evaluations of Simulated Television Advertisements and Products”.Proceedings. Southern Marketing Association Annual Conference, John H. Summey et al., eds. 22–24.

  • Smith, G.H. and R. Engel 1968. “Influence of a Female Model on Perceived Characteristics of an Automobile.”Proceedings. 76th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, 3: 681–682.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snyder, Mark and Myron Rothbart 1971. “Communicator Attractiveness and Opinion Change.”Canadian Journal of the Behavioral Sciences 3 (October): 377–387.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solomon, Paul J., Ronald F. Bush and Joseph F. Hair, Jr. 1976. “White and Black Consumer Sales Response to Black Models.”Journal of Marketing Research (November): 431–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Solomon, Paul J. and Ronald F. Bush 1977. “Effects of Black Models in Television Advertising on Product Choice Behavior.” InContemporary Marketing Thought. Bamett A. Greenberg and Danny N. Bellenger, eds., Chicago: American Marketing Association, 19–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stafford, James E., Al E. Birdwell and Charles E. Van Tussel 1970. “Integrated Advertising—White Backlash?”Journal of Advertising Research 10 (April): 15–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steadman, M. 1969. “How Sexy Illustration Affect Brand Recall.”Journal of Advertising Research 9 (February):15–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tolley, Stuart and John T. Goett 1972. “Reactions to Blacks in Newspaper Ads.”Journal of Marketing Research 11 (April): 11–17.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, USA

    Susan M. Petroshius & Kenneth E. Crocker

Authors
  1. Susan M. Petroshius
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kenneth E. Crocker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Petroshius, S.M., Crocker, K.E. An empirical analysis of spokesperson characteristics on advertisement and product evaluations. JAMS 17, 217–225 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02729813

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02729813

Keywords

Search

Navigation