Kmen+Weinzirl Master Thesis
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Stockholm School of Economics Institute of Marketing & Strategy Master Thesis Spring 2013 RETOUCHED! A quantitative study on how the digital modification of models in print advertisements affects consumer reactions The display of highly attractive models in advertising and the negative psychological effects the exposure to such unattainable beauty ideals has on consumers is a controversial topic that is widely discussed in literature. Current scandals related to digitally manipulating models fuel the debate. This raises the question why marketers retouch models in the first place. No empirical research has yet proved whether digitally idealizing the body of an already attractive female model in print advertisements leads to increased perceived attractiveness ratings or more positive consumer reactions. Thus, the purpose of this study is to fill this research gap by exploring whether the positive effects that marketers claim idealized advertising imagery to have on advertising effectiveness truly exist. This is done by digitally manipulating the looks of a female model according to standards common in the industry. Two print advertisements where this decorative model promotes either an appearance-related product (razor) or and appearance-unrelated product (vitamin water) are created. In a quantitative laboratory experiment a total sample of 422 Romanian students is exposed to one of the product ads, in one of three ad conditions: an ad showing the untouched model, an ad showing the retouched model, or an ad showing the product-only. Subsequently, a questionnaire assesses their reactions in terms of cognitive responses, attitudes and intentions. There is evidence that the idealization of female models in print advertisements fails to produce higher levels of ad, brand and product attitude, product intention, willingness to pay a higher price or word of mouth intention, at a statistically significant level. The only statistically significant difference was found for the product and brand recall of the appearance-unrelated product (vitamin water), where the retouched model led to a higher cognitive response. Keywords: retouching, Photoshop practices, female model attractiveness, decorative models, advertising effectiveness Authors: Tutor: Madalina Kmen (40360) Hanna Berg Andrea Weinzirl (40290) Examiner: Discussants: Jonas Colliander Frida Fogström (21700) Malin Sundqvist (21124) Presentation: May 30, 2013 Retouched! Kmen & Weinzirl 2013 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We would like to thank our tutor Hanna Berg for her input, inspiration and guidance throughout the semester, our expert interviewees Alexandru Malaescu, Art Director of BBDO Bucharest as well as Tudor Bercea and Andrei Stoica, Graphic Designers, for providing us with invaluable insight into their fields of expertise the Canadian fashion retailer Jacob for allowing us to use their untouched model pictures the professors at The Bucharest University of Economic Studies, Bucharest National School of Political Sciences, Bucharest University of Agronomic Science and Veterinary Medicine, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration Iasi and Grigore T. Popa Faculty of Medicine Iasi for letting us conduct the survey during their classes all participants of our pre-studies and main experiment for taking the time and effort to help us with our research and everyone else who supported us on our journey. Thank you very much! Madalina Kmen & Andrea Weinzirl i Retouched! Kmen & Weinzirl 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................................1 1.1 Background ...........................................................................................................................................1 1.1.1 The Increasing Popularity of Digital Manipulation............................................................1 1.1.2 The Idealization of Female Models and Related Negative Effects...................................2 1.1.3 Movements against Digital Manipulation............................................................................3 1.2 Problematization...................................................................................................................................5 1.3 Purpose and Relevance .......................................................................................................................7 1.4 Expected Knowledge Contribution...................................................................................................7 1.5 Delimitations .........................................................................................................................................8 1.6 Definitions and Clarifications.............................................................................................................9 1.7 Thesis Outline .....................................................................................................................................10 2 THEORY AND HYPOTHESES GENERATION .......................................................................11 2.1 The Physical Attractiveness Phenomenon.....................................................................................11 2.1.1 Physical Attractiveness in Advertising...............................................................................12 2.1.2 Consequences of the Exposure to Idealized Imagery.......................................................13 2.2 Factors Other than Physical Attractiveness Influencing Advertising Effectiveness ..............14 2.2.1 The Role of the Model: Decorative Model Versus Spokesperson ..................................14 2.2.2 Model-Product Congruence..................................................................................................15 2.3 A Framework for Evaluating Advertising Effectiveness ............................................................15 2.4 Hypotheses Generation.....................................................................................................................19 2.4.1 The Relation Between Perceived Model Attractiveness and Retouching.....................19 2.4.2 The Impact of Retouching on Cognitive Response...........................................................19 2.4.3 The Impact of Retouching on Attitude ...............................................................................20 2.4.4 The Impact of Retouching on Intentions ............................................................................21 2.5 Summary of Hypotheses...................................................................................................................24 3 METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................25 3.1 Overall Research Strategy.................................................................................................................25 3.1.1 Initial Qualitative Interviews................................................................................................25 3.1.2 Literature Review ...................................................................................................................25 3.1.3 Quantitative Experimental Study ........................................................................................26 3.2 Preparatory Work...............................................................................................................................27 3.2.1 Pre-selection of Product Categories.....................................................................................27 3.2.2 Pre-selection of Models..........................................................................................................27 3.2.3 Pre-test 1: Model and Product Category.............................................................................28 3.2.4 Pre-test 2: Brands ....................................................................................................................31 3.2.5 Ad Creation..............................................................................................................................31 3.2.6 Pre-test 3: Ad............................................................................................................................33 ii Retouched! Kmen & Weinzirl 2013 3.2.7 Pre-test 4: Questionnaire........................................................................................................33 3.3 Main Survey ........................................................................................................................................33 3.3.1 Sample and Data Collection..................................................................................................33 3.3.2 Questionnaire ..........................................................................................................................35 3.4 Research Quality.................................................................................................................................39 3.4.1 Reliability..................................................................................................................................39 3.4.2 Validity .....................................................................................................................................40 3.5 Instruments and Methods of Analysis............................................................................................42 4 RESULTS AND