Oops! Could Not Find the Page

ASSOCIATION FOR CONSUMER RESEARCH Labovitz School of Business & Economics, University of Minnesota Duluth, 11 E. Superior Street, Suite 210, Duluth, MN 55802 Exploring Gender Influences of Meanings in Celebrity Endorsers Lynn Langmeyer, Northern Kentucky University, Kentucky [to cite]: Lynn Langmeyer (1991) ,"Exploring Gender Influences of Meanings in Celebrity Endorsers", in GCB - Gender and Consumer Behavior Volume 1, eds. Dr. Janeen Arnold Costa, Salt Lake City, UT : Association for Consumer Research, Pages: 158-172. [url]: http://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/15532/gender/v01/GCB-01 [copyright notice]: This work is copyrighted by The Association for Consumer Research. For permission to copy or use this work in whole or in part, please contact the Copyright Clearance Center at http://www.copyright.com/. Exploring Gender Influences of Meanings in Celebrity Endorsers Lynn Langmeyer, Northern Kentucky University, Kentucky "'~::~'';.' ~. _f\&~t~.i;~·t~Jfi!l1lf This study uses identical i5-item semantic differential (")" .. i~'I'"al~rhougha less frequently examined factor scales to explore the images associated with two male i:iiC he"- endorsement process, has received some and two female celebnly endorsers when they are attentionin studies on evaluations of advertisements evaluated by themselves and when they are paired (e.g., Baker and Churchill 1977; Debevec and lyer with products. Each celebrity and celebrity/product 1986; Kahle and Homer 1985; Kamins 1990), pair was eva'uated on a seven-point scale with the salesperson effectiveness (e.g., Caballero and Pride endpoints representing an "extremely descriptive" 1984; Debevec and lyer 1986), and product images characteristic. The findings indicate that celebrity (e.g., Allison et al. 1980; Alreck, Settle and Belch endorsers possess symbolic meanings and the 1982; Gentry, Doering and O'Brien 1978). meanings differ for male and female endorsers, that there are distinct and substantial differences in the For example, Baker and Churchill (1977), types of meanings associated with the endorsers used investigating the impact of physically attractive in these studies, and that differences in certain models on advertising evaluations, found that when meanings associated with celebrity endorsers appear affective scores were used, respondents rated an to be related to the receivers' gender. Some meanings advertisement showing a model of the opposite appear to be transferred to the celebrity/product pairs. gender higher than they rated an advertisement Implications of these findings and future research showing a model of their own gender. However, suggestions are also discussed. when cognitive scores were used, this finding was not supported. Caballero and Pride (1984), in their INTRODUCfION study on the impact of gender and attractiveness of sales representatives on product purchase decisions, Research on celebrity endorsers has focused largely found that recipients of no-photo-in-ad direct mail on factors which increase the persuasibility of the advertisements and recipients of highly-attractive message thus reflecting the belief that the female sales representative-in-ad advertisements communicator'scharacter has a significant effect on purchased the product more frequently than did the persuasibility of the message (Ohanian 1990). recipients of any other treatment. Gender of the Over the years, these factors have included expertise receiver had no effect. Debevec and lyer (1986) (e.g., DeSarbo and Harshman 1985; Mowen and found that a spokesperson's gender is an effective Brown 1981; Speck, Schuman and Thompson 1988; cue in altering the gender image of a masculine and Tapp and Anglin 1990), credibility (e.g., Atkin and feminine product but not of a neutral product, and Block 1983; Dholakia and Sternthal 1977; Simpson Gentry, Doering and O'Brien (1978) and Allison et and Kahler 1980-81;Sternthal, Dholakia and Leavitt al. (1980) found that gender was a more important 1978; Wynn 1987), likability (DeSarbo and influence on product sex-typing than sex role self Harshman 1985; Friedman, Santeramo and Traina concept. 1978; Friedn1an, Termini and Washington 1976), and physical attractiveness (e.g., Baker and These studies include gender as an influencing Churchill 1977; Caballero and Pride 1984; Kahle variable in traditional source model approaches, and Homer 1985; Kamins 1990). (Detailed reviews and they are only tangentially related to celebrity of the relevant literature can be found in Baker and endorsers. More critically, they were not Churchill 1977, Kamins 1990, McCracken 1989, undertaken to tell the assortment or "bundle of McGuire 1985 and Ohanian 1990.) Based on the meanings" (McCracken 1989, p. 312) an endorser's substantial body of research generated from gender brings to the endorsement process. They tell investigating these factors, it is safe to say that us about the extent or magnitude of differences "celebrities owe some of their effectiveness as between celebrity endorsers, rather than about the marketing devices to their credibility and types or varieties of differences. None of these attractiveness" (McCracken 1989, p.311). studies is "inspired"by what has been labeled the 158 "general meaning transfer" perspective. This endorse. These meanings, both posItIve and perspective proposes that in contemporary societies negative, can affect the messages associated with the "cultureand consumptioninteract to create a system product. Langmeyer and Walker however, have not of nleaning movement" (McCracken 1989, p. 314). addressed the issue of gender which is hypothesized "Consumers," therefore, "turn to their goods not to be one of the essential cultural meanings a only as bundles of utilities with which to serve celebrity endorser brings to the endorsement functions and satisfy needs, but also as bundles of process. meaning with which to fashion who they are and the world in which they live" (Belk 1988 quoted in This investigation was inspired by the "meaning McCracken 1989, p. 314). McCracken offers one transfer" perspective and recent examinations of account of the meaning transfer process (1986; cultural foundations in the consumption process. It 1987), others are suggested by Hirschman and represents an early exploratory effort to consider Holbrook (1981), Holman (1980), Mick (1986), the symbolic meanings ofcelebrity endorsers as they Sherry and McGrath (1989) and Stern (1988). relate to the gender of the stimulus person and the gender of the receiver. [Please see Hirschman's Furthermore, although the gender stereotype Interpretive Consumer Research (1989) and Srull's literature does talk about "wholesome""helpless" Advances in Consumer Research Vol. 16 (1989) for "intelligent''''alluring'' and "sexy," for example, as examples ofphilosophies, methods,applications, and meanings that are transmitted in the advertising commentaries. It is beyond the scope of this paper portrayals of women, these are almost always to review the area.] This study was undertaken to "undocumented" meanings. They are developed address three gender related questions in the from researchers' descriptions and are not endorsement process: 1. Are there differences in empirically based or validated (e.g., England and the symbolic meanings of male and female celebrity Gardner 1983; l(jlbourne 1986; Roberts and Koggan endorsers 2. If so, what types of differences; and 1979; Soley and Kurzbard 1986; Whipple and 3. Are they related to the gender of the receiver? Courtney 1985). METHOD McCracken has proposed, as an alternative to the (Please note: portions of the "Method" section of this paper source models' explanations of the endorsement appear in a paper reporting different analyses of the female process, that celebrity endorsement is a special endorser data and although the product sections of the instrument are discussed,the data are not presented.) instance of the more general process of meaning transfer (1986; 1987; 1989). He argues that Overview celebrity endorsers embody cultural symbolic meanings -- meanings that go beyond those directly This study consisted of asking two sets of contained in then1selves. They pass on their respondents to evaluate a celebrity endorser, a symbolic meanings, their acquired associations, and product, and then the combination of the celebrity their "particular configurations of meanings that endorsing the product. cannot be found elsewhere" (McCracken 1989, p. 315), to the products they endorse. Over time, The first set of respondents, 101 undergraduate these meanings are passed on to the consumer, the business students, 43 male and 58 female, were product is uniquely differentiated, and its perceived asked to evaluate 2 female celebrity endorsers value is infinitely enhanced. If the actual process (Madonna and Christie Brinkley) and 3 products operates as this model proposes, then the increase (bath towels, jeans, and VCRs) in a 2- x 3 full in the use of celebrity endorsers makes sense (Levin factorial design which produced six versions of the 1988; Sherman 1985). questionnaire. Respondents were randomly assigned to one of the six conditions. Interest in applying the general meaning transfer approach to the celebrity endorsement process has The second set of respondents, 126 undergraduate been relatively sparse. Few studies have appeared business students, 66 male and 60 female, were in the literature. Recent applications, preliminary asked to evaluate 2 male celebrity endorsers (Bruce work by Langmeyer and Walker (1990; 1991), have Willis and Boomer Esiason) and

Load more