Briana Anderson - Cornell University

Table 22
Means for Dependent Variable: Endorser Trustworthiness with Fixed Factors
Attractiveness and Company Type
52
Mean
Endorser
Trustworthiness
Std.
Error
95%
Confidence
Interval
Endorser Company Lower Bound Upper
Bound
Unattractive Cosmetics 34.475 1.002 32.503 36.448
Pharmaceutical 33.954 .890 32.202 35.705
Attractive Cosmetics 30.825 .890 29.074 32.577
Pharmaceutical 29.192 1.002 27.219 31.164
Evaluated at covariates appeared in the model: gender = .8088, class= .5074.
For endorser expertise, the same univariate ANOVA was run. This model
differed from the ANOVA’s with the summed endorser credibility and endorser
trustworthiness (as dependent variables) models. This analysis is similar as
attractiveness was significant in the model, i.e. it is similar to the endorser
trustworthiness model in that attractiveness had a negative relationship with perceived
endorser expertise (see Table 23). Unlike the two previous models, however, the
interaction between company type and attractiveness of endorser is significant in this
model. Table 24 presents the means for endorser expertise with the fixed factors
attractiveness and company type. This table illustrates that for the cosmetics
company, the attractive endorser’s perceived expertise was significantly higher for the
cosmetics company versus the pharmaceutical company. Additionally, the
unattractive endorser’s perceived expertise was higher for the pharmaceutical
company, though not at as high a difference as that of the attractive endorser and the