change my mind: the moderating impact of ...to chloe, luka and frankie – thank you for your...
TRANSCRIPT
CHANGE MY MIND:
THE MODERATING IMPACT OF SCEPTICISM
AND CYNICISM ON PERCEIVED SOURCE
CREDIBILITY AND INFORMATIONAL CLAIMS
IN SOCIAL ADVERTISING
Georgia Claire Swalwell
Bachelor of Business (Marketing) (Econ)
Supervised by: Dr Dominique Greer, Dr Lisa Schuster
Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Business (Research)
School of Advertising, Marketing and Public Relations
QUT Business School
Queensland University of Technology
2018
i
Keywords
Behaviour Change, Consumer Cynicism, Consumer Scepticism, Elaboration Likelihood
Model, Informational Claims, Media Literacy, Persuasion Knowledge Model, Perceived
Source Credibility, Social Advertising
ii
Abstract
Historically, the Australian Government has been the most significant source of social
advertising in Australia, however, not-for-profit and commercial organisations are increasingly
engaging in social advertising to attract donations and encourage people to change their
behaviours. To date, however, there is a gap in our understanding of the comparative
effectiveness of social advertising across these sources (Grier & Byrant, 2005; Lee & Kotler,
2011; Saunders, Barrington & Sridharan, 2015), which is problematic given that alternate
sources of social advertising may differ in terms of their perceived source credibility (Barker,
Minns Lowe & Reid, 2007; Smith, Jones & Algie, 2007) and thus social advertising
effectiveness (see Pornpitakpan, 2004). Moreover, while psychological theories suggest
requests for action (e.g. behaviour change) are more compelling when justified by information,
social advertisers are increasingly relying on heuristics over informational statements to
motivate behavioural change. This is interesting, given recent research suggests people filter
information from social advertising to re-affirm their own beliefs, calling to question whether
informational statements still have a place in the modern social advertising context.
Consequently, this research uses Petty and Cacioppo’s (1986) Elaboration Likelihood
Model as a theoretical framework to investigate the impact of perceived source credibility, a
key factor in the peripheral route to attitude change, and informational claims, a key factor in
the central route to attitude change, on social advertising effectiveness. This research also
acknowledges that persuasion knowledge may interrupt the influence of perceived source
credibility on social advertising effectiveness because it leads consumers to evaluate the
veracity of information presented in social advertising (through consumer scepticism;
Obermiller & Spangenberg, 2005) and attribute motivations of the advertiser behind this
attempt (through consumer cynicism; Helm, 2004). Consumer scepticism and consumer
cynicism are known interrupters of advertising effectiveness (e.g. Prendergast et al., 2009; Tan
& Tan, 2007). Thus, this research uses the Persuasion Knowledge Model (Friestad & Wright,
1994) to investigate whether consumers’ knowledge about a persuasion attempt might
moderate the effectiveness of different organisations that engage in social advertising.
This study uses a 2 (informational claim/no informational claim) x 3 (perceived source
credibility of government/not-for-profit /commercial organisations) factorial design to evaluate
(1) whether different sources of social advertising vary in perceived source credibility, (2)
iii
whether perceived source credibility and informational claims influence message effectiveness,
and (3) whether consumer scepticism towards advertising and consumer cynicism toward the
sources of advertising moderate the effect of perceived source credibility and informational
claims on the effectiveness of social advertising. Survey data were collected from an online
panel of 372 Australian adults and analysed using analysis of variance and covariance, and
hierarchical multiple and moderated regression techniques. Analysis revealed the Australian
Government was perceived to be the least credible source of social advertisements, while there
was no difference in credibility between commercial and not-for-profit organisations.
Perceived source credibility and informational claims both had a positive effect on consumer
attitude toward the advertisement, but neither factor impacted behavioural intentions.
Scepticism moderated the relationship between perceived source credibility and consumer
attitude toward the advertisement, while cynicism moderated the relationship between
perceived source credibility and behavioural intention, but only in highly cynical individuals.
This research contributes to the improved understanding of factors influencing social
advertising effectiveness, demonstrating the value that for-profits can bring to the social
advertising domain, as well the importance of informational appeals in social advertising,
despite recent findings to the contrary. The research also provides empirical support for
boundary conditions of the Elaboration Likelihood Model, supporting the notion of multi-
channel processing and showing that persuasion knowledge helps to explain moderating effects
of elaboration likelihood. This study provides construct clarity in the consumer scepticism and
cynicism literature, by providing further empirical evidence that although they are often used
interchangeably, they are in fact distinct constructs. This research offers insights for practice,
suggesting that social advertising aiming to increase physical activity from not-for-profit or
commercial sources could garner more positive attitudes than social advertising from a
government source. The research also suggests social advertisements containing informational
claims are more effective than those without. The findings also indicate social advertisers may
be able to address the impact of rising consumer scepticism and cynicism on social advertising
effectiveness by leveraging or enhancing their perceived source credibility.
iv
Table of Contents
Keywords .................................................................................................................................. i
Abstract .................................................................................................................................... ii
Table of Contents .................................................................................................................... iv
List of Figures ........................................................................................................................ vii
List of Tables ........................................................................................................................ viii
Statement of Original Authorship ........................................................................................... ix
Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................x
Chapter 1: Introduction .......................................................................................1
1.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................1
1.2 Research Problem ...........................................................................................................1 1.2.1 Social Advertising ................................................................................................1 1.2.2 Perceived Source Credibility ................................................................................5 1.2.3 Informational Claims ............................................................................................5 1.2.4 Consumer Scepticism and Consumer Cynicism ...................................................7
1.3 Research Rationale .........................................................................................................8 1.3.1 Elaboration Likelihood Model .............................................................................8 1.3.2 Persuasion Knowledge Model ............................................................................10
1.4 Research Questions .......................................................................................................12
1.5 Research Methodology .................................................................................................13
1.6 Findings and Implications .............................................................................................15 1.6.1 Theoretical Implications .....................................................................................15 1.6.2 Practical Implications .........................................................................................18
1.7 Thesis Outline ...............................................................................................................20
1.8 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................20
Chapter 2: Literature Review ............................................................................22
2.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................22
2.2 Advertising Effectiveness .............................................................................................22
2.3 Elaboration Likelihood Model ......................................................................................26 2.3.1 Limitations of the ELM ......................................................................................27 2.3.2 Using the ELM to understand Social Advertising Effectiveness .......................28 2.3.3 Perceived Source Credibility ..............................................................................31 2.3.4 Organisational Source Credibility ......................................................................32 2.3.5 Informational Claim ...........................................................................................38
2.4 Persuasion Knowledge Model ......................................................................................41 2.4.1 Consumer Scepticism .........................................................................................42 2.4.2 Consumer Cynicism ...........................................................................................47
2.5 Model and Summary of Hypotheses .............................................................................51
2.6 Control Variables ..........................................................................................................53 2.6.1 Issue Involvement ...............................................................................................53
v
2.6.2 Information Processing Style .............................................................................54 2.6.3 Media Literacy ...................................................................................................55 2.6.4 Age 56 2.6.5 Gender ................................................................................................................56
2.7 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................56
Chapter 3: Method..............................................................................................58
3.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................58
3.2 Research Paradigm .......................................................................................................58
3.3 Research Design ...........................................................................................................60
3.4 Research Method ..........................................................................................................64 3.4.1 Research Context ................................................................................................64 3.4.2 Stimuli Development ..........................................................................................66 3.4.3 Experimental Manipulations ..............................................................................68 3.4.4 Experimental Procedure .....................................................................................74 3.4.5 Measures .............................................................................................................75 3.4.6 Pretesting of the study ........................................................................................87
3.5 Sample ..........................................................................................................................87
3.6 Analytic Procedures ......................................................................................................89
3.7 Ethical Considerations ..................................................................................................93
3.8 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................93
Chapter 4: Results ..............................................................................................95
4.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................95
4.2 Data Cleaning and Preparation .....................................................................................95
4.3 Descriptive Analysis .....................................................................................................96 4.3.1 Scale Reliability and Validity .............................................................................97
4.4 Manipulation Check......................................................................................................99
4.5 Main Effects ...............................................................................................................102 4.5.1 Moderation Effects ...........................................................................................106
4.6 Summary .....................................................................................................................113
4.7 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................118
Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusion ...........................................................119
5.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................119
5.2 Findings and Discussion .............................................................................................119 5.2.1 Research Question 1 .........................................................................................119 5.2.2 Research Question 2 .........................................................................................122 5.2.3 Research Question 3 .........................................................................................124
5.3 Implications for theory ...............................................................................................129 5.3.1 Who Should Engage in Social Advertising ......................................................129 5.3.2 Boundaries to the Elaboration Likelihood Model ............................................131 5.3.3 Informational Appeals ......................................................................................132 5.3.4 Consumer Scepticism and Consumer Cynicism ...............................................133
5.4 Implications For Practice ............................................................................................133 5.4.1 Social Advertising in Practice ..........................................................................133
vi
5.4.2 Designing Social Advertisements .....................................................................134
5.5 Limitations ..................................................................................................................135
5.6 Future Research ..........................................................................................................137
5.7 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................141
Reference List ..........................................................................................................142
Appendices ...............................................................................................................186
APPENDIX A: Survey Instrument .......................................................................................186
APPENDIX B: Experimental Stimuli ...................................................................................197
APPENDIX C: Australian Government Campaign Advertisement Example. .....................203
vii
List of Figures
Figure 1. Hypothesised Model of Social Advertising Effectiveness. .........................52
Figure 2. Base Image used in Mock Advertisement. ..................................................67
Figure 3. Base Advertisement used in all Stimuli. .....................................................68
Figure 4. Experimental Stimulus – Informational Claim Present. .............................73
Figure 5. Experimental Stimulus – No Informational Claim Present. .......................73
Figure 6. Simple Slopes Analysis: Perceived Source Credibility * Scepticism
Interaction. ..................................................................................................108
Figure 7. Simple Slopes Analysis: Perceived Source Credibility * Cynicism Interaction.
....................................................................................................................112
Figure 8. Results of the Hypothesis Testing. ............................................................117
viii
List of Tables
Table 1. Different Types of Organisational Source Credibility ..................................33
Table 2: Summary of Hypotheses ................................................................................51
Table 3. Institutional Source Variations .....................................................................71
Table 4. 3 (Organisational Message Source) x 2 (Informational Claim) Fully-Crossed
Mixed Factorial Design ................................................................................74
Table 5. Previous Studies of Perceived Source Credibility ........................................77
Table 6. Measurement Scale for Perceived Source Credibility ..................................78
Table 7. Measurement Scale for Advertising Scepticism ............................................78
Table 8. Measurement Scale for Consumer Cynicism (Original: Businesses) ...........80
Table 9. Adapted Measurement Scale for Consumer Cynicism: Government Sources81
Table 10. Adapted Measurement Scale for Consumer Cynicism: Not-For-Profit Sources
......................................................................................................................81
Table 11. Measurement Scale for Attitude toward the Ad (Believability) ..................82
Table 12. Measurement Scale for Behavioural Intentions..........................................82
Table 13. Measurement Scale for Need for Cognition ...............................................83
Table 14. Measurement Scale for Need for Affect ......................................................84
Table 15. Measurement Scale for Critical Thinking about the Content of a Message84
Table 16. Measurement Scale for Critical Thinking about the Source of a Message 85
Table 17. Measurement Scale for Pre-Existing Attitudes Toward Physical Activity .86
Table 18. Measurement Scale for Perceived Involvement in Physical Activity ..........86
Table 19. Experimental Stimuli Allocation .................................................................88
Table 20. Summary of Research Hypotheses and Analytic Techniques .....................90
Table 21. Measures of Central Tendency for Main Variables....................................97
Table 22. Scale Validity of the Focal Variables .........................................................98
Table 23. Reliability of the Scale Adaptations for Consumer Cynicism .....................99
Table 24. Means of Perceived Source Credibility of Different Sources ...................100
Table 25. Independent Samples ANOVA: Perceived Source Credibility of Different
Sources ........................................................................................................100
Table 26. Means of Perceived Source Credibility of Different Source Categories. .102
Table 27. Simple Slopes Analysis: Perceived Source Credibility * Scepticism
Interaction. ..................................................................................................109
Table 28. Simple Slopes Analysis: Perceived Source Credibility * Cynicism Interaction
....................................................................................................................112
Table 29. Results of the Hypothesis Testing .............................................................115
ix
Statement of Original Authorship
The work contained in this thesis has not been previously submitted to meet requirements
for an award at this or any other higher education institution. To the best of my knowledge and
belief, the thesis contains no material previously published or written by another person except
where due reference is made.
Signature:
Date: _________________________
QUT Verified Signature
x
Acknowledgements
There are many people I would like to thank for their ongoing support over the past two
years.
To my Principal Supervisor, Dominique Greer, and my Associate Supervisor, Lisa
Schuster – thank you for your tireless efforts from day one, your faith in my abilities, your
unbreakable patience, and your unending kindness. The support you have both provided me
surpassed the call of a supervisor, and there are no words to express my debt of gratitude (I
have used all them all in this thesis). I look to you both as mentors and friends, and I am
eternally grateful for the valuable research insights you have given me over the past two years.
To Emma Karanges - thank you for being a voice of reason and for reminding me of
the bigger picture whenever stress took over. I am inspired by your strength and wisdom.
To Chloe, Luka and Frankie – thank you for your company and constant positivity.
To my dear friends and family - thank you for your ongoing love, support and
encouragement through every speed bump.
Finally, to my best friend and love of my life, Caitlin Wall – you have been my rock
through this very challenging but rewarding process, and an absolute source of light. I really
do not think I would have completed this, were it not for your constant reminders that I can
achieve whatever I set out to. Thank you for constantly making me feel safe and loved, and for
bringing incredible joy to my life every day.
1
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter provides an overview of the research, which investigates the effect of
consumer scepticism and consumer cynicism on the relationship between perceived source
credibility and informational claim on social advertising effectiveness. The proliferation of
social advertising means that in addition to the thousands of commercial advertisements
consumers are exposed to on a daily basis, they now also encounter messages aiming to achieve
individual as well as societal benefit. This research will provide additional understanding with
regards to the effectiveness of social advertising, especially across different organisational
sectors – government, not-for-profit and commercial. This chapter outlines the research
problem, rationale and objectives, the research approach, the contributions to theory and
practice, the structure of the thesis and the conclusion for this chapter.
1.2 RESEARCH PROBLEM
1.2.1 Social Advertising
Historically employed by government bodies, social advertising is rapidly being adopted
by non-profit organisations and commercial organisations alike to persuade people to change
their behaviour (Jones, Sinclair & Courneya, 2003; Polonsky, 2017). Social advertising refers
to the communications used to convey the benefits, costs and requirements of a socially
beneficial behaviour to a target audience (Kotler, Roberto & Lee, 2002) through personal or
impersonal media appropriate to the target audience's lifestyle patterns and preferences
(Andreasen, 1994). Social advertising forms part of social marketing, which for the purpose of
this research is defined as “the adaptation of commercial marketing technologies to programs
designed to influence the voluntary behaviour of target audiences to improve their personal
2
welfare and that of the society of which they are part” (Andreasen, 1994, p. 110). While it is
acknowledged that social marketing literature calls for greater ‘upstream’ focus (e.g.
Parkinson, Schuster & Russell-Bennett, 2016; Wymer, 2011), this research retains a focus on
consumers on the basis that all societal goals contingent upon social change necessitate that at
some stage individuals change their own behaviour (Andreasen, 2003).
There is contention in the literature regarding who can, and who should, engage in social
advertising. One perspective is that social advertising can only be engaged in by the public or
non-profit sector, but not by the commercial sector whose primary aim is profit (Hastings &
Angus, 2011). This perspective is based on the rationale that for-profit organisations are likely
to experience conflicts of interest when they promote social advertising messages (Jones, Wyatt
& Daube, 2016; Polonsky, 2017). This perspective argues any societal benefits resulting from
corporate sector marketing activities are essentially just a positive externality (Polonsky, 2017).
An alternative, more inclusive perspective, forwarded by Polonsky (2017) and
empirically supported by Parkinson (2016), argues that commercial organisations can and
should work towards providing societal benefit. This broader conceptualisation views
corporations as responsible to the society of which they are a part (Anker & Kappel, 2011).
From this perspective, corporations can indeed influence “behaviours that benefit individuals
and communities for the greater social good” (Tapp et al., 2013, p. 1) through their promotion
of the purchase or use of goods, while still benefiting through increased sales and brand value
(Polonsky, 2017). The defining element of this perspective is the view that the majority of
issues addressed by social advertising are ‘wicked’ problems (Brennan & Fry, 2016), which
“go beyond the capacity of any one organisation to understand and respond to, and [for which]
there is often disagreement about the causes … and the best way to tackle them” (Australian
Public Service Commission, 2007, para. 1). Thus, there is not one single market for tackling
social change; rather, it is not only practical but paramount that all relevant upstream,
3
downstream and midstream actors participate in resolving societal issues (Brennan, Previte &
Fry, 2016; French, Russell-Bennett & Mulcahy, 2017; Previte & Brennan, 2017). In other
words, “addressing complex social issues requires an integrated approach and needs to leverage
all potential resources available, including corporate resources” (Polonsky, 2017, p. 275). This
thesis adopts this perspective. Specifically, it contends that effective social advertising
solutions require involvement of a full network of actors, and thus for-profits can play a pivotal
role in addressing social issues, as effectively as (and in some cases more effectively than) their
non-profit and government counterparts (Polonsky, 2017).
Historically, the government has been the primary source of social advertising. Australia
has the highest per capita spending on government advertising in the world (Orr, 2006),
spending $174.7 million in 2016 (Australian Government Department of Finance, 2016;
Hickman, 2016). Government advertising encompasses the promotion of government services
and changes in legislation, as well as social advertising campaigns, such as anti-smoking and
drink-driving campaigns (Kerr, Johnston & Beatson, 2008; Manyiwa & Brennan, 2012). Over
the past two years, the Australian Government has produced a number of social advertising
campaigns, such as Girls, Make Your Move (promoting physical activity for young women,
costing $6.1 million), BreastScreen (promoting breast cancer awareness, costing $1.1 million),
Don’t Make Smoking Your Story (promoting smoking cessation, costing $6.3 million), and
Let’s Stop it at the Start (promoting domestic violence awareness, costing $10.5 million)
(Australian Government Department of Finance, 2016, p.10-11).
Increasingly, however, not-for-profit and commercial organisations are also engaging in
social advertising. Not-for-profit organisations engage in social advertising for reasons such as
raising their profile and attracting donations (Nelson, Brunel, Supphellen, & Manchanda,
2006). Australian not-for-profit organisations, including the National Breast Cancer
Foundation, Beyond Blue, and The Royal Hospital for Women Foundation, frequently
4
advertise to sway opinion regarding health topics (Worthington, Nussbaum & Parrott, 2015)
and encourage healthy behaviours (e.g. Banks et al., 1995; Bator & Cialdini, 2000). The
proportion of social advertising that comes from not-for-profit organisations is lower than
government, given the marketing budgets of non-profit organisations are typically 2% - 3% of
the organisation’s overall operating budget (Lipman Hearne, 2008, p.16). Nonetheless,
effective advertising plays a key role in building awareness and generating revenue for these
organisations (Lipman Hearne, 2008).
Commercial organisations, or for-profit organisations, have greater resources and have
begun to recognise embracing corporate social responsibility (CSR) (Jahdi & Acikdilli, 2009),
a tool which is fast becoming a ‘must have’, or at least a ‘be seen to have’, for commercial
business (Hopkins, 2003; Jackson, 2001). Intermarché, a large French green grocer, produced
The Inglorious Fruit and Vegetable campaign in 2014-15 (les fruits et légumes moches), which
aimed to reduce food waste by selling ‘ugly’ fruits and vegetables at a discount (D & AD,
2015). As another example, Nike’s 2012 Find Your Greatness campaign responded to the
current macro environment, in which physical inactivity is on a constant global incline (World
Health Organisation, 2005), by encouraging regular people to engage in regular physical
activity (Nike, 2012). U by Kotex, a feminine hygiene brand, also produced a series of ads in
their 2016 Let’s Move On campaign, which depicted high-achieving Australian women being
physically active and achieving success in their fields, advocating the message that “women
achieve amazing things every day, and what they achieve in life has nothing to do with periods”
(B&T Magazine, 2016). As with Nike’s campaign, U by Kotex’s campaign sought to persuade
women to purchase U by Kotex products, so that they can be physically active, and “[achieve]
great things whether they’ve got their period or not” (Cheung, 2016 in B&T Magazine, 2016).
5
1.2.2 Perceived Source Credibility
As highlighted, social advertising is now commonly used by government, not-for-profit
and commercial organisations alike to persuade people to change their behaviour (Lee &
Kotler, 2011; Jones et al., 2003; Polonsky, 2017). However, our understanding of the
effectiveness of social advertising comparatively across these sources is underdeveloped (Grier
& Byrant, 2005; Lee & Kotler, 2011; Saunders, Barrington & Sridharan, 2015). This is
important as preliminary research on social advertising across sectors has shown that not-for-
profit organisations (or those that appear to be) such as the NHS were considered significantly
more credible and trustworthy than government and commercial sources, which were met with
high levels of scepticism (Barker, Minns Lowe & Reid, 2007). This suggests that government,
not-for-profit and commercial sources of social advertising may differ in terms of their
perceived source credibility, a factor shown to impact advertising effectiveness (see
Pornpitakpan, 2004). Understanding potential differences in perceived source credibility and
its impact on social advertising effectiveness would not only build understanding of the factors
impacting social advertising, but also provide a practical basis for decisions around resource
allocation (e.g., whether to engage in partnerships or divert funds across organisational types)
to optimise benefit to individuals and society.
1.2.3 Informational Claims
Notwithstanding differences in perceived source credibility, there are other implications
of the increased engagement across government, not-for-profit and commercial organisations
in social advertising. One of these is the cross pollination of the different styles of advertising
implemented by these organisational types. The social advertising produced by commercial
organisations, for example, tends to present minimal information about the social issue that
forms the focus of the social advertising. For example, Nike advertisements, like the Find Your
Greatness campaign, often do not include any information about their product or the social
6
issue (physical activity), instead relying primarily on heuristics such as brand familiarity and
imagery. More recently, the Australian Government has adopted a similar approach to their
social advertising. The 2016 Girl’s Make Your Move campaign, which promotes an uptake of
regular physical activity to adolescent women, exemplifies this shift in advertising style. Unlike
previous campaigns that include information aiming to educate about the merits of engaging in
physical activity (e.g., the 2012 Measure Up campaign, which aimed to “raise appreciation of
why behavioural change is necessary”, by “include[ing] information on what people need to do
and how they can do it” [Council on Federal Financial Relations, 2012, p. 24]), the Girls Make
Your Move campaign follows Nike’s approach. Specifically, the advertisements in this
campaign depict young women engaging in physical activity but exclude any information about
why they should. Understanding whether such an approach, where an informational claim is
excluded, is effective, is critical to improving understanding of the effectiveness of social
advertising across organisational types.
This is also an important avenue of research from a theoretical perspective.
Justification has long been considered a key component of persuasive rhetoric, first articulated
by Aristotle when he outlined three pillars of persuasion (Aristotle, 350 B.C.E/1924), whereby
Logos underscored the need to structure arguments with logic and reason in order to be
persuasive. Psychological theories also suggest requests for action are more compelling when
justified by the provision of information. Langer, Blank and Chanowitz (1978) found that
people in compliance paradigms were more likely to respond favourably when given a reason
why they should. This is also consistent with broader persuasion theory, which fundamentally
implies an information-deficit model, in that it purports exposure to information enables
attitudinal change, and subsequently behavioural change (Hovland & Weiss, 1951). There are,
however, significant limitations to this linear model, with research indicating more information
does not always lead to a better understanding, and that people may filter information from
7
behaviour change campaigns to re-affirm their own beliefs (Kahan et al., 2012; Kahan, Peters,
Dawson & Slovic, 2013; McKenzie-Mohr, 2000; Syme, Nancarrow & Seligman, 2000). This
casts doubt on the importance of informational claims in social advertising.
Notwithstanding this empirical evidence, which calls into question whether justification
is still a key aspect of behaviour change campaigns, limited research has addressed the key
decision about whether to provide that information at all. This motivates a question regarding
the second major gap of the present study: do behaviour change campaigns still require the
provision of supporting information? With social advertisers from government and corporate
sectors placing less emphasis on justifying behaviour change in social advertising (see
examples of the Australian Government and Nike, above), it is important to examine whether
this tactic still has a place in the modern social advertising context.
1.2.4 Consumer Scepticism and Consumer Cynicism
It is also important to consider environmental factors that may influence the impact of
perceived source credibility and information claim on social advertising effectiveness. The
growing incidence of consumer scepticism and cynicism may be two such factors. Consumer
scepticism refers to a general tendency toward disbelief of advertising claims (Hardesty,
Carlson & Beardon, 2002), whereas consumer cynicism involves the suspicion of an
advertiser’s motives, faithfulness, and goodwill (Kanter & Mirvis, 1989). Research company
McKinsey reports a declining trust in advertising (Court, Gordon & Perrey, 2005), and the rise
of the ‘defensive consumer’ (Darke & Ritchie, 2007) has been well documented. Further, the
Edelman Institute’s 2017 global Trust Barometer found that overall public trust in Australian
government, non-government organisations, media and business fell from 49% in 2016 to 42%
in 2017. In the context of social advertising, preliminary research has identified cynicism
towards the government, specifically, that the government was likely to be “less motivated by
health concerns and more likely to be driven by financial concerns” when engaging in social
8
advertising (Barker, Minns Lowe & Reid, 2007, p.339). It is therefore likely that both consumer
scepticism and cynicism may impact social advertising effectiveness, specifically, the
relationship between perceived source credibility and information claim and social advertising
effectiveness.
While the research problems identified in this section provide the basis for the research
questions that drive this study, they do not provide direction in terms of the theoretical
frameworks that would underpin the study conceptualisation. The following section, Section
1.3 Research Rationale, presents a summary of the academic research relating to social
advertising effectiveness and its determinants that further inform the research questions,
presented in Section 1.4 Research Questions, and the design of the research, presented in
Section 1.4 Research Methodology.
1.3 RESEARCH RATIONALE
A significant proportion of research focussing on social advertising effectiveness does
not distinguish social advertising from the broader social marketing framework. As such, social
advertising is often measured in terms of behavioural outcomes (e.g., Gordon, McDermott,
Stead & Angus, 2006; Kubacki, Rundle-Thiele, Pang & Buyucek, 2015). Studies that focus
exclusively on social advertising effectiveness, however, tend to examine both psychological
outcomes such as consumer attitudes, and behavioural outcomes such as behavioural intentions
(e.g., Brennan & Binney, 2010; Manyiwa & Brennan, 2012). This approach is adopted by this
research, which conceptualises and operationalises social advertising effectiveness in terms of
consumer attitudes and behavioural intentions.
1.3.1 Elaboration Likelihood Model
Petty and Cacioppo’s (1986) Elaboration Likelihood Model is the most well-established
theoretical framework for examining the processes that underpin changes in consumer attitude
9
(Kitchen, Kerr, Schultz, McColl & Pals, 2014). The Elaboration Likelihood Model is a dual-
processing model that specifies two routes to attitude change: the central route and the
peripheral route. The systematic or central route processing occurs when motivation or ability
to process persuasive messages is high, and attitude change is more likely to occur as a function
of thoughtful consideration of arguments or information central to the issue (Petty & Cacioppo,
1986). Alternatively, the peripheral route is used when motivation or ability to process
persuasive messages is low, and attitude change is more likely to occur when individuals rely
on peripheral cues, such as the source of the message, than issue-relevant information (Petty &
Cacioppo, 1986).
The Elaboration Likelihood Model is not without criticism. Kitchen and colleagues
(2014) describe four major areas of concern regarding the Elaboration Likelihood Model,
including (1) model assumptions and its descriptive nature, (2) the continuum between central
and peripheral routes, (3) multi-channel processes, and (4) the analysis of different variables
that mediate elaboration likelihood (see Kitchen et al., 2014). These criticisms do not directly
impact the nature of the current study. Rather, this study contributes to the extant literature by
addressing the third and fourth criticisms, as it investigates multi-channel processing, as well
as two variables that may interrupt elaboration likelihood. As such, the Elaboration Likelihood
Model provides a solid theoretical basis for investigating the impact of perceived source
credibility, a key factor in the peripheral route to consumer attitude change, and informational
claims, a key factor in the central route to consumer attitude change.
This approach is also aligned with existing literature on perceived source credibility, with
Pornpitakpan (2004) calling for the investigation of possible interactions between perceived
source credibility and other factors on the basis of a meta-review. In particular, while studies
have investigated several message variables, few have touched on the amount of information
provided in the message (Pornpitakpan, 2004), suggesting that a study examining the impact
10
of perceived source credibility and informational claim on social advertising effectiveness
could contribute new knowledge to the domain. In particular, it could be important to
understand if there is an interaction between these two elements of persuasion. Past research
has found that audiences base their credibility assessments on a multitude of factors involved
in communication, including both the message source and the message content (Hovland, Janis
& Kelley, 1953; O’Keefe, 1990; Kiousis, 2001; Carr, Barnidge, Lee & Tsang, 2014),
suggesting that an interaction between perceived source credibility and the informational claim
is possible in terms of social advertising effectiveness. This thesis explores this possibility,
answering the call (Kitchen et al., 2014) for further research into multi-channel processing,
whereby subjects process persuasive messages using both the central and peripheral routes,
rather than through a single route as dictated by the model.
1.3.2 Persuasion Knowledge Model
It is also important to consider factors which may interrupt the relationships between
perceived source credibility, information claim and social advertising effectiveness specified
by the Elaboration Likelihood Model. Some authors suggest that research on advertising
effectiveness has not thoroughly considered features of consumers’ interactions in the
marketplace, namely their understanding of persuasion tactics (Koslow, 2000). The Persuasion
Knowledge Model (Friestad & Wright, 1994) asserts consumers often possess the knowledge
that a persuasion attempt is being targeted at them. Using their knowledge of persuasion
motives and tactics, consumers evaluate the veracity of the information presented in a message,
and attribute motivations of the advertiser behind this attempt. This process of evaluating
advertising information, and attributing motivations to the source of that information, can be
understood in terms of consumer scepticism and consumer cynicism.
That is, a high level of persuasion knowledge can manifest in the development of
consumer scepticism (Austin et al., 2002; Austin, Muldrow & Austin, 2016), which can be
11
conceptualised as “a cognitive state of incredulity that encourages more thoughtful processing”
(Austin et al., 2002, p.158). This is consistent with the Persuasion Knowledge Model which
asserts that consumers use their persuasion knowledge to evaluate the veracity of the
information presented in a message (Friedstad & Wright, 1994; Gass & Seiter, 1999). On this
basis, consumer scepticism should influence the relationship between perceived source
credibility, informational claim and social advertising effectiveness (e.g. Austin et al., 2016).
Nevertheless, few studies have examined consumer scepticism in the domain of social
advertising (see Thakor & Goneau-Lessard, 2009). This is important given that while
scepticism may protect consumers (Friedman, 1998; Koslow, 2000), it may also lead them to
ignore or reject appeals made in their own best interest (Leonidou & Skarmeas, 2017; Mohr,
Eroglu & Ellen, 1998; Moore & Rodgers, 2005; Skarmeas & Leonidou, 2013) such as in the
case of social advertising.
The Persuasion Knowledge Model also proposes that persuasion knowledge leads
individuals to attribute the motivations of the agent behind a persuasive attempt, which can be
viewed through the lens of consumer cynicism. Cynical consumers are generally less likely to
believe information from any source, and are especially likely to attribute advertising claims
to selling motives, rather than strict honesty (Kanter & Wortzel, 1985; Mohr et al., 1998). On
this basis, it is likely that consumer cynicism will influence the relationship between perceived
source credibility, informational claim and social advertising effectiveness, however, there has
been very little research to this effect (Carr, Barnidge, Lee, & Tsang, 2014; Odou & de
Pechpeyrou, 2011; Chylinski & Chu, 2010).
This thesis explores the potential interrupting impact of consumer scepticism and
consumer cynicism on the relationship between perceived source credibility, informational
claim and social advertising effectiveness, thereby answering the call for empirical
12
investigations into boundary conditions of the Elaboration Likelihood Model (Kitchen et al.,
2014).
In summary, the literature provides adequate theoretical support for the investigation of
the impact of perceived source credibility, information claim, consumer scepticism and
consumer cynicism on social advertising effectiveness. A more detailed consideration of this
literature, including the development of the hypotheses underpinning this study, is provided in
Chapter 2 Literature Review. The following section presents the research questions developed
from the research problems identified in Section 1.2 Research Problem and justified theoretical
rationale in Section 1.3 Research Rationale.
1.4 RESEARCH QUESTIONS
As highlighted in Section 1.2 Research Problem, there is room for improved
understanding of the effectiveness of social advertising across the different organisations
currently engaging in this practice. In particular, there is a need to clarify the perceived source
credibility of government, not-for-profit and commercial sources, and the subsequent effect on
social advertising effectiveness. Moreover, it is important to examine the effect of current
practice in social advertising from these sources, particularly the trend to provide little
information on the social issue of focus, on social advertising effectiveness. Last, consideration
of important environmental factors, specifically the rise of consumer scepticism and cynicism,
was also indicated. On this basis, the following research questions have been developed:
Research Question 1 (RQ1): To what extent do perceptions of source credibility vary
between government, not-for-profit and commercial organisations engaging in social
advertising?
Research Question 2 (RQ2): Do perceived source credibility and the presence of an
informational claim impact social advertising effectiveness?
13
Research Question 3 (RQ3): Is the relationship between perceived source credibility, the
presence of an informational claim and social advertising effectiveness impacted by
consumer scepticism or consumer cynicism?
As highlighted in Section 1.3 Research Rationale, the Elaboration Likelihood Model
provides the theoretical basis for examining the effect of perceived source credibility and
informational claim on social advertising effectiveness, but the Persuasion Knowledge Model
(Friestad & Wright, 1994) suggests that consumer scepticism and cynicism may interrupt this
process. In other words, the relationships being investigated by RQ2 are underpinned
theoretically by the Elaboration Likelihood Model (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986), while the
relationships being investigated by RQ3 are underpinned theoretically by the Persuasion
Knowledge Model (Friestad & Wright, 1994).
1.5 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The aim of this research is to investigate the effects of perceived source credibility and
informational claim on the effectiveness of social advertising, while accounting for the
moderating effects of consumer scepticism and consumer cynicism on the basis of previous
research. It follows, therefore, that this study employs a confirmatory research design.
Specifically, the research uses a fully-crossed 2 (informational claim presence/absence) x 3
(organisational source type) factorial experimental design to evaluate (1) whether different
sources of social advertising vary in perceived source credibility, (2) whether perceived source
credibility and informational claims influence social advertising effectiveness, and (3) whether
consumer scepticism towards advertising and consumer cynicism toward the source of the
advertising moderates the effect of perceived source credibility and informational claims on
the effectiveness of social advertising. Factorial experimental designs estimate main effects
and interactions by combining experimental conditions in a principled way by means of
factorial analysis of variance (ANOVA) (Collins, Dziak, Kugler & Trail, 2014). A randomised
14
factorial experimental design was employed to eliminate most of the alternative explanations
for the relationships being investigated.
A socially beneficial behaviour that could plausibly be the subject of social advertising
from commercial, not-for-profit and government sources was selected for the experiment.
Increased physical activity was deemed to be the most appropriate behaviour because physical
inactivity has become one of the leading causes of disease, disability and death globally (World
Health Organisation, 2005; 2008) and could be the subject of social advertising across
government, not-for-profit and commercial organisations. It is also an important area of social
advertising, as physical inactivity has become the fourth leading cause of global deaths due to
non-communicable diseases, contributing to over 1.6 million deaths each year (Global Burden
of Disease, 2016). The experiment was thus implemented in the context of social advertising
to increase physical activity.
The experiment was cross sectional, delivered through online self-report questionnaires
at a single point in time (Lefever, Dal & Matthíasdóttir, 2007). Within the survey, five central
constructs were measured: perceived source credibility, consumer scepticism, consumer
cynicism, attitude toward the advertisement and behavioural intention. A further six control
constructs were also measured: information processing style (i.e., need for cognition and need
for affect), media literacy (i.e., critical thinking about the source of the message and content in
the message), and issue involvement (i.e., attitude toward and involvement in physical activity).
The measures used for these constructs were pre-validated scales. The survey was launched
externally to a panel sample of English-speaking Australian adults, recruited using the market
research company Survey Sampling Inc (SSI). A total of 372 survey questionnaires were
completed through the SSI market research panel. The data were analysed using quantitative
techniques in SPSS. Descriptive statistics provide context surrounding the participant sample
and direction of the study. Various analytic procedures were then used to evaluate the
15
hypotheses, including one-way independent samples analysis of variance (ANOVA),
hierarchical multiple linear regression, analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), and hierarchical
linear moderated regression, testing for main and interaction effects using a step-wise
procedure.
1.6 FINDINGS AND IMPLICATIONS
1.6.1 Theoretical Implications
There have been calls for continued research into social advertising effectiveness (e.g.
Hassan, Walsh, Shiu, Hastings & Harris, 2007; Haytko & Matulich, 2008). This is an important
area of research, given that social advertising efforts are generally researched within the
broader scope of social marketing activities, and tend not to be examined on their own (Carins
& Rundle-Thiele, 2014; Gordon, McDermott, Stead & Angus, 2006; Kubacki, Rundle-Thiele,
Pang & Buyucek, 2015; Stead, Gordon, Angus & McDermott, 2007).
Specifically, researchers have underscored the need to examine how perceived source
credibility varies in social advertising situations (Barker, Minns Lowe & Reid, 2007; Smith,
Jones & Algie, 2007). This study addressed this research gap, by quantifying differences
between the credibility with which government, not-for-profit and commercial organisations
are perceived in a social advertising context. Critically, it found empirical support for the notion
that government sources possess relatively less credibility than commercial and not-for-profit
organisations as the source of social advertising. This is an important implication and provides
a basis for future research directions.
Moreover, there has been debate in the literature over who can, and should, engage in
social advertising and social marketing (Polonsky, 2017), with some academics adamant that
“business is just business” (Davis, 2005) and that commercial organisations should not be
involved. The findings of the present study contribute to the growing body of research that
instead supports the involvement of commercial organisations in societal advertising.
16
Specifically, this study found commercial organisations were more credible than government
organisations, and that social advertisements from commercial organisations received more
favourable attitudes than those from government organisations. These findings provide
empirical support for the role of corporate social advertising. For instance, firms promoting
physical activity while marketing athletic wear benefit both the firm and society, as the
marketing activities drive profits for the company, simultaneously increasing consumer
knowledge of and interest in physical activity (Polonskly, 2017). Should this lead to increased
physical engagement, this could lower health care costs associated with physical inactivity
(Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2012; Colagiuri et al., 2010). Moreover, for-profit
organisations might be better at implementing marketing and educational programs, given their
expertise in communicating the value of adopting given behaviours (i.e. purchasing their goods
and services) (Rothschild, 1999; Polonsky, 2017).
There has been a call for empirical investigations into boundary conditions of the
Elaboration Likelihood Model (Kitchen et al., 2014). Specifically, while countless studies
support the foundations of this model, there are gaps in our understanding of factors that may
moderate or mediate elaboration likelihood, and under what conditions this may occur (Petty
& Cacioppo, 1986; Petty, Bardon & Wheeler, 2009). This study examines two key
characteristics of persuasion knowledge, namely consumer scepticism (Obermiller &
Spangenberg, 1998) and consumer cynicism (Helm, 2004; Chylinski & Chu, 2010), which have
until now been largely neglected from the social advertising domain (see do Paço & Reis,
2012). The findings demonstrate that consumer scepticism and consumer cynicism interrupt
elaboration likelihood under certain conditions. Specifically, scepticism and cynicism
moderate the relationship between perceived source credibility and social advertising
effectiveness. These findings expand our understanding of elaboration likelihood and provide
17
researchers and practitioners a better understanding of critical thinking about social advertising
messages.
While the ELM stipulates a dual-processing model, whereby there are two distinct paths to
attitude change, there has also been a call for empirical investigations into multi-channel
processing (Kitchen et al., 2014). The findings of this study oppose the model’s assumed
dichotomy between message arguments and heuristics (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986),
demonstrating that consumers rely both on heuristics and message content in persuasive
paradigms, thus, they use both their central and peripheral routes to information processing.
This is in line with the Combined Influence Hypothesis, which purports message arguments
(such as informational claims) and peripheral route cues (such as source credibility) work in
combination to form attitudes irrespective of differing levels of motivation and ability (Lord,
Lee & Sauer, 1995).
This thesis also provides evidence that informational appeals help, rather than hinder, social
advertising effectiveness. Theories of psychology and persuasion have traditionally placed an
emphasis on the provision of information in persuasive paradigms. Aritstotle’s logos (350
B.C.E/1924), Langer and colleagues’ mindlessness of ostensibly thoughtful action (1978), and
Hovland and Weiss’ theory of persuasion (1951) all essentially indicate that requests for action
are more compelling when justified by the provision of information. While this concept is
pervasive in both theory and practice, research has begun to cast doubt on the importance of
informational claims (Kahan et al., 2012; Kahan, Peters, Dawson & Slovic, 2013; McKenzie-
Mohr, 2000; Syme, Nancarrow & Seligman, 2000), and a trend is emerging in social
advertisements to exclude information justifying why people should change their behaviour.
This study contributed to this area of conflicting research, by demonstrating that social
advertisements which justify behaviour change requests with an informational claim are more
effective than those that do not contain information.
18
Finally, this study makes an important contribution to construct clarity in the consumer
scepticism and consumer cynicism literature by highlighting each construct’s distinctiveness.
That is, scepticism and cynicism are frequently used interchangeably in the literature (e.g.
Koslow, 2000). This has led to a murky understanding of the nuanced impact each construct
has in terms of persuasion. While scepticism and cynicism share a number of semantic
similarities, they are distinct constructs, both in etymology and in their impact on advertising
effectiveness. By operationalising each construct in terms of its etymological origins, this study
found that while consumer scepticism moderated the relationship between perceived source
credibility and consumer attitude toward the advertisement, consumer cynicism moderated the
relationship between perceived source credibility and behavioural intention. This provides
much needed theoretical clarity and a foundation for future research into other differential
impacts of scepticism and cynicism in various advertising conditions.
1.6.2 Practical Implications
The results of this study have practical implications for various agents of social
advertising. Government, non-profit and commercial organisations who produce social
advertisements are continually looking to literature to understand how consumers process and
respond to their advertisements and campaigns (Freeman, Potente, Rock & McIver, 2015). This
study found that perceived source credibility impacts social advertising effectiveness, in
particular, that social advertising aiming to increase physical activity is likely to be most
effective when generated by not-for-profit or commercial sources, relative to government
sources. This is because the study found consumer attitudes are highest toward social
advertisements released by not-for-profit or commercial sources, while social advertising from
government sources produced least favourable attitudes toward the ad.
Governments spend millions of dollars on obesity-related chronic disease and healthy
lifestyle advertising campaigns that attempt to encourage behavioural change (PwC, 2015).
19
The findings of this study suggest social advertising which aims to increase physical activity
may be better perceived, and more effective, if it comes from not-for-profit or commercial
sources, rather than government sources. This implies there may be a better use of the resources
used for health-related social advertising by government sources, for instance, providing
funding to support social advertising from not-for-profit or commercial sources. Critically, this
study did not investigate jointly-sponsored social advertising, however the study findings
indicate such partnerships could be an interesting direction for future research.
Government have begun adopting commercial strategies in their social advertising
communications. An example of this is the Australian Government 2016 Girl’s Make Your
Move campaign. Despite its aim to encourage physical activity among adolescent women, the
advertisements in this campaign contain very little information about the merits of physical
activity. This is akin to commercial organisations, such as Nike’s Find Your Greatness
campaign, which rely on brand familiarity and imagery to sell their products and convey
behaviour change messages. However, the results of this study suggest this might not be the
most effective strategy for social advertisers. The research found advertisements which
included a gain-framed informational claim (in this case, “30 minutes of exercise a day is all it
takes to help prevent unhealthy weight gain. Walk, run, swim, ride, dance or play – whatever
you choose, get up and go!”) resulted in more favourable consumer attitudes toward the
advertisement, than advertisements that did not provide an informational claim and instead
only included a call to action (e.g. “get up and go!”). This has important implications for
practitioners involved in developing social advertisements.
Finally, the results of this study indicate that having doubts about the information in
health-related social advertisements (scepticism), or the motives of the parties responsible for
them (cynicism), may deter individuals from making healthier lifestyle choices. Specifically,
highly sceptical consumers reported less favourable attitudes toward social advertisements than
20
low scepticism consumers, whether they perceived the source of the ad to be credible or not.
Likewise, highly cynical consumers reported lower intentions to change their behaviour in
favour of the advertised issue, when they perceived the source of the ad to have low credibility.
As perceived source credibility increased among highly cynical consumers, behavioural
intentions increased slightly, but remained low comparative to less cynical consumers. In
effect, these findings provide an important caution to social advertisers, to be aware that
consumer scepticism and cynicism may inhibit the effectiveness of advertisements that aim to
improve societal health and wellbeing. However, the results also suggest that social advertising
sources may be able to counteract the impact of rising scepticism and cynicism on social
advertising effectiveness, by leveraging or enhancing their perceived source credibility.
1.7 THESIS OUTLINE
This thesis continues as follows. This chapter, the introduction, outlines the research
problems and rationale, highlighting the research gaps identified in the literature, and presents
the research questions. Chapter Two, the Literature Review, evaluates the literature on
perceived source credibility, informational claim, consumer scepticism and consumer
cynicism. This chapter also presents the theoretical foundation for the research, identifying the
hypotheses. Chapter 3, Methodology, delineates the research design adopted to investigate the
hypotheses presented in Chapter 2. This chapter justifies the chosen research methods,
measurement scales, sampling techniques and analytic methods. Chapter 4 presents the
quantitative results derived from the analysis. Chapter 5 discusses the results and overall
findings of this thesis, explaining their theoretical and practical implications. It also concludes
this thesis, providing the limitations of the study and directions for future research.
1.8 CONCLUSION
This chapter provided the research problems underpinning this thesis, which aims to
improve understanding of the effectiveness of social advertising from government, not-for-
21
profit and commercial sources. Key determinants of social advertising effectiveness,
specifically perceived source credibility and informational claim were introduced, underpinned
by the Elaboration Likelihood Model (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). In addition, key interrupters
of the impact of these determinants were also introduced, specifically consumer scepticism and
consumer cynicism, underpinned by the Persuasion Knowledge Model (Friestad & Wright,
1994). The research questions and methodology were then summarised. Following this, the
contributions of this research to theory and practice were discussed, and the research limitations
acknowledged. The next chapter, Chapter 2 Literature Review, provides a more thorough
review of the extant literature in this domain, and outlines the development of the hypotheses
that form the basis of this research.
22
Chapter 2: Literature Review
2.1 INTRODUCTION
The Introduction provided an overview of the research problem and rationale and
presented the research questions that will drive this Chapter 2: Literature Review. Specifically,
the research questions aimed to identify (1) the extent to which perceptions of source credibility
varies between government, not-for-profit and commercial organisations (RQ1), (2) how
perceived sourced credibility and the presence of an informational claim impact social
advertising effectiveness (RQ2), and (3) whether consumer scepticism or consumer cynicism
interrupts these relationships (RQ3). This chapter first frames advertising effectiveness for the
purpose of this research. Second, it reviews literature on the theoretical constructs underpinning
this research, namely the Elaboration Likelihood Model and the Persuasion Knowledge Model,
meanwhile using this literature to motivate the current study’s hypotheses. Finally, it concludes
this literature review by summarising the research questions and hypotheses driving the study.
2.2 ADVERTISING EFFECTIVENESS
Advertising effectiveness has occupied researchers in the marketing communications
field for decades. Advertising effectiveness can be operationalised from a behavioural or
psychological perspective, although it is acknowledged that a variety of neurophysiological
measures are increasingly being used to assess the effectiveness of advertising (see Falk et al.,
2015; Pozharliev, Verbeke, Van Strien & Bagozzi, 2015). It is generally accepted that the
behavioural or sales outcomes of advertising are preceded by more immediate communication
effects, whereby consumers move from being aware of and developing preference for a product
offering to building a conviction to buy and then actually purchasing the product offering
(Lavidge & Steiner, 1961). As such, a large proportion of research examining advertising
23
effectiveness focuses on psychological outcomes such as consumer attitudes (Amos, Holmes
& Strutton, 2015; Hong & Zinkhan, 1995; McKay-Nesbitt, Manchanda, Smith & Huhmann,
2011; MacKenzie, Lutz & Belch, 1986; MacKenzie & Lutz, 1989; Mehta, 2000; Stuart, Shimp
& Engle, 1987). The exception, however, is the field of social advertising, where investigating
behavioural outcomes as a measure for (social) advertising effectiveness is more prominent.
Social advertising refers to the communications used to convey the benefits, costs and
requirements of a socially beneficial behaviour to a target audience (Kotler et al., 2002). Such
advertising occurs through personal or impersonal media appropriate to the target audience's
lifestyle patterns and preferences (Andreasen, 1994). A significant proportion of research
focussing on advertising effectiveness does not distinguish social advertising from the broader
social marketing framework. As such, owing to social marketing’s historical focus on
individual behaviours (Andreasen, 2002), it is unsurprising that the effectiveness of social
advertising is often measured in terms of behavioural outcomes. For example, systematic
reviews of social marketing effectiveness report on social marketing’s capacity to change
behaviours in relation to alcohol, tobacco, illicit drugs, nutrition and physical activity (Carins
& Rundle-Thiele, 2014; Gordon et al., 2006; Kubacki et al., 2015; Stead et al., 2006).
Nonetheless, studies that focus exclusively on social advertising effectiveness tend to examine
both psychological and behavioural outcomes (e.g., Brennan & Binney, 2010; Manyiwa &
Brennan, 2012). Consequently, this research operationalises advertising effectiveness in terms
of both psychological and behavioural outcomes.
In terms of psychological outcomes, advertising effectiveness in both social and
commercial domains has been operationalised in a number of ways. A meta-analysis identified
that advertising effectiveness in commercial domains is most commonly examined in terms of
(1) purchase intention, (2) brand attitude, (3) attitude towards advertisement, (4) believability,
(5) recall, and (6) recognition, all of which are psychological outcomes (Amos et al., 2015).
24
Other operationalisations of advertising effectiveness include advertising recall (Bellman et al.,
2012; McKay-Nesbitt et al., 2011; Mehta, 2000; Moorman, Willemsen, Neijens & Smit, 2012;
Puntoni & Tavassoli, 2007), involvement (James & Kover, 1992; McKay-Nesbitt et al., 2011),
recognition (Langleben et al., 2009; Amos, Holmes & Strutton, 2015), and consumer
interaction with the ad (de Vries, Gensler & Leeflang, 2012; Spotts, Purvis & Patanaik, 2014;
Brettel, Reich, Gavilanes & Flatten, 2015). Similarly, advertising effectiveness in social
domains is commonly examined in terms of consumer attitudes (e.g., Lord, 1994; Manyiwa &
Brennan, 2012; Tobler & Stratton, 1997), awareness (Talbert, 2008; McCulloch, Albarracin,
& Durantini, 2008; Hawkins & Hane, 2000; Karan, 2008; Huhman et al., 2005), and perceived
believability (Beltramini, 1988; Hawkins & Hane, 2000). The additional operationalisations of
advertising effectiveness in this domain including risk perception (Bauman, LaPrelle, Brown,
Koch & Padgett, 1991; Karan, 2008) and coping response (Dickinson & Holmes, 2008);
intention change (Talbert, 2008; Jones et al., 2003; Jones, Sinclair, Rhodes & Courneya, 2004;
Karan, 2008; Noble, Pomering & Johnson, 2014).
As one of the foremost, long-standing approaches to examining advertising
effectiveness in both commercial and social domains (e.g. MacKenzie et al., 1986; Eisend,
Plagemann & Sollwedel, 2014; McKay-Nesbitt et al., 2011; Mehta, 2000; de Pelsmacker,
Geuens & Anckaert, 2013), consumer attitudes are an appropriate focus of this study. Attitude
change is considered to be the central process through which persuasion occurs (Kitchen et al.,
2014). Attitude toward an advertisement can be defined as a “predisposition to respond in a
favourable or unfavourable manner to a particular advertising stimulus during a particular
exposure occasion” (MacKenzie et al., 1986, p. 131). Attitude toward the advertisement has
been found to influence a range of important psychological precursors to behavioural
outcomes, such as brand attitude (Brown & Stayman, 1992; Huang, Su, Zhou & Liu, 2013;
MacKenzie et al., 1986), brand cognitions (Brown & Stayman, 1992), and attention (i.e.,
25
viewing time) (Olney, Holbrook & Batra, 1991). In social advertising, consumer attitude
toward the advertisement has also been found to precede the intention to perform socially
beneficial behaviour, including quitting smoking (Manyiwa & Brennan, 2012; Steward,
Schneider, Pizarro & Salovey, 2003; Tangari, Burton, Andrews & Netemeyer, 2007), recycling
(Lord, 1994), saving energy (Bertrand, Goldman, Zhivan, Agyeman & Barber, 2011), using
condoms (Albarracin, Johnson, Fishbein & Muellerleile, 2001; Bosompra, 2001), adopting
skin cancer prevention behaviours (Steen, Peay & Owen, 2007), and mammography
participation (Montaño & Taplin, 1991).
Notwithstanding more general attitudinal models such as the Theory of Planned
Behaviour, which show the positive impact of consumer attitudes on behavioural intentions
(Ajzen, 1991), numerous studies have examined specific antecedents to consumer attitudes
toward advertisements (e.g. Metha, 2000; Dutta-Bergman, 2006; Bush, Smith & Martin, 1999;
MacKenzie & Lutz, 1989). Consumer attitudes toward advertising in general, for instance, has
been shown to influence consumer attitudes toward advertisements (Metha, 2000), as well as
brand and ad cognitions (Brown & Stayman, 1992). Many of these studies (e.g. Metha, 2000;
Goldsmith, Lafferty & Newell, 2000) still rely, however, on the principles of the Elaboration
Likelihood Model (ELM) (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). This model is most often used by
advertising researchers when studying attitudinal change (Kitchen et al., 2014), which is
unsurprising given the ELM was designed to integrate different theories of attitude change in
advertising (Petty, Cacioppo, & Schumann, 1983).
The ELM is considered a core theoretical pillar of advertising (Kerr, Schultz, Kitchen,
Mulhern, & Beede, 2015). The ELM has been empirically tested within and applied to a range
of different issues, such as intentions to purchase products from razors and calculators (Cole,
Ettenson, Reinke & Schrader, 1990; Haugtvedt, Petty & Cacioppi, 1992), to Coca-Cola and
M&Ms (Gnepa, 2012; Lammers, 2000), to cameras and cars (Cole, Ettenson, Reinke &
26
Schrader, 1990; Gnepa, 2012). Some research, however, questions the applicability of the ELM
to digital advertising (Kerr et al., 2015), despite other studies having employed the ELM
successfully to investigate digital issues such as click-through rate on banner ads (Cho, 2012).
The ELM has also been applied to social issues such as the appeal of pro-environmental social
advertising campaigns (Noble, Pomering & Johnson, 2014) and exercise intentions (Jones et
al., 2003). As a general model that is demonstrably useful to understand responses to
advertising and information across time and both commercial and social contexts, the ELM
forms the overarching conceptual framework of this research.
2.3 ELABORATION LIKELIHOOD MODEL
Petty and Cacioppo’s (1986) Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) is a dual-processing
model of persuasion (Jones et al., 2004). The basic tenet of the ELM is that there are two routes
to persuasion: the central and peripheral routes (Kitchen et al., 2014). These two routes account
for the varied likelihood that cognitive effort will be expended to process a message. Systematic
or central route processing occurs when consumers’ motivation or ability to process
information is high. Attitude change is more likely to occur following this route as a function
of thoughtful scrutiny and consideration of arguments central to the issue (Petty & Cacioppo,
1986). Alternatively, the peripheral route is used when motivation or ability to process or think
about information is low. Individuals with low elaboration likelihood are more likely to rely
on affective associations or simple inferences tied to peripheral cues in the persuasive message,
such as source credibility, than issue-relevant information (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986; Jones et
al., 2004). Variables such as affect, personal involvement with the issue, and cognitive
responses have been identified as factors that mediate elaboration likelihood and have received
significant attention in the literature (Kitchen et al., 2014).
27
2.3.1 Limitations of the ELM
Despite being one of the most influential theories in marketing communication
research, however, the ELM has also received criticism. In particular, the four most pervasive
criticisms have been identified as issues relating to (1) the descriptive nature of the model and
its underlying assumptions, (2) the continuum between central and peripheral routes to
persuasion, (3) multi-channel processes, and (4) the analysis of different variables that mediate
elaboration likelihood (see Kitchen et al., 2014).
First, owing to its descriptive nature, some researchers question the ELM’s predictive
capacity and thus practical application in advertising design and implementation (Szczepanski,
2006). The implicit assumptions underpinning the ELM are also heavily critiqued. Kitchen and
colleagues (2014) propose that in developing the model, Petty and Cacioppo (1986) largely
intuitively developed the ‘involvement’ variable—categorising disposable razors as a high-
involvement product and toothbrushes as low-involvement—rather than application of any
scientific methodology. They also criticise the assumption that involvement is consistent across
audiences. While this is undoubtedly an important limitation of the ELM, the present study
does not aim to inform a specific social advertising campaign and thus contributes more
generally to the growing body of literature on effective social advertising, so this limitation is
unlikely to meaningfully impact the results.
The second key criticism of the ELM concerns the absence of empirical testing needed
to explain movement along the elaboration continuum, while the third related critique concerns
the paths to attitude change and persuasion. A defining feature of the ELM is that it is a dual-
processing model, with two distinct paths to attitude change. A critical assumption underlying
this model is the dichotomy between message arguments and heuristics, forwarded by the
model’s structure, which implies people cannot simultaneously process message arguments
and peripheral cues (Kitchen et al., 2014). This criticism has been addressed by a number of
28
scholars in the field, many of whom have offered solutions. Mackenzie and colleagues’ (1986)
Dual Mediation Model demonstrated that central and peripheral route processing could occur
simultaneously, while the Combined Influence Hypothesis found message arguments and
peripheral route cues worked in combination to form attitudes irrespective of differing levels
of motivation and ability (Lord, Lee & Sauer, 1995). The present study is not directly concerned
with which route to persuasion is undertaken, nor where individuals fall on the elaboration
likelihood continuum, but rather whether persuasion occurs at all. Thus, these criticisms are
not likely to directly impact this study. Instead, this research answers the call (Kitchen et al.,
2014) for research into multi-channel processing.
The final major criticism of the ELM concerns variables that mediate elaboration
likelihood. Petty and Cacioppo (1986) identified that source attractiveness, involvement and
need for cognition, among other variables, mediate elaboration likelihood and influence which
processing route will be taken (Kitchen et al., 2014). Researchers have subsequently examined
these and other mediating variables, producing findings that are sometimes inconsistent with
the original model structure, while there are continued calls to further explore boundary
conditions of the ELM (Kitchen et al., 2014). Given these criticisms, there has been a call in
recent literature for additional replication studies of the ELM (Kitchen et al., 2014). This thesis
does not aim to replicate the ELM, but rather use it as an overarching conceptual framework to
address the research objective, which is to examine the effectiveness of social advertising
across government, not-for-profit and commercial sources. It is therefore considered to be a
valid and useful model for the present study.
2.3.2 Using the ELM to understand Social Advertising Effectiveness
As previously mentioned, perceived source credibility, which forms the focus of the
research questions, is considered a key cue in the peripheral route to attitude change in the
ELM (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986; Jones et al., 2004). Studies show highly credible sources are
29
more persuasive than those with less credibility (Hovland & Weiss, 1951; Kelman & Hovland,
1953), both in changing attitudes and gaining behavioural compliance (Pornpitakpan, 2004).
However, examining perceived source credibility in isolation does not address the central route
to persuasion. As the result of a meta-review, Pornpitakpan (2004) also advises against further
studies that employ source credibility as the only independent variable and suggests
investigating possible interactions between credibility and other factors. She also notes that
although several studies have investigated several message variables, few have touched on the
amount of information provided in the message (Pornpitakpan, 2004, p.271). Research shows
that the presence of information in an advertisement increases the attention paid to the message
(McNeill & Stoltenberg, 2004), enhancing elaboration and increasing the chance of persuasion
(Petty & Cacioppo, 1979a, 1979b). The amount of information provided in the message is also
a relevant independent variable practically, as this has been observed to vary in social
advertising across government, not-for-profit and commercial sources (see Section 2.3.5).
When examining the interaction between perceived source credibility and the
information provided in a message, Maddux and Rogers’ (1980) experimental study found
direct effects of source expertise (a dimension of credibility) and the presence of supporting
arguments on persuasion; however, they identified no interaction between these two variables.
Supporting arguments equally enhanced the persuasiveness of expert, non-expert, attractive
and unattractive sources. In similar research, the presence of strong arguments and highly
credible sources were found to bring about more favourable brand attitudes than low-credibility
counterparts; however, credibility had no effect when the arguments were weak (Moore,
Hausknecht & Thamodaran, 1986). Importantly, these studies do not explore the effect of
advertising communication which does not include any supporting argument or information.
Consequently, this research will examine the impact of both (a) the perceived credibility of the
source of social advertising (relevant to the peripheral route of the ELM), and (b) the
30
presence/absence of an information claim presented in the social advertising (relevant to the
central route of the ELM) on consumers’ attitude and behavioural intentions.
There are several significant factors, however, that could interrupt the relationship
between perceived source credibility, information presented in the social advertisement, and
attitude and behavioural intentions. In ELM research, variables such as affect, personal
involvement with the issue, and cognitive responses have received significant attention
(Kitchen et al., 2014). Individual differences such as consumer scepticism and consumer
cynicism, although less well researched, are known interrupters of advertising effectiveness
(e.g. Prendergast, Liu & Poon, 2009; Barker et al., 2007). Scepticism is “a cognitive state of
incredulity that encourages more thoughtful processing” (Austin et al., 2002, p.158), whereas
cynical consumers are generally less likely to believe information from any source (Kanter &
Wortzel, 1985). While scepticism is widely regarded as a skill that protects consumers from
deceit (Friedman, 1998; Koslow, 2000), it may also lead consumers to ignore or reject appeals
made in their own best interest (Mohr et al., 1998). Even when social advertising is presented
by a credible source with optimal information, consumer scepticism and cynicism may
interrupt advertising effectiveness. By examining the moderating impact of consumer
scepticism and cynicism on perceived source credibility and the presence of an information
claim, this research seeks to further understand the boundary conditions of the ELM, which has
been highlighted as an important area of future research (see Kitchen et al., 2014).
In sum, this research seeks to improve our understanding of consumer responses to social
advertising from government, non-profit and commercial sources. In particular, it examines the
impact of perceived source credibility and the presence of an informational claim, discussed in
more detail in Section 2.3.3, Section 2.3.4 and Section 2.3.5, on consumer attitudes toward the
advertisement and behavioural intentions. In addition, the research will examine the
31
moderating effect of consumer scepticism and cynicism, examined in more detail in Section
2.4, on these responses.
2.3.3 Perceived Source Credibility
Empirical research on credibility began with interest in its role in the persuasion process,
when scholars sought to understand the impact of source credibility on interpersonal influence.
Empirical research, beginning in the mid-20th century, considered credibility to be an
important characteristic of persuasive speakers (Metzger & Flanagin, 2003; Metzger, Flanagin,
Eyal, Lemus & McCann, 2003). Hovland and colleagues’ (1953) pivotal study of credibility
focused on individuals giving a speech in front of a live audience. Source credibility was
defined in terms of the speaker’s expertise and trustworthiness: a communicator’s
qualifications or ability to know the truth about a topic and the audience perceptions of the
communicator’s motivation to tell the truth about a topic respectively (Hovland, Janis, &
Kelley, 1953). This two-dimensional structure was corroborated by numerous subsequent scale
development studies that examined source credibility in general, or single persona credibility
in a speaker or endorser context (e.g. see Cronkhite & Liska, 1976; Delia, 1976; McCroskey,
1966, 1967; McCroskey, Holdridge & Toomb, 1974), although it should be noted that some
scholars have more recently questioned the focus on trustworthiness and expertise (Smith,
Jones & Algie, 2007). Attractiveness is another commonly reported dimension of source
credibility in spokepersons. In one study, perceived attractiveness of the spokesperson was
more important than were expertise and trustworthiness in terms of attitude toward the
advertisement, whilst only trustworthiness had a significant impact on attitude toward the brand
and brand beliefs (Yoon, Kim & Kim, 1998). Various secondary dimensions, such as
dynamism, composure and sociability, have also been identified (Berlo, Lemert, & Mertz,
1969; Gass & Seiter, 1999; Jurma, 1981; McCroskey, 1966; Perloff, 1993; Whitehead, 1968).
In these studies, the more qualified, reliable, animated, poised, and good-natured
32
spokespersons received higher credibility ratings (Metzger et al., 2003). Generally, however,
source credibility describes “the judgements made by a perceiver concerning the believability
of a communicator” (O’Keefe, 1990, pp. 130-131).
A range of antecedents of perceived source credibility of spokespersons have been
identified. In spokesperson studies, perceived similarity between the source and message
receiver impacts credibility perceptions through its influence on liking or by affecting
perceptions of the speakers’ competence or expertise (Atkinson, Brady, & Casas, 1981; Byrne,
1969; Worthington & Atkinson, 1996). Perceived credibility may also be influenced by liking
of a source. O’Keefe (1990) found liking of a source (e.g. friendliness, pleasantness, and
physical attractiveness) tends to influence source trustworthiness perceptions, although it does
not influence competence (i.e., expertise) perceptions (O’Keefe, 1990).1
2.3.4 Organisational Source Credibility
Individuals are not the only sources of persuasive messages: organisations also generate
persuasive messages (Kotler & Armstrong, 1996). Extant research on the perceived source
credibility of organisations in the communication discipline remains scarce (Worthington et al,
2015); however, research in marketing and advertising has repeatedly investigated
organisations as sources. Studies have explored evaluations of organisational sponsors of
advocacy advertising (e.g., Haley, 1996), perceptions of corporate sponsorships of
philanthropic activities (e.g., Menon & Kahn, 2003), and perceptions of the credibility of
corporate endorsers (e.g., Lafferty & Goldsmith, 1999). These studies use various terms to
1 In early factor analyses, liking for a source (e.g., friendliness, pleasantness, physical
attractiveness) tended to load on the same factor as items denoting trustworthiness (e.g.,
McCroskey, 1966; Widgery & Webster, 1969)
33
denote organisational source credibility, including corporate credibility, advertiser credibility
and organisational credibility (Metzger et al., 2003; see Table 1).
Table 1. Different Types of Organisational Source Credibility
Type of Source
Credibility Definition Scholars
Corporate credibility The perceived reputation of the company that
produces a product
Goldberg &
Hartwick, 1990
Advertiser
credibility
The perceived truthfulness or honesty of the
sponsor of an ad
Lutz, 1985;
MacKenzie &
Lutz, 1989
Organisational
credibility
The degree to which consumers, investors,
and others believe in the organization’s
trustworthiness and expertise
Goldsmith,
Lafferty & Newell,
2000
The perceived source credibility of organisations is defined as the degree to which
consumers, investors, and others believe in the organisation’s trustworthiness and expertise
(Goldsmith, Lafferty, & Newell, 2000). The organisation as source of the message represents
a “complex institutional structure, with a history of experience and information to which the
public has already been exposed” (Metzger et al., 2003, p. 299). The dimensions of perceived
source credibility for organisations largely resemble the dimensions of spokesperson
credibility. Research has consistently identified the same primary dimensions of expertise and
trustworthiness (Haley, 1996; Ohanian, 1990, 1991), although secondary dimensions often
vary depending upon the type of source being evaluated and the context in which the evaluation
occurs (Cronkhite & Liska, 1976; Delia, 1976; Gass & Seiter, 1999; Gunther, 1988, 1992;
Rubin, 1994; Stamm & Dube, 1994). For example, attractiveness, prestige, competitiveness,
and familiarity have also been identified as dimensions of organisational credibility (Vanden
Bergh, Soley, & Reid, 1981).
34
Although the nature of an organisation, specifically its structure and functions to which
the public has been exposed, is vital to understanding its credibility, few empirical studies have
compared the perceived source credibility of different types of organisations. This is notable
given that the public sector is starkly different from the commercial sector in terms of character,
conditions and tasks (Bovaird & Rubienska, 1996; Stewart & Ranson, 1988). Early studies
show that not-for-profit and government organisations were historically perceived as more
credible sources than commercial for-profit organisations in the communication of health
messages (e.g., Hammond, 1987; Lynn, Wyatt, Gaines, Pearce, & Vanden Bergh, 1978). For
example, Hammond (1987) found non-profit sources are perceived to be more credible than
commercial sources, but when a commercial and non-profit source combine, the combination
attracts almost the same credibility rating as a non-profit source alone.
There is contention in the findings of more recent research regarding the perceived source
credibility of governments, non-profit organisations, and commercial organisations. Barker and
colleagues (2007) found perceived ‘public’ bodies such as the NHS were considered
significantly more credible and trustworthy than government and commercial sources in social
advertising for staying active to reduce back pain (Barker, Minns Lowe & Reid, 2007).
However, Smith and colleagues (2007) found quantitatively that the perceived credibility of
government as a source of health information was higher than different industry sources of
campaigns encouraging smoking cessation and responsible alcohol consumption amongst
Generation Y consumers in Australia. Respondents also perceived charities and a research
centre in a tertiary education institution as highly credible, and organisations with a commercial
interest in encouraging the behavioural change as having low credibility (Smith et al., 2007).
This suggests commercial organisations’ effectiveness in terms of persuading audiences has
the potential to be somewhat limited when they undertake social advertising, specifically in the
health domain (Smith et al., 2007).
35
However, the aforementioned studies varied in message type, message context, and
methodology, which may explain the varying results. Barker and colleagues’ (2007) qualitative
study used focus groups (n = 68) to explore the perceptions of the public with respect to various
organisational sources of health maintenance information (i.e., dealing with pervasive/chronic
back pain). Smith and colleagues’ (2007) study quantitatively examined the opinions of 94
undergraduate university students (93 of whom were aged 18-25), measuring their perceptions
of different organisations as purveyors of preventative health care information aimed at
discouraging the uptake of tobacco smoking and alcohol consumption. While Barker and
colleagues’ (2007) study measured “credibility” qualitatively using an inductive approach
(likening terms such as ‘scepticism’ and ‘cynicism’ to ‘low credibility’), Smith and colleagues’
(2007) study used a Likert scale of six items designed to measure various dimensions of source
credibility (i.e., non-expert-expert, unethical-ethical, biased-unbiased, inaccurate-accurate,
unbelievable-believable, worthless-valuable).
From a practical perspective, the results of the Edelman Institute’s (2017) annual Trust
Barometer indicates there is a growing inequality of Australian public trust in government,
non-profit organisations, commercial organisations, and the media. Trust in government fell to
a four-year low of 37% in 2017, “indicat[ing] a level of disillusionment and a growing
exhaustion from the informed public with Australia’s rapidly changing political scene”
(Edelman Institute, 2017). Australians are not only distrusting of government. According to
the Trust Barometer, Australian commercial organisations were only trusted by 48% of those
surveyed, and the media trusted by an even lower 32% (Edelman Institute, 2017). Australian
non-profit organisations were the most trusted institution, trusted by just over half of people
surveyed (52%).
Beyond these studies, there is scant empirical evidence regarding the extent to which
perceived source credibility varies between different types of organisations. Given that the
36
limited previous research suggests it likely there are differing perceptions of perceived
credibility for different sources of social advertising, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H1: Perceived source credibility varies across commercial, government and non-
profit sources.
The outcomes of perceived source credibility have also been researched intensively. In
earlier studies, sources with greater perceived source credibility were found to yield more
influence over consumers’ product and company attitudes (Friedman & Friedman, 1979;
Kamen, Azhari, & Kragh, 1975; Mowen & Brown, 1981). This is consistent with studies
examining spokespersons. Specifically, highly credible sources tend to invoke greater
behavioural compliance than low-credibility sources (Crano, 1970; Crisci & Kassinove, 1973;
Levine, Moss, Ramsey & Fleishman, 1978; Woodside & Davenport, 1974, 1976). In such
circumstances, credibility positively influences the message recipient’s acceptance of the
suggestions from the source (Suzuki, 1978) and their intention to follow suggestions made by
the source as to how to improve performance (Bannister, 1986).
Perceived source credibility has also been found to influence consumers’ attitudes toward
the advertisement and the brand. Pornpitakpan’s (2004) meta-review of 50 years of source
credibility research summarised the wealth of literature examining the effect of credibility of a
message source on persuasion. Nearly all studies concur that highly credible sources are more
persuasive than those with less credibility, both in changing attitudes and gaining behavioural
compliance (Pornpitakpan, 2004). According to Goldsmith, Lafferty, and Newel1 (2000), the
perceived source credibility of the organisation plays an important role in consumers’ reactions
to advertisements and brands, independent of the equally important role of the perceived source
credibility of endorsers or spokespersons. The perceived source credibility of organisations has
also been identified as a significant influencer of consumers’ attitudes and behaviours (Gass &
Seiter, 1999) which results in positive attachment to companies (Aldlaigan & Buttle, 2005).
37
Studies also show that a highly credible organisation has a positive effect on consumer attitudes
toward their message, ad and/or brand, compared with a less credible source (Atkin & Block,
1983; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975; Goldberg & Hartwick, 1990; Mitchell & Olson, 1981).
Nonetheless, some studies have found low credibility sources are more effective than
high credibility sources when focusing on behavioural rather than attitudinal change (Dholakia,
1987; Dholakia & Sternthal, 1977). Others found no difference in persuasiveness between high
and low-credibility sources on behavioural intentions and/or behavioural compliance, even
when they use the same persuasion strategy (Frankel & Kassinove, 1974; Sternthal, Dholakia,
& Leavitt, 1978; Tybout, 1978; Wasserman & Kassinove, 1976). Overall, while previous
studies have not been consistent in their findings, they largely indicate that higher perceived
source credibility positively impacts consumers’ attitude and behavioural intentions. On this
basis, the following hypotheses are proposed:
H2: Perceived source credibility has a positive effect on attitude toward the ad.
H3: Perceived source credibility has a positive effect on behavioural intention.
Interest in the characteristics of the source has dominated credibility research, despite
acknowledgement that credibility assessments are a function of both source features and
message features (Cronkhite & Liska, 1976). Past research has found that audiences base their
credibility assessments on a multitude of factors involved in communication (Carr et al., 2014),
such as message source and message content (Hovland, Janis & Kelley, 1953; Kiousis, 2001;
O’Keefe, 1990; Carr et al., 2014). Source expertise, for example, may also be communicated
through information coverage or completeness (Alexander & Tate, 1999). This further suggests
that examining an informational message claim, and its interaction with perceived source
credibility, would be beneficial to an improved understanding of social advertising
effectiveness. Moreover, there have been calls (Kitchen et al., 2014) for continued empirical
investigations into the assumptions underlying the ELM, one of which dictates a dichotomy
38
between message arguments and heuristics, essentially implying people cannot simultaneously
process message arguments and peripheral cues (Kitchen et al., 2014). Thus, exploring the
impact of perceived source credibility, a key factor in the peripheral route to consumer attitude
change, and informational claims, a key factor in the central route to consumer attitude change,
will answer this call for investigations into multi-channel processing.
2.3.5 Informational Claim
Just as Elaboration Likelihood has been shown to be influenced by the source of the
information (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986; Jones et al., 2004), it is also influenced by the
information presented in the advertisement. Research using the ELM shows that when the
information presented by the source is pro-attitudinal (that is, one with which the recipient is
already in general agreement), individuals are less likely to engage in central-route processing
(Petty & Cacioppo, 1979b). This is even more profound when the source of the message is
perceived to be expert. In this case, when individuals already agree with the information in the
message and perceive the source presenting it to be expert, they appear less inclined to engage
in careful consideration of the message and attitude change occurs through the peripheral route.
However, while some subsequent research shows that the type and amount of information
provided in the message may impact persuasion, and the effect of source credibility on
persuasion, there is minimal and conflicting research examining how this process occurs
(Pornpitakpan, 2004, p.271).
For example, Maddux and Rogers’ (1980) experimental study found source expertise (a
dimension of credibility) and the presence of supporting arguments had a direct effect on
persuasion; however, they identified no interaction between these two variables. The
supporting arguments equally enhanced the persuasiveness of expert, non-expert, attractive and
unattractive sources. In other research, in the presence of strong arguments, highly credible
sources were found to bring about more favourable brand attitudes than low-credibility
39
counterparts; however, credibility had no effect when the arguments were weak (Moore et al.,
1986). In another study, the credibility of written sources moderated the effects of message
claim extremity on attitude change (Aronson, Turner & Carlsmith, 1963). For a source with
low credibility, an intermediate level of claim results in maximum attitude change, providing
evidence of a curvilinear relationship. Thus, while message claim and perceived source
credibility made distinct contributions to the persuasive process, they are inherently linked
(Bergin, 1962; Bochner & Insko 1966).
Comparatively, Herron (1997) found that the quality of the arguments affected
persuasion only when the source had high expertise. When the source expertise was low, the
different strengths of the arguments did not differentially impact persuasion. However, highly
credible sources are not unanimously more persuasive. Under certain conditions, “more
persuasion can result in response to a moderately credible source than a highly credible source
due to more attention being paid to the message” (McNeill & Stoltenberg in Kowalski & Leary,
2004, p.328).
Although compelling, none of these studies examine advertisements that do not include
any supporting argument or information. In essence, while the studies discussed above
demonstrate that varying argument strengths in advertising has an impact on persuasion, they
did not examine the effects of advertising that presents no information compared to an
informational claim. This is important given the shift toward providing little or no information
even in social advertising (see Section 1.2.3 Research Problem).
This is also an important avenue of research from a theoretical perspective.
Justification has long been considered a key component of persuasive rhetoric. Aristotle
outlined three pillars of persuasion, namely Egos, Logos and Pathos (Aristotle, 350
B.C.E./1924). While Egos refers to a source’s credibility and Pathos refers to their emotional
or sympathetic appeal, Logos relates to the logic, justification and reasoning presented by a
40
source to persuade a subject (Aristotle, 350 B.C.E/1924). Logos forms the groundwork for
modern theories of persuasive communication, which tend to support the notion that a request
for action is more compelling when justified by the provision of information.
Langer, Blank and Chanowitz (1978) forward the theory that people in compliance
paradigms (both written and oral) were more likely to respond favourably when the syntax
included a reason for that action, even when that reason conveyed no information (i.e., the
‘reason’ was self-explanatory). In their study, a “reason with no information” meant asking
“Excuse me, I have 5 pages. May I use the Xerox machine, because I have to make copies”).
However, when compliance required an effortful response, the reason provided did matter, and
respondents were more likely to respond favourably based on the adequacy of the reason
presented (Langer, Blank & Chanowitz, 1987). Put simply, people were found to be more likely
to do something asked of them, if given a reason why they should do it.
An emphasis on information provision is also consistent with broader persuasion
theory. Hovland and Weiss’ (1951) persuasion theory purports that exposure to information
enables attitudinal change, and subsequently behavioural change. Effectively, this implies an
information-deficit model, in that it fundamentally assumes people do not have enough (or the
right) information and must be provided with information in order to change their behaviour
or make a reasonable decision (Prager, 2012; Jackson, 2005).
There are, however, significant limitations to this linear model, with research indicating
that more information does not always lead to a better understanding, and that people may filter
information from behaviour change campaigns to re-affirm their own beliefs (Kahan et al.,
2012; Kahan, Peters, Dawson & Slovic, 2013; McKenzie-Mohr, 2000; Syme, Nancarrow &
Seligman, 2000). Instead, empirical studies show attitudinal and behavioural change can occur
without assimilation of a persuasive message (Jackson, 2005), casting doubt on the importance
of informational claims in social advertising.
41
Although these findings cast some doubt on the importance of justifying calls to action,
on the basis that the presence of information in an advertisement increases the attention paid to
the message (McNeill & Stoltenberg, 2004), enhancing elaboration and increasing the chance
of persuasion (Petty & Cacioppo, 1979a, 1986), the following hypotheses are proposed:
H4: An informational claim has a positive effect on attitude toward the ad.
H5: An informational claim has a positive effect on behavioural intention.
However, there are several factors that could interrupt these relationships. Research into
the ELM has called for a more comprehensive assessment of mediating and moderating factors
(Kitchen et al., 2014), such as individual differences, on the effect of perceived source
credibility on consumer responses (Smith, Jones & Algie, 2007). In ELM research, variables
such as affect, personal involvement with the issue, and cognitive responses have received
significant attention (Kitchen et al., 2014). Consumer scepticism and consumer cynicism,
although less well researched, are known interrupters of advertising effectiveness (e.g. Barker
et al., 2007; Prendergast et al., 2009; Tan & Tan, 2007). Recently, Barker and colleagues (2007)
discussed consumers’ growing scepticism and cynicism toward social advertising specifically.
Investigating the impact of consumer scepticism and cynicism on the effect of perceived source
credibility and informational claim on advertising effectiveness may thus provide a more
comprehensive understanding of social advertising effectiveness. The Persuasion Knowledge
Model (Friestad & Wright, 1994) is useful for understanding the effects of consumer scepticism
and cynicism on persuasive attempts.
2.4 PERSUASION KNOWLEDGE MODEL
Over their lifetime, consumers develop persuasion knowledge (Friestad & Wright, 1994)
about the persuasive tactics marketers use to influence their behaviour. Conceptual persuasion
knowledge is a cognitive dimension encompassing the recognition of advertising, its source
42
and intended audience, and the understanding of the advertising’s persuasive intent, selling
intent, tactics and bias (Rozendaal, Lapierre, van Reijmersal & Buijzen, 2011). Persuasion
knowledge enables consumers to identify how, when and why marketers try to influence them,
and to adaptively respond to these attempts to avoid being taken advantage of (Friestad &
Wright, 1994). While persuasion knowledge is developmentally, historically and culturally
contingent (Friestad & Wright, 1994), unprecedented access to information (Bowman & Willis,
2003) and today’s media-saturated culture (Scull & Kupersmidt, 2011) have created an
environment in which developing a healthy persuasion knowledge is more important than ever
(Austin et al., 2016).
The Persuasion Knowledge Model (Friestad & Wright, 1994) asserts that in advertising
settings, consumers often possess the knowledge that a persuasion attempt is targeted them.
Using their knowledge of persuasion motives and tactics, consumers evaluate the veracity of
the information presented in a message and attribute motivations to the advertiser behind this
attempt. This process of evaluating advertising information, and attributing motivations to the
source of that information, can be considered in terms of consumer scepticism and consumer
cynicism, which are examined in more detail below.
2.4.1 Consumer Scepticism
According to the Persuasion Knowledge Model (Friestad & Wright, 1994), information
processing occurs by way of critical thinking about advertising exposure and marketplace
interactions, a process that varies in magnitude according to how media literate the recipient of
the advertisement is (Austin et al., 2016). In highly media literate individuals, or those with a
high level of persuasion knowledge, this manifests in the development of consumer scepticism
(Austin et al., 2002, 2016).
43
Consumer scepticism toward advertising has been defined as (a) a general tendency
toward disbelief of stated or advertising claims (Darley & Smith, 1993; Ford et al., 1990;
Hardesty et al., 2002; Obermiller & Spangenberg, 1998, 2000; Pomering & Johnson, 2009),
(b) “a cognitive state of incredulity that encourages more thoughtful processing and influences
information seeking” (Austin et al., 2002, p.158), or (c) a tendency to question the truth of
advertising claims (Koslow, 2000). In essence, scepticism leads people use their persuasion
knowledge to consider the information presented in advertising messages when making
assessments about whether the information in those messages is accurate and valid (Austin et
al., 2002).
Until the early 2000s, the vast majority of studies in consumer scepticism focused
exclusively on consumer scepticism toward commercial advertising, including seals of
approval for information in advertising (Beltramini & Stafford, 1993), advertising claims about
different durables and services (Ford, Smith, & Swasy, 1990), pharmaceutical advertising
(Koslow & Beltramini, 2001), television advertising (Boush, Friestad, & Rose, 1994) and
lawnmower advertising (Hardesty et al., 2002), as well as advertising in general (Mangleburg
& Bristol, 1998; Obermiller & Spangenberg, 1998, 2000, 2005). Research has since taken a
broader perspective on scepticism, with studies investigating consumer scepticism toward
cause-related marketing campaigns (Anuar, Omar & Mohammad, 2013; Bronn & Vrioni, 2001;
Singh, Kristensen & Villaseñor, 2009; Webb & Mohr, 1998), corporate social responsibility
(Pomering & Johnson, 2009; Vanhamme & Groben, 2009), greenwashing (Aji & Sutikno,
2015; do Paco & Reis, 2012; Mohr et al., 1998; Ottman, Stafford & Hartman, 2006) and Fair
Trade (de Pelsmacker et al., 2006). Despite the growing prevalence and important of social
advertising, few studies have examined consumer sceptical response to social advertising.
Scepticism is widely regarded by public policy makers and consumer interest groups as
a necessary, beneficial, and healthy skill that protects consumers from deceit by enabling them
44
to make sound product evaluations (Friedman, 1998; Koslow, 2000). Scepticism provides an
incentive for advertisers to deliver objective, verifiable advertising information (Ford, Smith
& Swasy, 1990). However, while scepticism may insulate consumers from fraudulent
marketing practices, it may also lead them to ignore or reject appeals made in their own best
interest (Mohr et al., 1998), such as in the case of social advertising. As such, investigating the
role that scepticism plays in the relationship between the perceived credibility of social
advertising and message effectiveness is particularly important when the advertisement is
designed to benefit the consumer.
Recent research has indicated that more sceptical consumers “like advertising less, rely
less on it, and attend less to it" (Prendergast et al., 2009). Specifically, research shows that
consumer scepticism towards advertising may interact with the message source (Hardesty et
al., 2002; Obermiller & Spangenberg, 1998) and the perceived credibility of the message
source (e.g. Austin et al., 2016; Carr et al., 2014), which consequently may reduce advertising
effectiveness. For example, Bailey (2007) found that consumer scepticism moderated the
effectiveness of using celebrity endorsers in ads. Highly sceptical consumers were less
influenced by the use of an endorser, which resulted in less favourable brand attitudes and
lower intentions to purchase the sponsored product. Similarly, Hardesty and colleagues (2002)
found advertising scepticism moderated the effect of brand familiarity and price information
on evaluations of advertised offers and purchase intentions (in this case, in response to a
lawnmower advertisement containing varying prices). These findings demonstrated that the
effectiveness of particular sources (in this case, familiar versus unfamiliar brands) on
advertising outcomes was likely to be mitigated by consumer scepticism, reiterating the
importance of persuasion knowledge in consumer decision making (Friestad & Wright, 1994,
1995).
45
Scepticism has also been found to interact with the effectiveness of perceived credibility
of the source of advertisements. Carr and colleagues (2014) found differences in the perceived
credibility of citizen journalism, compared with mainstream journalism, when consumer
scepticism was taken into account. Sinclair and Kunda (1999) found that individuals often react
defensively toward messages they perceive to be threatening by evoking negative perceptions
of the source of those messages, in order to undermine their credibility (Spencer, Fein, Wolfe,
Fong & Dunn, 1998). Subsequently, highly sceptical consumers who perceive the source of an
advertisement as less credible are likely to react defensively toward those advertisements,
consider the advertisement as not worth processing (Obermiller et al., 2005), and thus respond
less favourably to social advertisements. As yet, these impacts have not been explored in a
social advertising context, nor have any studies conducted a comparison of the effects of
scepticism across organisational types.
Together, these studies suggest that the effect of perceived source credibility on
advertising effectiveness is likely to be impacted by the extent to which the message recipient
engages in critical thinking about the credibility of the source. Thus, scepticism is likely to
moderate the impact of a credible source on advertising effectiveness. On this basis, the
following hypothesis is proposed:
H6. Scepticism moderates the effect of perceived source credibility on (a) attitude
toward the ad and (b) behavioural intention.
Research indicates consumers are sceptical of advertising claims unless they have
credible bases for evaluating the claims (Calfree & Ringold, 1994). Given that scepticism
inherently involves examining the claims made in advertisements in a critical way and not
accepting them at face value (Mangleburg & Bristol, 1998), consumer scepticism is highly
likely to interact with informational claims made in advertisements (Darley & Smith, 1993; de
Castro & Botelho, 2012; Ford, Smith & Swasy, 1990; Obermiller, Spangenberg &
46
MacLachlan, 2005), which is likely to influence advertising outcomes. Numerous studies have
demonstrated that the way information is labelled or framed impacts consumer judgements and
decisions about products (Ganzach & Karsahi, 1995; Puto, 1987; Smith & Petty, 1996; Zhang
& Buda, 1999) as well as consumer reactions to public health messages (Lalor & Hailey, 1989).
For instance, Smith and Petty (1996) found that whether messages were framed
positively (‘gain’) or negatively (‘loss’) impacted their persuasiveness, particularly when the
message framing was unexpected (Smith & Petty, 1996). Ditto and Lopez (1992) found that
informational claims consistent with the message recipient’s preferred conclusion induce less
critical thinking than claims inconsistent with their preferred conclusion. Other studies have
found objective claims tend to induce less scepticism in consumers than claims higher in
subjective, experiential or credence attributes (Ford, Smith & Swasy, 1990), while claims
found to be unclear or misleading, particularly in an environmental context (e.g. “green”
advertising) (Gray-Lee, Scammon & Mayer, 1994) tend to provoke considerable scepticism.
Consequently, scepticism has been found to diminish the effectiveness of such “green”
advertising claims (Mohr et al., 1998). Moreover, highly sceptical consumers pay more
attention to the informational claims in advertisements when they are highly involved in the
advertised issue, as well as respond less favourably to those ads, by ignoring appeals made to
act in a pro-environmental manner (do Paço & Reis, 2012). Should this behaviour translate
across domains, this could have significant impacts on the effectiveness of social advertising.
On the basis of these prior studies, it can be posited that the effect of informational claims
on advertising effectiveness is likely to be impacted by the degree of scepticism possessed by
the message recipient. Thus, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H7. Scepticism moderates the effect of an informational claim on (a) attitude toward
the ad and (b) behavioural intention.
47
Although they are often used interchangeably in the literature, scepticism and cynicism
are distinct concepts that both relate to how consumers respond to attempts at persuasion.
Whereas cynicism encompasses distrust to the extent it refers to an evaluation of something or
someone as being (dis)honest or (un)reliable, scepticism refers to an evaluation of the extent to
which something is true. In other words, "Sceptics doubt the substance of communications;
cynics not only doubt what is said but the motives for saying it" (Kanter & Mirvis, 1989, p.301).
Scepticism describes doubt regarding the informational claims in ads; cynicism describes
distrust of sources based on the belief the motives of others are always selfish and dishonest.
Both, however, are considered a result of persuasion knowledge (see Austin et al., 2002, 2016;
Helm, 2004, Helm, Moulard & Richins, 2015) in that consumers use their persuasion
knowledge not only to evaluate the veracity of the information presented in a message
(scepticism), but also to attribute motivations of the advertiser behind this persuasive attempt
(cynicism). As such, both consumer scepticism and consumer cynicism need to be accounted
for when examining persuasion attempts.
2.4.2 Consumer Cynicism
Cynicism is generally defined as “the suspicion of other people’s motives, faithfulness,
and goodwill” (Kanter & Wortzel, 1985, p.6). Cynicism is a negative attitude that can be both
broad and specific in focus, and has cognitive, affective and behavioural components
(Chylinski & Chu, 2010; Helm, 2004; Helm et al., 2015; Stanley, Meyer & Topolnytsky, 2005).
Importantly, consumer cynicism encompasses a feeling of manipulation or ethical violation,
and of being exploited for the agent’s own interest (Chaloupka, 1999). This is what Helm
(2004) describes as a “pretense of unselfishness to mask selfish goals” (p.346). In an
advertising context, consumer cynicism involves the suspicion of other advertiser’s motives,
faithfulness, and goodwill (Kanter & Mirvis, 1985).
48
Cynical consumers are generally less likely to believe information from any source and
are especially likely to attribute advertising claims to selling motives, rather than strict honesty
(Kanter & Wortzel, 1985). This is supported by more recent research where Barker and
colleagues’ study (2007) found that in response to advertisements including advice to stay
active in order to optimise recovery from back pain, respondents articulated that they felt a
government source presenting such an ad was less likely to be motivated by health concerns
and more likely to be driven by financial concerns. Specifically, they suggested the
government’s motivation was solely as getting people back to work to aid the economy.
Comparatively, respondents attributed ‘honest’ motive to the NHS, which, despite being
funded by taxpayers and run by the Department of Health, was strongly differentiated from the
government. Participants instead viewed the NHS as akin to a non-profit, “proper organisation
who don’t benefit by people using their services” (p.339).
Attributing negative motives to advertising sources can influence persuasion attempts.
That is, “[w]hen a person is perceived as having a definite intention to persuade others, the
likelihood is increased that he will be perceived as having something to gain, and hence, as less
worthy of trust” (Hovland, Janis, & Kelley, 1953, p.23). Research shows that the more
impartial the source is perceived to be, the more credible it is perceived to be (Chu, 1967;
Kelman, 1972; McGuire, 1969; Roberts & Leifer, 1975; Walster, Aronson & Abrahams, 1966).
Another study showed that when a source appeared to be concerned about the audience’s
welfare, a desire to influence was found to increase persuasion (Mills, 1966). Consequently, a
consumer’s cynical disposition may impact the magnitude of the effect of perceived source
credibility on advertising effectiveness.
Odou and de Pechpeyrou (2011) suggest that “by constantly applying the cynical filter
to any communication message, consumers treat in the same way virtuous and non-virtuous
firms” (p. 1801). In this sense, they suggest advertising communications aimed at showcasing
49
virtuous behaviour, such is the case with social advertisements, are likely to suffer from a lack
of credibility (Odou & de Pechpeyrou, 2011; Brunk, 2010). Cynical consumers are less likely
to be positively influenced by credible sources, given that cynicism inherently involves
constant suspicion toward both the messages and the intentions of brands or retailers (Chylinski
& Chu, 2010; Darke & Ritchie, 2007; Friestad & Wright, 1994; Helm, 2004). On this basis, it
is likely that highly cynical consumers will react less favourably to social advertisements than
less cynical consumers, whether the source of that advertisement is perceived to be credible or
not. On this basis, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H8. Cynicism moderates the effect of perceived source credibility on (a) attitude
toward the ad and (b) behavioural intention.
While it is logical to suggest cynicism interacts with perceived source credibility and
influences message outcomes, it is also likely that cynicism interacts with the advertising
message itself. The conspicuous promotion of good deeds, such as in the context of CSR
advertising, has been argued to backfire in what is regarded as the “self-promoter’s paradox”
(Ashforth & Gibbs, 1990, p. 185), whereby cynical consumers become suspicious of the
legitimacy of claims. The more cynical the consumer, the less trusting they are of overly
positive advertising claims, and the less likely they are to respond favourably (Pomering &
Johnson, 2009; Goldberg & Hartwick, 1990; Koslow, 2000).
Koslow’s (2002) study on the effectiveness of honest and persuasive advertising
indicated that when “advertisers try honest, verified, and persuasive advertising, consumers
may be concerned that it is too good to be true and are on guard for discovering a hidden and
unfamiliar persuasive tactic” (p. 262). While this phenomenon is yet to be studied in a social
advertising context, it can be argued that cynical consumers would react in a similar manner
when faced with social advertising. Thus, while certain informational claims would generally
50
be effective at inducing persuasion and attitudinal change, this may be limited by the extent of
the message recipient’s cynicism. Following this logic, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H9. Cynicism moderates the effect of an informational claim on (a) attitude
toward the ad and (b) behavioural intention.
The following section summarises the hypotheses proposed and presents this graphically in a
model.
51
2.5 MODEL AND SUMMARY OF HYPOTHESES
On the basis of this literature review, the hypotheses described below in Table 2 were
developed. These hypotheses are represented graphically in Figure 1.
Table 2: Summary of Hypotheses
Research Questions Hypotheses
RQ1: To what extent do
perceptions of source
credibility vary between
government, not-for-profit
and commercial organisations
engaging in social
advertising?
H1: Perceived source credibility varies
across commercial, government and
non-profit sources.
RQ2: Do perceived source
credibility and the presence
of an informational claim
impact social advertising
effectiveness?
H2: Perceived source credibility has a
positive effect on attitude toward the
ad.
H3: Perceived source credibility has a
positive effect on behavioural intention.
H4: An informational claim has a
positive effect on attitude toward the
ad.
H5: An informational claim has a
positive effect on behavioural intention.
RQ3: Is the relationship
between perceived source
credibility, the presence of an
informational claim and
social advertising
effectiveness impacted by
consumer scepticism or
consumer cynicism?
H6a: Scepticism moderates the effect of
perceived source credibility on attitude
toward the ad.
H6b: Scepticism moderates the effect of
perceived source credibility on
behavioural intention.
H7a: Scepticism moderates the effect of
an informational claim on attitude
toward the ad.
H7b: Scepticism moderates the effect of
an informational claim on behavioural
intention.
52
H8a: Cynicism moderates the effect of
perceived source credibility on attitude
toward the ad.
H8b: Cynicism moderates the effect of
perceived source credibility on
behavioural intention.
H9a: Cynicism moderates the effect of
an informational claim on attitude
toward the ad.
H9b: Cynicism moderates the effect of
an informational claim on behavioural
intention.
Figure 1. Hypothesised Model of Social Advertising Effectiveness.
INFORMATIONAL
CLAIM
PERCEIVED
SOURCE
CREDIBILITY
BEHAVIOURAL
INTENTION
ATTITUDE
TOWARD THE AD
SCEPTICISM
CYNICISM
H1
H2
H3 H4
H5
H6a
H6b H7a
H7b
H8a H8b
H9a
H9b
Page | 53
2.6 CONTROL VARIABLES
In addition to scepticism and cynicism, there are a number of other variables that might
influence the effect of perceived source credibility and informational claim on consumer
attitude and behavioural intention. These include demographic factors such as age and gender,
information processing style, and attitude toward and involvement in the issue (i.e. behaviour
being promoted in the health advocacy), which are next discussed in more detail.
2.6.1 Issue Involvement
Attitude toward, or involvement with, the advocacy may also affect credibility
assessments and advertising persuasiveness (Massar & Buunk, 2013). Issue involvement refers
to “the general level of interest in the object, or the centrality of the object to the person’s ego-
structure” (Day, 1970, p. 45). According to the Elaboration Likelihood Model (Petty &
Cacioppo, 1986), message factors such as message claim (e.g. Austin & Dong, 1994; Eastin,
2006) may have significant impacts on credibility judgements and thus persuasion, particularly
when the receiver’s issue involvement, knowledge and personal relevance are high, because
these factors increase want to scrutinise message content (Chen & Leu, 2011; Petty &
Cacioppo, 1979a; Petty, Cacioppo & Goldman, 1981; Petty, Cacioppo & Schumann, 1983).
Indeed, higher personal involvement increases the likelihood advertisements will be processed
comprehensively, and that factual arguments will be relied upon for judgement (Massar &
Buunk, 2013). Conversely, lower personal involvement tends to result in more heuristic
processing, in which peripheral cues may be relied upon more to make credibility assessments
(Massar & Buunk, 2013). Previous studies on credibility support this notion that high
involvement with an issue motivates diligent processing of message content (Pornpitakpan,
2004). This is also impacted by argument strength. When issue involvement is high, strong
arguments induce more persuasion than weak arguments (Petty, Cacioppo & Goldman, 1981),
Page | 54
as well as when issue involvement is either high or low (Johnston & Coolen, 1995). As such,
issue involvement is included as a control variable in this study.
2.6.2 Information Processing Style
The Elaboration Likelihood Model dictates that advertising effectiveness relies on
thinking about or elaborating upon a message. Individuals vary in their predisposition to
scrutinise messages, and this is often examined in terms of an individual’s need for cognition
or need for affect. The former refers to the tendency for an individual to engage in and enjoy
thinking and information processing (Cacioppo & Petty, 1982), whilst the latter describes the
general motivation to approach or avoid emotion-inducing activities and situations (Maio &
Essess, 2001). In addition, previous studies in communications literature have found significant
interactions between an individual’s need for cognition, and the perceived credibility of the
source, on the outcomes of persuasive advertising (Haddock, Maio, Arnold & Huskinson,
2008; Kaufman, Stasson & Hart, 1999; Zhang & Buda, 1999). Prior studies have also examined
need for cognition and need for affect in the context of consumer scepticism toward advertising
communications. Austin, Muldrow and Austin (2016) found need for cognition, but not need
for affect, was associated with higher levels of critical thinking about media sources and media
content. Higher critical thinking about the message source and content resulted in scepticism
toward the advertisement, which was shown to have a key impact on consumer decision
making. In this case, critical thinking and scepticism decreased the likelihood of individuals
responding positively to alcohol advertising (i.e. precursor to behavioural changes). Thus,
information processing style (both need for cognition and need for affect) was included as a
control variable in this study.
Page | 55
2.6.3 Media Literacy
Media literacy is broadly defined as an individual’s ability to access, analyse, evaluate,
and communicate messages in various forms (Aspen Institute, 1993). In the field of advertising,
media literacy “aims to address the link between exposure to advertising and subsequent
attitudes and behaviours” (Hindmarsh, Jones & Kervin, 2015, p. 450), and has been
conceptualised in terms of critical thinking toward the source of advertising messages and the
content contained within those messages (Austin et al., 2002, 2015, 2016). Previous studies
have found that media literacy interacts with consumer scepticism (Austin et al., 2016), with
some researchers suggesting cognitive awareness during media exposure, which is inherent in
media literate individuals, is a precursor to scepticism (Austin & Johnson, 1997; Corder-Bolz,
1980). Moreover, research indicates that individuals high in media literacy have a better
understanding of the message creator, the selling intent, persuasive strategy, and target
audience (Nelson, 2015), akin to consumer cynicism (see Section 2.4.2). Together, these
studies suggest media literacy can impact the influence and effectiveness of marketing
messages, which has been supported by empirical research (Austin et al., 2016; Hindmarsh et
al., 2015).
Importantly, while critical thinking about the source of the message (media literacy)
shares many semantic similarities with consumer cynicism, and critical thinking about the
content in the message is similar in process to consumer scepticism, these constructs remain
conceptually distinct (Austin et al., 2016), making it important to control for them. Moreover,
just as some scholars argue excessive consumer scepticism may lead individuals to ignore or
reject appeals made in their own best interest (Mohr et al., 1998), concerns have been raised
about the potential for media literacy to counterbalance the impact of appealing marketing
Page | 56
messages (Austin et al., 2016), which is critical given that social advertisements intend to elicit
beneficial behavioural outcomes.
2.6.4 Age
Friestad and Wright’s (1994) Persuasion Knowledge Model suggests people build up a
resistance to persuasive strategies once they can identify them. Thus, consistent with decision-
making theorists’ assertion that decision-making skills are learned, not innate (Elias, Branden-
Muller & Sayette, 1991; Fischhoff; 1992), scepticism appears to develop with age and
experience (Austin & Knaus, 2000; Blosser & Roberts, 1985). In the consumer context,
cynicism is also described as a long term social consequence of advertising (Helm, 2004),
which also suggests cynicism may develop over time. Accordingly, age may confound the
impact of scepticism and/or cynicism in persuasive communications and thus is included as a
control variable in this research.
2.6.5 Gender
Previous research illuminates gender differences in information processing style (see
Darley & Smith, 1995) and advertising persuasion (Brunel & Nelson, 2003). A central tenet of
the Elaboration Likelihood Model is that information processing impacts persuasion (i.e.
consumer attitude change) and thus gender was included as a control variable in this study.
2.7 CONCLUSION
This chapter reviewed literature on advertising effectiveness, particularly perceived
source credibility and information claim on the basis of the Elaboration Likelihood Model. It
further examined, on the basis of the Persuasion Knowledge Model, the potential effects of
consumer scepticism and consumer cynicism on advertising effectiveness. Hypotheses and a
proposed model were developed based on this research in order to augment understanding of
Page | 57
the factors impacting social advertising effectiveness. The next chapter, Chapter 3, will outline
the research design and methodology designed to test the hypotheses.
Page | 58
Chapter 3: Method
3.1 INTRODUCTION
The aim of this research was to investigate the effects of perceived source credibility
and informational claim on the message effectiveness of social advertising, while accounting
for the moderating effects of consumer scepticism and consumer cynicism. In order to achieve
this aim, the research used a 2 x 3 factorial design to evaluate (1) whether different sources of
social advertising vary in perceived source credibility, (2) whether perceived source credibility
and informational claims influence message effectiveness, and (3) whether consumer
scepticism towards advertising and consumer cynicism moderate the effect of perceived source
credibility and informational claims on the effectiveness of social advertising. This chapter
outlines the method used to conduct this study. First, it addresses the research paradigm and
design guiding the study. This is followed by the research method, including development of
the stimuli and the experimental procedure used to examine the research questions and
hypotheses delineated in the previous chapter. The sample and sampling approach and the
analytic procedures are subsequently described. Ethical considerations conclude the chapter.
3.2 RESEARCH PARADIGM
A research paradigm is the “basic belief system or world view that guides the
investigation, not only in choices of method but in ontologically and epistemologically
fundamental ways” (Guba & Lincoln, 1994, p. 105). To this end, questions of research design,
method and data collection should come secondary to questions of philosophy (Saunders,
Lewis & Thornhill, 2009). Making explicit the research paradigm that underpins a study
demonstrates critical self-reflective thinking and increases the likelihood of self-correction or
of conceiving viable alternatives to findings (Gelo, 2012). This is important, since “without
Page | 59
rigor, research is worthless, becomes fiction, and loses its utility” (Morse et al, 2008, p. 14).
To that end, the ontological and epistemological underpinnings of this research study are
presently discussed.
Crotty (2003) defines ontology as “the study of being” that is concerned with “what kind
of world we are investigating, with the nature of existence, with the structure of reality as such”
(p. 10). This study adopts a realistic ontology to the extent that it assumes the existence of a
world of cause and effect. Following a realistic ontology, “a reason for seeking explanations
might be to predict what will happen in the future or what would happen if there were to be
certain interventions” (Pring, 2004, p.62). This is clearly evidenced through the study’s aim to
examine factors impacting the message effectiveness of social advertising and the assumption
that from this knowledge, improvement in social advertising may be achieved through
optimisation of these two factors (Saunders et al., 2009).
Epistemology guides what concerns acceptable knowledge in a field of study and refers
to the study of knowledge and beliefs about knowledge (Audi, 2003). Crotty (1998) defines
epistemology as “the theory of knowledge embedded in the theoretical perspective and thereby
in the methodology” (p.3). In understanding the epistemological basis for a study, one must
acknowledge how reality will be interpreted. Objectivism is the epistemological view that
things exist as meaningful entities independently of consciousness and experience, and that
they have truth and meaning residing in them as objects (Crotty, 1998, p. 5).
Realistic ontology and objectivist epistemology underpin a positivist paradigm, which
drives the design and methodology of this research. The principles of positivism are inherent
to the philosophical stance of natural scientists, whose preference for observable social reality
and phenomena in the construction of knowledge results in “law-like generalisations similar to
those produced by the physical and natural scientists” (Remenyi et al., 1998, p.32). In contrast,
interpretivism assumes humans interpret their own social role in accordance with the meaning
Page | 60
they give to this role, and the social roles of others in accordance with their own set of meanings
(Saunders et al., 2009). Within a positivist paradigm, “existing theory is used to develop
hypotheses, which are tested and confirmed, in whole or part, or refuted, leading to further
theoretical development which will be tested by future research” (Saunders et al., p. 127).
Importantly, positivist research is conducted, as far as possible, in a value-free way, and a
manner free from personal involvement of the researcher.
3.3 RESEARCH DESIGN
Crotty (1998) asserts that a research design outlines the specific research methods used to
gather and analyse the data in order to answer a research question. Research designs can be
categorised as either exploratory or confirmatory. Exploratory research generates hypotheses
from observed potential relations between variables after data gathering and confirmatory
research that seeks to test hypotheses made before measurement has taken place (Jaeger &
Halliday, 1998). This study aims to test the effects of perceived source credibility,
informational claim, consumer scepticism and consumer cynicism on the message
effectiveness of social advertising on the basis of pre-established research. It follows, therefore,
that this study is confirmatory.
Confirmatory research may be either descriptive or causal. Descriptive research provides
data on the strength and direction of the association between two or more variables (i.e. whether
they co-vary). However, it does not provide data on temporal sequence of events (Shadish,
Cook & Campbell, 2002), nor does it allow the exclusion of alternative explanations for the
relationships under investigation. Although presumed cause and effect are still identified and
measured, the structural features of design that facilitate counterfactual inferences (e.g.,
random assignment, pre-tests and control groups) are missing (Shadish et al., 2002).
Page | 61
Causal relationships require three conditions be met: the cause must precede the effect; the
cause must be related to the effect; and there must be no plausible alternative explanation for
the effect other than the cause (Shadish et al., 2002). Experiments seek to establish these
characteristics by (1) manipulating the presumed cause and observing an outcome, (2)
determining whether variation in the cause is related to variation in the effect, and (3) using
various methods during the experiment to reduce the plausibility of other explanations for the
effect, along with ancillary methods to explore the plausibility of explanations that cannot be
ruled out (Shadish et al., 2002). In this study, perceived source credibility and informational
claim are manipulated, such that the research design and analytic methods seek to determine
whether (a) variation in source is related to variation in perceived source credibility, (b)
variation in perceived source credibility and informational claim presence is related to variation
in message effectiveness, and (3) scepticism and cynicism are plausible alternative
explanations for any variance in message effectiveness. An experimental design was selected
as it provides the most persuasive support for causality (Churchill & Iacobucci, 2005) and is in
line with the realist ontology of the positivist paradigm (Saunders et al., 2009).
An experiment is a systematic study that involves the “control or manipulation of one or
more independent variables, to test a hypothesis about a dependent variable” (Bajpai, 2011,
p.163). There are various types of experimental designs, which differ according to the degree
of control they impart over design features and the subsequent extent to which they facilitate
causal findings. All variations share a similar purpose, however, to discover effects of
presumed causes, or “to test descriptive causal hypotheses about manipulable causes” (Shadish
et al., 2002, p.14).
A randomised experiment is one whose distinguishing feature is the randomised
assignment of treatments to units (Shadish, et al., 2002). Randomisation (theoretically) results
in a number of groups of units that are probabilistically similar, ensuring any outcome
Page | 62
differences observed between the groups can be attributed to the treatment condition, rather
than to pre-existing differences (Shadish, et al., 2002). Random assignment should also
eliminate most of the alternative explanations for the observed effect from contention. A true
experiment is a slightly more ambiguous version of the randomised experiment (Rosenthal &
Rosnow, 1991), however, as Shadish, Cook and Campbell (2002) note, “the modifier true
seems to imply restricted claims to a single correct experimental method” (p.13), thus this
thesis refers to randomised rather than true experiments.
In contrast, quasi-experiments seek the same outcomes but lack random assignment of
units to treatments. The cause is still manipulated before the effect is measured, however,
treatments are assigned through self-selection (units select treatments themselves), or
administrator selection, whereby others involved in the research (for instance, physicians,
legislators, or therapists) assign conditions (Shadish et al., 2002). Random allocation is critical
for eliminating plausible alternative explanations for the observed effect from contention.
Consequently, this subset of quasi-experimental design “offers less compelling support for
counterfactual inferences” (Shadish et al, 2002, p.15), as control groups may differ from the
treatment condition in various non-random ways. Quasi-experimental designs also offer less
compelling support for generalisability of results, as any alternative explanations for the
observed effect may be very particular to the context being studied, and the methods needed to
eliminate them from contention may vary significantly between alternatives and studies
(Shadish, et al., 2002). As message effectiveness can be affected by a number of factors,
randomisation is desirable as it will aid in eliminating alternative explanations for variation in
message effectiveness. The study therefore needed to follow a randomised experimental
design, rather than quasi-experimental design.
Factorial experimental designs contain two or more independent variables (factors), each
with two or more possibilities (levels), and allow the concurrent investigation of numerous
Page | 63
presumed causes in a single experiment (Montgomery, Peters & Little, 2003). For instance,
they permit evaluation of whether several treatment effects independently impact the outcome,
or whether the treatments are complementary (Collins, Dziak & Li, 2009). Factorial
experimental data estimates main effects and interactions by combining experimental
conditions in a principled way by means of factorial analysis of variance (ANOVA) (Collins,
Dziak, Kugler & Trail, 2014). Other benefits of the factorial design include that it is efficient
(from an experimental stand point) because multiple treatment effects can be determined by a
single set of observations (Collins et al., 2014). This research seeks to investigate how two
factors, perceived source credibility and informational claim, impact message effectiveness of
social advertising. Thus, a randomised, fully-crossed factorial experimental design is most
suitable. The design comprised two factors; one factor with two levels (informational claim
presence/absence) and one factor with three levels (organisational source type), resulting in a
2 x 3 design. All other conditions were held constant, ensuring high internal validity in
comparing groups on the dependent variables that comprise message effectiveness (Morrison,
2004).
Experimental designs can be assessed in terms of internal and external validity. Internal
validity refers to “the extent that extraneous variables (error variance) in an experiment are
accounted for” (Dawson, 1997, p.9). Internal validity of the experiment that forms the focus of
this research was enhanced through the methods previously discussed, for example,
randomisation. External validity refers to generalisability, specifically the extent to which
findings can be generalised to different populations, settings, treatment variables and
measurement variables (Rothwell, 2005; Dawson, 1997). To enhance external validity of the
study findings, the experiment used known (rather than fabricated) sources, a highly topical
subject matter, and is presented in a familiar and likely framework (social advertisements)
(Shadish et al., 2002).
Page | 64
The experiment was cross sectional, delivered through online self-report questionnaires
at a single point in time (Lefever, Dal & Matthíasdóttir, 2007). While the validity of self-
reported data is at times criticised (Brief, Burke, George, Robinson & Webster, 1998; Short et
al., 2009; Spector, 1994), when collected within a research design whereby alternative
explanations can be ruled out (e.g., experimental studies), greater confidence can be placed in
conclusions regarding the phenomena of interest (Spector, 1994). Cross-sectional, self-report
studies are also a timely and appropriate method of gathering data from a large sample of
geographically dispersed people who fit the inclusion criteria (Setia, 2016). The electronic
manner of data collection enables the automatic completion of data entry, preventing
administrative errors (Zikmund, 2003).
3.4 RESEARCH METHOD
This study was conducted using a randomised experimental design in which the
perceived source credibility and the presence/absence of an informational claim were
manipulated in a 2 (informational claim) x 3 (organisational message source) between-subjects
factorial design. The research context selected for this experiment, details regarding how the
stimuli (mock social advertisements) for the experiment were developed, the experimental
procedure and measures used in the experiment are outlined below.
3.4.1 Research Context
In order to create mock social advertisements, a socially beneficial behaviour that could
plausibly be the subject of social advertising from commercial, not-for-profit and government
sources needed to be selected. Although a range of behaviours, such as moderate drinking,
smoking cessation, and increased consumption of fruit and vegetables, were considered for the
study, increased physical activity was deemed to be the most appropriate behaviour because
physical inactivity has become one of the leading causes of disease, disability and death
Page | 65
globally (World Health Organisation, 2005; 2008). While adults (aged 18-64 years) are
recommended to accumulate 150 to 300 minutes of moderate intensity physical activity per
week, nearly 70% of Australian adults are classified as either sedentary or inadequately active
(i.e., not meeting the target range for either intensity and/or length of active engagement)
(Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2012).
The economic and social impacts of this are extensive. Research links sedentariness to
numerous risk factors (e.g., diabetes, cardiometabolic diseases, obesity, cancers, osteoporosis,
high blood pressure and high blood cholesterol) in both children (Saunders, Chaput &
Tremplay, 2014) and adults (Church et al., 2011; Dunstan et al., 2010; Healy, Matthews,
Dunstan, Winkler & Owen, 2011; Warren et al., 2010). Consequently, physical inactivity has
become the fourth leading cause of global deaths due to non-communicable diseases,
contributing to over 1.6 million deaths each year (Global Burden of Disease, 2016). The
monetary costs of physical inactivity are also significant (Colagiuri et al., 2010). In Australia,
physical inactivity is estimated to contribute $719 million per annum in direct net costs (driven
mostly through increased medical costs), $9,299 million in economy-wide productivity losses
through absenteeism (i.e., employee days off work) and presenteeism (i.e., employee poor
productivity at work due to sedentary-related illness), and a further $3,812 million in mortality
costs, caused by reduced life expectancy and poor quality of life (MediBank, 2008).
‘Active living’ social advertisements addressing this important issue are routinely
promoted by Australian State and Federal governments. Current investments in social
advertising aimed at encouraging increased physical activity include, but are not limited to, the
Australian Government Department of Health’s Make Your Move – Sit Less – Be Active For
Life! campaign and the Australian Government’s Girls Make Your Move campaign. The latter
specifically targets young women aged 12-19 to participate in physical activities and sport
using print and television advertising, as well as engagement via social media (i.e., Instagram,
Page | 66
Facebook, Twitter) platforms. Expenditure on this advertising is significant; in Australia in
2008-09, promotional campaigns cost $2,300.2 million, or $106 per person on average (AIHW,
2011).
In the commercial context, companies such as Nike promote health messages by
advocating for the importance of physical activity, both when advertising their products (such
as in their Find Your Greatness campaign series) and when persuading consumers to engage
with their brand. Non-profit health advocacy organisations also advertise to sway opinion
regarding health topics (Worthington et al., 2015) and encourage healthy behaviours (e.g.
Banks et al., 1995; Bator & Cialdini, 2000). This suggests social advertising messages
regarding physical activity could plausibly originate from commercial, non-profit and
government sources. Accordingly, the context of this research study is physical activity;
specifically, the promotion of physical activity and an active lifestyle.
3.4.2 Stimuli Development
To design the experimental social advertisement for the promotion of physical activity,
an image depicting people engaging in physical activity was sourced from Unsplash, an online
repository for high-resolution photographs that do not require attribution. Research has long
recognised that the characteristics of human models (i.e., communicators) in advertisements
affect respondents’ advertising evaluations (Petroshius & Crocker, 1989). Self-referencing, the
processing strategy whereby an individual processes information by relating a message (such
as an advertisement) to his or her own self-structure (Burnkrant & Unnava, 1995) may have
significant impacts upon advertising evaluations, including attitudes toward the model,
advertisement and brand, and purchase intentions (Martin, Lee & Yang, 2004). To mitigate
potential confounds, an image was selected based on the ethnic, gender and age neutrality of
the human models, that is, where these characteristics were not easily determined.
Page | 67
The image includes two individuals hiking energetically away from the viewer, along a
rocky path in a dark brown and green forest landscape (see Figure 2). The hikers wear
unbranded white sports shirts and dark athletic pants and shoes. Physiologically, the hiker
closest to the camera appears male, while the gender of the hiker further in the distance is not
as easily discerned. The human models are engaged in an activity that is not limited by financial
considerations (i.e. something that can be done free of cost, in contrast with working out in a
gym requiring a paid membership) to maximise respondents’ perceived inclusivity.
Figure 2. Base Image used in Mock Advertisement.
Source. Unsplash.
The tagline, “Either you run the day, or the day runs you,” was added to this image to
approximate the aforementioned Girls Make Your Move campaign (Australian Government
Department of Health, 2016), which uses taglines such as “The couch can wait” (for example,
see Appendix C). The copy also includes the directive, “Get up and go!” to mimic commercial
advertisements that frequently include short, sharp demands aimed at encouraging their
consumers to engage with their brand (for instance, Nike’s Move More, Move Better campaign,
launched in 2015). The tagline was capitalised, in keeping with the style of related commercial
Page | 68
advertising (see Adidas Runner’s 2017 WHY I RUN campaign). The font style Candara from
Microsoft Word was utilised to mimic the style of social advertisements by government (e.g.,
Girls Make Your Move) and commercial (e.g., Nike advertisements) sources. A transparent
white bar was also imposed along the bottom of the image (see Figure 3). This was done to
mimic the style of the Australian Government’s Girls Make Your Move campaign, which
includes a bar at the base of the image in a bright colour enabling the overlay of an
informational claim (see Appendix C).
Figure 3. Base Advertisement used in all Stimuli.
3.4.3 Experimental Manipulations
The experimental design manipulated two factors: perceived source credibility and the
presence/absence of an informational claim. To manipulate perceived source credibility, six
sources from three sectors were selected, including two government, two not-for-profit and two
commercial sources. Although the experiment aimed to investigate the perceived source
credibility of three sectors (i.e., government, not-for-profit and commercial), six sources were
Page | 69
tested to ascertain whether it was the source category or the individual brand that had an
experimental impact. Real sources were selected based on likelihood of brand recognition by
participants as it was important that respondents could identify whether the brand was of
government, not-for-profit or commercial origin, and were represented by versions of their logo
that contained the organisation’s name and symbol for parity (see Table 3).
Commercial source: On the basis of significant brand recognition and value, Nike
(ranked 18th in Interbrand’s Best Global Brands 2017) and Adidas (55th in Interbrand’s Best
Global Brands 2017, also ranked the top grower, Millward Brown’s Top 20 Risers 2017) were
selected as the two commercial sources.
Government: The Australian Government and the Australian Government Department
of Health were selected as the two government sources. The reasoning for this was twofold.
First, Federal Government sources were selected to avoid bias owing to State Government
allegiances. Second, this enabled the inclusion of a more generic (Australian Government) and
a context-specific (Australian Government Department of Health) government source in the
study to account for any potential differences in perceived source credibility that may be
directly attributable to a specific government department. The study followed government
regulations to include the Australian Government logo, comprising the Commonwealth Coat
of Arms, the words ‘Australian Government’, an underline and the department’s or agency’s
name on all communications (Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, 2017).
Non-profit: National Heart Foundation of Australia was selected as the first not-for-
profit source as it ranks 24th on the AMR Charity Reputation Index (AMR, 2017). Thus, this
organisation is arguably well known, and brand recognition is likely. Many hospitals and
places of healthcare also include non-profit organisations. Monash Health was selected as the
second source as it is Victoria’s largest public health service, providing healthcare to one
quarter of Melbourne’s population (Monash Health Foundation, 2017). Their charity arm,
Page | 70
Monash Health Foundation, “partners with individuals and businesses within the community
to continually improve and provide additional services and facilities to [their] patients and
families” (Monash Health Foundation, 2017). Notwithstanding brand recognition, these
sources were also selected on the basis that they are able to be clearly differentiated from
government and commercial sources, especially as they both have the term “Foundation” in
their name. In choosing one location-specific brand (i.e. Monash Health Foundation, based in
Melbourne) and one national brand (i.e. Heart Foundation, which exists Australia-wide), the
potential impact of brand locality and familiarity on perceived source credibility could also be
examined.
Page | 71
Table 3. Institutional Source Variations
Source Institution Agent Logo
1
Government
Australian Government
2 Australian Government
Department of Health
3 Not-For-
Profit
The Heart Foundation
4 Monash Health Foundation
5
Commercial
Nike
6 Adidas
The source of the advertisement was attributed by adding an organisation name and
logo in the bottom left-hand corner of the image. All logos appeared in direct proximity to the
organisation name. The logos were white, in contrast to the dark background images, and
placed to the left of the image over the transparent white bar (see Figure 4 and Figure 5).
An informational claim regarding the health effects of physical activity was either
included or excluded as the second manipulation of the experiment. Prospect Theory suggests
individual responses to factually equivalent messages depend upon how those messages are
framed (Tverseky & Kahneman, 1981). Health communications can be framed in terms of the
benefits of engaging in a particular activity (gains), or the costs of failing to engage in that
activity (losses). Research suggests gain-framed health messages are significantly more likely
Page | 72
to encourage or persuade behaviour than are loss-framed messages (Detweiler, Bedell,
Salovey, Pronin & Rothman, 1999; Rothman, Bartels, Wlashcin & Salovey, 2006). A gain-
framed informational claim was thus developed for inclusion in the advertisement: “30 minutes
of exercise a day is all it takes to help prevent unhealthy weight gain. Walk, run, swim, ride,
dance or play – whatever you choose, get up and go!”. The informational claim advocates the
benefits of physical exercise (preventing weight gain), rather than the losses of not engaging in
physical activity (experiencing weight gain). Prefixing “weight gain” with the term
“unhealthy” was done to ensure the advertisement would not imply that all weight gain was
negative, polarising some respondents. Similarly, various physical activities were included to
reduce the chance of polarising respondents with particularly positive or negative views of any
of the activities listed (Massar & Buunk, 2013). Finally, the informational statement mimics
the style of current health promotion campaigns (e.g., Australian Government’s “Make Your
Move – Sit Less – Be Active for life!”; see Appendix C). Half the stimuli included the statement
(see Figure 4 for example), which was written in navy blue to contrast the white backing and
placed atop the white transparent bar at the base of the image. The other half of the stimuli did
not contain an informational claim (see Figure 5 for example). The factorial design
demonstrating how source and claim were manipulated is summarised below (see Table 4). All
12 experimental stimuli are presented in the Appendix B.
Page | 73
Figure 4. Experimental Stimulus – Informational Claim Present.
Figure 5. Experimental Stimulus – No Informational Claim Present.
Page | 74
Table 4. 3 (Organisational Message Source) x 2 (Informational Claim) Fully-Crossed Mixed
Factorial Design
Independent Variable A: Message Source
Ind
epen
den
t V
aria
ble
B:
Info
rmat
ion
al C
laim
Government Not-For-Profit Commercial
Claim:
“30 minutes of exercise a
day is all it takes to help
prevent unhealthy weight
gain. Walk, run, swim,
ride, dance or play –
whatever you choose, get
up and go!”
Australian
Government
X
Claim
Australian
Government
Department of
Health
X
Claim
Heart
Foundation
X
Claim
Monash
Health
X
Claim
Nike
X
Claim
Adidas
X
Claim
No Informational
Claim
Australian
Government
X
No Claim
Australian
Government
Department of
Health
X
No Claim
Heart
Foundation
X
No Claim
Monash
Health
X
No
Claim
Nike
X
No
Claim
Adidas
X
No
Claim
3.4.4 Experimental Procedure
An online survey was used to administer the experimental design (see Appendix A).
Before beginning the survey, participants were asked to read the participant information sheet
and a statement of informed consent. After agreeing to participate, participants were provided
one of the twelve randomly-allocated experimental stimuli discussed in Section 3.4.2 and
Section 3.4.3.
An attention check immediately followed the presentation of the stimulus, asking
respondents to select the institution responsible for releasing the advertisement they were
presented with (i.e., government, commercial or not-for-profit). Attention check questions used
to screen out inattentive respondents or to increase attention of respondents have been found
to be effective in increasing the quality of data collected online (Aust, Diednhofen, Ullrich &
Page | 75
Musch, 2012; Goodman, Cryder & Cheema, 2012; Oppenheimer, Meyvis, & Davidenko,
2009). For instance, Goodman and colleagues (2012) found filtering out participants who
incorrectly answered the attention check questions reduced statistical noise and increased the
likelihood of finding statistically significant differences between groups on various
dimensions.
Researchers recommend using and relying on attention checks for data quality sparingly
to avoid biasing responses or over-cleansing “bad” data that is actually valuable (Waites &
Ponder, 2016). Thus, an attention check regarding the presence (or absence) of an informational
claim was not included owing to the binary nature of this variable. Further, this manipulation
was so obvious (the claim was either present or absent) that the inclusion of an attention check
may have inadvertently drawn respondent attention to that particular component of the stimuli,
and/or biased their subsequent survey items responses (Waites & Ponder, 2016). Following the
attention checks, participants were required to complete scale measures, as discussed in the
following section.
3.4.5 Measures
Within the survey, five central constructs were measured: perceived source credibility,
consumer scepticism, consumer cynicism, attitude toward the advertisement and behavioral
intention. A further six control constructs were also measured: information processing style
(i.e., need for cognition and need for affect), media literacy (i.e., critical thinking about the
source of the message and content in the message), and issue involvement (i.e., attitude toward,
and involvement in, physical activity). The measures used, as well as their reliability and
validity, are outlined here.
Perceived Source Credibility refers to the ability of a spokesperson to favourably or
unfavourably affect a receiver’s acceptance of the information presented in a formal
Page | 76
communication (Dholakia & Sternthal, 1977). Perceived source credibility scales vary
significantly in terms of specificity and source proximity to the receiver. In particular, existing
source credibility scales range in:
(1) relational proximity to the individual, from close, such as a teacher (McCroskey et
al., 1974), to distant, such as a news source (Singletary, 1976), an advertiser (Vanden
Bergh et al., 1981), or a celebrity endorser (Ohanian, 1990);
(2) specification, from narrow, such as a specific television newscaster (Markham,
1968) or particular mass media news source image (McCroskey & Jenson, 1975) to
broad, for instance, international TV news (Lee, 1978), a televised source (McCain,
Chilberg & Wakshlag, 1977), or simply a ‘communicator’ (Tuppen, 1974); and
(3) collectiveness, from singular (e.g. newscaster; White, 1990) to group, such as an
‘organisational source’ (Raman & Haley, 1997) or very generally ‘corporate
credibility’ (Goldsmith et al, 2000; Newell, 1993; Newell & Goldsmith, 2001).
This research focussed on the perceived credibility of relatively distant sources (i.e.,
organisations, rather than peers, teachers or managers). Scales measuring the perceived source
credibility of ‘distant’ sources also vary (see Table 5). For instance, MacKenzie and Lutz’s
(1989) three-item scale reflects a single factor called ‘advertiser credibility’. In contrast,
LaBarbera (1982) measured ‘company credibility’ using a 10-item scale (adjusted from
McCroskey’s (1966) 12-item scale to measure ethos), reflecting two factors with high levels of
internal consistency reliability; expertise (α = .94) and trustworthiness (α = .85).
Page | 77
Table 5. Previous Studies of Perceived Source Credibility
Study Concept
Specification
Number
of Items
Number and Name of
Dimensions
α Examples of scale
items
1 Goldberg &
Hartwick
(1990)
Company
credibility
4 (BP) 2 Trustworthiness,
Expertise
0.71
Good reputation/
poor reputation
2 MacKenzie
& Lutz
(1989)
Advertiser
credibility
3 (BP) 1 Advertiser Credibility 0.82 Convincing/
unconvincing;
Biased/unbiased
3 Lichtenstein
& Bearden
(1989)
Merchant
credibility
5 (LK) 5 Honesty,
Sincerity, Dependa-
bility, Trustworthiness,
Credibility
0.78 Honesty;
Sincerity
4 Muehling
(1987)
Attitude
toward the
sponsor
3 (BP) 1 Attitude toward the
sponsor
0.96 Favourable/
Unfavourable;
Negative/positive
5 LaBarbera
(1982)
Company
credibility
10 (BP) 2 Trustworthiness,
Expertise
0.92 Expert/inexpert;
Reliable/unreliable;
Honest/dishonest
6 Raman &
Haley
(1997)
Organizational
source
credibility
3 Good, Role Model,
Smart
Good;
Role Model;
Smart
7 Newell &
Goldsmith
(2001)
Corporate
credibility
8 (LK) 2 Trustworthiness,
Expertise
0.84-
0.92
Experience; skill;
honesty
BP bipolar adjective scales; LK Likert scales
This study employed the Newell and Goldsmith (2001) scale as it is based on a meta-
review of source credibility scales (Study 7 in Table 5). Although this scale measures perceived
corporate credibility (i.e., across corporations specifically), there is no scale that measures
perceived credibility across different types of organisations (i.e., government versus non-
profit). Consequently, the scale was adapted for the purposes of this study. It includes eight
seven-point semantic differential items designed to measure trustworthiness (e.g., I trust the
XYZ Corporation) and expertise (e.g., The XYZ Corporation has a great amount of experience
(Table 6).
Page | 78
Table 6. Measurement Scale for Perceived Source Credibility
Consumer scepticism was measured using the Advertising Scepticism Scale developed
by Obermiller & Spangenberg (1998), because it captures a general disbelief of advertising
claims and demonstrates internal consistency reliability via a stable unidimensional factor
structure in a variety of contexts. This scale includes nine semantic differential items rated from
1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Questions include, “We can depend on getting the
truth in most advertising” (Table 7).
Table 7. Measurement Scale for Advertising Scepticism
Construct Perceived Source Credibility
Source Newell & Goldsmith (2001)
Scale Seven-point Likert scale anchored at endpoints
(1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree)
Items 1. The XYZ Corporation has a great amount of experience.
2. The XYZ Corporation is skilled in what they do.
3. The XYZ Corporation has great expertise.
4. The XYZ Corporation does not have much experience.
5. I trust the XYZ Corporation.
6. The XYZ Corporation makes truthful claims.
7. The XYZ Corporation is honest.
8. I do not believe what the XYZ Corporation tells me.
Construct Advertising Scepticism Scale
Source Obermiller & Spangenberg (1998)
Scale Seven-point Likert scale anchored at endpoints
(1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree)
Items 1. We can depend on getting the truth in most advertising.
2. Advertising’s aim is to inform the consumer.
3. I believe advertising is informative.
4. Advertising is generally truthful.
5. Advertising is a reliable source of information about the quality and performance
of products.
6. Advertising is truth well told.
7. In general, advertising presents a true picture of the product being advertised.
8. I feel like I’ve been accurately informed after viewing most advertisements.
9. Most advertising provides consumers with essential information.
Page | 79
Consumer cynicism toward advertising is distinct from general societal cynicism (e.g.
Kanter & Mirvis, 1989) and is a relatively new construct in the literature. As such, few scales
measuring advertising cynicism exist. Chylinski and Chu’s (2010) consumer cynicism scale
captures a consumer’s behaviours toward a specific distrusted firm, focusing on the actions
such as complaining, spreading negative word-of-mouth, switching, or seeking forms of
redress (such as a refund or exchange) that consumers use to express their discontent with a
particular marketing agent (Chylinksi & Chu, 2010; p. 817).
However, this research seeks to explore the effect of cynical beliefs on the relationship
between perceived source credibility, informational claim and social advertising message
effectiveness. Consequently, Helm, Moulard and Richin’s (2015) scale for consumer cynicism
was used. This scale measures consumer cynical beliefs towards the marketplace (i.e., firms in
general), and reflects three dimensions of cynicism equivalent to the core beliefs of cynical
consumers: (1) general opportunism, whereby firms (institutions) seek their own self-interests
without regard for basic principles or eventual consequences; (2) opportunism specifically
directed towards consumers, whereby firms (institutions) seek their own self-interests
disregarding eventual consequences even for their own customers; and (3) deception, with
forms of opportunism specifically emphasising deceptive marketing practices.
This seven-point Likert scale (anchored at the endpoints, whereby 1 = strongly disagree,
7 = strongly agree) measures cynicism toward the marketplace using eight items. Questions
include, “Most companies are more interested in making profits than in serving consumers”
and “Companies see consumers as puppets to manipulate”).
This scale focuses on corporate cynicism; however, given that there is no scale measuring
cynicism across different types of societal institutions, adaptations were required for the
purposes of this study to measure cynicism toward government and not-for-profit sources.
Adaptations were as minimal as possible and maintained consistency such that the item did not
Page | 80
lose equivalent meaning between iterations. For example, the original item (directed at
commercial organisations), “Most businesses are more interested in making profits than in
serving consumers” was adapted to “Most governments are more interested in cutting costs
than in serving citizens” to measure cynicism towards the government, and “Most charities
are more interested in raising funds than in serving the cause” to measure cynicism towards
not-for-profit/charity organisations. The three iterations of the consumer cynicism scale are
outlined below (see Table 8, Table 9 and Table 10).
Table 8. Measurement Scale for Consumer Cynicism (Original: Businesses)
Construct Consumer Cynicism
Source Helm, Moulard & Richins (2015)
Scale Seven-point Likert scale anchored at endpoints
(1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree)
Items 1. Most companies do not mind breaking the law; they just see fines and lawsuits as a
cost of doing business.
2. Most businesses are more interested in making profits than in serving consumers.
3. Companies see consumers as puppets to manipulate.
4. Manufacturers do not care what happens once I have bought the product.
5. If I want to get my money’s worth, I cannot believe what a company tells me.
6. Most companies will sacrifice anything to make a profit.
7. To make a profit, companies are willing to do whatever they can get away with.
8. Most businesses will cut any corner they can to improve profit margins.
Page | 81
Table 9. Adapted Measurement Scale for Consumer Cynicism: Government Sources
Table 10. Adapted Measurement Scale for Consumer Cynicism: Not-For-Profit Sources
Attitude toward the Ad (Believability) was measured using Beltramini’s (1982) attitude
toward the advertisement scale, or “the extent to which an advertisement is capable of evoking
in its truthfulness to render it acceptable to consumers” (p. 1). The scale comprises ten bipolar
Construct Consumer Cynicism
Source Based on Helm, Moulard & Richins (2015)
Scale Seven-point Likert scale anchored at endpoints
(1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree)
Items 1. Most governments do not mind breaking the law; they just see scandals and
lawsuits as a part of politics.
2. Most governments are more interested in cutting costs than in serving citizens.
3. Governments see citizens as puppets to manipulate.
4. Governments do not care about how their essential services are delivered.
5. As a taxpayer, I cannot believe what a government tells me.
6. Most governments will sacrifice any essential services to cut costs.
7. To cut costs, governments are willing to do whatever they can get away with.
8. Most governments will cut any corner they can to improve their Budget.
Construct Consumer Cynicism
Source Based on Helm, Moulard & Richins (2015)
Scale Seven-point Likert scale anchored at endpoints
(1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree)
Items 1. Most charities do not mind breaking the law; they just see fines and lawsuits as a
cost of doing business.
2. Most charities are more interested in raising funds than in serving the cause.
3. Companies see citizens as puppets to manipulate.
4. Charities do not care what happens once I have donated money.
5. If I want my donation to count, I cannot believe what a charity tells me.
6. Most charities will sacrifice anything to raise funds.
7. To raise funds, charities are willing to do whatever they can get away with.
8. Most charities will cut any corner they can to improve profit their financial records.
Page | 82
adjectives measured on a five-point scale (for instance, 1 = unbelievable, 5 = believable and 1
= not credible, 5 = credible) (Table 11).
Table 11. Measurement Scale for Attitude toward the Ad (Believability)
Changes in behavioural intention were measured using three items that assessed
respondents’ intentions to be physically active over the period of one month (Chatzisarantis,
Biddle & Meek, 1997). On the basis of the work of Ajzen and Madden (1986) and worded in
a manner to correspond to behavioural criterion in time, context, target, and action (Ajzen &
Fishbein, 1980), participants responded to three items. Responses were provided on a seven-
point Likert scale anchored from 1 (very unlikely) to 7 (very likely) (see Table 12).
Table 12. Measurement Scale for Behavioural Intentions
Construct Attitude toward the Ad (Believability)
Source Beltramini (1982)
Scale Five-point bipolar adjective scale anchored at endpoints
Items 1. unbelievable / believable
2. untrustworthy / trustworthy
3. not convincing / convincing
4. not credible / credible
5. unreasonable / reasonable
6. dishonest / honest
7. questionable / unquestionable
8. inconclusive / conclusive
9. not authentic / authentic
10. unlikely / likely
Construct Intention to Be Physically Active
Source Chatzisarantis, Biddle & Meek (1997), based on Ajzen & Madden (1986) and
Ajzen & Fishbein (1980)
Scale Seven-point Likert scale anchored at endpoints
(1 = very unlikely, 7 = very likely)
Items 1. I am determined to exercise at least 3 times a week during the next month.
2. I intend to exercise at least 3 times a week during the next month.
3. I plan to exercise at least 3 times a week during the next month.
Page | 83
Cacioppo and Petty’s (1982) scales for information processing style were used to
control for the effect of need for cognition and need for affect. Need for Cognition describes
the extent to which consumers enjoy cognitive efforts and was measured using a four-item five-
point bipolar adjective scale (e.g. 1 = boring to 5 = fun; and 1 = easy to 5 = complex), including
questions such as “How much do you enjoy or dislike situations in which you have to think
hard?” (Table 13).
Table 13. Measurement Scale for Need for Cognition
Need for Affect describes the extent to which consumers enjoy affective responses in
decision making (Cacioppo & Petty, 1982). Need for affect was also measured using a four-
item five-point bipolar adjective scale (e.g. 1 = unemotional to 5 = emotional), with questions
such as “Is it important or unimportant for you to be in touch with your feelings?” (Table 14).
Construct Need for Cognition (NFC)
Source Cacioppo & Petty, 1982
Scale Five-point bipolar adjective scale anchored at endpoints
(1 = boring, 5 = fun)
(1 = dislike, 5 = enjoy)
(1 = easy, 5 = complex)
Items 1. Is thinking fun (5) or boring (1)?
2. How much do you enjoy (5) or dislike (1) situations in which you have to
think hard?
3. Do you enjoy (5) or dislike (1) tasks that challenge your thinking abilities?
4. Do you prefer tasks that are easy (1) or tasks that are complex (5)?
Page | 84
Table 14. Measurement Scale for Need for Affect
The Media Literacy scale, developed by Austin, Pinkleton, Radanielina-Hita and Ran
(2015), measures critical thinking about the content of a message using three seven-point
semantic differential items (whereby 1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree), including “It
is important to think twice about what advertising messages say” (Table 15). As done by
Austin, Muldrow and Austin (2016), the scale was adapted to include the word “health” before
“advertising messages” to enhance specificity of the scale items.
Table 15. Measurement Scale for Critical Thinking about the Content of a Message
The Media Literacy scale also measures critical thinking about the source of a message,
using a seven-point semantic differential scale (whereby 1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly
Construct Need for Affect (NFA)
Source Cacioppo & Petty, 1982
Scale Five-point scale (Likert and bipolar adjectives) anchored at endpoints
(1 = unimportant, 5 = important)
(1 = unemotional, 5 = emotional)
Items 1. Is it important (5) or unimportant (1) for you to be in touch with your feelings?
2. Is it important (5) or unimportant (1) for you to explore your feelings?
3. How important (5) or unimportant (1) is it that you know how others are
feeling?
4. Would you consider yourself an emotional (5) or unemotional person (1)?
Construct Critical Thinking About the Content of a Message
Source Austin, Pinkleton, Radanielina-Hita & Ran, 2015
Scale Seven-point Likert scale anchored at endpoints
(1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree)
Items 1. I think about the things I see in health advertising messages before I accept them
as believable.
2. I look for more information before I believe something I see in health advertising
messages.
3. It is important to think twice about what health advertising messages say.
Page | 85
agree) and includes items such as “I think about who created the advertisements I see” (Table
16) As done by Austin, Muldrow and Austin (2016), the scale was adapted to include the word
“health” before “advertising messages” to enhance specificity of the scale items. This scale
measures consumer self-referent critical thinking (“I think X”), whilst Helm, Moulard and
Richin’s (2015) scale measures other-referent cynical attitudes (“Companies behave X”).
Table 16. Measurement Scale for Critical Thinking about the Source of a Message
Consistent with previous research (Maheswaran & Meyers-Levy, 1990), Issue
Involvement in terms of attitude towards physical activity was measured based on responses
to scenarios relating to physical activity undertaken in two distinct contexts: for people of a
healthy weight (equivalent to a normal BMI) and for people who are overweight (equivalent to
an above-normal BMI). Three items measuring how (i) wrong/right, (ii)
unfavourable/favourable, and (iii) unacceptable/acceptable not engaging in physical activity
would be in each context were assessed on a seven-point Likert scale anchored at the endpoints
(e.g. 1 = unfavourable, 7 = favourable) (see Table 17). A composite measure was created from
the six items and responses were reverse scored such that higher scores indicated a less
favourable attitude toward sedentary lifestyles.
Construct Critical Thinking About the Source of a Message
Source Austin, Pinkleton, Radanielina-Hita & Ran; 2015 (adapted)
Scale Seven-point Likert scale anchored at endpoints
(1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree)
Items 1. I think about the purpose behind health advertisements I see.
2. I think about what the creator of health advertisements wants me to believe.
3. I think about who created the health advertisements I see.
Page | 86
Table 17. Measurement Scale for Pre-Existing Attitudes Toward Physical Activity
Issue Involvement was also measured through respondent’s self-reported involvement
in physical activity. A composite measure of 3 items, adapted from previous research
(Maheswaran & Meyers-Levy, 1990), asked respondents to report the extent to which being
physically active was “relevant/important/of concern” to them, on a 7-point Likert scale
anchored from 1 (e.g., very unimportant) to 7 (e.g., very important) (Table 18).
Table 18. Measurement Scale for Perceived Involvement in Physical Activity
Construct Attitude Toward Physical Activity
Source Maheswaran & Meyers-Levy, 1990
Scale Seven-point Likert scale anchored at endpoints
(1 = wrong, 7 = right)
(1 = unfavourable, 7 = favourable)
(1 = unacceptable, 7 = acceptable)
Items Think about someone who is a healthy weight (i.e. has a normal BMI). Rate
your attitude towards someone of a healthy weight not engaging in physical
activity.
1. Wrong / Right
2. Unfavourable / Favourable
3. Unacceptable / Acceptable
Think about someone who is overweight or obese (i.e. has an above-normal
BMI). Rate your attitude towards someone who is overweight not engaging in
physical activity.
4. Wrong / Right
5. Unfavourable / Favourable
6. Unacceptable / Acceptable
Construct Attitude Toward Physical Activity
Source Maheswaran & Meyers-Levy, 1990
Scale Seven-point Likert scale anchored at endpoints
(1 = very unimportant, 7 = very important)
Items Being physically active to me is;
1. Very irrelevant/very relevant
2. Very unimportant/very important
3. Of low concern/of high concern
Page | 87
3.4.6 Pretesting of the study
The questionnaire was pre-tested on a small convenience sample, including experts in
the fields of social marketing and market research, to identify any issues in the wording of the
questions or the understanding of the terms used, and to ensure the online survey functioned
correctly. Of the constructs presented, one relating to advertising believability was rejected
because of poor wording and fit. This was replaced with Beltramini’s (1982) Attitude Toward
the Ad (Believability) scale (Table 11).
3.5 SAMPLE
The questionnaire was developed using online Key Survey software and was launched
externally to a panel sample of English-speaking Australian adults, recruited using the market
research company Survey Sampling Inc. (hereafter SSI). The survey was launched by SSI on
27 June 2017 and closed on 03 July 2017. Once the survey closed, data was exported from Key
Survey into SPSS for analysis. Participation was voluntary, anonymous and open to individuals
on SSI’s database who met the inclusion criteria, which required participants to be over 18
years of age and reside in Australia. Initial screening in the survey eliminated respondents who
did not fit these criteria. Respondents who participated were reimbursed for their time via SSI.
The survey was programmed to obtain around 360 responses, approximately evenly distributed
between males and females. Participants who agreed to participate in the study were asked their
gender and their age in years. The survey program then used branching, random allocation and
logical redirection plug-ins to randomly allocate the participants to an experimental condition.
A total of 372 survey questionnaires were completed through the SSI market research
panel. Overall, 190 (51.1%) participants were female, 180 (48.4%) were male and 2 (0.5%)
were gender non-binary (recorded as ‘other’ in the questionnaire). Survey participants ranged
in age from 18 to 75 years of age. The average age was 46.03 (SD = 16.60).
Page | 88
The number of participants who completed each experimental condition varied from 21
(Australian Government x Informational Claim) to 42 (Adidas x No Informational Claim). The
number of respondents assigned to each source ranged from 51 (Australian Government
Department of Health) to 73 (Nike/Adidas). Overall, 103 respondents were assigned to a
government-sourced advertisement, 146 to a commercially-sourced advertisement and 123 to
an advertisement sourced from a not-for-profit organisation (Table 19).
Table 19. Experimental Stimuli Allocation
Government Commercial Not-For-Profit Total
Source Aus
Gov
Aus
Gov
Dep
Heath
Adidas Nike Monash
Health
Foundation
Heart
Foundation
Claim
Present
21 24 31 37 31 29 173
No Claim
Present
31 27 42 36 32 31 199
Total by
source
52 51 73 73 63 60 372
Total by
source
category
103 146 123 372
Simple randomisation was employed to minimise selection bias (Kahan et el., 2015);
however, unequal sample sizes still resulted, which may have weakened the ability to find
systematic differences between conditions. While not desirable, uneven cell sizes were not
deemed overly problematic given the large sample size and the robustness of ANOVA and
regression analyses given the sample size. While equal-size groups maximise statistical power
(Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013) and group size differences (unbalanced cell sizes) may impact the
analyses when categorical predictors are involved, there are no equal sample size assumptions
for one-way ANOVAs, and group size differences in regression analyses are generally only
Page | 89
problematic when one group makes up a very small proportion (e.g. 1%) of the sample (Zahn,
2010), which was not the case in this study. Cell size imbalances in factorial experimental
designs simply require the researcher to choose whether to estimate the effects by means of
Type I, Type II or Type III sums of squares (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013)
3.6 ANALYTIC PROCEDURES
The data were analysed using quantitative techniques in SPSS. Descriptive statistics
provide context surrounding the participant sample and direction of the study. This includes
the mean, median, range and standard deviations, frequencies and percentages. Various
analytic procedures were then used to evaluate the nine hypotheses (Table 20).
Page | 90
Table 20. Summary of Research Hypotheses and Analytic Techniques
Hypothesis Analytic Technique
1 Perceived source credibility varies across
commercial, government and non-profit
sources.
One-way independent samples analysis of
variance (ANOVA)
Post-hoc: Tukey’s HSD test.
2 Perceived source credibility has a positive
effect on attitude toward the ad
(believability).
Hierarchical multiple linear regression,
entering the covariates at Step 1 and the
main effects at Step 2
3 Perceived source credibility has a positive
effect on behavioural intention.
4 An informational claim has a positive effect
on attitude toward the ad (believability).
Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA),
estimating the covariate adjusted means-
differences between groups
5 An informational claim has a positive effect
on behavioural intention.
6 Scepticism moderates the effect of perceived
source credibility on (a) attitude toward the
ad (believability) and (b) behavioural
intention.
Hierarchical linear moderated regression,
testing for main and interaction effects
using a step-wise procedure.
Post-hoc: Simple Slopes Analysis
7 Scepticism moderates the effect of an
informational claim on (a) attitude toward the
ad (believability) and (b) behavioural
intention.
8 Cynicism moderates the effect of perceived
source credibility on (a) attitude toward the
ad (believability) and (b) behavioural
intention.
9 Cynicism moderates the effect of an
informational claim on (a) attitude toward the
ad (believability) and (b) behavioural
intention.
Page | 91
H1: The experimental manipulation of perceived source (e.g., government, not-for-profit
and commercial) credibility was investigated using one-way independent samples ANOVA.
This technique determines whether the difference between the means of two or more unique
groups are statistically significant (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). Data must meet six
assumptions for an ANOVA to be fitting. The dependent variable must be continuous, the
independent variable must consist of two or more categorical independent groups, there must
be independence of observations (no relationship between the observations in each group or
between the groups themselves), there must be no significant outliers, the outcome variable
must be approximately normally distributed, and finally there must be homogeneity of
variances (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). These assumptions were checked and confirmed in
SPSS. One-way independent samples ANOVAs are an omnibus statistical test, and therefore
only identify whether as least two groups are statistically different, but not which particular
groups differ. Thus, a post-hoc test must be utilised. This study used Tukey’s honestly
significant difference (HSD) test to determine which groups differed.
H2 and H3: The impact of perceived source credibility on message effectiveness
(operationalised as behavioural intention and ad believability) was analysed using hierarchical
multiple linear regression. This is because it involves a continuous interval independent
variable and continuous interval dependent variable (Hair, Black, Babin & Anderson, 2010).
Using a multiple linear regression, rather than a simple linear regression, allows for entry of
the control variables at Step 1 (Hair et al., 2010; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). There are six
assumptions underpinning regression relationships. The variables must be continuous, there
must be a linear relationship between the variables (as per the scatterplot), there must be no
significant outliers, there must be independence of observations, the data must demonstrate
homoscedasticity, and the residuals must be approximately normally distributed (Hair et al.,
2010; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013). These assumptions were checked and confirmed in SPSS.
Page | 92
H4 and H5: The impact of the presence (absence) of an informational claim in a social
advertisement on behavioural intention and ad believability was analysed using an ANCOVA
(Analysis of Covariance). This is because the relationship involved a dichotomous categorical
independent variable and continuous numerical dependent variable. Utilising an ANCOVA to
evaluate statistically significant differences between group means, rather than an ANOVA,
allows for incorporation of the covariates outlined in the literature review. In doing so,
ANCOVAs estimate statistically significant differences in the adjusted means (adjusted for the
covariates) (Hair et al., 2010). The assumptions underpinning ANCOVA analyses include the
following: the dependent variable and covariate(s) are measured on continuous scales, the
independent variable must consist of at least two independent groups, there must be
independence among each observation, there must be no significant outliers in the data, the
residuals must be normally distributed for each category of the IV (which can be tested using
two Shapiro-Wilk tests of normality in SPSS; one to test the within-group residuals and one to
test the overall model fit), there must be homogeneity of variances (which can be tested using
Levene’s test for homogeneity of variances in SPSS; the covariates must be linearly related to
the dependent variables at each level of the independent variable) (Hair et al., 2010). There
must also be homoscedasticity of data, which can be tested by plotting the scatterplot of the
standardised residuals against the predicted values. Finally, there must be homogeneity of the
regression slopes (that is, no interaction between the IV and covariates) (Tabachnick & Fidell,
2007). These were tested in SPSS and confirmed.
H6-H9: A series of two-way hierarchical moderated regression analyses were performed
to address Hypotheses 6, 7, 8 and 9. This analytic method is useful for testing whether the
relationship between an independent variable and a dependent variable is conditional on a
moderating variable (Hair et al., 2010). This method enables control for numerous covariates,
the identification of main effects and interaction effects. The nature of any significant
Page | 93
interaction effect was probed using Jaccard, Turrisi and Wan’s (1990) simple slopes analysis.
Predictor variables were mean-centred to circumvent multicollinearity problems between the
main effects and two-way interactions (Aiken & West, 1991; Cronbach, 1987; Jaccard, Turrisi
& Wan, 1990). This method also enabled the simultaneous control for the independent
variables (age, gender, information processing style, media literacy and issue involvement).
3.7 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS
Researchers have an obligation to conduct their research in accordance with ethical
guidelines to ensure safety of their participants and integrity of their research (Creswell, 2009).
The Queensland University of Technology Human Ethics Committee confirmed the study met
the requirements of the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (Approval
number 1600001117). This research was deemed to be of negligible risk to participants, as it
involved an opt-in online survey that could be accessed at their convenience. The questions in
the survey were not likely to cause undue duress to the participants or elicit an overwhelming
emotional response. External funding was not provided for the study and there were no
conflicts of interest associated with the study.
3.8 CONCLUSION
Chapter 3 presented the research design and justified the methodology for this research.
The chapter began by outlining the research paradigm, specifically positivism, underpinning
the research design. Subsequently, the research design was explored: a randomised
experimental design in which the perceived source credibility and the presence/absence of an
informational claim were manipulated in a 2 (informational claim) x 3 (organisational message
source) between-subjects factorial design. The research method, including the research context
and the development of the experiment, was provided next. Last, the analytical procedures used
Page | 94
to analyse the data were described in detail followed by the ethical considerations. The
following chapter, Chapter 4, details the results of the data analysis.
Page | 95
Chapter 4: Results
4.1 INTRODUCTION
The previous chapter described the research design and methodology of the study, as well
as the analytic procedures. This chapter presents the results of the hypothesis testing and data
analysis. The hypotheses outlined in Section 2 Literature Review were analysed using analysis
of variance, analysis of covariance, and hierarchical multiple and moderation regression
techniques.
4.2 DATA CLEANING AND PREPARATION
A total of 372 surveys were completed. The data from the online survey was transferred
from Key Survey to IBM SPSS software (Version 23.0) for cleaning and subsequent analysis.
Settings in the online questionnaire prevented non-responses and minimised erroneous data
entry. Two “age” responses were edited for consistency (e.g., “twenty” reformatted to “20”).
The survey included an attention check immediately following the presentation of the
stimulus, asking respondents to select the institution responsible for releasing the social
advertisement in their survey from the options: government, commercial and not-for-profit. Of
the 103 respondents assigned a government-sourced stimulus, 6 (5.8%) failed the check
(selecting either commercial or not-for-profit as the agent that released their ad). Of the 146
respondents assigned commercially-sourced ads, 7 (4.8%) failed the check. However, of the
123 respondents randomly assigned advertisements from the not-for-profit sources (Monash
Health Foundation and the Heart Foundation), 47 (38.3%) failed the check, with 36 respondents
selecting ‘government’ and 11 selecting ‘commercial’ as the institution responsible for
releasing their assigned social advertisement. These failed attention checks may indicate either
Page | 96
that these respondents were not paying sufficient attention to the advertisement or survey
questions, and therefore cast doubt on the validity of their subsequent responses (Oppenheimer
et al., 2009), or that participants were on the whole less familiar with the selected not-for-profit
sources of social advertising. On this basis, including participants who failed this attention
check may have reduced the likelihood of finding statistically significant differences between
groups on the other dimensions (Goodman, Cryder & Cheema, 2012). Thus, all 60 (16.1%)
responses with failed attention checks were removed from the data set. The resulting sample
size (n = 312) exceeded the lower-bound preferred size for the required quantitative analyses
(Hair et al., 2010).
The data were prepared for analysis by reverse coding items where required of the
measurement scales. The scores for the scepticism measure were also reverse coded for logical
analysis, such that higher scores were equivalent to higher levels of scepticism. Composite
variables were generated using the aggregated scores from the multi-item measures used for
all variables (Papa, Litson, Lockhart, Chassin & Geiser, 2015). Mean-centered variables were
also generated for continuous variables to increase interpretability of interactions and to avoid
problems with multi-collinearity in the regression analyses (Afshartous & Preston, 2011;
Harrell, 2001; Aiken & West, 1991; Judd & McClelland, 2009). These mean-centered variables
were used only in the regression analyses, while composite variables were used in other
analyses.
4.3 DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS
Preliminary descriptive analyses were conducted (Table 21). Specifically, measures of
central tendency (means and standard deviations) and Pearson’s 2-tailed bivariate correlation
coefficients were obtained (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). The small standard deviations
indicate relative precision of the data (i.e., data clusters around mean). Correlations between
Page | 97
the measure for the independent variable perceived source credibility (PSC) and the two
moderators scepticism (SCEP) and cynicism (CYN) were low to moderate, ranging from .29
to .44 (absolute value), indicating multicollinearity would not be a significant issue
(Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013). While scepticism and cynicism exhibited a moderate positive
correlation, (r = .29, p < 0.01), inspection of the collinearity diagnostics in the MRAs
determined no major issues with multicollinearity. Similarly, inspection of histograms
supported the presupposed assumption of distributional normality, and no evidence of non-
linearity or non-homoscedasticity was identified in the scatter-plots (Fabrigar et al., 1999).
Table 21. Measures of Central Tendency for Main Variables
Variables Mean
(SD) PSC BEL BI SCEP
Perceived Source
Credibility (PSC)
4.96
(1.13)
Ad Believability (BEL) 3.76
(.85)
.628**
Behavioural Intention (BI) 4.80
(1.89)
.291** .389**
Consumer Scepticism
(SCEP)
3.97
(1.37)
-.443** -.412** -.238**
Consumer Cynicism
(CYN)
4.45
(1.36)
-.409 -.334** -.194** .291**
Note. Cronbach’s (1951) alpha reliability coefficients appear in the diagonal (non-standardised).
**Correlation significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
4.3.1 Scale Reliability and Validity
Cronbach’s Alpha coefficients for the scales measuring perceived source credibility,
scepticism, cynicism, ad believability and behavioural intention all surpassed the minimum
threshold of .7 (DeVellis, 2003; George & Mallery, 2003), indicating an acceptable to high
level of internal consistency reliability within the scales (Table 21, Table 22). Cronbach’s
Alpha coefficients are, however, sensitive to the number of items in the scale (Fong, Ho &
Page | 98
Lam, 2010; Hair et al., 2010). While artificial inflation of the coefficients can occur with many-
item measures, the scales used in this survey were all short, containing less than ten items,
which can lead to Cronbach’s Alpha values below the lower-bound criterion (Hair et al., 2010).
This was not apparent in this study, however rigorous academic debate over the use of the
Cronbach Alpha coefficient for establishing reliability (see Lance, Butts & Michels, 2006;
Schmitt, 1996) necessitates the utilisation of alternative measures to reconfirm scale reliability
(Babbie, 1995). Per Pallant’s (2007) suggestion, the mean inter-item correlations were
therefore also computed given most of the scales used were short (i.e., contained fewer than
ten items (Table 22). The optimal range for correlation coefficients is .2 to .4 (Briggs & Cheek,
1986), while anything above .8 may indicate problems with multi-collinearity. Most mean
inter-item correlations for the scales fell below this upper threshold. However, behavioural
intention (.92) and self-reported involvement in physical activity (a control variable; .86)
exceeded this threshold. Potential issues with this are discussed in Section 5.5 Limitations.
Table 22. Scale Validity of the Focal Variables
Variable Cronbach’s
Alpha
Mean Inter-Item
Correlations:
Perceived Source Credibility .916 .588
Scepticism .963 .747
Cynicism .951 .712
Behavioural Intention .970 .916
Ad Believability .958 .697
Tests were conducted on the adapted consumer cynicism scales to confirm validity of the
adaptations (Matsunaga, 2010). The original eight-item scale (Helm et al., 2015) measures
cynicism towards commercial organisations. Adapted scales were included in the online survey
to measure cynicism toward the government and not-for-profit organisations (see Section
3.4.5). Cronbach’s alpha coefficients and mean inter-item correlations were generated for the
Page | 99
original and adapted scales for comparison. All demonstrated excellent internal consistency
reliability (α = .93 to α = .96) with some minor variation in the extent of correlation between
the items (r = .61 to r = .77) (Table 23).
Table 23. Reliability of the Scale Adaptations for Consumer Cynicism
Internal Consistency
Reliability Confirmatory Factor Analysis
Scale Version Cronbach’s
Alpha α
Mean
inter-item
correlation
KMO
Barlett’s
Test of
Sphericity
(p)
Factors
extracted
(Eigenvalue)
Variance
Explained
by First
Factor (%)
Original:
Commercial .925 .612 .929 .000 1 (5.300) 66.256
Adaptation:
Government .940 .665 .894 .000 1 (5.693) 71.168
Adaptation:
Not-for-Profit .964 .768 .922 .000 1 (6.385) 79.810
4.4 MANIPULATION CHECK
One of the study aims was to quantify the impact of perceived source credibility on the
effectiveness of social advertising. A one-way independent samples ANOVA was used to test
whether perceived source credibility varied between the organisational sources, in response to
the following hypothesis:
H1: Perceived source credibility varies across commercial, government and non-profit
sources.
The means of perceived source credibility varied between the six sources, from M = 4.23
for the Australian Government to M = 5.61 for the Heart Foundation (on a scale of 1 to 7)
(Table 24). From the descriptive data, it is evident that not-for-profit and commercial
organisations were perceived to be more credible than the government sources. However, it
should be noted that the government sources did not possess low source credibility. Perceptions
Page | 100
of the perceived credibility of the Australian Government (M = 4.23) and the Australian
Government Department of Health (M = 4.43) were relatively neutral, even slightly positive.
Table 24. Means of Perceived Source Credibility of Different Sources
Source n Mean (SD) Std. Error
Australian Government 49 4.225 (1.116) .159
Department of Health 48 4.427 (1.205) .174
Adidas 69 5.163 (.819) .099
Nike 70 5.071 (1.056) .126
Monash Health 30 5.296 (1.099) .201
Heart Foundation 46 5.609 (1.012) .149
Levene’s test showed that the assumption of homogeneity of error variances was met
(F(5, 306) = 1.26, p = .282). The ANOVA demonstrated that overall there was a significant
difference in the perceived source credibility of the six different sources. Approximately 17%
of the variation in perceived source credibility was attributable to the source of the social
advertisement (η2 = .17, F(5) = 12.29, p < .001) (Table 25).
Table 25. Independent Samples ANOVA: Perceived Source Credibility of Different Sources
Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between
Groups 66.594 5 13.319 12.286 .000
Within
Groups 331.712 306 1.084
Total 398.306 311
Tukey’s HSD test was utilised in post-hoc analysis, given the homogeneity of variance
assumption was unbroken. The post hoc analysis indicated a significant difference between the
mean perceived source credibility of the government sources and the four non-government
Page | 101
sources. The mean perceived source credibility of the Australian Government was significantly
different compared with Adidas (EMM = -.94, p < .001), Nike (EMM = -.85, p < .001), Monash
Health Foundation (EMM = -1.07, p < .001) and the Heart Foundation (EMM = -1.38, p <
.001). Similarly, the mean perceived source credibility of the Australian Government
Department of Health was significantly different compared with Adidas (EMM = -.74, p < .01),
Nike (EMM = -.64, p < .05), Monash Health Foundation (EMM = -.87, p < .01) and the Heart
Foundation (EMM = -1.18, p < .001). There was no significant difference in the mean perceived
source credibility of commercial and not-for-profit sources (Adidas and Monash Health: EMM
= -.13, p = .992; Adidas and the Heart Foundation: EMM = -.25, p = .219; Nike and Monash
Health: EMM = -.22, p = .992; Nike and the Heart Foundation: EMM = -.54, p = .074).
Importantly, there were also no significant differences between the two government sources
(EMM = -.20, p = .931), the two commercial sources (EMM = .09, p = .995), and the two not-
for-profit sources (EMM = -.31, p = .796).
Overall, these results indicate the perceived source credibility of government sources
was significantly different to non-government sources, whereas there was no significant
difference between the perceived source credibility of the commercial and not-for-profit
organisations. Moreover, while perceived source credibility varied between the source
categories (government, commercial and not-for-profit), there were no significant differences
in perceived source credibility between the two sources within each category. Consequently,
the independent variable “source” was collapsed from six levels into three levels corresponding
with the three main organisational categories: government, commercial and not-for-profit.
Mean differences between perceived source credibility of the three source categories were
examined with a second one-way independent samples ANOVA. The mean perceived source
credibility varied between the three organisational types, from M = 4.33 for government to M
Page | 102
= 5.49 for not-for-profit. The perceived source credibility of not-for-profit organisations was
highest, and the government was lowest (Table 26).
Table 26. Means of Perceived Source Credibility of Different Source Categories.
Source Category n Mean (SD) Std. Error
Government 97 4.325 (1.16) .118
Commercial 139 5.117 (.943) .080
Not-for-profit 76 5.485 (1.05) .121
The assumption of homogeneity of error variance was unbroken (F(2, 309) = 2.37, p =
.095). The ANOVA showed that the mean perceived source credibility differed significantly
(F = 29.32, p < .001) across the source categories: government, commercial and not-for-profit
organisations. Approximately 16% of the variation in perceived source credibility was
attributable to the institutional source of the stimuli (IV) (η2 = .16, F(2) = 29.32, p < .001).
Tukey’s post-hoc HSD test demonstrated significant differences between the mean perceived
source credibility for each of the source categories. A significant difference was identified
between the mean perceived source credibility for government and commercial sources (EMM
= -.79 p < .001); between government and not-for-profit sources (EMM = -1.16, p < .001), and
between commercial and not-for-profit sources (EMM = -.37, p < .05). These results support
H1 and also provide evidence for the successful manipulation of perceived source credibility in
this experiment.
4.5 MAIN EFFECTS
Hierarchical multiple regression analysis was conducted to test the main effect
hypothesised by H2:
Page | 103
H2: Perceived source credibility has a positive effect on attitude toward the ad
(believability).
Control variables were entered on Step 1. The eight control variables were age, gender,
issue involvement (both attitude toward physical activity and involvement in physical activity),
media literacy (critical thinking about both the source and content of the message) and
information processing style (need for cognition and need for affect).
There was a moderate, significant simultaneous correlation between the control variables
and ad believability (Adj. R2 = .294, F(8, 303) = 17.19, p < .001), indicating that the eight
control variables explained 29.4% of variance in ad believability. The addition of perceived
source credibility greatly increased the variance explained by 20.2 percent (adjusted) (Adj. R2
= .496 (F (9, 302) = 34.97, p < .001). This shows that in combination, the controls and
perceived source credibility explained close to 50 percent of variance in ad believability (p <
.001). Standardised regression coefficients (β) and semi-partial (part) correlations (sr2) were
also inspected to identify the proportion of variance in ad believability each predictor uniquely
explained (Cohen et al., 2002). Critical thinking about the source of the message (β = .137, p
< .05), need for cognition (β = .127, p < .05), need for affect (β = .199, p < .001), and perceived
issue involvement (β = .280, p < .001) were significant predictors of ad believability at Step 1,
contributing 1.1 percent, 1.2 percent, 2.7 percent and 5.8 percent of variance in ad believability
respectively. At Step 2, need for affect (β = .133, p < .01) and perceived issue involvement (β
= .193, p < .001) remained significant predictors (1.2 percent and 2.7 percent unique variance
in ad believability explained, respectively), whilst perceived source credibility (β = .489, p <
.001) contributed 19.8 percent of unique variance in ad believability. This further supports H2,
concluding that perceived source credibility is uniquely related to variations in ad believability,
having a positive effect.
Page | 104
Hierarchical multiple regression analysis was conducted to test the main effect
hypothesised by H3:
H3: Perceived source credibility has a positive effect on behavioural intention.
Control variables were entered on Step 1. The eight control variables were age, gender, issue
involvement (both attitude toward physical activity and involvement in physical activity),
media literacy (critical thinking about both the source and content of the message) and
information processing style (need for cognition and need for affect).
There was a strong, significant simultaneous correlation between the control variables
and behavioural intention (Adj. R2 = .506, F (8, 303) = 40.74, p < .001), indicating the controls
contributed nearly 51 percent of variance in behavioural intention. The addition of perceived
source credibility very slightly increased this proportion by .2 percent (adjusted), but this
increase was statistically non-significant (Adj. R2 = .508 (F (9, 302) = 36.68, p = .112). While
perceived source credibility had a non-significant effect, standardised regression coefficients
(β) and semi-partial (part) correlations (sr2) were inspected to further identify the proportion of
variance in behavioural intention each covariate uniquely explained (Cohen et al, 2002).
Critical thinking about the source of the message (β = .134, p < .05), perceived issue
involvement (β = .694, p < .001) and age (β = -.109, p < .05) were significant predictors of
behavioural intention at Step 1, contributing 1.0 percent, 35.6 percent and 1.0 percent of
variance in behavioural intention respectively. At Step 2, age (β = -.105, p < .05), critical
thinking about the source of the message (β = .119, p < .05) and perceived issue involvement
(β = .682, p < .001) remained significant predictors (.9 percent, .8 percent and 33.4 percent
unique variance explained), whilst perceived source credibility remained a non-significant
predictor of behavioural intention (β = .070, p = .112) contributing an above-zero, but non-
significant .4 percent of unique variance in behavioural intention. This result does not provide
Page | 105
sufficient support for H3, concluding that perceived source credibility is not uniquely related
to variations in behavioural intention.
Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to evaluate the main effect hypothesised in
H4:
H4: An informational claim has a positive effect on attitude toward the ad
(believability).
The covariate-adjusted mean of ad believability was slightly higher for respondents
allocated an informational claim in their advertisement (M = 3.90) than those who were not (M
= 3.65). Levene’s test of equality of variances held the assumption of error variances true (F(1,
310) = .145, p = .703). Using Bonferroni’s adjustment for multiple comparisons, the eight
control variables accounted for a significant difference between the group means (Adj. R2 =
.313, η2 = .333, F(9) = 16.77, p < .001), accounting for approximately 33 percent of variance
in ad believability. Subsequently, the between-groups test demonstrated a significant effect of
informational claim on ad believability (p < .01). Approximately 3% of the variation in mean
ad believability was uniquely attributable to the presence of an informational claim (η2 = .031,
F(1) = 9.56, p < .01). As the F value was significantly different from zero, this supports the H4
hypothesis that the presence of an informational claim has a statistically significant, positive
impact upon respondent ad believability scores. Tukey’s HSD post-hoc test identified a
significant difference between the mean ad believability for respondents who received an
advertisement containing an informational claim compared with those without an informational
claim (EMM = .25. p < .01). This further demonstrates that there is a statistically significant,
positive impact of the presence of an informational claim on ad believability.
Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to evaluate the main effect hypothesised in
H5:
Page | 106
H5: An informational claim has a positive effect on behavioural intention.
The covariate-adjusted mean of ad believability was slightly higher for respondents
allocated an informational claim in their advertisement (M = 4.92) than without (M = 4.69).
Levene’s test of equality of error variances held the assumption of error variances not true (F(1,
310) = 4.00, p = .046), thereby indicating the groups were not homogenous. Thus, the
assumptions for performing ANCOVA were not met, indicating the ANCOVA may produce
less reliable results. Nonetheless, ANCOVA is not overly sensitive to mild differences in
variance, particularly in large samples such as the sample utilised for analysis in this study
(Hair et al., 2010). Moreover, given the sample sizes between the two claim levels were nearly
equal, the ANCOVA is likely to be even less sensitive to this assumption (Hair et al., 2010).
Using Bonferroni’s adjustment for multiple comparisons, the eight control variables
accounted for a significant difference between the group means (Adj. R2 = .508, η2 = .522, F(9)
= 36.65, p < .001), accounting for approximately 52 percent of variance in behavioural
intention. Subsequently, the between-groups test demonstrated a non-significant effect of
informational claim level on behavioural intention (p = .124). Approximately 1% of the
variation in behavioural intention was attributable to the presence of an informational claim,
however, this was non-significant (η2 = .008, F(1) = 2.38, p = .124). Tukey’s HSD test also
identified a non-significant difference between the mean behavioural intention for respondents
who received an advertisement containing an informational claim compared with those without
an informational claim (EMM = .23. p = .124). Thus, the analysis did not provide any support
for H5.
4.5.1 Moderation Effects
In addition to the direct effects, it was hypothesised that consumer scepticism and
consumer cynicism would moderate the relationships between perceived source credibility and
Page | 107
informational claim presence (absence) on the message effectiveness of social advertising. This
analysis responds to the following hypotheses:
H6. Scepticism moderates the effect of perceived source credibility on (a) on attitude
toward the ad (believability) and (b) behavioural intention.
H7. Scepticism moderates the effect of informational claim on (a) on attitude toward the
ad (believability) and (b) behavioural intention.
H8. Cynicism moderates the effect of perceived source credibility on (a) on attitude
toward the ad (believability) and (b) behavioural intention.
H9. Cynicism moderates the effect of an informational claim on (a) on attitude toward
the ad (believability) and (b) behavioural intention.
A number of hierarchical moderated regression analyses were run, supported by simple
slopes analyses, to ascertain the significance of the hypothesised moderation effects. Perceived
source credibility and the control variables were mean-centered to circumvent multicollinearity
problems in the interaction analyses (Jaccard, Turrisi & Wan, 1990). Interaction terms were
calculated between the mean-centered independent variable and moderators (perceived source
credibility*scepticism; perceived source credibility*cynicism) to test for a significant
moderation effect in the regressions for H6 and H8. Interaction terms were created between the
dummy-coded independent variable (informational claim presence/absence) and the
moderators (claim*scepticism; claim*cynicism) to test for a significant moderation effect in
the regression analyses for H7 and H9. The two dependent variables (behavioural intention and
ad believability) were assessed individually against the two moderators; thus, eight separate
regressions were run. In all analyses, mean-centered control variables were entered at Step 1,
main effects at Step 2, and the interaction term at Step 3.
Page | 108
H6a: Scepticism moderates the effect of perceived source credibility on attitude
toward the ad (believability).
The entry of the control variables in Model 1 explained a significant amount of variance
in ad believability (Adj R2 = .294, F(8, 303) = 17.19, p < .001). The addition of the mean-
centered main effects for perceived source credibility and scepticism explained a further 21%
variance in ad believability (R2 Ch. = .209, F(2, 301) = 65.87, p < .001). The interaction term
(perceived source credibility*scepticism) explained a small amount of further variance in the
model, which was statistically significant (R2 Ch. = .006, F(1, 300) = 3.93, p < .05). Thus, both
significant main effects and a significant interaction were identified. These results indicate
scepticism did moderate the relationship between perceived source credibility and ad
believability. These findings were further examined using simple slopes analysis (Jaccard et
al., 1990) (see Figure 6, Table 27).
Figure 6. Simple Slopes Analysis: Perceived Source Credibility * Scepticism Interaction.
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
Low High
Ad
Bel
ievab
ilit
y
Perceived Source Credibility
Low Scepticism
HighScepticism
Page | 109
Table 27. Simple Slopes Analysis: Perceived Source Credibility * Scepticism Interaction.
Slope Intercept Slope t value df Sig.
Low Scepticism 3.813269 0.273946 5.9295 300 0.0000
Medium Scepticism 3.698059 0.327437 9.2668 300 0.0000
High Scepticism 3.582849 0.380927 9.0170 300 0.0000
All slopes for the interaction between perceived source credibility and consumer
scepticism were significant in the ad believability outcome interaction. The high advertising
scepticism slope was significant (B = .38, t(300) = 9.02, p < .001) indicating that highly
sceptical individuals reported higher ad believability as their perceived source credibility
increased. In other words, the more credible a consumer with high levels of scepticism
perceives a source to be, the more likely they are to believe the message from that source.
Likewise, those reporting lower levels of advertising scepticism appear more likely to believe
an ad when the source is perceived to be more credible (B = .27, t(300) = 5.93, p < .001).
Importantly, respondents with high levels of scepticism reported lower ad believability than
low scepticism respondents when source credibility was perceived to be low. The difference in
scepticism between high sceptical and low sceptical respondents declines as perceived source
credibility increases. Thus, H6a is supported.
H6b: Scepticism moderates the effect of perceived source credibility on behavioural
intention.
The entry of the control variables in Model 1 explained a significant amount of variance
in behavioural intention (Adj R2 = .506, F(8, 303 = 40.74, p < .001). The addition of the mean-
centered main effects for perceived source credibility and scepticism contributed a small, non-
significant amount of variance in behavioural intention (R2 Ch. = .004, F(2, 301) = 1.30, p =
.274). This indicates the addition of perceived source credibility and scepticism did not
contribute further explained variance in behavioural intention. The interaction term (perceived
Page | 110
source credibility*scepticism) also did not explain any further variance in the model (R2 Ch. =
.002, F(1, 300) = 1.01, p = .316). These results indicate scepticism did not moderate the
relationship between perceived source credibility and behavioural intention. Thus, H6b is not
supported.
H7a: Scepticism moderates the effect of an informational claim on attitude toward
the ad (believability).
The entry of the control variables in Model 1 explained a significant amount of variance
in ad believability (Adj R2 = .294, F(8, 303) = 17.19, p < .001). The addition of the mean-
centred main effects for the dummy-coded informational claim and scepticism explained
further variance in ad believability and this was significant (R2 Ch. = .083, F(2, 301) = 50.54,
p < .001). The interaction term (claim*scepticism), however, fell short of statistical
significance (R2 Ch. = .002, F(1, 300) = 1.06, p = .304) and did not explain further variance in
the model. Thus, the data indicate that while the presence of an informational claim and
scepticism individually impact ad believability, there is no interaction effect and H7a is not
supported.
H7b: Scepticism moderates the effect of an informational claim on behavioural
intention.
The entry of the control variables in Model 1 explained a significant amount of variance
in behavioural intention (Adj R2 = .506, F(8, 303) = 40.74, p < .001). The addition of the mean-
centered main effects for the dummy-coded informational claim and scepticism did not explain
further variance in behavioural intention (R2 Ch. = .005, F(2, 301) = 1.42 p = .243). The
interaction term (claim*scepticism) also did not explain further variance in the model (R2 Ch.
= .002, F(1, 300) = 1.14, p = .287). Thus, the data indicate that informational claim and
scepticism do not individually or concurrently impact behavioural intention, and H7b is not
supported.
Page | 111
H8a: Cynicism moderates the effect of perceived source credibility on attitude
toward the ad (believability).
The entry of the control variables in Model 1 explained a significant amount of variance
in ad believability (Adj R2 = .294, F(8, 303) = 17.19, p < .001). The addition of the mean-
centered main effects for perceived source credibility and cynicism explained further variance
in ad believability and this was significant (R2 Ch. = .215, F(2, 301) = 68.38, p < .001).
However, the interaction term (perceived source credibility*cynicism) did not explain further
variance in the model (R2 Ch. = .001, F(1, 300) = .67, p = .415). Thus, while perceived source
credibility and cynicism individually impact ad believability, there is no interaction effect, and
the data do not provide support for H8a.
H8b: Cynicism moderates the effect of perceived source credibility on behavioural
intention.
The entry of the control variables in Model 1 explained a significant amount of variance
in behavioural intention (Adj R2 = .506, F(8, 303) = 40.74, p < .001). The addition of the mean-
centered main effects for perceived source credibility and cynicism did not explain further
variance in behavioural intention (R2 Ch. = .006, F(2, 301) = 2.06 p = .130). The interaction
term (perceived source credibility*cynicism), however, explained further variance in the model
and this was significant (R2 Ch. = .013, F(1, 300) = 8.23, p = .004). Thus, while main effects
were not supported in this analysis, an interaction effect was identified. The significant
interaction was further investigated using simple slopes analysis (Jaccard et al, 1990) (see
Figure 7, Table 28).
Page | 112
Figure 7. Simple Slopes Analysis: Perceived Source Credibility * Cynicism Interaction.
Table 28. Simple Slopes Analysis: Perceived Source Credibility * Cynicism Interaction
Slope Intercept Slope t value df Sig.
Low Cynicism 5.770502 -0.144943 -1.3144 300 0.1897
Medium Cynicism 5.585492 0.029184 0.3640 300 0.7161
High Cynicism 5.400482 0.203311 2.2678 300 0.0241
Only the slope for high cynicism was significant (B = .203, t(300) = 2.27, p = .024)
indicating that individuals with higher levels of cynicism report lower behavioural intentions
(in this case, to engage in physical activity) as their perceived source credibility declines. The
more credible a highly cynical consumer perceives a source to be, the more likely they are to
have positive behavioural intentions following exposure to a social advertisement. These data
provide partial support for H8b and indicate that cynicism does moderate the relationship
between perceived source credibility and behavioural intention but only in highly cynical
consumers.
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
Low High
Beh
avio
ura
l In
ten
tio
n
Perceived Source Credibility
Low Cynicism
HighCynicism
Page | 113
H9a: Cynicism moderates the effect of an informational claim on attitude toward the
ad (believability).
The entry of the control variables in Model 1 explained a significant amount of variance
in ad believability (Adj R2 = .264, F(8, 303) = 17.19, p < .001). The addition of the mean-
centered main effects for the dummy-coded informational claim and cynicism explained further
variance in ad believability (R2 Ch. = .102, F(2, 301) = 26.17, p < .001). However, the
interaction term (claim*cynicism) did not explain further variance in the model (R2 Ch. = .003,
F(1, 300) = 1.56, p = .213). Thus, the data indicate while informational claim and cynicism
individually have a positive influence on ad believability, they do not interact, thus H9a is not
supported.
H9b: Cynicism moderates the effect of an informational claim on behavioural
intention.
The entry of the control variables in Model explained a significant amount of variance
in behavioural intention (Adj R2 = .506, F(8, 303) = 40.74, p < .001). The addition of the mean-
centered main effects for the dummy-coded informational claim and cynicism did not explain
further variance in behavioural intention (R2 Ch. = .008, F(2, 301) = 2.61, p = .075). The
interaction term (claim*cynicism) also fell short of statistical significance and did not explain
further variance in the model (R2 Ch. = .001, F(1, 300) = .84 p = .360). Thus, H9b is not
supported.
4.6 SUMMARY
The results of this study indicate that perceived source credibility varies between
government, non-profit and commercial organisations (H1). Subsequently, both perceived
source credibility (H2) and the presence of an informational claim (H4) were found to have a
positive, significant impact on ad believability, however, neither perceived source credibility
Page | 114
(H3) nor the presence of an informational claim (H5) had a statistically significant influence on
behavioural intentions. The analyses provided partial support for the moderation hypotheses.
Scepticism was found to be a significant moderator of the relationship between perceived
source credibility and consumer attitude toward the advertisement (believability) (H6a), but not
the relationship between perceived source credibility and behavioural intention (H6b).
Conversely, cynicism was not found to be a significant moderator of the relationship between
perceived source credibility and ad believability (H8a) but did have a conditional moderating
effect on the relationship between perceived source credibility and behavioural intention (H8b).
Specifically, cynicism is only a moderator of this relationship in highly cynical individuals (p
< .05). None of the moderating hypotheses regarding the presence of an informational claim
were supported. Scepticism does not appear to moderate the relationship between the presence
of an informational claims and consumer attitude toward the advertisement (believability) (H7a)
nor behavioural intention (H7b). Similarly, cynicism does not appear to moderate the
relationship between the presence of an informational claims and consumer attitude toward the
advertisement (believability) (H9a) nor behavioural intention (H9b, p = .360). This summary is
provided in Table 29 and graphically in Figure 8.
Page | 115
Table 29. Results of the Hypothesis Testing
Research Questions Hypotheses Results
RQ1: To what extent do
perceptions of source
credibility vary between
government, not-for-profit and
commercial organisations
engaging in social advertising?
H1: Perceived source credibility varies
across commercial, government and non-
profit sources.
Supported
p < .001
RQ2: Do perceived source
credibility and the presence of
an informational claim impact
social advertising
effectiveness?
H2: Perceived source credibility has a
positive effect on attitude toward the ad
(believability).
Supported
p < .001
H3: Perceived source credibility has a
positive effect on behavioural intention.
Not supported
p = .112
H4: An informational claim has a positive
effect on attitude toward the ad
(believability).
Supported
p < .01
H5: An informational claim has a positive
effect on behavioural intention.
Not supported
p = .124
RQ3: Is the relationship
between perceived source
credibility, the presence of an
informational claim and social
advertising effectiveness
impacted by consumer
scepticism or consumer
cynicism?
H6a: Scepticism moderates the effect of
perceived source credibility on attitude
toward the ad (believability).
Supported
p < .001
H6b: Scepticism moderates the effect of
perceived source credibility on
behavioural intention.
Not supported,
p = .316
H7a: Scepticism moderates the effect of an
informational claim on attitude toward the
ad (believability).
Not supported
p = .304
H7b: Scepticism moderates the effect of an
informational claim on behavioural
intention.
Not supported
p = .287
Page | 116
Research Questions Hypotheses Results
H8a: Cynicism moderates the effect of
perceived source credibility on attitude
toward the ad (believability).
Not supported
p = .415
H8b: Cynicism moderates the effect of
perceived source credibility on
behavioural intention.
Supported
p < .05
H9a: Cynicism moderates the effect of an
informational claim on attitude toward the
ad (believability).
Not supported
p = .213
H9b: Cynicism moderates the effect of an
informational claim on behavioural
intention.
Not supported
p = .360
Page | 117
Figure 8. Results of the Hypothesis Testing.
Note. *Dashed lines indicate unsupported hypotheses
INFORMATIONAL
CLAIM
PERCEIVED
SOURCE
CREDIBILITY
BEHAVIOURAL
INTENTION
ATTITUDE
TOWARD THE AD
SCEPTICISM
CYNICISM
H2
H3 H4
H5
H6a
H6b H7a
H7b
H8a H8b
H9a
H9b
Page | 118
4.7 CONCLUSION
Chapter 4 provided the results of the analysis of the experimental data. First, it outlined
the data cleaning and preparation procedures undertaken to ensure a valid basis for analysis.
Next, the reliability and validity of the measures used in the study were examined. Last, the
results of the hypothesis testing were presented. It was found that both perceived source
credibility and the presence of an informational claim have a positive, significant impact on ad
believability, but not on behavioural intentions. However, the moderating effect of consumer
scepticism and consumer cynicism was only partially supported by the results. The next
chapter, Chapter 5, provides a discussion of these results in relation to existing theory and
literature, and also presents the implications of the results.
Page | 119
Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusion
5.1 INTRODUCTION
Chapter 4 Results presented the results of the study, demonstrating that the hypotheses
proposed in Chapter 2 Literature Review were partially supported by this study. This chapter,
Chapter 5 Discussion and Conclusion, firstly summarises and then discusses the findings
relative to extant literature. Following this, the chapter provides the implications for theory
and practice of these findings. It subsequently outlines the limitations of the study and
recommendations for future research directions. Finally, it provides a conclusion for the thesis.
5.2 FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
5.2.1 Research Question 1
The first research question, To what extent do perceptions of source credibility vary
between government, not-for-profit and commercial organisations engaging in social
advertising?, was addressed and tested by H1. The results indicated that, overall, perceived
source credibility varied significantly between government, non-profit and commercial
organisations in this study of social advertising within the physical activity domain.
Specifically, not-for-profit organisations were perceived to be the most credible source, while
the Australian Government was perceived to be the least credible source. It is important to note,
however, that there was no significant difference between the perceived source credibility of
not-for-profit organisations and commercial organisations. It is also important to note that
whilst the Australian Government was perceived to have the lowest credibility among the
sources examined, it still scored relatively neutral credibility ratings.
Page | 120
This finding contrasts with earlier work which found that not-for-profit and government
organisations were perceived as more credible sources than commercial for-profit
organisations in the communication of health messages (e.g., Hammond, 1987; Lynn, Wyatt,
Gaines, Pearce, & Vanden Bergh, 1978). It is, however, consistent with more recent research
which has found that perceived ‘public’ bodies such as the NHS were considered significantly
more credible and trustworthy than government and commercial sources in social advertising
for staying active to reduce back pain (Barker, Minns Lowe & Reid, 2007). Notably, though,
Smith and colleagues (2007) found quantitatively that the perceived credibility of government
as a source of health information was higher than different industry sources of campaigns
encouraging smoking cessation and responsible alcohol consumption among consumers in
Australia.
Interestingly, the study which found that government had higher perceived source
credibility than commercial organisations was also conducted in Australia, making the
divergence between findings more unexpected. Organisational credibility sees the source of
the message as a “complex institutional structure, with a history of experience and information
to which the public has already been exposed” (Metzger et al., 2003, p.299). Given that both
studies were conducted in Australia, where consumers would arguably have similar
experiences with government, it would be reasonable to expect similar results with regards to
the government’s perceived source credibility relative to other sources. This finding could
indicate that Australian consumers are growing more cynical toward government over time.
This proposition is supported by research from the Edelman Institute (2017) showing that trust
in government in Australia fell to a four-year low of 37% in 2017.
Alternatively, the divergent findings could relate to the specific health context under
examination. That is, in the case of smoking cessation and alcohol consumption, nefarious
motivations could be more easily attributable to commercial organisations that engage in social
Page | 121
advertising around these issues rather than physical activity. Research shows that the more
impartial the source is perceived to be, the more credible it is perceived to be (Chu, 1967;
Kelman, 1972; McGuire, 1969; Roberts & Leifer, 1975; Walster, Aronson & Abrahams, 1966).
However, in this case, it would be difficult to imagine that selling motivations would not
reasonably be attributed to Nike and Adidas by consumers. A more nuanced interpretation of
what is occurring may relate to the alignment of the selling motivations with the societal issue
that forms the focus of the social advertising. That is, there may be greater alignment between
the selling motivations of Nike and Adidas and the societal goal of increasing physical activity
than the alignment between the selling motivations of cigarette and alcohol companies and the
societal goals of smoking cessation and drinking moderation respectively. This proposition is
consistent with the idea that a source is more persuasive when they present messages congruous
with their own self-interests (Pornpitakpan, 2004). This proposition could be investigated by
future research to gain a better understanding of the conditions that influence the perceived
source credibility for organisations engaging in social advertising.
Another explanation could relate to how easily motivations are attributable to the source
of the social advertising. The findings of the current study instead suggest that commercial
organisations’ evident intention to persuade consumers into purchasing a product may in fact
deem them more worthy of trust, in contrast with the notion that “[w]hen a person is perceived
as having a definite intention to persuade others, the likelihood is increased that he will be
perceived as having something to gain, and hence, as less worthy of trust” (Hovland, Janis, &
Kelley, 1953, p.23). This could be because there is clear motive behind their social messages
(i.e. to sell products), while the motive behind government messages may be less transparent
or more uncertain (i.e. for re-election, for cost saving, or for societal benefit). This proposition
could also be investigated by future research.
Page | 122
It must be noted that before conducting the main analysis for H1, the methodological
design explored whether locality or familiarity of the chosen brands may have influenced
differences in perceived source credibility within, and between, sectors. Pleasingly, the results
demonstrated that regardless of the locality or familiarity of a particular source, there were no
significant differences in perceived source credibility of two sources in a particular sector. This
gives strength to the conclusions that the perceived source credibility of different organisational
sectors does vary, independent of locality or brand familiarity of the sources within those
sectors.
5.2.2 Research Question 2
The second research question, ‘Do perceived source credibility and the presence of an
informational claim impact social advertising effectiveness’, was addressed by H2, H3, H4 and
H5. Both perceived source credibility (H2) and the presence of an informational claim (H4) were
found to have a positive, significant impact on consumer attitude toward the ad (believability),
however, neither perceived source credibility (H3) nor the presence of an informational claim
(H5) had a statistically significant influence on behavioural intentions.
The finding that perceived source credibility positively influences consumer attitude
toward the advertisement is consistent with the Elaboration Likelihood Model (Petty &
Cacioppo, 1986) as well as extant literature showing that perceived source credibility has a
positive effect on consumer attitudes toward an advertisement (Atkin & Block, 1983; Fishbein
& Ajzen, 1975; Goldberg & Hartwick, 1990; Mitchell & Olson, 1981). Similarly, again
consistent with the Elaboration Likelihood Model (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986), the presence of
an informational claim positively influenced consumers’ attitude toward the advertisement.
This provides additional empirical support for the notion that the presence of information in an
advertisement increases the attention paid to the message (McNeill & Stoltenberg, 2004),
Page | 123
enhancing elaboration and increasing the chance of changes in consumer attitude (Petty &
Cacioppo, 1979a, 1979b). It is also congruent with studies showing the type and amount of
information provided in the message impacts persuasion (Pornpitakpan, 2004), specifically,
that supporting arguments enhance persuasion (Maddux & Rogers, 1980).
However, in contrast with Pornpitakpan’s (2004) meta-review of 50 years of source
credibility research showing that generally, highly credible sources are more persuasive than
those with less credibility in both changing consumer attitudes and gaining behavioural
compliance (Pornpitakpan, 2004), this study did not provide support for the impact of perceived
source credibility on behavioural intentions to engage in physical activity. However, it is
consistent with some studies showing that under certain conditions, there is no difference in
impact of high and low-credibility sources on behavioural intentions and/or behavioural
compliance (Frankel & Kassinove, 1974; Sternthal, Dholakia, & Leavitt, 1978; Tybout, 1978;
Wasserman & Kassinove, 1976). Similarly, the presence of an informational claim was not
found to impact behavioural intentions. This suggests that consumers’ attitude toward the
advertisement may fully mediate the impact of perceived source credibility and the presence
of an informational claim on behavioural intention. This proposition is in line with research in
social advertising showing that consumer attitude toward the advertisement precedes the
intention to perform behaviour, including quitting smoking (Manyiwa & Brennan, 2012;
Steward et al., 2003; Tangari, Burton, Andrews & Netemeyer, 2007), recycling (Lord, 1994)
and saving energy (Bertrand et al., 2011).
The lack of direct relationship between perceived source credibility, informational claim
and behavioural intention is perhaps not so surprising given the complexity of behaviours that
form the focus of social marketing, and by extension, social advertising relative to product
purchasing behaviours usually targeted by commercial marketing (Parkinson, Schuster &
Russell-Bennet, 2016). That is, there are a significant number of factors relating to consumer
Page | 124
motivation and ability, environmental opportunity to perform the behaviour and characteristics
of the behaviour itself, that influence the performance of behaviours such as physical activity
which are socially beneficial (Parkinson et al., 2016). It is also worth noting that in line with
the ELM, a “lack of evidence of attitude change does not mean an absence of persuasion, but
rather that one particular form of persuasion failed under those particular circumstances
(Kitchen et al. 2014., Cook et al., 2004). Future research could test whether the effects of
perceived source credibility and the presence of an informational claim on behavioural
intention are fully mediated by the attitude toward the advertisement.
5.2.3 Research Question 3
The final research question, ‘Is the relationship between perceived source credibility, the
presence of an informational claim and social advertising effectiveness impacted by consumer
scepticism or consumer cynicism?’ was addressed by H6, H7, H8 and H9. The analyses provided
partial support for the moderation hypotheses, supporting the assumption of the Persuasion
Knowledge Model (Friestad & Wright, 1994) that higher levels of persuasion knowledge,
specifically manifesting in consumer scepticism and cynicism, interrupts the process of
persuasion. Scepticism was found to be a significant moderator of the relationship between
perceived source credibility and consumer attitude toward the advertisement (ad believability,
H6a), but not behavioural intention (H6b). Scepticism did not moderate the relationship between
the presence of an informational claim on either consumer attitude toward the advertisement
or behavioural intention (H7a and H7b).
Specifically, it was found that respondents with high levels of scepticism reported less
positive attitudes toward the advertisement (believability) when perceived source credibility
was lower. This is consistent with research showing consumer scepticism towards advertising
may interact with the message source (Obermiller & Spangenberg, 1998; Hardesty et al, 2002)
Page | 125
or credibility of that source (e.g. Austin et al., 2016). In the case of this study, where
government sources were perceived to be less credible than not-for-profit and commercial, this
means that consumers with high levels of scepticism reported less positive attitudes toward the
advertisement encouraging physical activity from the government relative to the other sources.
This finding conforms to extant literature, which suggests that highly sceptical individuals who
perceive the source of an advertisement as not credible are likely to also consider the
advertisement not worth processing (Obermiller et al., 2005), and thus respond less favourably
to social advertisements. This result also reiterates the importance of persuasion knowledge in
consumer decision making (Friestad & Wright 1994; 1995).
However, scepticism did not moderate the relationship between perceived source
credibility and behavioural intention (H6b). This contrasts the assumptions of the Persuasion
Knowledge Model (Friestad & Wright, 1994), which posits that higher levels of persuasion
knowledge, for instance, higher consumer scepticism, interrupts the process of persuasion and
may mitigate the effectiveness of persuasive appeals. This finding also contrasts with prior
research that found scepticism towards commercial advertising results in lower purchase
intentions (Bailey, 2007; Hardesty et al, 2002). Social advertising, however, has distinct goals,
methods and forms of communication relative to commercial advertising (Kotler, Roberto &
Lee, 2002). Thus, the findings of this study could imply that scepticism operates differently in
advertising contexts that do not aim to sell products, but rather aim to change behaviours. As
yet, this is an under-researched area within the social advertising domain and provides an
interesting basis for future research. This finding could also be context specific and thus only
relevant to the domain of physical activity.
Further, insufficient evidence was found to support the hypothesis that scepticism
moderates the effect of an informational claim on message outcomes, specifically attitude
toward the ad (believability) and behavioural intentions (H7a, H7b). Again, this contrasts the
Page | 126
core assumptions of the Persuasion Knowledge Model (Friestad & Wright, 1994), as well as
the well-documented link between scepticism and the evaluation of the content in advertising
messages, and subsequent message outcomes (Austin, et al., 2002, 2015, 2016; Koslow, 2000;
Obermiller & Spangenberg, 2002).
The non-significant moderating impact of scepticism on the relationship between
informational claim and attitude toward the ad is surprising, given that a number of studies
have found that scepticism diminishes the effectiveness of advertising claims, especially when
those claims are unclear or perceived to be misleading (Ditto & Lopez, 1992; Gray-Lee et al.,
1994; Mohr, Eroglu & Ellen, 1998). Likewise, the non-significant moderating effect of
scepticism on the relationship between informational claims and behavioural intentions was
unexpected, given prior research has found scepticism inhibits the effectiveness of advertising
appeals, consequently reducing purchases intentions (do Paço & Reis, 2012). It should be noted
that the majority of prior research was conducted in a commercial advertising domain.
Consequently, the findings of this study may be due (at least in part) to the complexity of the
social advertising and the myriad variables involved in behaviour change (Parkinson et al.,
2016). Finally, while there was no evidence of a moderating impact of scepticism on perceived
source credibility and the effectiveness of social advertising in gaining behavioural
compliance, a review of related literature suggests scepticism may instead mediate this
relationship. This provides an interesting direction for future research.
Interestingly, cynicism was not found to be a significant moderator of the relationship
between perceived source credibility and consumer attitude toward the advertisement
(believability), but did have a conditional moderating effect on the relationship between
perceived source credibility and behavioural intention. Specifically, cynicism is only a
moderator of this relationship in highly cynical individuals. Cynicism did not moderate the
Page | 127
relationship between the presence of an informational claims and consumer attitude toward the
advertisement (believability) and behavioural intention.
Specifically, it was found that respondents with high levels of cynicism reported lower
intention to engage in physical activity as perceived source credibility declines. This finding is
consistent with prior studies, which have found that highly cynical consumers apply a “cynical
filter” (Odou & de Pechpeyrou, 2011, p. 1801) to all communication messages, and are likely
to be more influenced by the credibility status of firms in advertising communications (Brunk,
2010). In the case of this study, where government sources were perceived to be less credible
than not-for-profit and commercial sources, this means that consumers with high levels of
cynicism reported lower intentions to engage in physical activity as a result of viewing an
advertisement from the government relative to the other sources. On the other hand, consumers
low in cynicism reported similar intentions to engage in physical activity after viewing the
social advertisement, irrespective of whether they perceived the source of the ad to possess
high or low credibility. Thus, the results of this study lend partial support to the notion
developed over prior studies that cynical consumers are less likely to be positively influenced
by credible sources, given that cynicism inherently involves constant suspicion toward both
the messages and the intentions of brands or retailers (Chylinski & Chu, 2010; Darke & Ritchie,
2007; Friestad & Wright, 1994; Helm, 2004).
Notwithstanding this significant result, the analysis investigating the moderating effect
of cynicism on the relationship between perceived source credibility and attitude toward the ad
(believability) returned non-significant results. Additionally, no statistical support was found
to support the notion that cynicism has a moderating effect on the relationship between
informational claim and either consumer attitude toward the ad (believability) or behavioural
intention.
Page | 128
It was expected that, in line with the tenants of the Persuasion Knowledge Model
(Friestad & Wright, 1994), the degree to which a person was suspicious of the advertiser’s
motives, faithfulness, and goodwill (Kanter & Mirvis, 1985) would reduce the effectiveness of
using a credible source in social advertising. Moreover, prior literature reports a “self-
promoter’s paradox” (Ashforth & Gibbs, 1990, p. 185), whereby cynical consumers form
suspicion over the legitimacy of advertising claims, particularly those which promote good
deeds, such as in the context of CSR. Thus, it was anticipated that cynicism would mitigate the
benefits of using informational claims in social advertisements.
Contrarily, this study found no evidence that consumer cynicism would mitigate the
benefits of using credible sources in social advertisements encouraging physical activity, in
terms of consumer attitudes toward the ad. It also found no evidence that the relationship
between informational claims and social advertising effectiveness (attitudes toward the ad and
behavioural intentions) was contingent on consumer cynicism. This was somewhat surprising
given that consumer cynicism is considered a relatively enduring trait (Kanter & Wortzel,
1985) that encompasses a feeling of manipulation or ethical violation and of being exploited
for the agent’s own interest (Chaloupka, 1999).
There are several factors that may have influenced these findings. Firstly, research on
consumer cynicism toward advertising is relatively nascent and has largely focussed on
commercial outcomes (Chylinksi & Chu, 2010; Helm et al., 2015; Kanter & Wortzel, 1985;
Odou & de Pechpeyrou, 2011). Social advertisements necessarily encompass different motives,
not least of which is to encourage behavioural change (Andreasen, 2004; Kotler et al., 2002).
The results of this study might imply that consumer cynicism impacts the effectiveness of
credible sources in commercial contexts, but not contexts encouraging behavioural change. A
comparative study of the effects of cynicism on advertising effectiveness between these
contexts would be a valuable future research direction. Alternatively, these findings could
Page | 129
simply mean that despite the fact that cynical individuals are more likely to perceive advertisers
as having something to gain (Hovland, Janis & Kelley, 1953), their cynicism does not preclude
them from believing the ad or forming behavioural intentions as a consequence of that ad.
Instead, it may simply mean that they doubt the motives behind the advertisement, but this
doubt does not change their response to the ad.
Cynicism is also considered a relatively enduring trait (Kanter & Wortzel, 1985), so
perhaps it is not so surprising that cynicism is not particularly triggered in this context and does
not impact the effectiveness of using credible sources on attitudes toward the ad. While cynical
consumers are likely to perceive advertisers as having something to gain, the perceived motives
of social advertisers might be considered to be varied, and although those motives may include
benefiting the agent’s own self-interest (e.g., sell products, reduce healthcare costs), they may
also include genuinely helping people. A more nuanced examination of cynicism is required.
Thus, these non-significant findings highlight new research opportunities to investigate the
impacts of cynicism in various advertising contexts, particularly social advertising contexts.
The results of this study provide several implications for theory and for practice in social
advertising in terms of the impact of perceived source credibility, informational claims,
consumer scepticism and cynicism. The contributions to knowledge made by the research are
explored in Section 5.3 Implications for Theory, while the contributions it makes to practice
are discussed in Section 5.4 Implications for Practice.
5.3 IMPLICATIONS FOR THEORY
5.3.1 Who Should Engage in Social Advertising
This study contributes to extant knowledge and theory in a number of ways within its
broad contribution to the improved understanding of factors influencing social advertising
effectiveness. This is arguably an important but under-developed domain, as social advertising
Page | 130
efforts tend not to be examined separately from other social marketing components such as
product, price and place (e.g., Carins & Rundle-Thiele, 2014; Gordon et al., 2006; Kubacki et
al., 2015; Stead et al., 2006). Building improved understanding of the effectiveness of this
particular component of social marketing will contribute to the evidence base for the role of
social advertising in social marketing programs (e.g., Brennan & Binney, 2010; Manyiwa &
Brennan, 2012).
Critically, this study found perceived source credibility varied across the different
organisations currently engaging in social advertising, specifically, government, not-for-profit
and commercial organisations. In so doing, it extends the very limited research examining
perceived source credibility across different sectors in social advertising. In particular, it
provides additional empirical support that not-for-profit and commercial organisations possess
higher perceived source credibility relative to government sources. This is an area of contention
in recent literature examining social advertising in the health domain (see Barker et al., 2007
and Smith et al., 2007) and this study provides a step toward clarification of this question and
the foundation for future research in this increasingly important area.
Moreover, this finding contributes to the debate over who can, and who should, engage
in social advertising, providing empirical support to the arguments of scholars who consider
that effective social advertising solutions require involvement of a full network of actors
(Brennan, Previte & Fry, 2016; Parkinson, 2016; Polonsky, 2017). The finding that commercial
(and non-profit) organisations possess higher relative credibility than government sources, and
that higher credibility assessments lead to more favourable consumer attitudes toward social
advertisements, indicates that commercial organisations can play a pivotal role in addressing
social issues. For instance, firms promoting physical activity while marketing athletic wear
benefit both the firm and society, as the marketing activities drive profits for the company,
simultaneously increasing consumer knowledge of and interest in physical activity (Polonskly,
Page | 131
2017). Should this lead to increased physical engagement, this could lower health care costs
associated with physical inactivity (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2012; Colagiuri et al.,
2010). Moreover, for-profit organisations might be better at implementing marketing and
educational programs, given their expertise in communicating the value of adopting given
behaviours (i.e. purchasing their goods and services) (Rothschild, 1999; Polonsky, 2017).
5.3.2 Boundaries to the Elaboration Likelihood Model
The four major criticisms of the ELM were identified in Section 2.3.1, one of which
called for further research into variables that mediate or moderate elaboration likelihood
(Kitchen et al., 2014). The present study provides some empirical support that the Persuasion
Knowledge Model (Friestad & Wright, 1994), specifically, consumer scepticism and cynicism,
does help to explain moderating effects in the Elaboration Likelihood Model (Petty &
Cacioppo, 1986), but particularly the effects of perceived source credibility on consumer
attitude toward the advertisement and behavioural intention. That is, it provides further
understanding of how consumer scepticism and cynicism affect the relationship between
perceived source credibility and social advertising effectiveness. In so doing, the research also
provides further empirical support for the utility of application of the Elaboration Likelihood
Model (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986) in social advertising related to physical activity, building on
the study by Jones and colleagues (2003). It thus identifies another boundary condition of the
Elaboration Likelihood Model (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986), providing a platform on which future
research into consumer scepticism and cynicism toward social advertising appeals can build.
Further, the findings of the present study add to the literature regarding multi-channel
processing, which has been defined as a key limitation of the ELM (Kitchen et al., 2014). A
defining feature of the ELM is that it is a dual-processing model, with two distinct paths to
attitude change. A critical assumption underlying this model is thus the dichotomy between
Page | 132
message arguments and heuristics, forwarded by the model’s structure, which essentially
implies people cannot simultaneously process message arguments and peripheral cues (Kitchen
et al., 2014). However, this study found that consumers rely both on heuristics and message
content in persuasive paradigms; thus, they use both their central and peripheral routes to
information processing. This is in line with the Combined Influence Hypothesis, which
purports message arguments (such as informational claims) and peripheral route cues (such as
source credibility) worked in combination to form attitudes irrespective of differing levels of
motivation and ability (Lord, Lee & Sauer, 1995).
5.3.3 Informational Appeals
This study found support for the inclusion of informational claims in social
advertisements. Specifically, social advertisements that justify behaviour change requests with
an informational claim are more effective than those that do not contain information. This is
consistent with numerous theories in psychology and persuasion. Firstly, it reaffirms
Aristotle’s logos, which argues that logic, justification and reasoning are imperative elements
of persuasive communication (Aristotle, 350 B.C.E/1924). It also lends support to the notion
that information can overcome ‘ostensibly thoughtful action’ (Langer, Blank & Chanowitz,
1987), such that giving people a reason why they should do something tends to increase the
chances of them actually doing it. Critically, this finding aligns with the information-deficit
model that underlies persuasion theory and the ELM, as it supports the notion that exposure to
information enables attitudinal change, and subsequently behavioural change (Hovland &
Weiss, 1951; Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). This finding is noteworthy, given relatively recent
research suggests that in behaviour change campaigns specifically, more information does not
always lead to a better understanding, and that people may filter information from behaviour
Page | 133
change campaigns to re-affirm their own beliefs (Kahan et al., 2012; Kahan, Peters, Dawson
& Slovic, 2013; McKenzie-Mohr, 2000; Syme, Nancarrow & Seligman, 2000).
5.3.4 Consumer Scepticism and Consumer Cynicism
Lastly, this research contributes to the consumer scepticism and cynicism literature by
providing further empirical evidence that although they are often used interchangeably, they
are in fact distinct constructs that have differential impacts on persuasion although they can
both be considered an outcome of persuasion knowledge (see Austin et al., 2002, 2016; Helm,
2004; Helm et al., 2015) in that consumers use their persuasion knowledge not only to evaluate
the veracity of the information presented in a message (scepticism), but also to attribute
motivations of the advertiser behind this persuasive attempt (cynicism). This study
operationalised consumer scepticism and cynicism according to their etymological origins and
examined the effects of scepticism and cynicism on the relationship between perceived source
credibility, informational claim and social advertising effectiveness individually. It was found
that consumer scepticism and cynicism impact the effectiveness of social advertising in
different ways, with consumer scepticism moderating the relationship between perceived
source credibility and consumer attitude toward the advertisement, and consumer cynicism
moderating the relationship between perceived source credibility and behavioural intention.
5.4 IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE
5.4.1 Social Advertising in Practice
This research has practical implications for social advertisers, including governmental,
non-profit and commercial sources of social advertising. Overall, the results demonstrate that
social advertising needs to be mindful of consumers’ perceptions of the perceived credibility
of their organisations, as this research demonstrates that perceived source credibility impacts
social advertising effectiveness, particularly consumers’ attitude toward the attitude.
Page | 134
Specifically, this research suggests social advertising aiming to increase physical activity from
not-for-profit or commercial sources would result in more positive attitudes towards the
advertisement than social advertising from a government source.
From a government perspective, noting that the government is the largest source of
social advertising in Australia (Orr, 2006), this could mean that providing funding to support
social advertising from not-for-profit or commercial sources could be an effective strategy.
However, the effect of jointly-sponsored social advertising (i.e. through partnerships) was not
examined by this research but is an important avenue for future research. Although commercial
organisations have not been the focus of much investigation in social marketing, the potential
benefits of partnerships with commercial organisations has recently been identified in the
literature (French, Russell-Bennett & Mulcahy, 2017). However, such partnerships should be
approached with caution. In this research, the commercial organisations studied (Nike and
Adidas) have broadly compatible goals with the societal goal of increased physical activity. In
other research, specifically in the contexts of commercial organisations that sell alcohol and
tobacco, research suggests that consumers may not perceive commercial organisations to be as
credible (Smith et al., 2007).
5.4.2 Designing Social Advertisements
The research also suggests that social advertisements containing informational claims
are more effective than those that do not contain information. This is not only a vital theoretical
contribution (see Section 5.3.3), but an important finding practically given the current trend,
initiated by commercial organisations, of presenting minimal information about the social issue
that forms the focus of the social advertising, for example, Nike advertisements, like the Find
Your Greatness campaign and the Australian Government 2016 Girl’s Make Your Move
campaign. This research suggests that providing a gain-framed informational claim (e.g. “30
Page | 135
minutes of exercise a day is all it takes to help prevent unhealthy weight gain. Walk, run, swim,
ride, dance or play – whatever you choose, get up and go!” resulted in more positive consumer
attitudes toward the advertisement than not providing an informational claim, and only
including a directive (e.g. “get up and go!”).
Last, while the research only found partial support for the moderating effect of
consumer scepticism and cynicism, the preliminary findings suggest the more credible a
consumer with high levels of scepticism perceives a source to be, the more likely they are to
believe the message from that source. Importantly, respondents with high levels of scepticism
reported lower ad believability than low scepticism respondents when source credibility was
perceived to be low. Furthermore, the more credible a consumer who has higher levels of
cynicism perceives a source to be, the more likely they are to have positive behavioural
intentions. These findings suggest that that sources of social advertising may be able to address
the impact of rising consumer scepticism and cynicism on social advertising effectiveness by
leveraging or enhancing their perceived source credibility.
5.5 LIMITATIONS
It is important to consider the findings and implications of this research in light of its
limitations. First, in terms of the research design, respondents completed surveys online,
independent from the researcher, at a single point in time. Cross-sectional, self-report data
restricts causal claims and may be subject to common method bias (Zikmund, 2011). The cross-
sectional design also did not permit the measure of behavioural change; instead, only
behavioural intention could be examined. There may have also been issues with the accuracy
of respondents’ self-reporting (e.g. social desirability bias when asked to rate their involvement
in physical activity). Overall, however, the quantitative design was nonetheless appropriate as
it could asses several predictor and outcome variables concurrently and be used as a baseline
Page | 136
for future studies. Longitudinal research or further experiments are required to enable
conclusions about causal effects of perceived source credibility and informational claim on
social advertising effectiveness, and the extent to which this relationship is impacted by
consumer scepticism and cynicism.
Moreover, although all scales used within this study were multi-item and had high
reliabilities (Abu-Bader, 2010; Hair et al., 2010; Robson, 2011), there may nonetheless have
been issues with common method bias or variance (Podsakoff et al., 2003) owing to the high
inter-item correlations between some of the variables. Multi-collinearity occurs when variables
are highly inter-correlated (correlation coefficients between variables of .90 and above; Hair et
al., 2010). Multicollinearity between variables makes it likely one factor will account for the
majority of the covariance among the variables (Podsakoff & Organ, 1986). In this study, some
of the variables, specifically, behavioural intention and involvement in physical activity, a
control variable, were highly inter-correlated and potentially non-discriminate.
Moreover, research findings can only be generalised to the population under
examination (Burns, 2000; Malhotra et al., 2006; Saunders et al., 2009) and the context that
forms the basis of the study, physical activity. While panel sample data was used the sampling
frame is not entirely free from error; as there is a high chance of respondent self-selection bias.
It is also hard to determine sampling frame error (Zikmund et al, 2010). Moreover, only
probability sampling techniques allow for results to be generalised to the target population
(Zikmund, 2003) and as such, probably sampling should be used in subsequent studies. Further
research should also be undertaken to determine whether the findings of this study are
generalisable across multiple contexts and populations.
It should also be noted that while selection biases were minimised through the
randomised design of the experiment (Kahan et al., 2015), there were unequal sample sizes
across the conditions in the experiment (see Table 19, Section 3.5). Generally speaking,
Page | 137
ANOVA is robust to uneven cell sizes (Hair et al., 2010). This is particularly the case when
there is a lack of heteroscedasticity in the data and the sample size is ample, both of which were
the case in the present study (Hair et al., 2010). Nonetheless, an ideal study would not include
uneven cell sizes, as they can weaken the ability to find systematic differences between
conditions. To have obtained equal group sizes, and therefore maximise statistical power (Hair
et al., 2010) complete randomisation could have been used; firstly, by recruiting the full sample
(e.g. n = 360), and then randomly assigning n = 30 respondents to each of the twelve conditions.
Replication of this study with more even cell sizes and comparing the results would help to
further support the statistical significance of the findings in the present study (Tabachnick &
Fidell, 2003; Hair et al., 2010).
5.6 FUTURE RESEARCH
Although this research provides a preliminary step toward an improved understanding
of the impact of consumer scepticism and cynicism on the relationship between perceived
source credibility, informational claims and social advertising effectiveness, there remains
significant scope for future research.
First, this research is an initial attempt to compare the perceived credibility of different
types of organisations and examine the subsequent impact of this credibility, as well as
consumer scepticism and cynicism, on social advertising effectiveness. Nonetheless, the
findings of this study are limited in scope to an Australian population, who are likely to share
similar experiences with government advertising and have relatively similar marketplace
interactions. Credibility assessments of the different types of organisations examined in this
study are likely to differ between different demographic populations, regional areas and
countries. Replicating this study in a country under a different governing system (for example,
socialism) or in a country which exhibits more nationalistic tendencies than Australia would
Page | 138
capture different experiences with government-funded social advertising. This might expose
interesting insights into the relationship between individuals and their governing system in
regard to persuasion knowledge (i.e., scepticism and cynicism).
Moreover, persuasion knowledge is generally considered to be developmentally,
historically and culturally contingent (Austin & Knaus, 2000; Blosser & Roberts, 1985;
Friedstad & Wright, 1984). While this study examined a relatively broad cross-section of the
general Australian public (18-75 years), it controlled only for gender and age. It would be
valuable to extend the research to more specific populations, to compare the effects of
credibility assessments, informational claims, scepticism and cynicism, on social advertising
effectiveness, between various homogenous groups of people, for instance, people with
different educational backgrounds and occupations, or people from rural versus urban areas.
Furthermore, the current study selected a research context that was topical and would
be widely applicable across demographic, state and organisational boundaries: physical
activity. While the results of this study contribute to an important body of research regarding
how to effectively encourage the uptake of physical activity, the findings are nonetheless
limited to this specific context. Extending the current research to other contexts, as well as
comparing consumer responses within a health-related context (e.g., social advertisements
encouraging eating fruit and vegetables, using sunscreen, attending regular health check-ups),
would be valuable. Future researchers could also compare the effectiveness of social
advertisements discouraging unhealthy behaviours (e.g., smoking, excessive drinking,
speeding, the use of recreational drugs) with those that encourage healthy behaviours. This
would provide more nuanced insight into factors affecting both credibility perceptions and
social advertising effectiveness.
Second, the current study provided preliminary insight into the perceived credibility of
various organisational types in a social advertising context. It did not examine the effect of
Page | 139
jointly-sponsored social advertising; however, this suggests a useful future research direction.
Specifically, while government was perceived to be least credible in the social advertising
context under examination, no significant differences were identified between the credibility
of not-for-profit and commercial organisations. It would be worthwhile examining the
credibility of jointly-sponsored social advertisements, such as social advertisements produced
by a lower credibility source (e.g. government) in tandem with a higher credibility (e.g.
commercial) organisation. The potential benefits of such partnerships between social
advertisers and commercial organisations have recently been proposed (French, Russell-
Bennett & Mulcahy, 2017), and this study adds further support for this concept. Studies on the
impact of scepticism toward corporate social responsibility by commercial organisations have
underscored the need for congruency between the context and the organisation’s selling
motives (Elving, 2013; Kamins & Gupta, 1994), as well as the benefits of organisations
engaging in corporate social responsibility to be transparent about their motivations for doing
so (Forehand & Grier, 2003). Future research into jointly-sponsored social advertising could
also address this need by exploring differences in the effectiveness of partnerships that state
their motivations compared with those that do not.
Third, contrary to what was hypothesised based on prior research and the underpinnings
of the Elaboration Likelihood Model (Petty & Cacioppo, 1984), this study found minimal
evidence of a direct relationship between perceived source credibility or informational claims
and behavioural intentions. Extant research in social advertising and behaviour change
indicates that consumer attitudes toward the advertisement precedes the intention to perform
various beneficial behaviours, including quitting smoking (Manyiwa & Brennan, 2012;
Steward et al., 2003; Tangari et al., 2007), recycling (Lord, 1994) and saving energy (Bertrand
et al., 2011). Moreover, given that a number of factors influence the performance of behaviours
that are socially beneficial (Parkinson et al., 2016), consumers’ attitude toward the
Page | 140
advertisement may fully mediate the impact of perceived source credibility and the presence
of an informational claim on behavioural intention. Future research could examine this effect.
Finally, the present study found partial support for the moderating effects of consumer
scepticism and consumer cynicism on the relationship between perceived source credibility
and social advertising effectiveness. Nonetheless, there are numerous other potential factors
that may equally interrupt this relationship. For instance, recent research indicates consumer
empowerment, or the shift of the power and control of a company’s product development to its
customers (Acar & Puntoni, 2016), plays an important role in positive marketplace interactions
and developing positive attitudes toward brands and marketing strategies (Guilherme, Stanton
& Rita, 2006). Consumer empowerment could interrupt the relationship between perceived
source credibility and social advertising effectiveness, perhaps by increasing consumer
sentiment toward organisations and enhancing the merits of credibility in advertisement
outcomes. Future research could examine this.
On the other hand, an interesting body of research is developing around the concept of
consumer vulnerability, which refers to “consumer[s], who, as a result of socio-demographic
characteristics, behavioural characteristics, personal situation, or market environment, [are] at
higher risk of experiencing negative outcomes in the market… [and are] more susceptible to
certain marketing practices” (Domurath, 2017). Investigating the moderating effects of
consumer vulnerability on the efficacy of social advertising would provide valuable insight to
this growing body of research.
The constructs of media literacy, namely critical thinking about the source and content
of the advertising message, were measured as control variables in this study, given their close
relationship with scepticism and cynicism (see Section 2.6.3). Future research into media
literacy constructs as focal moderating variables, rather than as control variables, would be
beneficial for understanding how media literacy is affecting the current landscape of
Page | 141
advertising. This is particularly valid in the current market landscape, where many researchers
argue that critical thinking is now more important than ever (Aspen Institute, 1993; Austin &
Johnson, 1997; Austin et al., 2002, 2015, 2016; Hobbs & Jensen, 2009).
5.7 CONCLUSION
This research has investigated the direct impact of message factors, and the moderating
impact of consumer persuasion knowledge, on persuasiveness of social advertising messages.
Prior to this research, there was little understanding within the persuasion and social advertising
literature as to whether different organisational types were perceived as of more credible, and
subsequently more persuasive, in the context of social advertising. To overcome this
uncertainty, this research compared the credibility and persuasive effectiveness of sources from
various types of organisations that commonly engage in social advertising, to investigate which
sources elicit most favourable outcomes. Prior to this study, there was also little attention paid
to the interaction between to various persuasion models and how two models, rather than one,
might explain variance in the success of social advertising. To overcome this lack of
understanding, this research examined concurrent effects of the elaboration likelihood and
persuasion knowledge models, and the subsequent effect of this on social advertising message
effectiveness. Finally, prior to this research there was very little construct clarity and attempt
to clearly differentiate between consumer scepticism and consumer cynicism. To overcome
this, this research clearly differentiates each construct, both in conceptualisation and
operationalisation.
Page | 142
Reference List
Acar, O. A., & Puntoni, S. (2016). Consumer Empowerment in the Digital Age. Journal of
Advertising Research, 56(1), 4-8. doi:10.2501/JAR-2016-007
Afshartous, D., & Preston, R. A. (2011). Key Results of Interaction Models with Centering.
Journal of Statistics Education, 19(3), 1-24. doi:10.1080/10691898.2011.11889620
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting
Interactions. Newbury Park, London: SAGE Publications.
Aji, H. M., & Sutikno, B. (2015). The Extended Consequence of Greenwashing: Perceived
Consumer Skepticism. International Journal of Business and Information, 10(4), 433-
468.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
Ajzen, I. (2011). The Theory of Planned Behaviour: Reactions and Reflections. Psychology
and Health, 29(9), 1113-1127. doi:10.1080/08870446.2011.613995
Ajzen, I., & Madden, T. J. (1986). Prediction of goal directed behavior: Attitudes, intentions,
and perceived behavioral control. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22(5),
453-474. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(86)90045-4
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall
Albarracin, D., Johnson, B. T., Fishbein, M., & Muellerleile, P. A. (2001). Theories of
reasoned action and planned behavior as models of condom use: A metaanalysis.
Psychological Bulletin, 127(1), 142–161. doi:10.1037//0033-2909.127.1.142
Page | 143
Aldlaigan, A., & Buttle, F. (2005). Beyond satisfaction: customer attachment to retail banks.
International Journal of Bank Marketing, 23(4), 349-359.
doi:10.1108/02652320510603960
Alexander, J. E., & Tate, M. A. (1999). Web wisdom: how to evaluate and create Web page
quality on the Web. Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates Inc.
Amos, C., Holmes, G., & Strutton, D. (2015). Exploring the relationship between celebrity
endorser effects and advertising effectiveness. International Journal of Advertising,
27(2), 209-234. doi:10.1080/02650487.2008.11073052
AMR Australia. (2017). The 2017 Australian Charity Reputation Index Rankings (1-40).
Report retrieved from http://www.amr-australia.com
Andreasen, A. R. (1994). Social Marketing: Its Definition and Domain. Journal of Public
Policy & Marketing, 13(1), 108-114.
Andreasen, A. R. (2002). Marketing social marketing in the social change marketplace.
Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 21(1), 3-13.
Andreasen, A. R. (2003). The life trajectory of social marketing: Some implications.
Marketing Theory, 3(3), 293-303.
Anker, T. B., & Kappekl, K. (2011). Ethical challenges in commercial social marketing. The
Sage Handbook of Social marketing, Sage Publications, London, 284-297.
Anuar, M. M., Omar, K., & Mohamad, O. (2013). Does Skepticism Influence Consumers
Intention to Purchase Cause-related Products? International Journal of Business and
Social Science, 4(5), 94-98.
Aristotle. (1924.) Rhetorica (W. R. Roberts, Trans.). Oxford, Clarendon Press. Retrieved
from http://www.bocc.ubi.pt/pag/Aristotle-rhetoric.pdf. (Original work published 350
B.C.E.).
Page | 144
Aronson, E., Turner, J., & Carlsmith, J. (1963). Communicator credibility and communicator
discrepancy as determinants of opinion change. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 67, 31-37.
Ashforth, Gibbs. (1990). The Double-Edge of Organisational Legitimation. Organization
Science, 1(2), 177-194. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1.2.177
Aspen Institute (1993). National leadership conference on media literacy. Conference report.
Aspen Institute: Washington, D.C.
Atkin, C., & Block, M. (1983). Effectiveness of Celebrity Endorsers. Journal of Advertising
Research, 23(1), 57-61.
Atkinson, D. R., Brady, S., & Casas, J. M. (1981). Sexual preference similarity, attitude
similarity, and perceived counselor credibility and attractiveness. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 28(6), 504–509.
Audi, R. (2003). Epistemology. New York: Routledge
Aust, F., Diedenhofen, B., Ullrich, S., & Musch, J. (2012). Seriousness checks are useful to
improve data validity in online research. Behavior Research Methods, 45(2), 527-535.
doi: 10.3758/s13428-012-0265-2.
Austin, E. W., & Dong, Q. (1994). Source v content effects on judgements of news
believability. Journalism Quarterly, 71(4), 973-983.
Austin, E. W., & Johnson, K. (1997). Effects of general and alcohol-specific media literacy
training on children's decision making about alcohol. Journal of Health
Communication 2(1): 17-42.
Austin, E. W., & Knaus, C. S. (2000). Predicting the potential for risky behavior among those
“too young” to drink, as the result of appealing advertising. Journal of Health
Communication, 5(1), 13-27. doi:10.1080/108107300126722
Page | 145
Austin, E. W., Miller, A. C.-R., Silva, J., Guerra, P., Geisler, N., Gamboa, L., & Kuechle, B.
(2002). The effects of increased cognitive involvement on college students’
interpretations of magazine advertisements for alcohol. Communication Research,
29(2), 155–179. doi:10.1177/ 0093650202029002003
Austin, E. W., Muldrow, A., & Austin, B. E. (2016). Examining How Media Literacy and
Personality Factors Predict Skepticism Toward Alcohol Advertising. Journal of
Health Communication, 21(5), 600-609. DOI: 10.1080/10810730.2016.1153761
Austin, E. W., Pinkleton, B. E., Radanielina-Hita, M. L. & Ran, W. (2015) The Role of
Parents’ Critical Thinking About Media in Shaping Expectancies, Efficacy and
Nutrition Behaviors for Families. Health Communication, 30(12), 1256-
1268. DOI: 10.1080/10410236.2014.930550
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2012). Australian Health Survey: Physical Activity, 2011-12.
Retrieved from http://www.abs.gov.au/
Australian Government Department of Finance. (2016). Campaign Advertising by Australian
Government Departments and Agencies: Annual Report 2015-16. Canberra, Australia.
Retrieved from https://www.finance.gov.au/sites/default/files/campaign-advertising-
by-australian-government-departments-and-agencies-annual-report-2015-16.pdf
Australian Government Department of Health. (2016). Campaigns: Girls Make Your Move.
Retrieved from https://campaigns.health.gov.au/girlsmove
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare [AIHW]. (2011). Public health expenditure in
Australia, 2008-09. Retrieved from https://www.aihw.gov.au/
Australian Public Service Commission. (2007). Tackling Wicked Problems: A Public Policy
Perspective. Retrieved from Australian Public Service Commission website,
http://www.apsc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/6386/wickedproblems.pdf
Page | 146
B&T Magazine (2016, July 29). U by Kotex Launches New Campaign: Let’s Move On. B &
T Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.bandt.com.au/
Babbie, E. (1995). The Practice of Social Research, 7th Edition. Wadsworth Publishing:
Belmont, California.
Bailey, A. A. (2007). Public Information and Consumer Skepticism Effects on Celebrity
Endorsements: Studies among Young Consumers. Journal of Marketing
Communications, 13(2), 85-107, DOI: 10.1080/13527260601058248
Bajpai, N. (2011). Business Research Methods. India: Dorling Kindersley
Baker, S. M., Gentry, J. W., & Rittenburg, T. L. (2005). Building Understanding of the
Domain of Consumer Vulnerability. Journal of Macromarketing, 25(2), 128-139.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0276146705280622
Banks, S. M., Salovey, P., Greener, S., Rothman, A. J., Beauvais, J., & Epel, E. (1995). The
effects of message framing on mammography utilization. Health Psychology, 14(2),
178-184.
Bannister, B. D. (1986). Performance outcome feedback and attributional feed- back:
Interactive effects on recipient responses. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 203-
210.
Barker, K. L., Minns Lowe, C. J., & Reid, M. (2007). The development and use of mass
media interventions for health-care messages about back pain: What do members of
the public think? Manual Therapy, 12(4), 335-341. DOI: 10.1016/j.math.2006.07.010
Bator, R. J., & Cialdini, R. B. (2000). The Application of Persuasion Theory to the
Development Of Effective Proenvironmental Public Service Announcements. Journal
of Social Issues, 56(3), 527–541.
Bauman, K. E., LaPrelle, J., Brown, J. D., Koch, G. G., & Padgett, C. A. (1991). The
influence of three mass media campaigns on variables related to adolescent cigarette
Page | 147
smoking: Results of a field experiment. American Journal of Public Health, 81(5),
597–604.
Bellman, S., Rossiter, J. R., Schweda, A., & Varan, D. (2012). How Coviewing Reduces the
Effectiveness of TV Advertising. Journal of Marketing Communications, 18(5), 363–
78.
Beltramini, R. F. (1982). Advertising Perceived Believability Scale. In D. R. Corrigan, F. B.
Kraft, & R. H. Ross (Eds.), Proceedings of the Southwestern Marketing Association
(p.1-3). Wichita, KS: Southwestern Marketing Association.
Beltramini, R. F., & Stafford, E. R. (1993). Comprehension and Perceived Believability
in Seals of Approval in Advertising. Journal of Advertising, 22(September), 3-13.
Bergin, A. (1962). The effect of dissonant persuasive communications upon changes in a self-
referring attitude. Journal of Personal, 30(3), 423-438. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-
6494.1962.tb02314.x
Berlo, D. K., Lemert, J. B., & Mertz, R. J. (1969). Dimensions for Evaluating the
Acceptability of Message Sources. Public Opinion Quarterly, 33(4), 563-576.
Bertrand, J. T., Goldman, P., Zhivan, N., Agyeman, Y., & Barber, E. (2011). Evaluation of
the "Lose Your Excuse" Public Service Advertising Campaign for Tweens to Save
Energy. Evaluation Review, 35(5), 455-489.
Blosser, B. J., & Roberts, D. F. (1985). Age differences in children’s perceptions of message
intent: Responses to TV news, commercials, educational spots, and public service
announcements. Communication Research, 12(4), 455-484.
Bochner, S., & Insko, C. (1966). Communicator discrepancy, source credibility, and opinion
change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 614-621.
Page | 148
Bosompra, K. (2001). Determinants of condom use intentions of university students in
Ghana: An application of the theory of reasoned action. Social Science & Medicine,
52(7), 1057–1069.
Bousch, D. M., Friestad, M., & Rose, G. M. (1994). Adolescent Scepticism Toward TV
Advertising and Knowledge of the Advertiser Tactics. Journal of Consumer
Research, 21(June), 165-175.
Bovaird, T., & Rubienska, A. (1996). The Clashing Cultures of Marketing and Organizational
Learning. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 67(1),
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8292.1996.tb01947.x
Bowman, S., & Willis, C. (2003). We Media: How Audiences are Shaping the Future of
News and Information. The Media Center at the American Press Institute. Retrieved
from http://www.hypergene.net/wemedia/download/we_media.pdf
Brennan, L., & Binney, W. (2010). Fear, guilt, and shame appeals in social
marketing. Journal of business Research, 63(2), 140-146.
Brennan, L., & Fry, M. L. (2016). Guest Editorial. Journal of Social Marketing, 6(3), 214-218.
Brennan, L., Previte, J., & Fry., M. L. (2016). Social marketing’s consumer myopia: applying
a behavioural ecological model to address wicked problems. Journal of Social
Marketing, 6(3), 219-239.
Brettel, M., Reich, J. C., Gavilanes, J., & Flatten, T. (2015). What Drives Advertising
Success on Facebook? An Advertising-Effectiveness Model: Measuring the Effects
on Sales of "Likes" and Other Social-Network Stimuli. Journal of Advertising
Research, 55(2), 162-175.
Brief, A. P., Burke, M. J., George, J. M., Robinson, B. S., & Webster, J. (1988). Should
negative affectivity remain an unmeasured variable in the study of job stress? Journal
of Applied Psychology, 73, 193–198.
Page | 149
Briggs, S. R. & Cheek, J. M. (1986). The role of factor analysis in the development and
evaluation of personality scales. Journal of Personality, 54, 106—148.
Bronn, P. S., & Vrioni, A. B. (2001). Corporate Social Responsibility and Cause-Related
Marketing: An Overview. International Journal of Advertising, 20, 207-222.
Brown, S., & Stayman, D. (1992). Antecedents and Consequences of Attitude Toward the
Ad: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 19(1), 34-51.
Brunel, F. F., & Nelson, M. R. (2003). Message order effects and gender differences
in advertising persuasion. Journal of Advertising Research, 43, 330-341.
doi10.1017/S0021849903030320.
Brunk, K.H. (2010). Consumer perceived ethicality: an impression formation perspective.
Paper presented at the European Marketing Association Conference (EMAC),
Copenhagen, 1-4 June.
Burnkrant, R. E., & Unnava, H. R. (1995). Effects of Self-Referencing on Persuasion.
Journal of Consumer Research, 22(1), 17-26.
Bush, A. J., Smith, R. & Martin, C. (1999). The Influence of Consumer Socialization
Variables on Attitude toward Advertising: A Comparison of African-Americans and
Caucasians. Journal of Advertising, 28(3), 13-24.
DOI: 10.1080/00913367.1999.10673586
Byrne, D. (1969). Attitudes and attraction. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental
SocialPpsychology (pp. 34–89). New York: Academic Press.
Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 42(1), 116-131. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.42.1.116.
Calfree, J. E., & Ringold, D. J. (1994). The 70% Majority: Enduring Consumer Beliefs about
Advertising. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 13(2), 228-238.
Page | 150
Carins, J. E., & Rundle-Thiele, S. R. (2014). Eating for the better: A social marketing review
(2000–2012). Public Health Nutrition, 17(7), 1628-1639.
Carr, D. J., Barnidge, M., Lee, B. G., & Tsang, S. (2014). Cynics and Skeptics: Evaluating
the Credibility of Mainstream and Citizen Journalism. Journalism & Mass
Communication Quarterly, 91(3), 452-470.
Chaloupka, W. (1999). Everybody knows: Cynicism in America. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press.
Chatzisarantis, N. L. D., Biddle, S. J. H., & Meek, G. A. (1997). A self-determination
theory approach to the study of intentions and the intention-behaviour relationship in
children's physical activity. British Journal of Health Psychology, 2(4), 343—360.
Chen, F. P., & Leu, J. D. (2011). Product Involvement in the Link Between Skepticism
toward Advertising and its Effects. Social Behaviour and Personality, 39(2), 153-160.
DOI: 10.2224/sbp.2011.39.2.153
Cho, C. H. (2012). How Advertising Works on the WWW: Modified Elaboration Likelihood
Model. Journal of Current Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 21(1), 34-50.
DOI: 10.1080/10641734.1999.10505087
Chu, G. C. (1967). Prior familiarity, perceived bias, and one-sided versus two-sided
communications. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 3, 243-254.
Church, T. S., Thomas, D. M., Tudor-Locke, C., Katzmarzyk, P. T., Earnest, C. P., Rodarte,
R. Q., Martin, C. K., Blair, S. N., & Bouchard, C. (2011). Trends over 5 decades in
U.S. Occupation-Related Physical Activity and their associations with obesity. PLoS
ONE, 6(5): e19657. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0019657
Churchill, G. A.,& Iacobucci, D. (2005). Marketing research: methodological foundations.
Thomson, South-western
Page | 151
Chylinski, M., & Chu, A. (2010). Consumer Cynicism: antecedents and consequences.
European Journal of Marketing, 44(6), 796-837. DOI: 10.1108/03090561011032720
Colagiuri, S., Lee, C. M. Y., Colagiuri, R., Magliano, D., Shaw, J. E., Zimmet, P. Z., &
Caterson, I. D. (2010). The Cost of Overweight and Obesity in Australia. Medical
Journal of Australia, 192(5), 260-264.
Cole, C., Ettenson, R., Reinke, S., & Schrader, T. (1990). The Elaboration likelihood model
(ELM): Replications, extensions and some conflicting findings. In M. E. Goldberg.,
G. Gorn, & R. W. Pollay (Eds), Advances in Consumer Research (v17, pp. 231-236).
Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.
Collins, L. M., Dziak, J. J., Kugler, K. C., & Trail, J. B. (2014). Factorial Experiments:
Efficient Tools for Evaluation of Intervention Components. American Journal of
Preventive Medicine, 47(4), 498–504. DOI: 10.1016/j.amepre.2014.06.021
Collins, L. M., Dziak, J. J., & Li, R. (2009). Design of experiments with multiple independent
variables: A resource management perspective on complete and
reduced factorial designs. Psychological Methods, 14(3), 202–224.
Corder-Bolz, C. R. (1980). Mediation: The role of significant others. Journal of
Communication, 30(3), 106–118.
Council on Federal Financial Relations. (2012). Implementation Plan for Social Marketing:
Measure Up. Report retrieved from
http://www.federalfinancialrelations.gov.au/content/npa/health/_archive/social_marke
ting/SA_IP.pdf
Court, D. C., Gordon, J. W., & Perrey, J. (2005, May). Boosting returns on marketing
investment. McKinsey Quarterly. Retrieved from https://www.mckinsey.com/
Crano, W. D. (1970). Effect of sex, response order, and expertise in conformity: A
dispositional approach. Sociometry, 33(3), 239-252.
Page | 152
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research Design Qualitative, Quantitative, And Mixed Methods
Approaches. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Crisci, R., & Kassinove, H. (1973). Effect of perceived expertise, strength of advice, and
environmental setting on parental compliance. Journal of Social Psychology, 89(2),
245-250.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika,
16(3), 297-334. Retrieved from
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF02310555
Cronkhite, G., & Liska, J. (1976). A critique of factor analytic approaches to the study of
credibility. Communication Monographs, 43(2), 91-107. DOI:
10.1080/03637757609375920
Crotty, M. (2003). The Foundations of Social Research: Meaning and Perspective in the
Research Process. London: Sage
Crotty, M. (2008). The Foundations of Social Research: Meaning and Perspective in the
Research Process. London: Sage
D & AD. (2015). Inglorious Fruits and Vegetables Campaign. Retrieved from
https://www.dandad.org/awards/professional/2015/direct/24619/inglorious-fruits-and-
vegetables/
Darke, P. R., & Ritchie, R. J. B. (2007). The Defensive Consumer: Advertising Deception,
Defensive Processing, and Distrust. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(1), 114-127.
Darley, W. K., & Smith, R. E. (1993). Advertising claim objectivity: Antecedents and effects.
Journal of Marketing, 57(4), 100–113.
Davis, I. (2005). What is the business of business? The McKinsey Quarterly, 3, 105-113.
Page | 153
Dawson, T. E. (1997). A Primer on Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Design. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southwest Educational Research Association.
Austin, Texas, January 23-25. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED406440.pdf
Day, G. S. (1970). Buyer attitudes and brand choice. New York: Free Press.
de Castro, C. D. A. B., & Botelho,, D. (2012). The Effect of Tangible Product Cues on
Skepticism towards Advertising: Seeing is Believing. Paper presented at the Annual
Conference for the National Association of Post-Graduate and Research
Administration [Encontro da ANPAD (associação nacional de pós-graduação e
pesquisa em administracao)], 22-26 September, 2012. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
http://www.anpad.org.br/admin/pdf/2012_MKT2682.pdf
de Pelsmacker, P., Geuens, M., & Anckaert, P. (2013). Media Context and Advertising
Effectiveness: The Role of Context Appreciation and Context/Ad Similarity. Journal
of Advertising, 31(2), 49-61. DOI: 10.1080/00913367.2002.10673666
de Pelsmacker, P., Janssens, W., Sterckx, E., & Mielants, C. (2006). Fair-trade beliefs,
attitudes and buying behaviour of Belgian consumers. International Journal of
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 11(2), 125-138.
de Vries, L., Gensler, S., & Leeflang, P. S. H. (2012). Popularity of Brand Posts on Brand
Fan Pages: An Investigation of the Effects of Social Media Marketing. Journal of
Interactive Marketing, 26(2), 83–91.
Delia, J. G. (1976). A Constructivist Analysis of the Concept of Credibility. Quarterly
Journal of Speech, 62(4), 361-375.
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. (2017). Australian Government Branding -
Guidelines on the use of Australian Government logo by Australian government
departments and agencies. Retrieved from https://www.pmc.gov.au/resource-
Page | 154
centre/government/australian-government-branding-guidelines-use-australian-
government-logo-australian-government-departments-and-agencies
Detweiler, J. B., Bedell, B. T., Salovey, P., Pronin, E., & Rothman, A. J. (1999). Message
Framing and Sunscreen Use: Gain-Framed Messages Motivate Beach-Goers. Health
Psychology, 18(2), 189-196.
DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale Development: Theory and Applications. Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE Publications.
Dholakia, R. R. (1987). Source credibility effects: A test of behavioral persistence. Advances
in Consumer Research, 14, 426–430.
Dholakia, R. R., & Sternthal, B. (1977). Highly Credible Sources: Persuasive Facilitators or
Persuasive Liabilities? Journal of Consumer Research, 3(4), 223-232.
Dickinson, S., & Holmes, M. (2008). Understanding the emotional coping responses of
adolescent individuals exposed to threat appeals. International Journal of Advertising,
27(2), 251–278.
Ditto, P. H., & Lopez, D. F. (1992). Motivated Skepticism: Use of Differential Decision
Criteria for Preferred and Nonpreferred Conclusions. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 63(4), 568-584.
do Paço, A. M. F., & Reis, R. (2012). Factors Affecting Skepticism toward Green
Advertising. Journal of Advertising, 41(4), 147-155. DOI: 10.2753/JOA0091-
3367410410
Domurath, I. (2017). Consumer Vulnerability and Welfare in Mortgage Contracts.
Bloomsbury Publishing.
Donovan, R. J. (2011). The role for marketing in public health change programs. Australian
Review of Public Affairs, 10(1), 23-40.
Page | 155
Dunstan, D. W., Barr, E. L. M., Healy, G. N., Salmon, J., Shaw, J. E., Balkau, B., Magliano,
D. J., Cameron, A. J., Zimmet, P. Z., & Owen, N. (2010). Television Viewing Time
and Mortality: The Australian Diabetes, Obesity and Lifestyle Study (AusDiab).
Circulation, 121(3): 384-391. DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.109.894824
Dutta-Bergman, M. J. (2006). The Demographic and Psychographic Antecedents of Attitude
toward Advertising. Journal of Advertising Research, 46(1), 102-112.
Eastin, M. S. (2006). Credibility Assessments of Online Health Information: The Effects of
Source Expertise and Knowledge of Content. Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication, 6(4), https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2001.tb00126.x
Edelman Institute. (2017). 2017 Edelman Trust Barometer: Global Report. Retrieved from
https://www.edelman.com/research/2017-trust-barometer-global-results
Eisend, M., Plagemann, J., & Sollwedel, J. (2014). Gender roles and humor in advertising:
The occurrence of stereotyping in humorous and nonhumorous advertising and its
consequences for advertising effectiveness. Journal of advertising, 43(3), 256-273.
Elias, M. J., Branden-Muller, L. R., & Sayette, M. A. (1991). Teaching the foundations of
social decision making and problem solving in the elementary school. In J. Baron &
R. V. Brown (Eds.), Teaching decision making to adolescents (pp. 161-184).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Elving, W. J. L. (2013). Scepticism and corporate social responsibility communications: the
influence of fit and reputation. Journal of Marketing Communications, 19(4), 277-
292. DOI: 10.1080/13527266.2011.631569
Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the
use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods,
4(3), 272-299. doi: 1082-989X/99/S3.00
Page | 156
Falk, E. B., O’Donnell, M. B., Tompson, S., Gonzalez, R., Dal Cin, S., Strecher, V.,
Cummings, K. M., & An, L. (2015). Functional Brain Imaging Predicts Public Health
Campaign Success. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 11(2), 204–14.
Fischhoff, B. (1992). Decisions about alcohol: Prevention, intervention, and policy. Alcohol
Health & Research World, 16(4), 257-266.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to
theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley
Fong, D. Y., Ho, S. Y., & Lam, T. H. (2010). Evaluation of internal reliability in the presence
of inconsistent responses. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 8, 27.
http://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-8-27
Ford, G. T., Smith, D. B., & Swasy, J. (1990). Consumer skepticism of advertising claims:
Testing hypotheses from economics of information. Journal of Consumer Research,
16(4), 433–441.
Forehand, M. R. & Grier, S. (2003). When is Honesty the Best Policy? The Effect of Stated
Company Intent on Consumer Skepticism. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13(3),
349-356. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327663JCP1303_15
Frankel, E., & Kassinove, H. (1974). Effects of required effort, perceived expertise, and sex
on teacher compliance. Journal of Social Psychology, 93, 187-192.
Freeman, B., Potente, S., Rock, V., & McIver, J. (2015). Social media campaigns that make a
difference: what can public health learn from the corporate sector and other social
change marketers? Public Health Research Practice, 25(2), e2521517. doi:
10.17061/phrp2521517
French, J., Russell-Bennett, R., & Mulcahy. R. (2017). Travelling alone or travelling far?:
Meso-level value co-creation by social marketing and for-profit organisations.
Page | 157
Journal of Social Marketing, 7(3), 280-296. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSOCM-12-2016-
0088
Friedman, H., & Friedman, L. (1979). Endorser Effectiveness by Product Type. Journal of
Advertising Research, 19(5), 63-71.
Friedman, M. (1998). Coping with consumer fraud: The need for a paradigm shift. The
Journal of Consumer Affairs, 32(1), 1-12.
Friestad, M., & Wright, P. (1994). The Persuasion Knowledge Model: How People Cope
with Persuasion Attempts. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(1), 1-31.
Friestad, M., & Wright, P. (1995). Persuasion Knowledge: Lay People’s and Researcher’s
Beliefs about the Psychology of Advertising. Journal of Consumer Research, 22(1),
62-74.
Ganzach, Y., & Karsahi, N. (1995). Message framing and buying behavior: a field
experiment. Journal of Business Research, 32, 11-17.
Gass, R. H., & Seiter, J. S. (1999). Persuasion, social influence, and compliance
gaining. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Gelo, O. C. G. (2012). On research methods and their philosophical assumptions: “Raising
the consciousness of researchers” again. Psychotherapie & Sozialwissenschaft, 14(2),
111-130.
George, D., & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and
reference. 11.0 update (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Global Burden of Disease (2016). Risk Factors Collaborators. Global, regional, and national
comparative risk assessment of 79 behavioural, environmental and occupational, and
metabolic risks or clusters of risks, 1990–2015: a systematic analysis for the Global
Burden of Disease Study 2015. Lancet, 388(10053):1659-1724
Page | 158
Gnepa, T. J. (2012). Product involvement, elaboration likelihood and the structure of
commercial speech: a tale of two print advertisements.
International Journal of Business Research, 12(5), 42-52.
Goldberg, M. E., & Hartwick, J. (1990). The Effects of Advertiser Reputation and Extremity
of Advertising Claim on Advertising Effectiveness. Journal of Consumer Research,
17(2), 172-179.
Goldsmith, R. E., Lafferty, B. A., & Newell, S. J. (2000). The Impact of Corporate
Credibility and Celebrity Credibility on Consumer Reaction to Advertisements and
Brands. Journal of Advertising, 29(3), 43-54.
Goodman, J. K., Cryder, C. E., & Cheema, A. (2012). Data Collection in a Flat World:
Strengths and Weaknesses of Mechanical Turk Samples. Journal of Behavioural
Decision Making, 26(3), 213-224. doi: 10.1002/bdm.1753
Gordon, R., McDermott, L., Stead, M., & Angus, K. (2006). The effectiveness of social
marketing interventions for health improvement: What's the evidence? Public Health,
120(12), 1133-1139.
Gray-Lee, J. W., Scammon, D. L., & Mayer, R. N. (1994). Review of Legal Standards for
Environmental Marketing Claims. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing,
13(Spring), 155-159.
Grier, S., & Bryant, C. A. (2005). Social Marketing in Public Health. Annual Review of
Public Health, 26: 319-339. doi: 10.1146/annurev.publhealth.26.021304.144610
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing Paradigms in Qualitative Reserch. In N. K.
Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 105-117).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Page | 159
Guilherme, D. P., Stanton, J., & Rita, P. (2006). The internet, consumer empowerment and
marketing strategies. European Journal of Marketing, 40(9/10), 936-949.
doi:10.1108/03090560610680943
Gunther, A. C. (1988). Attitude extremity and trust in media. Journalism Quarterly, 65(2),
279–287.
Gunther, A. C. (1992). Biased press or biased public? Attitudes toward media coverage of
social groups. Public Opinion Quarterly, 56(2), 147–167.
Haddock, G., Maio, G. R., Arnold, K., & Huskinson, T. (2008). Should Persuasion Be
Affective or Cognitive? The Moderating Effects of Need for Affect and Need for
Cognition. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(6), 769-778. doi:
10.1177/0146167208314871.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate Data Analysis:
A Global Perspective (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson.
Haley, E. (1996). Exploring the Construct of Organization as Source: Consumers'
Understandings of Organizational Sponsorship of Advocacy Advertising. Journal of
Advertising, 25(2), 19-35. DOI: 10.1080/00913367.1996.10673497
Hammond, S. L. (1987). Health Advertising: The Credibility of Organisational Sources. In
M. L. McLaughlin (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 10 (pp. 613-628). Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
Hardesty, D. M., Carlson, J. P., & Bearden, W. O. (2002). Brand Familiarity and Invoice
Price Effects on Consumer Evaluations: The Moderating Role of Skepticism toward
Advertising. Journal of Advertising, 31(2), 1-15.
DOI: 10.1080/00913367.2002.10673663
Harrell, F. E. (2001). Regression Modeling Strategies. Springer, New York.
Page | 160
Hassan, L., Walsh, G., Shiu, E., Hastings, G., & Harris, F. (2007). Modeling Persuasion in
Social Advertising: A Study of Responsible Thinking in Antismoking Promotion in
Eight Eastern EU (European Union) Member States. Journal of Advertising, 36(2),
15-31.
Hastings, G., & Angus, K. (2011). When is social marketing not social marketing? Journal of
Social Marketing, 1(1), 45-52.
Haugtvedt, C. P., Petty, R. E. & Cacioppo, J. T. (1992). Need for Cognition and Advertising:
Understanding the Role of Personality Variables in Consumer Behavior. Journal Of
Consumer Psychology, 1(3), 239-260.
Hawkins, K., & Hane, A. C. (2000). Adolescents’ perceptions of print cigarette advertising:
A case for counteradvertising. Journal of Health Communication, 5(1), 83–96.
Haytko, D. L., & Matulich, E. (2008). Green Advertising and Environmentally Responsible
Consumer Behaviors: Linkages Examined. Journal of Management and Marketing
Research, 7(1), 2–11.
Healy, G. N., Matthews, C. E., Dunstan, D. W., Winkler, E. A. H., Owen, N. (2011).
Sedentary time and cardio-metabolic biomarkers in US adults: NHANES 2003–06.
European Heart Journal, 32(5): 590-597. DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehq451
Helm, A. E. (2004). Cynics and Skeptics: Consumer Dispositional Trust. Advances in
Consumer Research, 31, 345-351.
Helm, A. E., Moulard, J. G., & Richins, M. (2015). Consumer cynicism: developing a scale
to measure underlying attitudes influencing marketplace shaping and withdrawal
behaviours. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 3, 515-524. doi:
10.1111/ijcs.12191
Page | 161
Herron, T. L. (1997). The persuasion effects of time pressure and source expertise in an audit
setting: An elaboration likelihood application. Dissertation Abstracts International:
Humanities and Social Sciences, 57(1O-A), 4434.
Hickman, A. (2016, December 6). Australian government spends near-record $175m on
advertising. AdNews, Retrieved from http://www.adnews.com.au/
Hindmarsh, C. S., Jones, S. C., & Kervin, L. (2015). Effectiveness of alcohol media literacy
programmes: a systematic literature review. Health Education Research, 30(3), 449-
465. doi: 10.1093/her/cyv015
Hobbs, R., & Jensen, A. (2009). The past, present, and future of media literacy education.
Journal of Media Literacy Education, 1, 1-11. Retrieved from
http://digitalcommons.uri.edu/jmle/vol1/iss1/1
Hong, J. W., & Zinkhan, G. M. (1995). Self-concept and advertising effectiveness: The
influence of congruency, conspicuousness, and response mode. Psychology and
Marketing, 12, 53–77. doi:10.1002/mar.4220120105
Hopkins, M. (2003). The Planetary Bargain: Corporate Social Responsibility Matters.
London: Earthscan Publications.
Hovland, C. I., Janis, I. L., & Kelley, H. H. (1953). Communication and persuasion;
psychological studies of opinion change. New Haven, CT, US: Yale University Press.
Hovland, C., & Weiss, W. (1951). The influence of source credibility on communication
effectiveness. Public Opinion Quarterly, 15, 635- 650. DOI: 10.1086/266350.
Huang, J., Su, S., Zhou, L., & Liu, X. (2013). Attitude toward the viral ad: Expanding
traditional advertising models to interactive advertising. Journal of Interactive
Marketing, 27(1), 36-46.
Page | 162
Huhman, M., Potter, L. D., Wong, F. L., Banspach, S. W., Duke, J. C., & Heitzler, C. D.
(2005). Effects of a Mass Media Campaign to Increase Physical Activity Among Children:
Year-1 Results of the VERB Campaign. Pediatrics, 116(2), e277-e284.
Interbrand. (2017). Best Global Brands 2017. Retrieved 1 March 2018 from
http://interbrand.com/best-brands/best-global-brands/2017/ranking/
Jaccard, J., Turrisi, R., & Wan, C. K. (1990). Interaction Effects in Multiple Regression. Sage
University Paper series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Jackson, B. (2001). Management Gurus and Management Fashions. Routledge, United
Kingdom.
Jackson, T. (2005). Motivating Sustainable Consumption. A review of evidence on consumer
behaviour and behavioural change. A report to the Sustainable Development
Research Network. Centre for Environmental Strategy, University of Surrey,
Guildford. Retrieved from
http://sustainablelifestyles.ac.uk/sites/default/files/motivating_sc_final.pdf
Jaeger, R. G., & Halliday, T. R. (1998). On confirmatory versus exploratory research.
Herpetologica, 54, S64-S66.
Jahdi, K. S., & Acikdilli, G. (2009). Marketing Communications and Corporate Social
Responsibility (CSR): Marriage of Convenience or Shotgun Wedding? Journal of
Business Ethics, 88(1), 103-113. DOI 10.1007/s10551-009-0113-1
James, W. L., & Kover, A. (1992). Do Overall Attitudes toward Advertising Affect
Involvement with Specific Advertisements? Journal of Advertising Research 32(5),
78-83.
Johnston, L., & Coolen, P. (1995). A dual processing approach to stereotype change.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 660–73.
Page | 163
Jones, L. W., Sinclair, R. C., & Courneya, K. S. (2003). The effects of source credibility and
message framing on exercise intentions, behaviors, and attitudes: An integration of
the elaboration likelihood model and prospect theory. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 33(1), 179–196.
Jones, L. W., Sinclair, R. C., Rhodes, R. E., & Courneya, K. S. (2004). Promoting exercise
behaviour: An integration of persuasion theories and the theory of planned behaviour.
British Journal of Health Psychology, 9(4), 505-521. DOI:
10.1348/1359107042304605
Jones, S.C., Wyatt, A. & Daube, M. (2016). Smokescreens and beer goggles: how alcohol
industry CSM protects the industry. Social Marketing Quarterly, 22(4), 264-279.
Judd, C. M., & McClelland, G. H. (1989). Data Analysis: a model-comparison approach (2nd
Ed). New York: Routledge
Jurma, W. E. (1981). Evaluations of credibility of the source of a message. Psychological
Reports, 49(3), 778-778. DOI: 10.2466/pr0.1981.49.3.778
Kahan, B. C., Rehal, S., & Cro, S. (2015). Risk of selection bias in randomised
trials. Trials, 16, 405. http://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-015-0920-x
Kahan, D. M., Peters, E., Dawson, E., & Slovic, P. (2013). Motivated Numeracy and
Enlightened Self-Government. Behavioural Public Policy, 1, 54-86.
Kahan, D. M., Peters, E., Wittlin, M., Slovic, P., Ouellette, L. L., Braman, D., & Mandel, G.
(2012). The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate
change risks. Nature Climate Change, 2, 732-735. doi:10.1038/nclimate1547
Kamen, J. M., Azhari, A. C., & Kragh, J. R. (1975). What a spokesman does for a sponser.
Journal of Advertising Research, 15, 17-24.
Kamins, M. A. & Gupta, K. (1994). Congruence between Spokesperson and Product Type: A
Matchup Hypothesis Perspective. Psychology and Marketing, 11(6), 569-586.
Page | 164
Kanter, D. L., & Mirvis, P. H. (1989). The Cynical Americans. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey‐Bass.
Kanter, D.L. & Wortzel, L. (1985). Cynicism and alienation as marketing considerations:
some new ways to approach female consumers. Journal of Consumer Marketing,
2, 5‐15.
Karan, K. (2008). Impact of Health Communication Campaigns on Health Behaviors in
Singapore. Social Marketing Quarterly, 14(3), 85–108.
Kaufmann, D. Q., Stasson, M. F., & Hart, J. W. (1999). Are the tabloids always wrong or is
that just what we think? Need for cognition and perceptions of articles in print media.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 29, 1984-1977.
Kelman, H. C. (1972). Processes of Opinion Change. In W. L. Schramm and D. F. Roberts
(Eds), The process and effects of mass communication (pp.399-425). Chicago:
University of Illinois Press
Kelman, H. C., & Hovland, C. I. (1953). "Reinstatement" of the communicator in delayed
measurement of opinion change. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,
48(3), 327-335. DOI: 10.1037/h0061861
Kerr, G., Johnston, K. & Beatson, A. (2008). A framework of Corporate Social
Responsibility for advertising accountability: The case of Australian government
advertising campaign, Journal of Marketing Communications, 14(2), 155-
169. DOI: 10.1080/13527260701858539
Kerr, G., Schultz, D. E., Kitchen, P. J., Mulhern, F. J., & Beede, P. (2015). Does traditional
advertising theory apply to the digital world? A replication analysis questions the
relevance of the elaboration likelihood model. Journal of Advertising Research, 55(4),
390-400. DOI: 10.2501/JAR-2015-001
Page | 165
Kiousis, S. (2001). Public Trust or Mistrust? Perceptions of Media Credibility in the
Information Age. Mass Communication and Society, 4(4): 381-
403. DOI: 10.1207/S15327825MCS0404_4
Kitchen, P. J., Kerr, G., Schultz, D. E., McColl, R., & Pals, H. (2014). The elaboration
likelihood model: review, critique and research agenda. European Journal of
Marketing, 48(11/12), 2033-2050. DOI: 10.1108/EJM-12-2011-0776
Koslow, S. (2000). Can the Truth Hurt? How Honest and Persuasive Advertising Can
Unintentionally Lead to Increased Consumer Skepticism. Journal of Consumer
Affairs, 34(2), 245-268.
Koslow, S., & Beltramini, R. F. (2002). Consumer skepticism and the “waiting room of
the mind”: are consumers more likely to believe advertising claims if they are merely
comprehended? Advances in Consumer Research. 29, 473-479.
Kotler, P. & Armstrong, G. (1996). Principles of Marketing. Prentice Hall International.
Kotler, P., Roberto, N., & Lee, N. (2002). Social marketing: Improving the quality of life
(2nd ed.). USA: Sage Publications.
Kubacki, K., Rundle-Thiele, S. R., Pang, B., & Buyucek, N. (2015). Minimizing alcohol
harm: A systematic social marketing review (2000–2014). Journal of Business
Research, 68(10), 2214-2222. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.03.023.
LaBarbera, P. A. (1982). Overcoming a No-Reputation Liability Through Documentation and
Advertising Regulation. Journal of Marketing Research, 19(May), 223-228.
Lafferty, B. A., & Goldsmith, R. E. (1999). Corporate Credibility’s Role in Consumers’
Attitudes and Purchase Intentions Whena High versus a Low Credibility Endorser Is
Used in the Ad. Journal of Business Research, 44(2), 109-116.
Lalor, K. M., & Hailey, B. J. (1989). The effects of message framing and feelings of
susceptibility to breast cancer on reported frequency of breast self-examination.
Page | 166
International Quarterly of Community Health Education, 10(3), 183-192. doi:
10.2190/GMFB-WYND-QJYA-8LJC.
Lammers, H. B. (2000). Effects Of Deceptive Packaging And Product Involvement On
Purchase Intention: An Elaboration Likelihood Model Perspective. Psychological
Reports, 86(2), 546-550.
Lance, C.E., Butts, M.M., & Michels, L.W. (2006). The Sources of Four Commonly
Reported Cutoff Criteria: What Did They Really Say? Organisational Research
Methods, 9(2), pp.202-220. doi: 10.1177/1094428105284919
Langer, E., Blank, A., & Chanowitz, B. (1978). The Mindlessness of Ostensibly Thoughtful
Action: The Role of "Placebic" information in Interpersonal Interaction. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 36(6), 635-642.
Langleben, D. D., Loughead, J. W., Ruparel, K., Hakun, J. G., Busch-Winokur, S., Holloway,
M. B., Strasser, A. A., Cappella, J. N., & Lerman, C. (2009). Reduced Prefrontal and
Temporal Processing and Recall of High ‘Sensation Value’ Ads. Neuroimage, 46(1),
219–25.
Lavidge, R. J., & Steiner, G. A. (1961). A model for predictive measurements of advertising
effectiveness. Journal of Marketing. 25(October), 59–62.
Lee, N. R., & Kotler, P. (2011). Social Marketing: Influencing Behaviors for Good.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications
Lee, R. S. H. (1978). Credibility of Newspaper and TV News. Journalism and Mass
Communication Quarterly, 55(2), 282-287. DOI: 10.1177/107769907805500209
Lefever, S., Dal, M. & Matthíasdóttir, Á. (2007). Online data collection in academic research:
advantages and limitations. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(4), 574–
582. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2006.00638.x
Page | 167
Leonidou, C. N., & Skarmeas, D. (2017). Gray Shades of Green: Causes and Consequences
of Green Skepticism. Journal of Business Ethics, 144(2), 401-415. DOI
10.1007/s10551-015-2829-4
Levine, B. A., Moss, K. C., Ramsey, P. H., & Fleishman, R. A. (1978). Patient compliance
with advice as a function of communicator expertise. Journal of Social Psychology,
104(2), 309-310.
Lichtenstein, D. R., & Bearden, W. O. (1989). Contextual Influences on Perceptions of
Merchant-Supplied Reference Prices. Journal of Consumer Research, 16(June), 55-
66.
Lipman Hearne. (2008, July). The State of Nonprofit Marketing: A Report on
Priorities, Spending, Measurement, and the Challenges Ahead. Chicago and
Washington, DC: Lipman Hearne, and American Marketing Association. Retrieved
from http://www.lipmanhearne.com
Lord, K. R. (1994). Motivating recycling behavior: A quasiexperimental investigation of
message and source strategies. Psychology and Marketing, 11(4), 341–358.
Lord, K. R., Lee, M. S. & Sauer, P. L. (1995). The combined influence hypothesis: central and
peripheral antecedents of attitude toward the ad. Journal of Advertising, 24(1), 73-85.
Lutz, R. J. (1985). Affective and cognitive antecedents of attitude toward the ad: a conceptual
framework. In L. F. Alwitt, & A. A. Mitchell (Eds), Psychological Processes and
Advertising Effects: Theory, Research and Application (pp.45-63). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum Associates.
Lynn, J., Wyatt, R., Gaines, J., Pearce, R., & Vanden Bergh, B. (1978). How source affects
responses to public service announcements. Journalism Quarterly, 55, 716-720.
Page | 168
MacKenzie, S. B., Lutz, R. J., & Belch, G. E. (1986). The Role of Attitude toward the Ad as
a Mediator of Advertising Effectiveness: A Test of Competing Explanations. Journal
of Marketing Research, 23(2), 130-143.
Mackenzie, S.B., & Lutz, R. J. (1989). An Empirical Examination of Attitude Toward the Ad
in an Advertising Pretest Context. Journal of Marketing, 53(2), 48-65.
Maddux, J. E., & Rogers, R. W. (1980). Effects of source expertness, physical attractiveness,
and supporting arguments on persuasion: A case of brains over beauty. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 39(2), 235-245.
Maheswaran, D., & Meyers-Levy, J. (1990). The influence of message framing and issue
involvement. Journal of Marketing Research, 27(3), 361-367.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3172593
Maio, G. R., & Esses, V. M. (2001). The need for affect: Individual differences in the
motivation to approach or avoid emotions. Journal of Personality, 69(4), 583–615.
DOI: 10.1111/1467-6494.694156
Mangleburg, T. F., & Bristol, T. (1998). Socialisation and Adolescents’ Skepticism toward
Advertising. Journal of Advertising, 27(3), 11-21.
Manyiwa, S., & Brennan, R. (2012). Fear appeals in anti-smoking advertising: How
important is self-efficacy? Journal of Marketing Management, 28(11-12), 1419-1437.
Martin, B., Lee, C., & Yang, F. (2004). The influence of ad model ethnicity and self-
referencing on attitudes: evidence from New Zealand. Journal of Advertising, 33(4),
27-37. DOI: 10.1080/00913367.2004.10639172
Massar, K., & Buunk, A. P. (2013). Gender Differences in Adolescent Advertising Response:
The Role of Involvement and Message Claim. Psychology, 4(7), 547-552. doi:
10.4236/psych.2013.47078.
Page | 169
Matsunaga, M. (2010). How to Factor-Analyse Your Data Right: Do’s, Don’ts, and How-
To’s. International Journal of Psychological Research, 3(1), 97-110.
McCain, T. A., Chilberg, J., & Wakshlag, J. (1977). The Effect of Camera Angle on Source
Credibility and Attraction. Journal of Broadcasting, 21(1), 35-46.
McCroskey, J. C. (1966). Scales for the measurement of ethos. Speech Monographs, 33, 65–
72
McCroskey, J. C., & Jenson,T. A. (1975). Image of Mass Media News Sources. Journal of
Broadcasting, 19(2), 169-180. DOI: 10.1080/08838157509363777
McCroskey, J. C., Holdridge, W., & Toomb, J. K. (1974). An instrument for measuring the
source credibility of basic speech communication instructors. The Speech
Teacher, 23(1), 26-33. DOI: 10.1080/03634527409378053
McCulloch, K. C., Albarracín, D., & Durantini, M. R. (2008). A Door to HIV‐Prevention
Interventions: How Female‐Targeted Materials Can Enhance Female Participation.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology 38(5), 1211-1229.
McGuire, W. J. (1969). Suspiciousness of experimenter’s intent. In R. Rosenthal and R. L.
Rosnow (Eds.), Artifact in behavioural research (pp. 13-57). New York: Academic
Press
McKay-Nesbitt, J., Manchanda, R. V., Smith, M. C., & Huhmann, B. A. (2011). Effects of
age, need for cognition, and affective intensity on advertising effectiveness. Journal
of Business Research, 64(1), 12-17.
McKenzie-Mohr, D. (2000). Promoting sustainable behavior: an introduction to community-
based social marketing. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 543-554. doi:10.1111/0022-
4537.00183
McNeill, B. W., & Stoltenberg, C. D. (2004). Reconceptualising Social Influence in
Counselling: The Elaboration Likelihood Model. In R. M. Kowalski & M. R. Leary
Page | 170
(Eds)., The Interface of Social and Clinical Psychology: Key Readings (pp. 324-337).
Hove, East Sussex: Psychology Press.
Medibank. (2008, October). The Cost of Physical Inactivity. Retrieved from
http://www.medibank.com.au/
Mehta, A. (2000). Advertising Attitudes and Advertising Effectiveness. Journal of
Advertising Research, 40(3), 67-72. DOI: 10.2501/JAR-40-3-67-72
Menon, S., & Kahn, B. E. (2003). Corporate Sponsorships of Philanthropic Activities: When
Do They Impact Perception of Sponsor Brand? Journal of Consumer Psychology,
13(3), 316-327.
Metzger, M. J. & Flanagin, A. J. (2003). Credibility and trust of information in online
environments: The use of cognitive heuristics. Journal of Pragmatics, 59, 210-220.
Metzger, M. J., Flanagin, A. J., Eyal, K., Lemus, D. R., & McCann, R. (2003). Credibility in
the 21st century: integrating perspectives on source, message and media credibility in
the contemporary media environment. In P. Kalbfleisch (Ed.), Communication
Yearbook, (pp. 293-335). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Mills, J. (1966). Opinion change as a function of the communicator’s desire to influence and
liking for the audience. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2(2), 152-159.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(66)90076-X
Mills, J., & Harvey, J. (1972). Opinion change as a function of when information about the
communicator is received and whether he is attractive or expert. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 21, 52-55.
Millward Brown. (2017). Top 20 Risers: Top Global Brands. Retrieved 1 March 2018 from
http://www.millwardbrown.com/brandz/top-global-brands/2017/top-20-risers
Mitchell, A. A., & Olson, J. C. (1981). Are produce attribute beliefs the only mediator of
advertising effects on brand attitude? Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 318-332.
Page | 171
Mohr, L. A., Eroglu, D., & Ellen, P. S. (1998). The Development and Testing of a Measure of
Skepticism Toward Environmental Claims in Marketers’ Communications. Journal of
Consumer Affairs, 32(1), 30-55.
Monash Health Foundation. (2017). About Us. Retrieved from
http://www.monashhealthfoundation.com.au/
Montaño, D. E., & Taplin, S. H. (1991). A test of an expanded theory of reasoned action to
predict mammography participation. Social Science & Medicine, 32(6), 733–741.
Montgomery, A. A., Peters, T. J., & Little. P. (2003). Design, analysis and presentation of
factorial randomised controlled trials. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 3(1), 26.
Moore, D. L., Hausknecht, D. & Thamodaran, K. (1986). Time Compression, Response
Opportunity and Pesruasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 13(June), 85-99.
Moore, J. J., & Rodgers, S. L. (2005). An Examination of Advertising Credibility and
Skepticism in Five Different Media Using the Persuasion Knowledge Model.
Proceedings of the 2005 conference of the American Academy of Advertising.
American Academy of Advertising. Conference. (pp. 10). Houston, TX: American
Academy of Advertising
Moorman, M., Willemsen, L. M., Neijens, P. C., & Smit, E. G. (2012). Program-Involvement
Effects On Commercial Attention and Recall Of Successive and Embedded
Advertising. Journal of Advertising, 41(2), 25-37.
Morrison, D. F. (2004). Multivariate Statistical Methods (4th Ed). Duxbury.
Morse, J. M., Barrett, M., Mayan, M., Olson, K., & Spiers, J. (2008). Verification strategies
for establishing reliability and validity in qualitative research. International Journal of
Qualitative Methods, 1(2), 13-22.
Morwitz, V. G., Johnson, E., & Schmittlein, D. (1993). Does Measuring Intent Change
Behaviour. Journal of Consumer Research, 20, 46-61.
Page | 172
Mowen, J. C. & Brown, S. W. (1981). On Explaining and Predicting the Effectiveness of
Celebrity Endorsers. Advances in Consumer Research, 8(1), 437-441.
Muehling, D. D. (1987). Comparative Advertising: The influence of attitude-toward-the-ad
on brand evaluation. Journal of Advertising, 16(4), 43-49. DOI:
10.1080/00913367.1987.10673094
Nelson, M. R. (2015). Developing Persuasion Knowledge by Teaching Advertising Literacy
in Primary School. Journal of Advertising, 45(2), 169-
182. DOI: 10.1080/00913367.2015.1107871
Nelson, M. R., Brunel, F. F., Supphellen, M., & Manchanda, R. J. (2006). Effects of culture,
gender, and moral obligations on responses to charity advertising across masculine
and feminine cultures. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16(1), 45–56. DOI:
10.1207/s15327663jcp1601_7
Newell, S. J. (1993). Developing a Measurement Scale and a Theoretical Model Defining
Corporate Credibility and Determining Its Role as an Antecedent of Consumers'
Attitude toward the Advertisement. Dissertation, The Florida State University.
Newell, S. J., & Goldsmith, R. E. (2001). The development of a scale to measure perceived
corporate credibility. Journal of Business Research, 52(3), 235-247.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(99)00104-6
Nike. (2012, July 25). Nike Launches “Find Your Greatness” Campaign. Retrieved from
https://news.nike.com
Noble, G., Pomering, A., & Johnson, L. W. (2014). Gender and message appeal: their
influence in a pro-environmental social advertising context. Journal of Social
Marketing, 4(1), 4-21.
Obermiller, C., & Spangenberg, E. R. (1998). Development of a Scale to Measure Consumer
Skepticism Toward Advertising. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 7(2), 159-186.
Page | 173
Obermiller, C., & Spangenberg, E. R. (2000). On the Origin and Distinctness of Skepticism
toward Advertising. Marketing Letters, 11(4), 311-322.
Obermiller, C., Spangenberg, E. R., & MacLachlan, D. L. (2005). Ad Skepticism: The
Consequences of Disbelief. Journal of Advertising, 34(3), 7-17. DOI:
10.1080/00913367.2005.10639199
Odou, P. & de Pechpeyrou, P. (2011). Consumer cynicism: from resistance to anti-
consumption in a disenchanted world? European Journal of Marketing, 45(11/12),
1799-1808. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090561111167432
Ohanian, R. (1990). Construction and validation of a scale to measure celebrity endorsers’
perceived expertise, trustworthiness, and attractiveness. Journal of Advertising, 19(3),
39–52.
Ohanian, R. (1991). The impact of celebrity spokespersons’ perceived image on consumers’
intention to purchase. Journal of Advertising Research, 31(1), 46–54.
O'Keefe, D. J. (1990). Persuasion: Theory and research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Olney, T. J., Holbrook, M. B., & 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. DOI: 10.1086/208569
Oppenheimer, D., Meyvis, T., & Davidenko, N. (2009). Instructional manipulation checks:
Detecting satisficing to increase statistical power. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 45(4), 867-872. DOI: 10.1016/j.jesp.2009.03.009
Orr, G. (2006). Government advertising: Informational or self‐promotional? Democratic
Audit of Australia, Political Finance & Government Advertising Workshop, pp.14-16.
Ottman, J. A, Stafford, E. R., & Hartman, C. L. (2010) Avoiding Green Marketing Myopia:
Ways to Improve Consumer Appeal for Environmentally Preferable Products.
Page | 174
Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 48(5), 22-
36. DOI: 10.3200/ENVT.48.5.22-36
Pallant, J. (2007). SPSS Survival Manual. Open University Press. McGraw Hill; Maidenhead,
UK
Papa, L. A., Litson, K., Lockhart, G., Chassin, L., & Geiser, C. (2015). Analysing Statistical
Mediation with Multiple Informants: A New Approach with an Application in
Clinical Psychology. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, article 1674.
http://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01674
Parkinson, J. (2016). Commercial Programs: Improving Eating and Exercising Behaviour to
Reduce Weight Through Increased Self-Efficacy. In L. Petruzzellis & R. Winer
(Eds.), Rediscovering the Essentiality of Marketing. Developments in Marketing
Science: Proceedings of the Academy of Marketing Science (pp.423-424). Springer,
Cham. DOI https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29877-1_86
Parkinson, J., Schuster, L., & Russell-Bennett, R. (2016). Insights into the complexity of
behaviours: the MOAB framework. Journal of Social Marketing, 6(4), 412-427.
Perloff, R. M. (1993). The dynamics of persuasion. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Petroshius, S. M., & Crocker, K. E. (1989). An Empirical Analysis of Spokesperson
Characteristics on Advertisement and Product Evaluations. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 17(Summer), 217-225.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1979a). Effects of forewarning of persuasive intent and
involvement on cognitive response and persuasion. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 5, 173-176.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1979b). Issue involvement can increase or decrease
persuasion by enhancing message-relevant cognitive processes. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1915-1926.
Page | 175
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion.
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 123-162.
Petty, R. E., Barden, J., & Wheeler, S. C. (2009). The elaboration likelihood model of
persuasion: Developing health promotions to produce sustained behavior change. In
R. J. DiClemente, R. A. Crosby, & M. C. Kegler (Eds.), Emerging theories in health
promotion practice and research (Chpt 7). San Francisco, USA: Jossey-Bass
Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Goldman, R. (1981). Personal Involvement as a Determinant
of Argument Persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 847-855.
Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Schumann, D. (1983). Central and peripheral routes to
advertising effectiveness: The moderating role of involvement. Journal of Consumer
Research, 10(2), 135-146.
Polonsky, M. J. (2017). The role of corporate social marketing. Journal of Social Marketing,
7(3), 268-279.
Pomering, A., & Johnson, L. W. (2009). Advertising corporate social responsibility initiatives
to communicate corporate image: Inhibiting scepticism to enhance persuasion.
Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 14(4), 420-439.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13563280910998763
Pornpitakpan, C. (2004). The Persuasiveness of Source Credibility: A Critical Review of Five
Decades’ Evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(2), 243-281.
Pozharliev, R., Verbeke, W. J.M.I., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2017). Social Consumer Neuroscience:
Neurophysiological Measures of Advertising Effectiveness in a Social
Context. Journal of Advertising, 46(3), 351-362.
DOI: 10.1080/00913367.2017.1343162
Pozharliev, R., Verbeke, W.J.M.I., Van Strien, J. W., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2015). Merely Being
with You Increases My Attention to Luxury Products: Using EEG to Understand
Page | 176
Consumers’ Emotional Experience of Luxury Branded Products. Journal of
Marketing Research, 52 (4), 546–58.
Prager, K. (2012). Understanding Behaviour Change: How to apply theories of behaviour
change to SEWeb and related public engagement activities. Report for SEWeb
LIFE10 (ENV-UK-000182). Retrieved from
https://www.environment.gov.scot/media/1408/understanding-behaviour-change.pdf
(Accessed May 2018)
Prendergast, G., Liu, P. & Poon, D. T. Y. (2009). A Hong Kong study of advertising
credibility. Journal of Consumer Marketing 26(5), 320-329.
Previte, J., & Brennan, L. (2017). Guest Editorial. Journal of Social Marketing, 7(3), 234-240.
Pring, R. (2010). Philosophy of Educational Research. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
Puhl, R., Luedicke, J. & Peterson, J. L. (2013). Public Reactions to Obesity-Related Health
Campaigns. American Journal of Preventative Medicine, 45(1): 36-48.
Puntoni, S., & Tavassoli, N. (2007). Social Context and Advertising Memory. Journal of
Marketing Research, 44(2), 284-296.
Puto, C.P. (1987). The framing of buying decisions. Journal of Consumer Research, 14,
(December). 301-15.
PwC Australia. (2015). Weighing the cost of obesity: a case for action. Australia: PwC
Australia
Raman, N. V., & Haley, E. (1997). Measuring Organizational Source Credibility: A Scale
Development Study. In M. C. Macklin, (Ed.) Proceedings of the 1997 Conference of
the American Academy of Advertising, American Academy of Advertising: Cincinatti,
OH, p.150-155.
Remenyi, D., Williams, B., Money, A., & Swartz, E. (1998). Doing Research in Business and
Management: An Introduction to Process and Method. London: Sage.
Page | 177
Roberts, D. F., & Leifer, A. D. (1975). Action Speak Louder Than Words - Sometimes.
Human Communication Research, 1, 257-64.
Rosenthal, P. I. (1971). Specificity, verifiability, and message credibility. Quarterly Journal
of Speech, 57(4), 393-401. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00335637109383084
Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow. R. L. (1991). Essentials of behavioral research: Methods and data
analysis (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.
Rothman, A. J., Bartels, R. D.., Wlaschin, J. & Salovey, P. (2006). The Strategic Use of
Gain‐ and Loss‐Framed Messages to Promote Healthy Behavior: How Theory Can
Inform Practice. Journal of Communication, 56(s1), s202-s220.
doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00290.x
Rothschild, M. L. (1999). Carrots, sticks and promises: a conceptual framework for the
management of public health and social issue behaviors. Journal of Marketing, 63(4),
24-37.
Rothwell, P. M. (2005). External validity of randomised controlled trials: 'to whom do the
results of this trial apply?' Lancet, 365, 82–93.
Rozendaal, E., Lapierre, M. A., van Reijmersdal, E. A. & Buijzen, M. (2011). Reconsidering
Advertising Literacy as a Defense Against Advertising Effects. Media
Psychology, 14(4), 333-354. DOI: 10.1080/15213269.2011.620540
Rubin, A. M. (1994). Source credibility scale. In R. B. Rubin, P. Palmgreen, & H. E. Sypher
(Eds.),Communication research measures: A sourcebook (pp. 327–331). New York:
Guilford Press.
Salkind, N. J. (2010). Encyclopedia of research design. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications Ltd. doi: 10.4135/9781412961288
Page | 178
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2009). Understanding Research Philosophies and
Approaches. In M. Saunders, P. Lewis & A. Thornhill (Eds), Research Methods for
Business Students (5th Ed) (pp.106-135). Essex, England: Pearson Education Limited.
Saunders, S. G., Barrington, D. J., & Sridharan, S. (2015). Redefining social marketing:
beyond behavioural change. Journal of Social Marketing, 5(2): 160-168.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JSOCM-03-2014-0021
Saunders, T. J., Chaput, J. P., & Tremplay, M. S. (2014). Sedentary behaviour as an emerging
risk factor for cardiometabolic disease in children and youth. Canadian Journal of
Diabetes, 38(1), 53-61. doi: 10.1016/j.jcjd.2013.08.266.
Schmitt, N. (1996). Uses and Abuses of Coefficient Alpha. Psychological Assessment, 8(4),
pp.350-353. doi: 1040-3590/96/$300
Scull, T. M., & Kupersmidt, B.J. (2011). An Evaluation of a Media Literacy Program
Training Workshop for Late Elementary School Teachers. Journal of Media Literacy
Education, 2(3), 199–208.
Setia, M. S. (2016). Methodology Series Module 3: Cross-Sectional Studies. Indian Journal
of Dermatology, 61(3), 261-264. DOI: 10.4103/0019-5154.182410
Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and Quasi-
experimental Designs for Generalised Causal Inference. Houghton Mifflin.
Short, M. E., Goetzel, R. Z., Pei, X., Tabrizi, M. J., Ozminkowski, R, J., Gibson, T. B.,
DeJoy, D.M., & Wilson, M. G. (2009). How Accurate are Self-Reports? An Analysis
of Self-Reported Healthcare Utilization and Absence When Compared to
Administrative Data. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 51(7),
786-96. doi: 10.1097/JOM.0b013e3181a86671.
Page | 179
Sinclair, L., & Kunda, Z. (1999). Reactions to a black professional: motivated inhibition and
activation of conflicting stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
77, 885-904.
Singh, S., Kristensen, L., & Villaseñor, E. (2009). Overcoming skepticism towards cause
related claims: the case of Norway. International Marketing Review, 26(3), 312-326.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02651330910960807
Singletary, M. W. (1976). Components of Credibility of a Favourable News Source.
Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 53(2), 316-319. DOI:
10.1177/107769907605300219
Skarmeas, D., & Leonidou, C. N. (2013). When consumers doubt, Watch Out! The role of
CSR scepticism. Journal of Business Research, 66(10), 1831-1838. DOI:
10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.02.004
Smith, K., Jones, S. C., & Algie, J. (2007). Measuring Source Credibility with Generation Y:
An Application to Messages about Smoking and Alcohol Consumption. In G.
Sullivan Mort & M. Hume (Eds.), Proceedings of the Social entrepreneurship, Social
Change and Sustainability: International Nonprofit and Social Marketing Conference
2007, September 27-28 (pp. 77-82). Brisbane, Australia: Griffith Business.
Smith, S. M. & Petty, R. E. (1996). Message framing and persuasion: a message process
analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(3), 257-68.
Spector, P. E. (1994). Using self-report questionnaires in OB research: A comment on
the use of a controversial method. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 385–92.
Spencer, S. J., Fein, S., Wolfe, C. T., Fong, C. & Dunn, M. A. (1998). Automatic activation
of stereotypes: the role of self-image threat. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 24, 1139-52.
Page | 180
Spotts, H. E., Purvis, S. C., & Patanaik, S. (2014). How Digital Conversations Reinforce
Super Bowl Advertising: The Power of Earned Media Drives Television
Engagement. Journal of Advertising Research, 54(4), 454–468.
Stamm, K., & Dube, R. (1994). The relationship of attitudinal components to trust in
media. Communication Research, 21(1), 105–123. DOI:
10.1177/009365094021001006
Stanley, D. J., Meyer, J. P., & Topolnytsky, L. (2005). Employee Cynicism and Resistance to
Organisational Change. Journal of Business and Psychology, 19(4), 429-459.
Stead, M., Gordon, R., Angus, K., & McDermott, L. (2007). A systematic review of social
marketing effectiveness. Health education, 107(2), 126-191.
Steen, D. M., Peay, M. Y., & Owen, N. (2007) Predicting Australian adolescents' intentions
to minimize sun exposure, Psychology & Health, 13(1), 111-
119. DOI: 10.1080/08870449808406135
Sternthal, B., Dholakia, R. R., & Leavitt, C. (1978). The persuasive effect of source
credibility: Tests of cognitive response. Journal of Consumer Research, 4, 252-260.
Steward, W. T., Schneider, T. R., Pizarro, J., & Salovey, P. (2003). Need for cognition
moderates responses to framed smoking-cessation messages. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 33(12), 2439–2464.
Stewart, J., & Ranson, S. (1988). Management in the Public Domain. Public Money and
Management, 8(1/2), 13-19.
Stuart, E., Shimp, T., & Engle, R. (1987). Classical Conditioning of Consumer Attitudes:
Four Experiments in an Advertising Context. Journal of Consumer Research, 14(3),
334-349.
Suzuki, K. (1978, July). Acceptance and rejection of a suggestion. Japanese Psychological
Research, 20(2),60-70.
Page | 181
Syme, G. J., Nancarrow, B. E., & Seligman, C. (2000). The Evaluation of Information
Campaigns to Promote Voluntary Household Water Conservation. Evaluation Review,
24(6), 539-578.
Szczepanski, C. M. (2006). General and special interest magazine advertising and the
elaboration likelihood model: a comparative content analysis and investigation of the
effects of differential route processing execution strategies. (Doctoral dissertation).
Retrieved from https://ubir.buffalo.edu/xmlui/
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using Multivariate Statistics (5th ed.). New York
Allyn and Bacon.
Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (2013) Using Multivariate Statistics (6th ed.). Pearson,
Boston.
Talbert, P. V. (2008). Using social marketing to increase breast cancer screening among
African American women: perspectives from African American breast cancer
survivors. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 13,
347–362
Tan, S. J., & Tan, K. L. (2007) Antecedents and Consequences of Skepticism toward Health
Claims: An Empirical Investigation of Singaporean Consumers. Journal of Marketing
Communications, 13(1), 59-82. DOI: 10.1080/13527260600963711
Tangari, A. H., Burton, S., Andrews, J. C., & Netemeyer, R. G. (2007). How do anti-tobacco
campaign advertising and smoking status affect beliefs and intentions? Some
similarities and differences between adults and adolescents. Journal of Public Policy
and Marketing, 26(1), 60–74.
Tapp, A., Brophy, R., Carausan, M., Carruthers, J., Peattie, S., Revill, S., Chamberlain, M.,
Lee, N., Sherif, S., Beall, T., Morgan, M., Lellig, C., Suggs, S., & French, J. (2013).
Page | 182
Consensus definition of social marketing. Retrieved from www.i-
socialmarketing.org/assets/social_marketing_definition.pdf (accessed May 2018).
Thakor, M. V., & Goneau-Lessard, K. (2009). Development of a scale to measure scepticism
of social advertising among adolescents. Journal of Business Research, 62(12), 1342-
1349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.10.023
Tobler, N. S. & Stratton, H. H. (1997). Effectiveness of School-based drug prevention
programs A meta-analysis of the research. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 18, 71-
128. DOI: 10.1023/A1024630205999.
Tuppen, C. J. S. (1974). Dimensions of Communicator Credibility: An Oblique Solution.
Speech Monographs, 41(3), 253-260.
Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1981). The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of
Choice. Science, 211(4481), 453-458.
Tybout, A. M. (1978). Relative effectiveness of three behavioral influence strategies as
supplements to persuasion in a marketing context. Journal of Marketing Research,
15(2), 229-242.
Vanden Bergh, B. G., Soley, L. C., & Reid, L. N. (1981). Factor study of dimensions of
advertiser credibility. Journalism Quarterly, 58(4), 629–632.
Vanhamme, J., & Grobben, B. (2009). ‘‘Too Good to be True!’’.The Effectiveness of CSR
History in Countering Negative Publicity. Journal of Business Ethics, 85, 273-283.
DOI 10.1007/s10551-008-9731-2
Varadarajan, P. R., & Thirunarayana, P. N. (1990). Consumers’ Attitudes towards Marketing
Practices, Consumerism and Government Regulations: Cross-National Perspectives.
European Journal of Marketing, 24(6), 6-23.
Waites, S. F., & Ponder, N. (2016). May I Have Your Attention Please? The Effectiveness of
Attention Checks in Validity Assessment. In: K. K. Kim (ed), Celebrating
Page | 183
America’s Pastimes: Baseball, Hot Dogs, Apple Pie and Marketing? (pp: 475-
476). Developments in Marketing Science: Proceedings of the Academy of
Marketing Science. Springer, Cham. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-26647-3_97
Walster, E., Aronson, V., Abrahams, D., & Rottman, L. (1966). Importance of Physical
Attractiveness in Dating Behaviour. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
4(5), 508-516. Doi: 10.1037/h0021188.
Warren, T. Y. Barry, V., Hooker, S. T., Sui, X., Church, T. S., & Blair, S. N. (2010).
Sedentary Behaviours Increase Risk of Cardiovascular Disease Mortality in Men.
Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 42(5), 879-885.
doi: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e3181c3aa7e
Wasserman, T., & Kassinove, H. (1976). Effects of type of recommendation, attire, and
perceived expertise on parental compliance. Journal of Social Psychology, 99, 43-50.
Webb, D. J., & Mohr, L. A. (1998). A Typology of Consumer Responses to Cause-Related
Marketing: From Skeptics to Socially Concerned. Journal of Public Policy &
Marketing, 17(2), 226-238.
White, A. R. (1990). Perception of Radio Newscaster Credibility as a Function of
Involvement in Commercial Messages. Dissertation, The University of Tennessee.
Whitehead, J. L. (1968). Factors of source credibility. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 54(1),
59–63. DOI: 10.1080/00335636809382870
Widgery, R. N., & Webster, B. (1969). The effects of physical attractiveness upon perceived
initial credibility. Michigan Speech Association Journal, 4, 9–15.
Woodside, A. G., & Davenport, J. W. (1974). The effect of salesman similarity and expertise
on consumer purchasing behavior. Journal of Marketing Research, 11(2), 198-202.
Woodside, A. G., & Davenport, J. W. (1976, January). Effects of price and sales- man
expertise on customer purchasing behavior. Journal of Business, 49(1), 51-59.
Page | 184
World Health Organisation. (2005, September 12). The challenge of obesity in the WHO
European Region: Fact Sheet, EURO/13/05. Retrieved from http://www.euro.who.int
World Health Organisation. (2008). Global Health Observatory (GHO) data. Obesity:
Situation and trends. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/gho/ncd/
Worthington, A. K., NussBaum, J. F., & Parrott, R. L. (2015). Organizational Credibility:
The Role of Issue Involvement, Value-Relevant Involvement, Elaboration, Author
Credibility, Message Quality, and Message Effectiveness in Persuasive Messages
from Public Health Advocacy Organizations. Communication Research
Reports, 32(3), 199-207. DOI: 10.1080/08824096.2015.1016153
Worthington, R. L., & Atkinson, D. R. (1996). Effects of perceived etiology attribution
similarity on client ratings of counselor credibility. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 43(4), 423–429. DOI: 10.1037/0022-0167.43.4.423
Wymer, W. (2011). Developing more effective social marketing strategies. Journal of Social
Marketing, 1(1), 17-31.
Yoon, K., Kim, C. H., & Kim, M. S. (1998). A cross-cultural comparison of the effects of
source credibility on attitudes and behavioral intentions. Mass Communication and
Society, 1(3-4), 153-173.
Zahn, I. (2010). Working with unbalanced cell sizes in multiple regression with categorical
predictors. Retrieved from
http://sites.psu.edu/stat461psbsp2013/files/2013/03/InteractionsAndTypesOfSS.pdf
Zhang, Y. & Buda, R. (1999). The moderating effects of need for cognition responses to
positively versus negatively framed advertising messages. Journal of Advertising,
28(2), 1-15.
Zikmund, W. G. (2003). Business Research Methods (7th Ed). Cincinnati, OH: Thomson/
South-Western
Page | 185
Page | 186
Appendices
APPENDIX A: Survey Instrument
Thank you for agreeing to participate in this research.
To complete this questionnaire, you will be asked to look at an advertisement and respond to several questions. There are no right or wrong answers.
The questions will require you to select one response that best corresponds with your opinion.
Please be as accurate and honest as you can be.
Your responses are completely anonymous.
Page | 187
Questions about You For each of the questions that follow, please choose or indicate the most appropriate response. 1. Please select your gender ❑ Male ❑ Female ❑ Other 2. What is your age in years? __________________ years
Page | 188
Questions about Advertising Please look at the advertisement carefully, then answer the questions that follow.
Please select the institution responsible for releasing this advertisement:
❑ Government ❑ Commercial ❑ Not-for-profit
Page | 189
Thinking about the advertisement you just saw, circle the response that best represents your opinion:
Stro
ngl
y d
isag
ree
Neu
tral
Stro
ngl
y ag
ree
1. The Australian Government has a
great amount of experience.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. The Australian Government is skilled
in what they do.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. The Australian Government has
great expertise.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. The Australian Government does not
have much experience.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5. I trust the Australian Government.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
6. The Australian Government makes
truthful claims.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
7. The Australian Government is
honest.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8. I do not believe what the Australian
Government tells me.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Page | 190
Thinking about the advertisement you just saw, circle the response that best represents your opinion:
Hig
hly
Un
likel
y
Ne
utr
al
Hig
hly
Lik
ely
1. I am determined to exercise at least
three times a week during the next
month.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. I intend to exercise at least three
times a week during the next month.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. I plan to exercise at least three times
a week during the next month.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Thinking about the advertisement you just saw, please circle the response that best represents your opinion. In your opinion, do you believe the advertisement is: 1. Unbelievable Neutral Believable
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. Untrustworthy trustworthy
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. not convincing convincing
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. not credible credible
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5. unreasonable reasonable
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
6. dishonest honest
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Page | 191
7. questionable unquestionable
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8. inconclusive conclusive
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
9. not authentic authentic
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
10. unlikely likely
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Page | 192
Questions about Your Perceptions
Please circle the response that best represents your opinion:
Stro
ngl
y D
isag
ree
Neu
tral
Stro
ngl
y A
gree
1. We can depend on getting the truth
in most advertising.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. Advertising’s aim is to inform the
consumer.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. I believe advertising is informative. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. Advertising is generally truthful. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5. Advertising is a reliable source of
information about the quality and
performance of products.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
6. Advertising is truth well told. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
7. In general, advertising presents a
true picture of the product being
advertised.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8. I feel like I’ve been accurately
informed after viewing most
advertisements.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
9. Most advertising provides
consumers with essential
information.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
10. I think about the things I see in
advertising messages before I accept
them as believable.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
11. I look for more information before I
believe something I see in
advertising messages.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
12. It is important to think twice about
what advertising messages say.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Page | 193
Please circle the response that best represents your opinion:
Str
on
gly
Dis
agre
e
Neu
tral
Str
on
gly
Agr
ee
1. Most companies do not mind
breaking the law; they just see fines
and lawsuits as a cost of doing
business.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. Most businesses are more
interested in making profits than in
serving consumers.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. Companies see consumers as
puppets to manipulate.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. Manufacturers do not care what
happens once I have bought the
product.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5. If I want to get my money’s worth, I
cannot believe what a company tells
me.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
6. Most companies will sacrifice
anything to make a profit.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
7. To make a profit, companies are
willing to do whatever they can get
away with.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8. Most businesses will cut any corner
they can to improve profit margins.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
9. I think about the purpose behind
advertisements I see.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
10. I think about what the creator of
advertisements wants me to believe.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
11. I think about who created the
advertisements I see.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Page | 194
Please circle the response that best represents your opinion: Is thinking fun or boring?
Boring Neutral Fun
1 2 3 4 5
How much do you enjoy or dislike situations in which you have to think hard? Dislike Neutral Enjoy
1 2 3 4 5
Do you enjoy or dislike tasks that challenge your thinking abilities?
Dislike Neutral Enjoy
1 2 3 4 5
Do you prefer tasks that are easy or tasks that are complex?
Easy Neutral Complex
1 2 3 4 5
Is it important or unimportant for you to be in touch with your feelings?
Unimportant Neutral Important
1 2 3 4 5
Is it important or unimportant for you to explore your feelings? Unimportant Neutral Important
1 2 3 4 5
How important or unimportant is it that you know how others are feeling?
Unimportant Neutral Important
1 2 3 4 5
Would you consider yourself an emotional or unemotional person?
Unemotional Neutral Emotional
1 2 3 4 5
Page | 195
Think about someone who is a healthy weight (i.e., has a normal BMI). Rate your attitude towards someone of a healthy weight not engaging in physical activity: Wrong Neutral Right
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Unfavourable Favourable
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Unacceptable Acceptable
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Now think about someone who is overweight or obese (i.e., has above-normal BMI). Rate your attitude towards someone who is overweight not engaging in physical activity: Wrong Neutral Right
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Unfavourable Favourable
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Unacceptable Acceptable
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Page | 196
Please circle the response that best represents your opinion: 1. Being physically active to me is:
Very irrelevant Neutral Very relevant
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. Being physically active to me is:
Very
unimportant
Neutral Very
important
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. Being physically active to me is:
Of low concern Neutral Of high
concern
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Thank you for completing this survey.
Page | 197
APPENDIX B: Experimental Stimuli
Page | 198
Page | 199
Page | 200
Page | 201
Page | 202
Page | 203
APPENDIX C: Australian Government Campaign Advertisement Example.
Source: Australian Government, 2016.