1 Exploring a New Measure for Reactive Guilt Appeals ... - ANZMAC

Exploring a New Measure for Reactive Guilt Appeals
Michael Lwin*. Curtin University. Michael.lwin@cbs.curtin.edu.au
Ian Phau. Curtin University. Ian.phau@cbs.curtin.edu.au
Abstract
Literature identifies three classifications of guilt namely, reactive, anticipatory, and existential
guilt. Scholars have shown that specific types of guilt appeals can be effective in advertising (e.g.
Hibbert et al. 2007). However researchers have relied on the use of unified guilt scale as a
measure of specific types of guilt. Thus the paper highlights the inherent need for a specific scale.
Using two studies, the research attempts to reach the gap in literature by developing a measure of
consumer’s reactive guilt to advertising stimulus. The research is one of the first to explore a
scale for reactive guilt in an advertising context. Considering the importance of the guilt appeals
in advertising, the scale will be an effective tool for practitioners and scholars.
Keywords: Reactive guilt, advertising, scale development, advertising appeals, guilt
Introduction
Emotional appeal is a powerful tool in advertising as it can influence customers’ attention (e.g.
Olney et al., 1991), effect customers’ reaction to advertisements (e.g. Edell and Burke 1987) and
effect brand attitudes (e.g. Aaker et al. 1986). Studies in emotional appeals have largely explored
and nurtured fear appeals, while other emotional appeals such as guilt still remains unexplored in
terms of a well-defined conceptual model (Huhmann and Brotherton 1997).
Further, researchers have primarily explored guilt appeal as a unified construct (e.g. Coulter and
Pinto 1995; Ghingold and Bozinoff 1982), the literature has identified three types of guilt appeals
namely; reactive, anticipatory, and existential guilt appeals. As such, discrepancies between the
findings have been reported with studies that have explored specific types of guilt appeals (Cotte
et al. 2005; Hibbert et al. 2007). These findings are further questioned when the measurement of
guilt is conceptualised using the unified construct despite the differences. There have been calls
to develop specific guilt scales (such as Lindsey 2005). In recent years, scholars have
investigated the effectiveness of anticipatory and existential guilt appeal (e.g. Cotte et al. 2005;
Lindsey 2005; Godek and LaBarge, 2006; Basil et al. 2008), however empirical research for
reactive guilt appeal is almost non-existent.
This exploratory study is part of a larger study and it will attempt to bridge the gaps in the
literature by focusing only on reactive guilt appeals. Specifically, it will explore a new measure
for reactive guilt appeals.
1

Background of Guilt in Advertising
The persuasive nature of guilt appeals can be a powerful tool for advertisers (Cotte et al. 2005).
That is, guilt can act as a motivating, action oriented emotion due to the unambiguous nature of
the linkage between feeling of guilt and actions that led to its elicitation (Lewis 1993). Thus the
individual will respond to a past failure due to the feeling of guilt and it will arouse the individual
to reduce the feeling of guilt by making retributions. This phenomenon is also supported by the
Negative State Model which suggests that individuals will seek to reduce these negative emotions
(Cialdini and Kenrick 1976). Guilt is defined as a negative emotion therefore the individual will
attempt to reduce the feeling of guilt by following a suggested course of action.
A review of the literature shows that guilt construct has been demonstrated as an important
variable in social marketing (e.g. Alden and Crowley 1995; Hibbert et al. 2007; Lindsey 2005),
marketing communications (Ghingold 1980; Pinto and Priest 1991) and advertising (Cotte et al.
2005; Coulter and Pinto 1995). It has also been empirically shown to influence consumer
decision making process (Burnett and Lunsford 1994), ad and brand attitudes (Coulter and Pinto
1995: Godek and LaBarge 2006), and donation intentions (Hibbert et al. 2007). While previous
studies have focused on the use of guilt appeals in a social marketing context extensively (Alden
and Crowley, 1995; Lindsey, 2005; Hibbert et al., 2007; Basil et al., 2008), the influences of guilt
appeals in consumer products have been neglected and ignored (Coulter and Pinto, 1995). It is
surprising since, Huhmann and Brotherton (1997) identified 51% of guilt ads were used in
consumer durable and non-durable products.
As suggested earlier there are three types of guilt; reactive guilt is defined as a response to the
past and over an act of having violated those standards (Rawlings 1970). Out of the three guilt
appeals, reactive guilt is considered as the most negative because it evokes past transgressions
and therefore it evokes more negative emotions. Scholars have suggested that it creates a short
term negative mood (Godek and LaBarge 2006). Additionally, reactive guilt appeals produced
higher inferences of manipulative intent due to consumers reacting negatively towards the ad
(Godek and LaBarge 2006). Consumers process reactive guilt ads systematically and every detail
of the ad is questioned (Godek and LaBarge 2006). This enhances negative reactions towards the
ad and consequently, advertisers tend to avoid the use of reactive guilt appeals (Huhmann and
Brotherton 1997). In fact, Huhmann and Brotherton (1997) showed that only 29.4% guilt
advertisements used reactive guilt appeals as an execution. Further, Huhmann and Brotherton
(1997) showed that 17.8% of reactive guilt appeals were used in a consumer durable context. To
this date only one study has explored the effects of reactive guilt (Godek and LaBarge 2006).
Godek and LaBarge’s (2006) research had some limitations; firstly the stimulus was confined to a
scenario that was given to the respondents. Secondly reactive guilt was measured using a general
felt emotions scale. Thirdly, the effect of reactive guilt on behavioral intentions was shown to be
significant, however the behavioral intentions scale was measured using a one item scale.
Therefore, the current research will attempt to resolve the measurement issues.
Rawlings (1970) defined anticipatory guilt as guilt evoked when an individual contemplates a
potential violation of one’s own standards. Past research shows that this type of guilt is more
positive than others, as it can lead to action as a mean to avoid the feeling of guilt (Godek and
LaBarge 2006; Lindsey 2005; Rawling 1970). Due to this unique characteristic anticipatory guilt
is used more than other types of guilt. In fact, research indicates that over 61% of guilt
2

advertisements applied the use of anticipatory guilt (Huhmann and Brotherton 1997).
Additionally, Huhmann and Brotherton (1997) showed that a majority of anticipatory guilt ads
are used in the non-durable consumer goods advertisements. Research to date has only explored
anticipatory guilt in the following contexts, organ donation (Lindsey 2005), and financial services
(Godek and LaBarge 2006).
Existential guilt is defined as a comparison between one’s one wellbeing to the wellbeing of
others and encourages action to bring the two closer together (Izard 1977). Charities often use
this type of guilt appeal because their strategy fits well with the philosophy of existential guilt
(Huhmann and Brotherton 1997). Hence charitable ads often attempt to evoke existential guilt to
gain donations (e.g. Hibbert et al. 2007). Literature shows 21.6% of charitable ads used guilt
appeals and 85.7% of these ads used existential guilt appeals (Huhmann and Brotherton 1997).
Method and Results
Two studies were conducted to explore a new measure of reactive guilt scale. Both studies were
conducted using an experimental method in a classroom style setting. Scholars have suggested
that respondent’s demographics could determine the intensity of guilt arousal (Hibbert el al.
2007). Thus, to control for these variables subjects were delimited for the purposes of the two
studies. For both studies, subjects aged between 18-24 years were used. This provided a more
homogenous sample for the first two stages of the scale. Furthermore, two advertisements that
highly evoked reactive guilt were used in the study.
Study One
The purpose of this study was to explore the concepts of reactive guilt. The scale development
theory suggests that the existing theory should be consulted first to aid clarity with the scale
(DeVellis 2003; Marcheigani and Phau 2007). Following the guidelines suggested by Li,
Edwards and Lee (2002), three methods were used to generate potential scale items for reactive
guilt. They are, literature reviews (Churchill 1979), thesaurus searches (Wells, Leavitt and
McConville 1971), and expert surveys (Chen and Wells 1999; Churchill 1979). Using the three
techniques an initial pool of 34 items was first developed.
To test the scale items a print advertisement that evoked reactive guilt was used as a stimulus.
The print advertisement was created for the study. To ensure that the advertisement is suitable for
the study an expert panel consisting of five people was used. The experts chose the developed
print advertisement from a pool of eleven advertisements and thus it was chosen for the study. A
survey instrument using the 34 items and demographics was developed. A total of two hundred
twenty three useable responses were collected for the study. Scholars have suggested using
Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) as the first step in scale development (DeVellis 1991) and
thus EFA was conducted.
The EFA showed two distinct factors of reactive guilt. The EFA process was used to remove
items that are not suitable in the factors. Further, Cronbach’s Alpha was used to remove items
with squared multiple correlations of less than 0.30 and correlated item-to-total correlation of less
than 0.50 (DeVellis 1991; Marcheigani and Phau 2007). Weaker items and cross factor loaded
3

items were also removed to optimise the scale. Finally we were left with nine items relating to
reactive scale (α = .873) (KMO and Bartlett’s test = .874, Approx. Chi-Square = 997.425, Df =
36, Sig. = .000).
Study Two
The purpose of this study was to further fine-tune the initial reactive guilt scale. Scholars have
suggested using Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) as a means of reducing the scale items to
confirm the scale’s final form. This study was designed to examine the unidimensionality of the
scale items developed in Study One. If it is necessary the study also aims to further purify the
scale items. To test for the scale’s unidimensionality, CFA analysis was conducted using AMOS
15 software.
A real broadcast ad from an unknown brand (Patek Philippe) lasting two minutes was used as the
stimulus. It has been suggested that prior brand knowledge may have an impact on emotional
response (Chattopadhyay and Basu 1990) thus a brand with limited knowledge was used for the
study. The choice of the ad was tested using an expert panel consisting of six members rated the
ad highly as evoking reactive guilt. The experts chose the advertisement from a pool of four
broadcast advertisements. The advertisement shows the relationship between the father and the
son, and how the father passed down his legacy by giving his watch to the son. The
advertisement highlighted the fact that the son did not value the watch at the time and sold it off.
However, when the son became a man and he himself became a father, he realises the value of
his father’s watch. The advertisement showed the son having a strong emotional attachment with
his father’s watch and felt reactive guilt for selling it. He searched and searched for his father’s
watch and finally found it at an auction. Respondents were asked to position themselves as the
son from the ad and how they will respond after seeing the ad. The respondents then recorded
their reactions to the ad based on a number of scales on a self-administered survey.
A survey instrument using the nine items from Study One and demographics was developed. A
total of one hundred and seventy seven useable responses were collected. CFA is commonly used
as the second step in scale development (Pedhazur and Schmelkin 1991) because it is considered
as a superior technique than EFA for assessing unidimensionality (O’Leary-Kelly and Vokurka
1998).
The results show a further reduction of the scale items. CFA refined the scales resulting in a total
of 7 items for reactive guilt with acceptable measures (Hu and Bentler 1999) (Chi-square =
20.085, Degrees of freedom = 14, Probability level = .127, AGFI = .940, RMSEA = .050, RMR =
.077, α = .891).
4

Reactive
Guilt
Figure 1: Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Reactive Guilt Scale
.67
.70
.76
.87
.79
.76
.79
I felt guilty after buying… that I could not afford
I felt guilty for buying a very expensive…
I felt ashamed when I spend excessively on…
I felt guilty when others found out what I bought was very
expensive
I felt guilty for spending excessively on… as it was violating my
acceptable standard
I was disappointed with myself for spending excessively on…
I felt guilty when I lied about my past spending on...
Concluding Comments
The paper has taken the first steps to develop a scale for reactive guilt. The final seven items for
the scale is illustrated in Figure 1. The scale fills an important gap in the literature as previous
scales on guilt uses a unified construct. That is the three types of guilt, reactive, anticipatory and
existential guilt are measured using one scale. Thus scholars could not measure the distinct
influences of each type of guilt. The scale provides a researcher to manipulate and test the direct
influence of reactive guilt. The scale could also be used by practitioners as a manipulation check
to ensure that the advertisements elicited only the intended emotion. This will assist and provide
a greater accuracy of results in consumer behaviour and advertising research.
However, the scale is still in development and it needs further validation. Future studies should
aim to develop construct and criterion validity of the scale. Scholars should also explore the
generalisability of the scale by testing the scale in different media, consumer types and products.
Researchers have shown that specific types of guilt appeals can be effective (e.g. Cotte et al.
2005; Lindsey 2005; Godek and LaBarge, 2006; Basil et al. 2008; Hibbert et al. 2007). Lack of
specific measure for each types of guilt has limited previous studies and this study takes one step
closer to developing a stronger understanding of guilt appeals.
e1
G
uil e2
Gt
uil e3
Gt
uil e4
Gt
uil
e5 t
G
uil e7
Gt
uil e8
Gt
uil
t
5

References
Aaker, D.A., Stayman, D.M. and Hagerty, R.M., 1986. Warmth in Advertising. Measurement,
Impact, and Sequence Effects. Journal of Consumer Research 12 (4), 365-381.
Alden, D.L. and Crowley, A.E., 1995. Sex Guilt and Receptivity to Condom Advertising. Journal
of Applied Social Psychology 25 (16), 1446-1463.
Basil, D.Z., Ridgway, N.M., Nakamoto, K. and Basil, M.D., 1998. The Effects of Guilt and
Empathy on Charitable Donations. Society for Consumer Psychology Conference, Austin, TX.
Basil, D.Z., Ridgway, N.M. and Basil, M.D., 2008. Guilt and Giving: A Process Model of
Empathy and Efficacy. Psychology and Marketing 25 (1), 1-23.
Burnett, M.S. and Lunsford, D.A., 1994. Conceptualizing Guilt in the Consumer Decision
Making Process. Journal of Consumer Marketing 11 (3), 33-43.
Chattopadhyay, A. and Basu, K., 1990. Humor in Advertising: The Moderating Role of Prior
Brand Evaluation. Journal of Marketing Research 27 (4), 466-476.
Cialdini, R.B. and Kenrick, D.T., 1976. Altruism and Hedonism: A Social Development
Perspective on the Relationship of Negative Mood State and Helping. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology 34 (5), 907-14.
Chen, Q, Wells, W.D., 1999. Attitude Toward the Site. Journal of Advertising Research 39(5), 27-37.
Churchill, G.A., 1979. A Paradigm for Developing Measures of Marketing Constructs. Journal of
Marketing Research 16 (1), 64-73.
Cotte, J., Coulter, R.H. and Moore M., 2005. Enhancing or Disrupting Guilt: The Role of Ad
Credibility and Perceived Manipulative Intent. Journal of Business Research 58 (3), 361-368.
Coulter, R.H. and Pinto, M.B., 1995. Guilt Appeals in Advertising: What Are Their Effects.
Journal of Applied Psychology 80 (6), 697-705.
DeVellis, R.F., 1991. Scale Development: Theory and Application. Sage Publications.
DeVellis, R.F., 2003. Scale Development: Theory and Application, 2 nd Edition, Sage Publications.
Edell, J. A. and Burke, M.C., 1987. The Power of Feelings in Understanding Advertising Effects.
Journal of Consumer Research, 14, 421-33.
Ghingold, M., 1980. Guilt Arousing Marketing Communications: An Unexplored Variable. In:
Monroe, K. B. (Eds.), Advances in Consumer Research, Association for Consumer Research,
Ann Arbor, Michigan, 442-448.
6

Ghingold, M. and Bozinoff, L., 1982. Construct Validation and Empirical Testing of Guilt
Arousing Marketing Communications. In: Mitchell, A. (Eds.), Advances in Consumer Research,
Association for Consumer Research, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 210-214.
Godek, J. and LaBarge, M.C., 2006. Mothers, Food, Love and Career-The Four Major Guilt
Groups? The Differential Effects of Guilt Appeals. Advances in Consumer Research 33 (1), 511..
Hibbert, S., Smith, A., Davies, A. and Ireland, F., 2007. Guilt Appeals: Persuasion Knowledge
and Charitable Giving. Psychology and Marketing 24 (8), 723-742.
Huhmann, B.A. and Brotherton, T.P., 1997. A Content Analysis of Guilt Appeals in Popular
Magazine Advertisements. Journal of Advertising 26 (2), 35-45.
Izard, C. E., 1977. Human Emotions, Plenum, New York.
Lewis, M., 1993. Self-conscious Emotions: Embarrassment, Pride, Shame and Guilt. In: Lewis,
M., Haviland J.M. (Eds.), Handbook of Emotions, Guilford Press, New York, 563-573.
Li, H., Edwards, S.M., Lee, J., 2002. Measuring the Intrusiveness of Advertisements: Scale
Development and Validation. Journal of Advertising 32 (2), 37-47.
Lindsey, L.L.M., 2005. Anticipated Guilt as Behavioral Motivation An Examination of Appeals
to Help Unknown Others Through Bone Marrow Donation, Human Communication Research 31
(4), 453-481.
Marchegiani, C., and Phau, I., 2007. Advertising Appeals to “The Times of your Life”:
Developing a Scale to Measure Personal Nostalgia. Australian and New Zealand Marketing
Academy of Conference.
Olney, T.J., Holbrook, M.B. and Batra, R., 1991. Consumer Responses to Advertising: the
Effects of Ad Content, Emotions, and Attitude toward the Ad on Viewing Time. Journal of
Consumer Research 17 (4), 440-453.
O’Leary-Kelly, S.W., Vokurka, R.J. 1998. The empirical assessment of construct validity
Journal of Operations Management 16, 387–405
Pedhazur, E.J., Schmelkin, L.P., 1991. Measurement, Design, and Analysis: An Integrated
Approach. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, Hillsdale, NJ.
Pinto, M.B. and Priest, S., 1991. Guilt Appeals in Advertising: An Exploratory Study.
Psychological Reports 69 (2), 375-385.
Rawlings, E.I., 1970. Reactive Guilt and Anticipatory Guilt in Altruistic Behavior. In: Macaulay,
J.R., Berkowitz, L. (Eds.), Altruism and Helping Behavior, Academic Press, New York, 163-77.
Wells, W.D., Leavitt, C. and McConville, M., 1971. A Reaction Profile for TV Commercials.
Journal of Advertising Research 11 (6), 11-17.
7