in advertising we trust: religiosity’s inﬂuence on ... · in advertising we trust:...

In Advertising We Trust: Religiosity’s Influence onMarketplace and Relational Trust

Elizabeth A. Minton

QUERY SHEET

This page lists questions we have about your paper. The numbers displayed at left can be found in the text of the paper for reference.

In addition, please review your paper as a whole for correctness.

There are no Editor Queries in this paper.

TABLE OF CONTENTS LISTING

The table of contents for the journal will list your paper exactly as it appears below:

In Advertising We Trust: Religiosity’s Influence on Marketplace and Relational Trust

Elizabeth A. Minton

UJOA #1033572, VOL 0, ISS 0

In Advertising We Trust: Religiosity’s Influence onMarketplace and Relational Trust

Elizabeth A. MintonUniversity of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming, USA

5 Trust is a critical component of marketing for both brands andconsumers. Competing theories suggest that high-religiosityconsumers could be either more or less trusting of marketing. Thus,this article explores religiosity’s influence on broad marketplacetrust that influences more specific relational trust in the context of

10 advertising messages. Study 1 shows that marketplace and relationaltrust positively mediate the relationship between religiosity andproduct evaluations. Studies 2 and 3 test moderators to thisrelationship based on three dimensions of religiosity: affective,behavioral, and cognitive.

15 In 2012, Dr. Pepper introduced an advertisement online with

the headline “Evolution of Flavor.” The ad depicted three stages

of flavor formation beginning with a chimp in the “pre-Pepper”

stage, progressing to a morphed chimp/human in the “Pepper dis-

covery” stage, and then finally ending with a human drinking Dr.

20 Pepper in the “post-Pepper” stage. Following the release of the ad

online, Dr. Pepper’s social media followers voiced compliments

and complaints aimed at the ad’s reference to evolution (Jauregui

2012). In particular, religious believers lambasted the brand for

exclusively promoting evolutionary beliefs. Although spoof ads

25 followed with the headline “Creation of Flavor,” no real ad was

distributed to assess how consumers would respond to a headline

with a religious reference.

Numerous advertisers regularly use belief cues in market-

ing communications. For example, Tyson Foods has prayer

30 booklets available for download on its website, Forever 21

prints religious scripture on product packaging, and Hobby

Lobby includes “In God We Trust” on print advertisements

(Bhasin and Hicken 2012). Research has yet to examine the

influence of such belief cues on religious and nonreligious

35 consumers. Such research would benefit advertisers desiring to

promote consumer-brand connection through shared values or

develop niche target markets yet, at the same time, avoid

offending specific market segments.

Some may still question the pertinence of religion to

40research in advertising from a theoretical perspective. Prior

research has shown that religion can strongly influence core

value development, which then influences consumer behavior

(LaBarbera and Gurhan 1997; Minton and Kahle 2013). Spe-

cifically, religion has been shown to influence trust, likely a

45result of discussion in religious doctrine relating to trust

(Berggren and Bjørnskov 2011; Tan and Vogel 2008). How-

ever, research has yet to examine how religiosity influences

trust specifically in advertising. Given that trust in advertising

cues has been shown to influence product evaluations (Garret-

50son and Niedrich 2004), and religiosity has been shown to

influence trust (Berggren and Bjørnskov 2011; Tan and Vogel

2008), it seems likely that religiosity would influence trust in

advertising and resulting product evaluations.

Thus, this article has three purposes. First, the relationship

55between religiosity and trust in marketing is tested, thereby

contributing to the theoretical understanding of the construct

of trust. Second, competing theories of the relationship

between religiosity and trust are tested using several modera-

tors (e.g., belief cues) to identify situations in which high reli-

60giosity leads to higher trust in marketing and vice versa. Third,

dimensions of religiosity (affective, behavioral, and cognitive

religiosity) are tested to determine their differential influence

on trust in marketing and resulting product evaluations. Impli-

cations are discussed in relation to the trust, cueing, and reli-

65gion literature, with a specific emphasis on strategies for

developing effective marketing communications for religious

and nonreligious consumers alike.

CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT

Trust in Marketing

70Research in marketing trust covers a wide variety of topics,

ranging from trust in relationship marketing (Morgan and

Address correspondence to Elizabeth A. Minton, University ofWyoming, 1000 East University Avenue, Laramie, WY 82071, USA.E-mail: [email protected]

Elizabeth A. Minton (PhD, University of Oregon) is an assistantprofessor of marketing, College of Business, University of Wyoming.

Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can befound online at www.tandfonline.com/ujoa.

1

Journal of Advertising, 0(0), 1–12

Copyright � 2015, American Academy of Advertising

ISSN: 0091-3367 print / 1557-7805 online

DOI: 10.1080/00913367.2015.1033572

Hunt 1994) to broad marketplace trust (Xie and Kronrod 2012)

to brand trust (Hess 1995), all of which are generally shown to

positively influence product evaluations. More specifically,

75 trust in marketing can be either in a transactional partner (e.g.,

a brand, a salesperson) or in the general marketplace (Starr-

Glass 2011). Grayson, Johnson, and Chen (2008) concur that

such distinctions between specific and broad forms of trust in

marketing are important for a thorough understanding of the

80 construct of trust. For discussion henceforth, trust in a transac-

tional partner will be referred to as relational trust, and trust in

the general marketplace will be referred to as marketplace

trust.

Although research has examined what leads to increased

85 trust (Grayson, Johnson, and Chen 2008; Morgan and Hunt

1994), the antecedents to trust still need more exploration,

especially in terms of consumer trait-based measures. Morgan

and Hunt (1994) developed a model of relational trust indi-

cating shared values, communication, and opportunistic

90 behavior as trust antecedents. Ganesan (1994) developed an

expanded model of trust antecedents, incorporating environ-

mental attributes, relationship investments and experience,

reputation, and past satisfaction. In a review of 22 studies on

trust in marketing, Doney, Barry, and Abratt (2007) found

95 that social interaction between the marketer and consumer,

open communication, and an organizational customer focus

were the most prominent antecedents to consumer trust.

What is missing from these authors’ research is an exami-

nation of consumer trait-based influencers to relational and

100 marketplace trust in one study. Prior research has shown a

strong positive correlation between marketplace and relational

trust (Walczuch and Lundgren 2004) yet also confirmed that

these are two distinct constructs (Obermiller and Spangenberg

2000). Because marketplace trust is a relatively stable con-

105 sumer trait (Obermiller and Spangenberg 1998), and relational

trust is a situation-dependent consumer state (Grayson, John-

son, and Chen 2008), the more stable marketplace trust should

influence the less stable relational trust and not vice versa. In

other words, if the unstable relational trust influenced the sta-

110 ble marketplace trust, both constructs would necessarily be

unstable. Given substantial prior research showing that rela-

tional trust positively influences product evaluations (Ganesan

1994; Grayson, Johnson, and Chen 2008; Morgan and Hunt

1994), the following hypothesis is proposed:

115 H1: Relational trust mediates the relationship between marketplace

trust and product evaluations.

Religion and Trust in Marketing

With mediating relationships proposed, a marketer inter-

ested in influencing consumer trust might ask: What influences

120 one’s general propensity to trust? Most prior research explor-

ing antecedents to relational and marketplace trust has exam-

ined either firm-related characteristics (e.g., firm culture,

communication frequency) or consumer state-based character-

istics (e.g., liking of a product category, familiarity with a

125firm). To enhance our understanding of trust in marketing,

research needs to examine the influence of consumer trait-

based characteristics on relational and marketplace trust.

Knowing such trait-based characteristics provides advertisers

with segmentation traits for target market development as well

130as traits to integrate into advertising to develop a strong con-

sumer-brand connection. Religiosity is a fundamental con-

sumer trait that is a well-known antecedent to consumer core

values (LaBarbera and Gurhan 1997; Minton and Kahle 2013)

and also has been shown to influence one’s general propensity

135to trust (Berggren and Bjørnskov 2011; Tan and Vogel 2008).

By examining the influence of religiosity on relational and

marketplace trust, this research explores a consumer trait-

based characteristic that has received little exploration in the

marketing and trust literature.

140To clear up any potential confusion, religion is commonly

understood to be comprised of two elements: (1) religious

affiliation (e.g., Buddhist, Muslim, Christian) and (2) religios-

ity (i.e., the degree to which the beliefs are held) (Minton and

Kahle 2013). In a review of marketing and religion research

145Minton and Kahle (2013) find that a generally agreed upon

definition for religiosity is “the degree to which one holds reli-

gious beliefs and values both through an internal spiritual con-

nection and external religious practices and behaviors” (12–

13); in addition, a generally agreed upon definition of religious

150affiliation is “a commonly held set of beliefs and values that

guide external behavior and internal search for meaning” (14).

While one’s religiosity has been shown to influence trust

(Bahr and Martin 1983; Berggren and Bjørnskov 2011; Tan

and Vogel 2008), religious affiliation is shown to have little

155influence on trust (Schoenfeld 1978; Tan and Vogel 2008).

These differences between religiosity and religious affiliation

are perhaps due to the emphasis on trust concepts in religious

scripture and teachings regardless of religious affiliation.

Regardless of the reason, further discussion in this article

160focuses on the nuances of religiosity and related associations

with trust.

Stronger religious beliefs are shown to lead to greater levels

of trust in social situations (Bahr and Martin 1983; B�egue2002; Schoenfeld 1978; Tan and Vogel 2008). For example, a

165consumer’s level of trust in others in an economic game

increased with the participant’s level of religiosity (Tan and

Vogel 2008). In another study, greater religiosity led to higher

interpersonal trust (Bahr and Martin 1983). However, virtually

no research has examined how religious beliefs lead to greater

170marketplace and relational trust or the resulting effects on con-

sumer behavior. One body of literature theorizes that religious

individuals are more trusting due to religious commandments

to treat others with respect (Berggren and Bjørnskov 2011;

Orbell et al. 1992). Others suggest religious individuals are

175more trusting because of greater interaction with unknown

individuals through more frequent participation in civic

2 E. A. MINTON

activities (Berggren and Bjørnskov 2011; Welch, Sikkink, and

Loveland 2007). Regardless of the reason for greater trust,

each of these theories suggests that religious consumers should

180 be more trusting than nonreligious consumers. Thus we pro-

pose hypothesis 2a:

H2a: Religiosity is positively correlated with marketplace and rela-

tional trust.

A separate body of contrasting literature suggests that reli-

185 giosity is connected with antimaterialistic attitudes (LaBarbera

and Gurhan 1997; Rindfleisch, Burroughs, and Wong 2009).

The negative relationship between religiosity and materialism

is a result of highly religious consumers valuing connection

with a god or divine being and religious growth more than eco-

190 nomic accomplishment (LaBarbera and Gurhan 1997). It could

be expected that consumers who hold strongly to antimaterial-

istic attitudes would also be less likely to trust marketers per-

ceived as pushing materialistic views. Berggren and

Bjørnskov (2011) theorize a similar negative relationship

195 between religion and trust due to general contention between

religious and nonreligious individuals. Specifically, “religions

may cause division and rift, both in that religious people may

distrust those who do not share their beliefs and who are not

subject to the same enforcement mechanisms as they are”

200 (Berggren and Bjørnskov 2011, 474).In addition, Western religions (Christianity, Judaism, and

Islam) hold a belief that people are inherently sinful (McDer-

mott 2008; Rhodes 2005). This belief of inherent sin can be

traced back to the sin associated with the biblical story of

205 Adam and Eve; according to Western religious doctrine, this

sin is now inherent in all individuals. Consumers who hold

strongly to these Western religious views would be expected

to view not only people as inherently sinful but corporations

as well. Both the literature on materialism and doctrine on sin

210 would suggest that religious consumers should be less trusting

of marketing practices. Thus a competing proposition to

hypothesis 2a is set forth:

H2b: Religiosity is negatively correlated with marketplace and

relational trust.

215 It is possible that prior research has led to competing find-

ings partially as a result of differences in measurement of the

religiosity construct. For example, Bahr and Martin (1983)

find that higher religiosity leads to higher trust, but religiosity

is measured with just three indicators: church attendance, pres-

220 ence or absence of a religious preference, and level of evan-

gelicalism. This simple measure fails to encompass the three

main components of religiosity that Stark and Glock (1968)

claim are critical in fully understanding the construct of religi-

osity: affect, behavior, and cognition. Similarly, Berggren and

225 Bjørnskov (2011), who found that higher religiosity leads to

lower trust, used a single indicator to represent religiosity,

which assessed the general importance of religion in one’s

life. Therefore, in addition to investigating the influence of

religiosity on trust in marketing, a need also exists to examine

230religiosity as a more comprehensive construct. In a review of

religiosity studies, Donahue (1985) found that more intrinsic

aspects of religiosity (e.g., affective and cognitive religiosity)

have an average correlation of .76 with various religious com-

mitment measures, while extrinsic aspects of religiosity (e.g.,

235behavioral religiosity) are correlated only at .03 with the same

measures. Given the connection between more intrinsic

aspects of religiosity and religious commitment as well as

prior theorizing that trust prescriptions are made in religiosity,

affective and cognitive religiosity should influence trust more

240than behavioral religiosity. Therefore:

H3: The cognitive and affective dimensions of religiosity have the

greatest influence on relational trust, marketplace trust, and product

evaluations in comparison to the behavioral dimension of

religiosity.

245Study 1 tests this hypothesis, along with prior hypotheses

regarding the relationship among religiosity, and trust before

moderators to this relationship is tested in Studies 2 and 3.

STUDY 1 (MEDIATION MODEL WITH RELIGIOSITYAND TRUST)

250To test the competing hypotheses of the relationship

between religiosity and consumer trust (hypotheses 2a and

2b), this study examines religiosity’s influence on two dimen-

sions of consumer trust: relational trust and marketplace trust

(hypotheses 1 and 3).

255Method

A total of 123 adults from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (65

males, 58 females; Mage D 33.33 years; SDage D 10.87 years)

participated in this study in exchange for a small cash incen-

tive. Prior research has shown that Amazon’s Mechanical

260Turk provides valid data, is similar to college student samples,

and is oftentimes more generalizable given sampling from a

more diverse adult population (Buhrmester, Kwang, and Gos-

ling 2011). This greater diversity can be seen through the

mean age of participants in this study (33 years) with a large

265standard deviation (11 years). All participants saw the same

advertisement for a home cleaning product with the brand

name Cif before answering questions assessing product evalu-

ations, trust, demographics, and, last, religiosity. See the

online appendix for advertising stimuli. A brand not familiar

270to participants was chosen to reduce confounds due to prior

liking and brand preference (Mfamiliarity D 1.07, SD D 0.42,

scale: 1 D Not familiar to 4 D Very familiar). Three indepen-

dent variables (affective, behavioral, and cognitive religiosity),

two mediators (marketplace and relational trust), and two

IN ADVERTISINGWE TRUST 3

275 dependent variables (overall attitude and purchase intentions)

were included in this study. In addition, eight covariates (gen-

der, ethnicity, marital status, age, income, education, product

use frequency, and product purchase frequency) were included

to determine if religiosity contributes to marketplace trust,

280 relational trust, and product evaluations above and beyond

basic sociodemographic factors and product category

preferences.

Marketplace trust was measured using Obermiller and

Spangenberg’s (1998) nine-item advertising skepticism scale

285 (a D .935). Relational trust was measured using Hess’s (1995)

11-item brand trust scale (a D .836). The dependent product

evaluation measures each consisted of three-item, 7-point

bipolar scales (“What is your overall attitude toward the

product?”: Unfavorable/Favorable, Bad/Good, Dislike/Like,

290 a D .949; “How likely would you be to purchase the

product?”: Unlikely/Likely, Definitely would not/Definitely

would, Not probable/Probable, a D .921).

Religiosity was measured using an adapted scale from

Cornwall and colleagues (1986). Adaptations were made to

295make scale items more applicable to all faiths. See the online

appendix for scale items. Cornwall and colleagues’ (1986)

religiosity scale was chosen because it was developed based

on Stark and Glock’s (1968) original religiosity measure and

features the three main components of religiosity: affective

300(e.g., spirituality), behavioral (e.g., attending religious serv-

ices), and cognitive (e.g., views on religious doctrine). Confir-

matory factor analysis (CFA) confirms these three factors of

the adapted scale, x2 (47) D 158.59, p < .001, SRMR D .022,

CFI D .957. To determine discriminant validity among these

305factors, the covariances between factors were constrained to

one. If the constrained model fit is significantly poorer as evi-

denced by a chi-square difference test, this provides evidence

of unique factors and therefore discriminant validity (Ander-

son and Gerbing 1988). Model fit for the constrained model

310was much poorer, x2 (50) D 479.30, p < .001, SRMR D

TABLE 1

Mediation Results for Religiosity, Marketplace Trust, and Relational Trust (Study 1)

IVs

Effect of

IV on M1

Effect of

M1 on M2

Effect of

M2 on DV1

Effect of

M2 on DV2

Indirect Effect

of IV on DV1

Indirect Effect of

IV on DV2

Affective

religiosity

.08 (.03)*a .52 (.07)*** .73 (.14)*** 1.05 (.16)*** .03 (.02) CI: .0058 to .0795 .04 (.02) CI: .0073 to .0996

Behavioral

religiosity

.06 (.04)D .52 (.07)*** .73 (.14)*** 1.05 (.16)*** .02 (.02) CI: ¡.0036 to .0784 .03 (.03) CI: ¡.0044 to .1018

Cognitive

religiosity

.07 (.03)* .52 (.07)*** .73 (.14)*** 1.05 (.16)*** .03 (.02) CI: .0013 to .0754 .04 (.02) CI: .0043 to .0964

Covariates Direct Effect on DV1 Direct Effect on DV2

Femaleness .18 (.18) .13 (.21)

Caucasian ¡.60 (.22)** ¡.49 (.26)D

Married .13 (.22) .28 (.26)

Age ¡.01 (.01) ¡.02 (.01)D

Income .01 (.05) .04 (.06)

Education ¡.06 (.11) ¡.10 (.13)

Use cleaners .08 (.064) .20 (.08)*

Buy cleaners ¡.10 (.09) ¡.06 (.11)

IVs

Affective

religiosity

¡.09 (.14) ¡.19 (.17)

Behavioral

religiosity

.06 (.08) .05 (.10)

Cognitive

religiosity

.06 (.13) .16 (.15)

Note. Dummy codes were created for the covariates of gender (1D female, 0Dmale), ethnicity (1D Caucasian, 0D other), and marital sta-

tus (1Dmarried, 0D other). All other covariates were included as continuous variables. M1Dmarketplace trust; M2D relational trust; DV1Doverall attitude; DV2 D purchase intentions; CI D confidence interval. The indirect effects represent religiosity factor! marketplace trust!relational trust! DV.

aCoefficient (standard error).

***p <.001; **p < .01; *p < .05; D D directionally significant at p < .10.

4 E. A. MINTON

.3296, CFI D .833, x2D (3) D 320.71, p < .001, therefore pro-

viding evidence that affective, behavioral, and cognitive religi-

osity are unique factors.

Before running mediation analysis, discriminant validity

315 was examined among the three religiosity factors, marketplace

trust, and relational trust. Again, a chi-square difference test

was conducted among a nonconstrained model, x2 (242) D527.33, p < .001, SRMR D .054, CFI D .919, a model con-

straining the covariance between relational and marketplace

320 trust to 1, x2 (243) D 644.04, p < .001, SRMR D .213, CFI D.886, x2D (1) D 116.71, p < .001, and a model also constrain-

ing the covariance to 1 between all trust and religiosity factors,

x2 (249) D 665.29, p < .001, SRMR D .297, CFI D .882, x2D(6) D 21.25, p D .001. Given that model fit significantly

325 decreased as the covariances were constrained, this provides

support for discriminant validity among factors (Anderson and

Gerbing 1988) and allows for mediation analysis. See the

online appendix for descriptive statistics, correlations among

factors, and characteristics of participants by religiosity

330 dimension.

Results

Mediation analysis was conducted to examine if and how

marketplace and relational trust mediate the relationship

between religiosity and product evaluations. Preacher and

335 Hayes’s (2008) PROCESS macro was used with 10,000 boot-

strapped samples and bias-corrected confidence intervals. See

Table 1 for full results. Confidence intervals (CIs) not includ-

ing 0 represent significant indirect effects. There was a signifi-

cant indirect effect from affective and cognitive religiosity to

340 overall attitude (CI affective: .0058 to .0795, CI cognitive:

.0013 to .0754) and purchase intentions (CI affective: .0073 to

.0996, CI cognitive: .0043 to .0964) through marketplace trust

and relational trust. In contrast, there was not a significant

indirect effect on overall attitude (CI: ¡.0036 to .0784) and

345 purchase intentions (CI: .0044 to .1018) for behavioral religi-

osity. Affective and cognitive religiosity positively influenced

broad marketplace trust, which then positively influenced the

more specific relational trust, which led to more positive prod-

uct evaluations. These effects were persistent even with inclu-

350 sion of numerous covariates.

Discussion

Relational trust is found to mediate the relationship

between marketplace trust and product evaluations, thereby

supporting hypothesis 1. Prior competing literature suggested

355 that higher religiosity may lead to increased trust (Anderson,

Mellor, and Milyo 2010) or decreased trust (Berggren and

Bjørnskov 2011). This study finds support for religiosity lead-

ing to increased trust, thereby supporting hypothesis 2a and

not supporting hypothesis 2b. Consumers who are more reli-

360 gious have more broad marketplace trust (e.g., general trust in

advertising), which then leads to more specific relational trust

(e.g., trust in a brand), thereby producing more positive prod-

uct evaluations.

Interestingly, only affective and cognitive religiosity

365directly influence marketplace trust and indirectly influence

product evaluations, thereby supporting hypothesis 3. This

finding supports a vast amount of prior literature showing that

behavioral religiosity has less influence on attitudes and

behavior in comparison to more intrinsic aspects of religiosity

370(e.g., affective/cognitive religiosity) (Jonas and Fischer 2006;

Vitell, Paolillo, and Singh 2005). Prior research has posited

that these differences are a result of the more intrinsic aspects

of religiosity influencing core values (Minton and Kahle 2013;

Pargament 2001; Roccas 2005). In contrast, behavioral religi-

375osity is a set of actions that, when taken in isolation, has little

influence on core values and therefore has little effect on atti-

tudes and behaviors (Minton and Kahle 2013).

The findings from this study also support the theory under-

lying hypothesis 2a—that trust prescriptions are found in reli-

380gious scripture, and belief in religious scripture, as measured

by cognitive religiosity, should lead to heightened trust (Corn-

wall et al. 1986). Similarly, affective religiosity is represented

by feelings and connection to a divine being, and a stronger

connection to a divine being should lead consumers to have a

385higher desire to follow religious prescriptions (Cornwall et al.

1986; Stark and Glock 1968). In addition to behavioral religi-

osity having less influence on core values, the failure of behav-

ioral religiosity to influence trust in marketing may be a result

of consumers high in behavioral religiosity (and low in affec-

390tive and cognitive religiosity) not understanding or believing

scriptural references to trust, thereby decreasing their desire to

follow such trust-related prescriptions.

These findings have implications for advertising. Highly

religious consumers (specifically those high in affective and

395cognitive religiosity) are more trusting of advertising. Adver-

tisers do not need to expend as much effort trying to reduce

suspicion of advertising claims or build trust between a brand

and a consumer. However, advertisers also need to heed cau-

tion so as to not take advantage of religious consumers. Claims

400in advertising should be truthful and, when possible, verifiable.

Prior research examining religiosity and marketing commu-

nications shows that religious consumers have more favorable

attitudes toward advertisements with religious symbols (i.e., a

belief cue) and are more likely to purchase the advertised

405products (Taylor, Halstead, and Haynes 2010). This previous

research follows belief congruency theory in that consumers

report higher liking and generally have more positive affect

when someone else’s beliefs are similar to their own (Rokeach

and Rothman 1965). More specifically, members of one’s in-

410group (e.g., those of the same religion) are trusted more than

members of their out-group (Insko et al. 1990). In-group

favoritism effects are more profound for dissociative reference

groups, which are a type of out-group that consumers specifi-

cally want to avoid (Berger and Heath 2008). In the context of


415 religion, an atheist (i.e., someone who does not believe in a

God or divine being) would be a dissociative reference group

for a religious person and vice versa. Consumers seek to

diverge from dissociative reference groups in an effort to avoid

allowing the dissociative out-group’s identity to cloud their

420 own identity (Berger and Heath 2008). Thus, it is expected

that messages with in-group belief cues (e.g., a creationist

message for a religious consumer) lead to higher trust for con-

sumers identifying strongly to those in-group beliefs (e.g., a

highly religious consumer) and vice versa. Therefore, hypothe-

425 sis 4 is presented:

H4: Consumers high in affective and cognitive religiosity are (a)

more trusting of messages with creation belief cues but (b) less

trusting of messages with evolution belief cues, in comparison to

less or nonreligious consumers.

430 STUDY 2 (BELIEF CUES AND TRUST)

To test hypotheses 4a and 4b, this study investigates the

moderating variable of belief cues (creation versus evolution)

to identify situations where higher religiosity leads to higher

marketplace and relational trust and other situations, and vice

435 versa.

Method




440 tive. Participants were randomly assigned to the conditions of

a between-participants, single-factor (belief cue: creation ver-

sus evolution) experimental design. Affective, behavioral, and

cognitive religiosity served as additional measured factors.

Type of belief cue was manipulated through advertisement

445 text for a fruit water beverage stating either “creation of fla-

vor” or “evolution of flavor.” See the online appendix for

advertising stimuli. Belief cue was formed into a dummy

code, where 1 D creation cue and 0 D evolution cue. The

same scales as used in Study 1 were also used in Study 2 to

450 measure affective religiosity (a D .979), behavioral religiosity

(a D .894), cognitive religiosity (a D .954), marketplace trust

(a D .937), relational trust (a D .906), purchase intentions

(a D .970), and overall attitude (a D .962). See the online

appendix for factor correlations and descriptive statistics.

455 Covariates mimicked Study 1. Participants saw the ad stimuli

followed by a manipulation check and then answered ques-

tions assessing product evaluations, trust, and religiosity.

Results

Participants were asked whether the ad headline contained

460 the word creation or evolution. All participants answered the

manipulation check correctly. Preacher and Hayes’s (2008)

PROCESS macro was run using 10,000 bootstrapped samples

with bias-corrected confidence intervals. Similar to Study 1,

marketplace and relational trust significantly mediated the

465relationship between religiosity and product evaluations even

after controlling for covariates. Significant indirect effects

through marketplace and relational trust occurred for affective

and cognitive religiosity but not for behavioral religiosity. See

Table 2 for full results.

470There were significant interaction effects between affective

religiosity and belief cue condition for all product evaluations

(bDV: overall attitude D 1.21, p D .012; bDV: purchase intentions D1.23, p D .027) and between cognitive religiosity and belief

cue condition for overall attitude (bDV: overall attitude D ¡1.02,

475p D .018; bDV: purchase intentions D ¡.80, p D .107). There were

no significant interaction effects between behavioral religios-

ity and belief cue condition (bDV: overall attitude D ¡.07, p D.817; bDV: purchase intentions D ¡.27, p D .422). Spotlight analy-

sis using one standard deviation above and below the mean of

480each religiosity dimension (Maffective religiosity D 3.81, SD D2.41; Mbehavioral religiosity D 2.94, SD D 2.10; Mcognitive religiosity

D 4.08, SD D 2.40) was conducted on the significant interac-

tions between religiosity dimensions and belief cue condition

to see how they influence product evaluations.

485Consumers high in affective religiosity, as compared to

consumers low in affective religiosity, had higher overall atti-

tude, purchase intentions, and relational trust in the creation

belief cue condition but lower overall attitude, purchase inten-

tions, and trust in the evolution belief cue condition. In con-

490trast, consumers high in cognitive religiosity, as compared to

consumers low in cognitive religiosity, had higher overall atti-

tude and relational trust (the purchase intention interaction

was not significant) in the evolution belief cue condition but

lower overall attitude and relational trust in the creation belief

495cue condition. See Figure 1 for the spotlight analysis for over-

all attitude, of which this pattern of effects is representative

for purchase intentions as well.

Discussion

The results from Study 2 confirm the results from Study 1,

500in that marketplace trust and relational trust mediate the rela-

tionship between religiosity and product evaluations, thereby

supporting hypotheses 1 and 2a. In other words, highly reli-

gious consumers are more trusting of advertising than less or

nonreligious consumers, which leads to more positive product

505evaluations. In addition, only cognitive and affective religios-

ity, not behavioral religiosity, significantly influence market-

place trust, relational trust, and product evaluations, thereby

supporting hypothesis 3.

Of greater interest than these confirming mediation effects,

510however, are the differing influences of affective versus cogni-

tive religiosity on relational trust and product evaluations.

While affective religiosity positively influences trust and prod-

uct evaluations for advertisement with creation cues (as

opposed to evolution cues), the opposite occurs for cognitive

6 E. A. MINTON

515 religiosity, thereby providing partial support for hypothesis 4.

Thus, affective religiosity shows trends expected by belief

congruency theory (Rokeach and Rothman 1965), with adver-

tising belief cues matching one’s own beliefs leading to more

positive product evaluations. The differing findings for con-

520 sumers high in cognitive religiosity may be a result of the

dimension of affective religiosity relying more on a spiritual

connection (Stark and Glock 1968) with the word creation

priming messages from a religious in-group. In comparison,

cognitive religiosity relies more on mental agreement and

525 understanding of religious scripture and could lead to greater

reaction and disagreement with religious cues in marketing

communications.

According to the persuasion knowledge model, a consum-

er’s response in a possible persuasion episode is dependent on

530episode-relevant knowledge (Friestad and Wright 1994). It

seems plausible that a consumer high in cognitive religiosity

would be armed with more belief-cue-related persuasion

knowledge, which would lead to more skepticism over cue

use, resulting in lower product evaluations. As an alternative

535explanation, prior research shows that religious fundamental-

ism (a component of cognitive religiosity) is significantly and

TABLE 2

Mediation Results for Religiosity, Marketplace Trust, Relational Trust, and Belief Cue (Study 2)

IVs

Effect of

IV on M1

Effect of

M1 on M2

Effect of

M2 on DV1

Effect of

M2 on DV2

Indirect Effect

of IV on DV1

Indirect Effect

of IV on DV2

Affective

religiosity

.09 (.03)** .68 (.08)*** .49 (.17)** .74 (.20)*** .03 (.02)

CI: .0062 to .0664

.05 (.02)

CI: .0131 to .0985

Behavioral

religiosity

.06 (.04)D .68 (.08)*** .49 (.17)** .74 (.20)*** .02 (.02)

CI: ¡.0016 to .0633

.03 (.24)

CI: ¡.0019 to .0949

Cognitive

religiosity

.08 (.03)* .68 (.08)*** .49 (.17)** .74 (.26)* .03 (.01)

CI: .0053 to .0675

.04 (.02)

CI: .0108 to .0962

Covariates Direct Effect

on DV1

Direct Effect

on DV2

Femaleness .28 (.29) ¡.07 (.33)

Caucasian ¡.03 (.39) .67 (.45)

Married ¡.01 (.33) ¡.12 (.38)

Age ¡.01 (.01) ¡.01 (.02)

Income .09 (.09) .11 (.10)

Education ¡.36 (.17)* ¡.49 (.20)*

Drink fruit

water

¡.04 (.19) ¡.06 (.22)

Buy fruit

water

.23 (.22) .49 (.26)D

IVs

Affective

religiosity (AR)

¡.47 (.29) ¡.77 (.33)*

Behavioral

religiosity (BR)

¡.24 (.18) .02 (.21)

Cognitive

religiosity (CR)

.69 (.26)* .74 (.30)*

AR £ Creation 1.21 (.48)* 1.23 (.55)*

BR £ Creation ¡.07 (.29) ¡.27 (.33)

CR £ Creation ¡1.02 (.43)* ¡.80 (.49)

AR £ CR £ Creation ¡.05 (.05) ¡.05 (.06)




***p < .001; **p < .01; *p < .05; D D directionally significant at p < .10.


negatively correlated with openness to new ideas and experi-

ences, while spirituality (a component of affective religiosity)

is significantly and positively correlated with this openness

540 (Saroglou 2002). Thus, cognitively religious consumers may

be less open to new uses of belief cues outside of the religious

domain, as in this study’s use of belief cues in the domain of

advertising.

The results from this study are similar to Dotson and Hyatt’s

545 (2000) finding that low-involvement consumers who were reli-

giously dogmatic viewed products with religious belief cues

more negatively than similar consumers that were not religiously

dogmatic. Dotson and Hyatt (2000) note that religious dogma-

tism represents belief in a religion’s core tenets (i.e., cognitive

550 religiosity) and is correlated but distinctly different from mean-

ing and importance of religion (i.e., affective religiosity). While

these authors did not examine how affective religiosity influen-

ces product evaluations, their findings suggest that the negative

effect of cognitive religiosity could be a result of belief cues

555 being offensive to dogmatic consumers.

In a follow-up paper, Henley and colleagues (2009) find that

religious belief cues can lead to negative product evaluations for

highly religious consumers when the religious belief cue is irrel-

evant to the advertisement. However, these authors used only a

560 four-item scale of religiosity that contained a mixture of

affective, behavioral, and cognitive religiosity items. To confirm

that the findings from Study 2 are more than just coincidence,

Study 3 will replicate the results from Study 2 with a larger sam-

ple. Given that the belief cue in Study 2 was the main text in the

565advertisement, consumers likely saw this cue as very relevant to

the advertisement. Thus, Study 3 will explore the effect of a

potentially less relevant belief cue on product evaluations. It

could be expected that consumers high in affective religiosity

would exhibit lower product evaluations when exposed to less

570relevant belief cues. In contrast, cognitively religious consumers

may exhibit higher product evaluations when exposed to less rel-

evant belief cues, given less of a need to incorporate those cues

into evaluation of the advertisement. Thus:

H5: Consumers high in cognitive (affective) religiosity have high

575(low) product evaluations when an irrelevant belief cue is present.

STUDY 3 (LESS RELEVANT BELIEF CUES AND TRUST)

To test hypothesis 5, this study examines whether a less rel-

evant belief cue (bumper sticker on a car in an ad) as opposed

to the more relevant belief cue from Study 2 (ad copy) will

580lead to more positive evaluations for consumers high in cogni-

tive religiosity. Before proceeding to the full study, a pretest

was conducted to confirm relevancy differences between the

stimuli used in Study 2 and Study 3.

Pretest

585A total of 60 adults from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (34


participated in this pretest in exchange for a small cash incen-

tive. Participants were randomly assigned to see ads either

with religious belief cues or nonreligious belief cues. Each

590participant saw one ad from each of Studies 2 and 3, presented

in random order. After viewing each stimuli, participants were

asked: “How relevant is the Evolve (Jesus) bumper sticker to

the ad?” or “How relevant is the Evolution (Creation) text to

the ad?” Responses were measured on a scale from 0 (Not at

595all relevant) to 10 (Extremely relevant). Results from paired t

tests confirmed expectations that the ad copy belief cue in

Study 2 (Mnonreligious belief cue D 6.41, SD D 2.92;Mreligious belief

cue D 6.27, SD D 3.12) was perceived as more relevant to the

ad than the bumper sticker belief cue in Study 3 (Mnonreligious

600belief cue D 5.03, SD D 3.32; Mreligious belief cue D 3.64, SD D3.52), tnonreligious belief cue conditions (28) D 2.19, p D .037; treli-

gious belief cue conditions (32) D 3.94, p < .001. Thus, Study 3 pro-

ceeds to examine the effect of bumper stickers, as less relevant

belief cues, on product evaluations.

605Method


males, 190 females;Mage D 40.36 years; SDage D 14.31 years)

FIG. 1. Effect of affective and cognitive religiosity and belief cue on overall

attitude (Study 2).

8 E. A. MINTON


tive. Participants were randomly assigned to the conditions of

610 a between-participants, single-factor (belief cue: Jesus bumper

sticker versus evolution bumper sticker) experimental design.

Affective, behavioral, and cognitive religiosity served as addi-

tional measured factors.

Type of belief cue was manipulated through the type of

615 bumper sticker on a car (featuring either a “Jesus fish” or

“evolution fish” with legs) in an advertisement for a used-car

dealership. See the online appendix for advertising stimuli.

Belief cue was formed into a dummy code where 1 D Jesus

bumper sticker cue and 0 D evolution bumper sticker cue. The

620 same scales as used in Studies 1 and 2 were also used in Study

3 to measure affective religiosity (a D .982), behavioral religi-

osity (a D .872), cognitive religiosity (a D .933), marketplace

trust (a D .921), relational trust (a D .926), purchase inten-

tions (a D .968), and overall attitude (a D .980). Participants

625 saw the car dealership ad first, followed by a manipulation

check, and then answered questions assessing product evalua-

tions, trust, and religiosity. Covariates mimicked Studies 1 and

2 with the exception of exchanging consumption frequency

covariates for a covariate representing general knowledge of

630 cars.

Results

Participants were asked to identify the type of bumper

sticker in the ad (choices: Jesus fish, evolution fish with legs,

political, or sustainable). In all, 27 participants failed to answer

635 this question correctly; their responses were removed, leaving

the data from 273 participants for further analysis. Preacher

and Hayes’s (2008) PROCESS macro was run using 10,000

bootstrapped samples with bias-corrected confidence intervals.

Similar to Studies 1 and 2, marketplace trust and relational

640 trust significantly mediated the relationship between religios-

ity and product evaluations, even after controlling for covari-

ates. Across all religiosity dimensions, high religiosity led to

high marketplace trust, which then led to high relational trust,

which ultimately led to more positive product evaluations. See

645 Table 3 for full results.

There were significant interaction effects for purchase

intentions between cognitive religiosity and belief cue condi-

tion (b D .58, p D .028) and between behavioral religiosity

and belief cue condition (b D .33, p D .047). Although the

650 interaction between affective religiosity and belief cue condi-

tion was not significant (b D ¡.25, p D .405), mean differen-

ces suggest high affective religiosity led to lower product

evaluations when partnered with a religious belief cue in Study

3. Spotlight analysis using one standard deviation above and

655 below the mean of each religiosity dimension (Maffective religios-

ity D 4.06, SD D 2.36; Mbehavioral religiosity D 3.08, SD D 2.03;

Mcognitive religiosity D 4.40, SD D 2.14) was conducted on the

significant interactions to examine how religiosity dimensions

interacted with belief cue condition to influence product

660evaluations; see Figure 2. Affective religiosity is depicted in

Figure 2, despite its nonsignificant interaction with belief cue

condition, for a visual comparison to Study 2 results. A similar

pattern of effects as seen with purchase intentions also occurs

for overall attitude.

665Discussion

Similar to Studies 1 and 2, the findings from Study 3 show

that high religiosity leads to high marketplace and relational

trust. However, the results from Study 3 show opposing effects

to Study 2 in terms of reaction to belief cues. Cognitively reli-

670gious consumers had higher product evaluations in the pres-

ence of the less relevant religious belief cue in Study 3,

whereas they had lower product evaluations in the presence of

the more relevant religious belief cue in Study 2. These find-

ings support hypothesis 5 in that cognitively religious consum-

675ers have higher product evaluations when belief cues are less

relevant, possibly as a result of feeling less of a need to criti-

cally evaluate these less relevant cues. However, more and

less relevant belief cues were examined in two separate stud-

ies. Thus, further research needs to confirm findings herein

680and examine more and less relevant belief cues within one

study.

Interestingly, behavioral religiosity exhibits a similar pat-

tern of effects to cognitive religiosity, likely a result of the

larger sample size for Study 3 as well as use of religious bum-

685per stickers being an act of behavioral religiosity. In other

words, the behaviorally religious consumer likely sees a reli-

gious bumper sticker as an act similar to their own (i.e., an out-

ward expression of faith) and therefore could be more likely to

support a company employing similar tactics. These results

690support belief congruency theory (Rokeach and Rothman

1965) in that advertising cues matching one’s own beliefs

result in more positive affect. It is worth noting that the belief

cues used in Study 3 represent less relevant but not irrelevant

belief cues, perhaps explaining the nonsignificant interaction

695between affective religiosity and belief cue. This distinction

can be seen in the mean values of relevancy in the pretest at

3.6 (religious belief cue) and 5.0 (nonreligious belief cue) for

Study 3 in comparison to 6.3 (religious belief cue) and 6.4

(nonreligious belief cue) for Study 2, on a scale of 0 to 10.

700GENERAL DISCUSSION

This research has fulfilled the three purposes set forth in its

introduction. First, the results of three studies consistently

showed that both the more general, trait-based marketplace

and the more specific, state-based relational trust mediate the

705relationship between religiosity and product evaluations. Sec-

ond, competing hypotheses on the relationship between religi-

osity and trust in marketing were tested to reveal that high

religiosity leads to high marketplace and relational trust when

no moderators are present (Study 1); however, these effects


710 differ when consumers are exposed to various types of belief

cues (Studies 2 and 3). Third, the studies herein reveal a differ-

ential influence of religiosity dimension on relational trust and

product evaluations, where cognitively religious consumers

are less trusting, have lower product evaluations, and are more

715 defensive against relevant creation belief cues.

Conceptually, this research builds on prior research explor-

ing the antecedents to trust in marketing (Ganesan 1994; Gray-

son, Johnson, and Chen 2008; Morgan and Hunt 1994).

Studies 1 through 3 help answer two critical questions regard-

720 ing trust in marketing that have been inadequately addressed:

Why do some consumers have more marketplace and rela-

tional trust than others? Which consumers are more trusting?

The studies herein further develop an antecedent model of

trust in showing that religiosity, a core consumer trait, signifi-

725 cantly influences relational and marketplace trust. Similarly,

this research shows that religiosity is an important antecedent

to understanding consumers’ evaluations of cues in marketing

communications. This research also contributes to the litera-

ture on religion and marketing to show that dimensions of reli-

730giosity—affective, behavioral, and cognitive (Stark and Glock

1968)—are critical dimensions to take into consideration in

future research.

Practitioners can also benefit from understanding the results

of this research. Most religious consumers are more trusting of

735advertising than nonreligious consumers are. Advertisers need

to seek a balance between targeting religious consumers

because of a heightened sense of trust yet not taking advantage

of these more trusting consumers. In addition to advertising

ethics, this research provides insight to advertisers in integrat-

740ing belief cues into advertisements. Even subtle belief cues

(e.g., “evolution of flavor” or “creation of flavor”) influence

consumers. Thus, advertisers need to understand the religious

composition of their target market and be aware of the

TABLE 3

Mediation Results for Religiosity, Marketplace Trust, Relational Trust, and Less Relevant Belief Cue (Study 3)

IVs

Effect of

IV on M1

Effect of

M1 on M2

Effect of

M2 on DV1

Effect of

M2 on DV2

Indirect Effect of

IV on DV1

Indirect Effect

of IV on DV2

Affective

religiosity

.08 (.02)*** .59 (.07)*** .75 (.09)*** .86 (.09)*** .04 (.01)

CI: .0190 to .0601

.04 (.01)

CI: .0216 to .0679

Behavioral

religiosity

.07 (.02)* .59 (.07)*** .75 (.09)*** .86 (.09)*** .03 (.01)

CI: .0112 to .0546

.03 (.01)

CI: .0127 to .0618

Cognitive

religiosity

.10 (.02)*** .59 (.07)*** .75 (.09)*** .86 (.09)*** .04 (.01)

CI: .0253 to .0722

.05 (.01)

CI: .0299 to .0831

Covariates Direct Effect

on DV1

Direct Effect

on DV2

Femaleness .61 (.19)** .43 (.20)*

Caucasian ¡.01 (.21) .07 (.22)

Married .08 (.19) ¡.18 (.20)

Age .01 (.01) ¡.01 (.01)

Income ¡.18 (.06)** ¡.10 (.06)D

Education ¡.21 (.09)* ¡.21 (.10)*

Knowledge of cars .12 (.07)D .08 (.07)

IVs

Affective religiosity (AR) .06 (.18) .23 (.19)

Behavioral religiosity (BR) ¡.21 (.11)D ¡.16 (.11)

Cognitive religiosity (CR) ¡.11 (.17) ¡.26 (.18)

AR £ Creation ¡.26 (.29) ¡.25 (.30)

BR £ Creation .36 (.16)* .33 (.16)*

CR £ Creation .45 (.25)D .58 (.26)*

AR £ CR £ Creation .03 (.04) .01 (.04)




***p <.001; **p < .01; *p < .05; D D directionally significant at p < .10.

10 E. A. MINTON

differential influence of belief cues on product evaluations for

745 religious versus nonreligious consumers. Advertisers desiring

to offer brand extensions to niche religious markets may be

able to do so through use of subtle belief cues, which will

likely not detract from a neutral religious stance of a brand as

a whole.

750 Future research should build on the findings of the studies

herein and prior studies on belief cues (e.g., Taylor, Halstead,

and Haynes 2010) to identify moderating conditions to the suc-

cess of belief cues. One such moderating condition is place-

ment of belief cues. Prior research has examined belief cues

755 placed within advertisements. Many advertising mediums

(e.g., social media, billboards) display communications from

friends alongside advertisements, allowing a friend’s contex-

tual communications to influence reaction to advertisements.

Thus, a future study could explore how religious versus nonre-

760 ligious belief cues influence product evaluations differently

when placed within an ad versus through contextual messages.

Given the subtlety of contextual communications, they should

produce less reactance, specifically among cognitively reli-

gious consumers.

765 In addition, given that the brand names used in the studies

herein were mostly unknown to consumers (with the exception

of Glaceau Fruit Water in Study 2), future research should

investigate how belief cues influence product evaluations for

known brands. Along this same line of thinking, there are

770many situations where brand names are unknown, such as

with new product introductions. Further research should inves-

tigate how religiosity dimensions and belief cues interact to

build trust, liking, and desire for product trial in new product

introduction ads. Such research could explore reactions to

775completely new brands, as well as new products from existing

brands (i.e., brand extensions), and also examine how belief

cue relevancy alters the interaction between religiosity dimen-

sions and belief cue. Religious (nonreligious) belief cues

should increase new product adoption for affectively (cogni-

780tively) religious consumers, and these effects should flip when

belief cue relevancy decreases.

Limitations to this research include use of mock stimuli, rela-

tively low involvement products (with the exception of used cars

in Study 3), data collection through a survey instrument, and

785each study examining only one advertisement for one product.

Further research should examine the influence of belief cues

across a wider variety of product categories, advertisements, and

involvement levels, as well as explore the differential influence

that religiosity dimensions have on explicit versus subtle belief

790cues and resulting product evaluations. Future research should

also extend the generalizability of this study by examining the

relationship between religiosity and trust in Eastern culture (e.g.,

Hinduism, Buddhism).

CONCLUSION

795Religion plays an important role in the marketplace, specifi-

cally in advertising, but has been previously underexplored. The

results herein find that religiosity is as an antecedent to both broad

marketplace trust and the more specific relational trust, although

these effects differ based on religiosity dimension (affective,

800behavioral, or cognitive) and presence of belief cues. Given the

intertwining of religion and trust, advertisers need to heed caution

in using belief cues, marketers must thoroughly and intimately

understand their target markets, and all must be prepared for both

the positive and negative outcomes of religion on trust. In sum,

805most religious consumers still believe strongly in the phrase “In

God we trust.” In contrast to this phrase, the findings from this

research suggest a new phrase should be developed for these same

consumers, especially affectively religious consumers: “In adver-

tising we trust.”

810SUPPLEMENTAL DATA

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed at www.

tandfonline.com/ujoa.

REFERENCESAnderson, James C., and David W. Gerbing (1988), “Structural Equation

815Modeling in Practice: A Review and Recommended Two-Step Approach,”

Psychological Bulletin, 103 (3), 411–23.

FIG. 2. Effect of affective and cognitive religiosity and relevant belief cue on

purchase intentions (Study 3).


Anderson, Lisa, Jennifer Mellor, and Jeffrey Milyo (2010), “Did the Devil

Make Them Do It? The Effects of Religion in Public Goods and Trust

Games,” Kyklos, 63 (2), 163–75.

820 Bahr, Howard M., and Thomas K. Martin (1983), “‘And Thy Neighbor as

Thyself’: Self-Esteem and Faith in People as Correlates of Religiosity and

Family Solidarity among Middletown High School Students,” Journal for

the Scientific Study of Religion, 22 (2), 132–44.

B�egue, Laurent (2002), “Beliefs in Justice and Faith in People: Just World,

825 Religiosity, and Interpersonal Trust,” Personality and Individual Differen-

ces, 32 (3), 375–82.

Berger, Jonah, and Chip Heath (2008), “Who Drives Divergence? Identity Sig-

naling, Outgroup Dissimilarity, and the Abandonment of Cultural Tastes,”

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95 (3), 593–607.

830 Berggren, Niclas, and Christian Bjørnskov (2011), “Is the Importance of Reli-

gion in Daily Life Related to Social Trust? Cross-Country and cross-State

Comparisons,” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 80 (3),

459–80.

Bhasin, Kim, and Melanie Hicken (2012), “17 Big Companies That Are

835 Intensely Religious,” Business Insider, January 19, http://www.businessin

sider.com/17-big-companies-that-are-intensely-religious-2012-1.

Buhrmester, Michael, Tracy Kwang, and Samuel D. Gosling (2011),

“Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A New Source of Inexpensive, Yet High-

Quality, Data?,” Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6 (1), 3–5.

840 Cornwall, Marie, Stan L. Albrecht, Perry H. Cunningham, and Brian L. Pitcher

(1986), “The Dimensions of Religiosity: A Conceptual Model with an

Empirical Test,” Review of Religious Research, 27 (3), 226–44.

Donahue, Michael J. (1985), “Intrinsic and Extrinsic Religiousness: The

Empirical Research,” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 24 (4),

845 418–23.

Doney, Patricia, James Barry, and Russell Abratt (2007), “Trust Determinants

and Outcomes in Global B2B Services,” European Journal of Marketing,

41 (9/10), 1096–116.

Dotson, Michael J., and Eva M. Hyatt (2000), “Religious Symbols as Periph-

850 eral Cues in Advertising: A Replication of the Elaboration Likelihood

Model,” Journal of Business Research, 48 (1), 63–68.

Friestad, Marian, and Peter Wright (1994), “The Persuasion Knowledge

Model: How People Cope with Persuasion Attempts,” Journal of Con-

sumer Research, 21 (1), 1–31.

855 Ganesan, Shankar (1994), “Determinants of Long-Term Orientation in Buyer-

Seller Relationships,” Journal of Marketing, 58 (2), 1–19.

Garretson, Judith A., and Ronald W. Niedrich (2004), “Spokes-Characters:

Creating Character Trust and Positive Brand Attitudes,” Journal of Adver-

tising, 33 (2), 25–36.

860 Grayson, Kent, Devon Johnson, and Der-Fa Robert Chen (2008), “Is Firm Trust

Essential in a Trusted Environment? HowTrust in the Business Context Influ-

ences Customers,” Journal of Marketing Research, 45 (2), 241–56.

Henley, Walter H., Jr., Melodie Philhours, Sampath K. Ranganathan, and Alan

J. Bush (2009), “The Effects of Symbol Product Relevance and Religiosity

865 on Consumer Perceptions of Christian Symbols in Advertising,” Journal of

Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 31 (1), 89–103.

Hess, Jeffrey S. (1995), “Construction and Assessment of a Scale to Measure

Consumer Trust,” in 1995 AMA Educator’s Conference Proceedings, Bar-

bara B. Stern and George N. Zinkhan eds., Chicago, IL: American Market-

870 ing Association, 20–26.

Insko, Chester A., John Schopler, Rick H. Hoyle, Gregory J. Dardis, and Ken-

neth A. Graetz (1990), “Individual-Group Discontinuity as a Function of

Fear and Greed,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58 (1),

68–79.

875 Jauregui, Andres (2012), “Dr. Pepper ‘Evolution of Flavor’ Ad Sparks

Backlash from Christians on Facebook,” Huffington Post, September

13, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/13/dr-pepper-evolution-ad-

backlash-christians-facebook_n_1882066.html.

Jonas, Eva, and Peter Fischer (2006), “Terror Management and Religion: Evi-

880dence That Intrinsic Religiousness Mitigates Worldview Defense Follow-

ing Mortality Salience,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91

(3), 553–67.

LaBarbera, Priscilla A., and Zeynep Gurhan (1997), “The Role of Materialism,

Religiosity, and Demographics in Subjective Well-Being,” Psychology and

885Marketing, 14 (1), 71–97.

McDermott, Gerald (2008), The Baker Pocket Guide to World Religions,

Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Publishing Group.

Minton, Elizabeth A., and Lynn R. Kahle (2013), Belief Systems, Religion, and

Behavioral Economics: Marketing in Multicultural Environments, New

890York, NY: Business Expert Press.

Morgan, Robert M., and Shelby D. Hunt (1994), “The Commitment-Trust The-

ory of Relationship Marketing,” Journal of Marketing, 58 (July), 20–38.

Obermiller, Carl, and Eric R. Spangenberg (1998), “Development of a Scale to

Measure Consumer Skepticism toward Advertising,” Journal of Consumer

895Psychology, 7 (2), 159–86.

Obermiller, Carl, and Eric R. Spangenberg (2000), “On the Origin and Distinct-

ness of Skepticism toward Advertising,”Marketing Letters, 11 (4), 311–22.

Orbell, John, Marion Goldman, Matthew Mulford, and Robyn Dawes (1992),

“Religion, Context, and Constraint toward Strangers,” Rationality and

900Society, 4 (3), 291–307.

Pargament, Kenneth I. (2001), The Psychology of Religion and Coping: The-

ory, Research, Practice, New York: Guilford Press.

Preacher, Kristopher J., and Andrew F. Hayes (2008), “Asymptotic and

Resampling Strategies for Assessing and Comparing Indirect Effects in

905Multiple Mediator Models,” Behavior Research Methods, 40 (3), 879–91.

Rhodes, Ron (2005), The Complete Guide to Christian Denominations,

Eugene, OR: Harvest House.

Rindfleisch, Aric, James E. Burroughs, and Nancy Wong (2009), “The Safety

of Objects: Materialism, Existential Insecurity, and Brand Connection,”

910Journal of Consumer Research, 36 (1), 1–16.

Roccas, Sonia (2005), “Religion and Value Systems,” Journal of Social Issues,

61 (4), 747–59.

Rokeach, Milton, and Gilbert Rothman (1965), “The Principle of Belief Con-

gruence and the Congruity Principle as Models of Cognitive Interaction,”

915Psychological Review, 72 (2), 128–42.

Saroglou, Vassilis (2002), “Religion and the Five Factors of Personality: A Meta-

Analytic Review,” Personality and Individual Differences, 32 (1), 15–25.

Schoenfeld, Eugen (1978), “Image of Man: The Effect of Religion on Trust,”

Review of Religious Research, 20 (1), 61–67.

920Stark, Rodney, and Charles Y. Glock (1968), American Piety: The Nature of

Religious Commitment, Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Starr-Glass, David (2011), “Trust in Transactional and Relationship Market-

ing: Implications in a Post-Crisis World,” Managing Global Transitions, 9

(2), 111–28.

925Tan, Jonathan H., and Claudia Vogel (2008), “Religion and Trust: An Experi-

mental Study,” Journal of Economic Psychology, 29 (6), 832–48.

Taylor, Valerie A., Diane Halstead, and Paula J. Haynes (2010), “Consumer

Responses to Christian Religious Symbols in Advertising,” Journal of

Advertising, 39 (2), 79–92.

930Vitell, Scott J., Joseph G.P. Paolillo, and Jatinder J. Singh (2005), “Religiosity

and Consumer Ethics,” Journal of Business Ethics, 57 (2), 175–81.

Walczuch, Rita, and Henriette Lundgren (2004), “Psychological Antecedents

of Institution-Based Consumer Trust in e-Retailing,” Information and

Management, 42 (1), 159–77.

935Welch, Michael R., David Sikkink, and Matthew T. Loveland (2007), “The

Radius of Trust: Religion, Social Embeddedness, and Trust in Strangers,”

Social Forces, 86 (1), 23–46.

Xie, Guang-Xin, and Ann Kronrod (2012), “Is the Devil in the Details? The

Signaling Effect of Numerical Precision in Environmental Advertising

940Claims,” Journal of Advertising, 41 (4), 103–117.

12 E. A. MINTON

in advertising we trust: religiosity’s inﬂuence on ... · in advertising we trust:...

Documents