Briana Anderson - Cornell University

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
cosmetics company. It is important to note that the unattractive endorser retained 53 overall higher ratings of expertise for both types of companies. Table 23 Univariate Analysis table for Dependent Variable Endorser Expertise Source Type III Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Corrected Model 3175.040 5 635.008 9.553 .000 Intercept 45828.091 1 45828.091 689.423 .000 Gender 128.732 1 128.732 1.937 .165 Class 179.253 1 179.253 2.697 .102 Attractiveness 2461.287 1 2461.287 37.027 .000 Company Type 43.816 1 43.816 .659 .418 Attractiveness * Company 377.048 1 377.048 5.672 .018 Type Error 17681.838 266 66.473 Total 294225.000 272 Corrected Total 20856.879 271 R Squared = .152 (Adjusted R Squared = .136)
Page 1 and 2:
EFFECTS OF ENDORSER ATTRACTIVENESS
Page 3 and 4:
ABSTRACT Much research has been con
Page 5 and 6:
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Born and raised
Page 7 and 8:
This thesis is dedicated to my fami
Page 9 and 10:
TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER ONE - INT
Page 11 and 12:
LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 - Lafferty
Page 13 and 14:
Table 22 - Means for Dependent Vari
Page 15 and 16: CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION Physical a
Page 17 and 18: CHAPTER TWO BACKGROUND & PURPOSE OF
Page 19 and 20: 5 they have received benefits from
Page 21 and 22: 7 A popular advertising vehicle is
Page 23 and 24: Explaining the Attractiveness-Credi
Page 25 and 26: • Attractive people are more pers
Page 27 and 28: 13 In a related study, Lafferty and
Page 29 and 30: Role of Cognitive “Involvement”
Page 31 and 32: CHAPTER THREE EXPECTATIONS Past res
Page 33 and 34: 19 such as a cosmetics or clothing
Page 35 and 36: 21 • H1b: Based on the same set o
Page 37 and 38: source credibility). Each person vi
Page 39 and 40: Table 2 Survey Versions Version 1st
Page 41 and 42: Dependent Variables: Corporate Cred
Page 43 and 44: Table 3 29 Ohanian’s (1990) Endor
Page 45 and 46: Control Variable 31 To measure pers
Page 47 and 48: CHAPTE FIVE RESULTS Pretest Results
Page 49 and 50: 35 Figure 3 - Attractive Endorser 1
Page 51 and 52: 37 Demographic and Involvement Freq
Page 53 and 54: 39 Reliability of the endorser attr
Page 55 and 56: 41 Additionally, three separate mea
Page 57 and 58: Table 13 43 Reliability for Summed
Page 59 and 60: Table 15 45 Correlation of Objectiv
Page 61 and 62: H1a: Overall, the physical attracti
Page 63 and 64: Table 19 49 Means for Dependent Var
Page 65: 51 illustrates that the findings ar
Page 69 and 70: 55 H3: In a high involvement condit
Page 73 and 74: 59 Tables 28 and 29 present the fin
Page 75 and 76: Mean Score 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24
Page 79 and 80: Limitations CHAPTER SIX CONCLUSION
Page 81 and 82: confounding variables in this study
Page 83 and 84: 69 study. These hypotheses predicte
Page 85 and 86: marketing, a person’s attractiven
Page 87 and 88: APPENDIX A SURVEY INSTRUMENT Who I
Page 89 and 90: Please answer whether you agree or
Page 91 and 92: 77 Please answer whether you agree
Page 93 and 94: Pharmco Pharmaceuticals - Social Re
Page 95 and 96: REFERENCES Ashmore, R.D., Solomon,
Page 97 and 98: Ledingham, J.A. & Brunig, S.D. (200
show all

Briana Anderson - Cornell University

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?