Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Psychol Mark. 2020;37:369–383. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/mar © 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. | 369
DOI: 10.1002/mar.21296
R E S EARCH AR T I C L E
When open‐mindedness lowers product evaluations:Influencers to consumers’ response to religious cues inadvertising
Elizabeth A. Minton
College of Business, Department of
Management & Marketing, University of
Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming
Correspondence
University of Wyoming, 1000 E University
Ave, Laramie 82071, WY.
Email: [email protected]
Abstract
Prior research has examined response to Christian religious cues used in secular
marketing messages but has inadequately explored the underlying reasons for such
response as well as why religious cues may negatively influence product evaluations.
These limitations are addressed in this research work through three studies utilizing
religious cues. In Studies 1a and 1b, ads with a Christian or Muslim religious cue (no
religious cue) were found to produce lower (higher) product evaluations. Studies 2–3
then examined why religious cues in ads can produce lower product evaluations to
show that open‐mindedness moderated this effect (Study 2), and priming open‐mindedness also influenced this effect (Study 3). Most interestingly, open‐minded
consumers were more negative toward religious cues in marketing communications
than close‐minded consumers, and priming open‐mindedness magnified this effect.
These novel effects are discussed in relation to the literature on open‐mindedness
and value‐based consumption. Additionally, implications for research and practice are
discussed.
K E YWORD S
advertising, close‐mindedness, cues, marketing communications, open‐mindedness, religion,
religious cue
1 | INTRODUCTION
Many companies are using religious cues in secular marketing
messages, from small mom and pop shops to larger, more well‐known examples such as Chick‐fil‐A or Hobby Lobby (Nisen, 2013).
The term “religious cues” is used here and throughout this article to
refer to symbols, values, or other textual/visual content that
reference religion (Minton, 2015). Prior research generally identifies
positive effects of religious cue use in secular advertising on product
evaluations and purchase intentions (Minton, 2015, 2016; Taylor,
Halstead, & Haynes, 2010), while practitioner examples highlight that
such positive outcomes may not always be the case. For example,
Chick‐fil‐A has received a great deal of criticism for communicating
support to causes that align with the owner’s Christian religious
values in addition to their practice of being closed on Sundays for a
day of worship and rest (Economist, 2014). Such criticism is likely to
increase as companies continue to globalize and seek to develop
relevant international advertising tactics that are appropriate for
many different target markets, which encompass consumers repre-
senting a variety of religious affiliations.
Businesses without explicit religious values have also made
reference to religion, such as Best Buy wishing Muslim consumers a
happy Eid near Black Friday (Schneiderman, 2011), and Dr. Pepper
highlighting the evolutionary nature of the beverage (Jauregui,
2012). Both of these examples generated controversy as some
consumers thought Best Buy encouraging Eid was against the
Christian culture, and other consumers thought Dr. Pepper was
indicating evolution, rather than creation, was the appropriate belief
system. Such reactions occur frequently on a smaller scale with local
businesses as well (Hutchins & Stielstra, 2009). While some academic
research has identified that negative evaluations to religious cue use
are possible for religious consumers that receive a poor service
experience (Taylor et al., 2010) or for consumers that are high in
more cognitive, facts/belief‐based religious views (Minton, 2015),
these examples do not fully explain why consumers may have
diverging views on religious cue use. In addition, research has yet to
identify strategies that can be used by businesses to decrease
potential controversial reactions to religious cue use in advertising.
As such, the research herein seeks to understand consumer response
to religious cue use in marketing communications with two specific
novel perspectives left inadequately explored in prior research—how
the religious affiliation represented in the religious cue influences
consumer evaluations as well as how consumers’ open‐mindedness
may explain such evaluations.
Research has long connected open‐mindedness to religious views
(Thompson, 1974), with open‐minded people generally expressing
less antireligious sentiment (Uzarevic, Saroglou, & Clobert, 2017);
however, the vast majority of research on open‐mindedness has been
conducted in the educational domain, showing that open‐mindedness
enhances learning (Bautista, Misco, & Quaye, 2017; Hare, 1993;
Taylor, 2016). The limited research in marketing and consumer
behavior most frequently examines open‐mindedness from the
perspective of managers within an organization and associated
influences on innovation or new product development (c.f., Calan-
tone, Cavusgil, & Zhao, 2002; Liu, Luo, & Shi, 2002; Sinkula, Baker,
& Noordewier, 1997; Troy, Szymanski, & Varadarajan, 2001). A very
small body of literature has examined open‐mindedness from the
consumer’s perspective (c.f., Baumgartner, 2002; Kim & Littrell,
2001; Yang & Smith, 2009). Research has yet, however, to adequately
examine how open‐mindedness might be key to understanding
consumer response toward potentially controversial topics, such as
religion, used in marketing communications.
Another important factor for consideration in response to
religious cues in marketing communications is the specific religious
affiliation represented by the religious cue. Research on advertising
with religious cues has predominately explored either Christian
religious cue use (c.f., Henley, Philhours, Ranganathan, & Bush, 2009;
Minton, 2015; Taylor et al., 2010) or general Muslim advertising
efforts (c.f., Al‐Olayan & Karande, 2000). What is lacking is a
comparison of different types of religious cues. An in‐depth under-
standing of response to religiously‐integrated marketing communica-
tions, particularly from a multi‐religion perspective, is increasing in
importance as marketers continue to seek niche markets (Mathras,
Cohen, Mandel, & Mick, 2016). In addition to Christian advertising
examples (e.g., Chick‐fil‐A), many businesses are approaching other
religious markets, such as McDonald's, L'Oreal, and Best Buy
targeting the Muslim market (Minton & Kahle, 2014). Stated simply,
research needs to catch up to practice to understand how and why
consumers are responding to marketing communications featuring
religious cues from various religious traditions. With this under-
standing, academics and marketers alike can begin to identify how to
effectively use religious cues in marketing communications (e.g., what
symbols or religious messages least trigger reactive responses),
how to respond to consumers expressing like or dislike for such
marketing communications (e.g., what to include in a press release),
as well as ways to influence thinking toward such communications
(e.g., manipulations that can be used within a message).
Therefore, this paper has three main purposes (a) identify how
product evaluations differ based on exposure to marketing commu-
nications incorporating cues of different religious faiths (Christians
and Muslims, specifically), (b) examine open‐mindedness as moderat-
ing this effect and (c) prime open‐mindedness to identify if such a
technique can be used to increase evaluations of marketing
communications with religious cues. The sections to follow review
the literature on religious cues in marketing communications, with
religious cues serving as information that assists consumers in
evaluating a product. Afterward, three studies are conducted to
address the three purposes of this paper.
2 | RELIGIOUS CUES IN SECULARMARKETING MESSAGES
Despite over 70% of consumers worldwide adhering to some form of
religious belief (PEW, 2017), research examining religion’s influence
on marketing and consumer behavior is lacking (Cheng, Mukhopad-
hyay, & Schrift, 2017; Mathras et al., 2016). Part of this lack of
research may be due to the taboo nature of the topic (Mokhlis, 2006),
indicating a greater necessity to understand the intricacy/sensitivity
of using religion in marketing communications. While cues for other
topics (e.g., politics or sexual orientation) can be equally polarizing,
religious cues represent a unique context because religion serves as a
primary source for core meaning and purpose in this world, and
corresponding beliefs are written and agreed upon in religious texts.
In contrast, other polarizing topics do not carry the same set of
universally agreed upon beliefs in text that are followed as guiding
truths (Hood, Hill, & Spilka, 2009; Minton & Kahle, 2014).
Additionally, evolutionary theories of religion suggest that religion
serves a human’s core need to adapt and socially belong as a means
for critical resource acquisition (Durkheim, 1912; Kirkpatrick, 1999;
Wilson, 2010). Therefore, religious cues tap into a deeper sense of
meaning, purpose, beliefs, and values in comparison to cues
representing other polarizing topics.
These religious cues also serve as information regarding a brand’s
quality, motives, and other features that consumers use in making
purchase decisions (Liu & Minton, 2018). According to cue utilization
theory, consumers rely on intrinsic cues (i.e., attributes inherent in a
product such as product ingredients) and extrinsic cues (i.e.,
attributes external to the product such as package or ad visuals/
text) to determine a brand’s quality (Jamal, Khan, & Tsesmetzi, 2012;
Richardson, Dick, & Jain, 1994). In a study of over 1,500 shoppers,
Richardson et al. (1994) show that consumers rely primarily on
extrinsic cues in purchase decisions, particularly for lower
involvement products. This finding further justifies the focus of the
studies herein on extrinsic informational cues, as assessed through
religious cues in advertising. While prior research has suggested that
370 | MINTON
religious cues in marketing communications can serve as
informational cues (c.f., Liu & Minton, 2018), as just mentioned,
this research work was conducted with one religious affiliation
(Christianity) and did not consider how open‐mindedness might
explain such effects.
Practically speaking, many companies are incorporating religious
cues into marketing communications including Chick‐fil‐A (as men-
tioned earlier), Hobby Lobby, Tyson Chicken, Alaska Airlines, Forever
21, and Marriott (Nisen, 2013). These cues come in the form of
textual references to religion, heaven, hell, or God; religious symbols;
or visuals of religious figures. Such cues can function as primes to
increase top of mind awareness regarding religion (Henley et al.,
2009; Minton, 2015, 2016; Muhamad & Mizerski, 2013; Nisen, 2013;
Taylor et al., 2010). While some argue that religious primes are not
effective (Van Elk et al., 2015), other research shows that religious
cues increase consumers’ perception of a company, specifically for
highly religious consumers (Dotson & Hyatt, 2000; Minton, 2015),
while at the same time increasing consumers’ expectations of a
company (Taylor et al., 2010).
Examining religious cue use in marketing communications is
particularly interesting as it represents an intertwining of the
domains of the sacred (religious cue) and secular (marketing
communications; Belk, Wallendorf, & Sherry, 1989; McDaniel,
1986; Wu & Cutright, 2018). Mixing these two domains may send
consumers into a state of sense making to adequately understand
why the religious cue is being used in the marketing message (Dick,
Chakravarti, & Biehal, 1990; Zehra & Minton, 2019). The outcomes of
this sense making process should then influence product evaluations.
While it seems plausible that positive product evaluations may occur
when consumers perceive the religious business as having higher
standards, providing a superior product/service, and operating by a
stronger moral compass than the equivalent brand with no religious
reference (Dotson & Hyatt, 2000; Minton, 2015; Taylor et al., 2010),
these evaluations are based on perceiving authentic motives behind
religious cue use (Zehra & Minton, 2019).
In contrast, reduced product evaluations in response to market-
ing communications with religious cues may occur when consumers
have objections against certain faiths, are unable to make sense of
the religious cue use in marketing communications, or feel that the
secular and sacred should be concretely divided domains. Such
negative response is perhaps more likely given the growing negative
sentiment toward religion (Gallup, 2017; Pew Research Center,
2014). Consistent with this reasoning, prior research suggests that
affect from one element, such as the potential negative affect from a
religious cue, can transfer to another element, such as evaluations of
an advertised product (Nan & Heo, 2007). Prior research has also
shown that religious cues can result in reduced product evaluations,
possibly due to close‐mindedness or reactance to the religious cue
being activated in response to secular marketing communications
(Minton, 2015, 2018, 2019).
These negative effects are likely to occur regardless of the
religious affiliation associated with the religious cue, although there
is potential for the negative reactions to be greater for religions
associated with greater negative affect. For example, findings from a
study by the Pew Research Center (2014) revealed the following
attitudes toward US religious groups (with 100 being the warmest,
most positive feelings and 0 being the coldest, most negative
feelings): Jews (63), Catholics (62), Evangelical Christians (61),
Buddhists (53), Hindus (50), Mormons (48), Atheists (41), and
Muslims (40). Thus, consumer attitudes toward a message with a
Muslim cue may be lower than similar messages with a Christian cue.
However, research assessing the division between sacred and secular
consumption suggests that consumer response to religious cue use in
marketing may stem purely from the integration of sacred elements
(e.g., religious cues) into the secular domain (e.g., marketing
communications; c.f., Belk et al., 1989; McDaniel, 1986; Wu &
Cutright, 2018), with the actual religion represented in the sacred
religious cue carrying less influence.
It is important to note here that the motives behind response to
religious cue use are interesting (and a ripe area for future research),
but the research herein focuses instead on establishing the relation-
ship between religious cue use and product evaluations as well as
examining why such cues drive product evaluations. This narrow
scope is essential for a more comprehensive understanding of
underlying mechanisms in an effort to show how religious cues
influence consumer decision making. With this understanding
established, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H1: Marketing communications with religious cues produce lower
product evaluations in comparison to marketing communications
with no religious cue.
3 | OPEN vs. CLOSE ‐MINDEDNESS &RESPONSE TO RELIGIOUS CUE USE
What may influence a consumer’s evaluation of religious cues in
marketing communications? Open‐mindedness may help to explain
this response. Open‐mindedness refers to “a nonjudgmental attitude
toward different cultural groups, norms, and practices” (Ward,
Fischer, Zaid Lam, & Hall, 2009, p. 96), whereas close‐mindedness
is just the—a judgmental attitude toward other groups, norms, and
practices. Other definitions of open‐mindedness suggest that the
concept represents a willingness to accept and consider new opinions
and information that may be contradictory to one’s own (Flynn,
2005; Webster & Kruglanski, 1994). Open‐mindedness differs from
the related construct of cognitive closure because open‐mindedness
is a cognitive construct, whereas cognitive closure is a motivational
construct (Kruglanski & Webster, 1996). Additionally, open‐mind-
edness differs from openness to experience (a component of the big
five personality traits) because open‐mindedness influences beliefs
regarding openness to experience, alongside other factors such as a
consumer's preference for variety, active imagination, and judgment
independence (Zhang, 2006).
The relationship between religion and open‐mindedness specifi-
cally for religious followers is often reflected in terms such as
MINTON | 371
religious dogmatism (i.e., the belief that one’s religious principles are
true, accompanied with close‐mindedness toward other views) and
religious quest (i.e., open‐mindedness toward other religious views as
one progresses on their own religious journey; Hill & Hood, 1999).
Open‐mindedness is particularly interesting to explore in consumer
response to marketing messaging using religious cues because prior
literature has established that open‐mindedness is correlated with
views regarding religion (Thompson, 1974), such that open‐minded
people are generally more positive toward others that are religious
(Uzarevic et al., 2017). Research also shows that religious people
tend to be less open‐minded (i.e., more close‐minded) than
nonreligious people (Browne, Pennycook, Goodwin, & McHenry,
2014; Pennycook, Cheyne, Barr, Koehler, & Fugelsang, 2014).
Thus, open‐mindedness should lead to openness toward different
religious perspectives, while religious devotion should lead to close‐mindedness.
The limited research in marketing and consumer behavior that
examines open‐mindedness most frequently tests the construct from
a firm’s perspective and associated influences on innovation or the
new product development process (Liu et al., 2002). A very small
body of literature has examined open‐mindedness from the
consumer’s perspective (c.f., Baumgartner, 2002; Kim & Littrell,
2001; Yang & Smith, 2009). As one exemplar, Smith, Chen, and Yang
(2008) show that increased open‐mindedness leads to decreased
defensiveness in response to advertising. Specifically, these authors
found that acceptance or rejection of marketing communications
was, in part (alongside brand curiosity and persuasion resistance), a
function of one’s open‐mindedness. This open‐mindedness led
consumers to reserve product judgments until they had the
opportunity to process all relevant information (Kruglanski & Ajzen,
1983; Kruglanski & Webster, 1996). With ample time, open‐mindedness should act as a moderator to consumers’ evaluation of
advertising using religious cues, such that product judgments may be
reserved until the consumer has had the ability to fully process all
information, understand motives behind religious cue use, and better
research the product's positioning.
Despite some research on open‐mindedness in marketing, no
studies were found that examine the relationship among religious
elements in advertising, consumption, and open‐mindedness. This gap
in the literature identifies an interesting area for further research,
especially in potentially explaining consumers’ reaction to advertising
stimuli that may be perceived as controversial. Given the earlier
literature showing the correlation between open‐mindedness and
positive attitudes toward religion, it is expected that open‐mind-
edness will also positively correlate with liking for businesses using
religious cues in marketing communications.
In addition to correlational effects, it is expected that priming
close‐mindedness will lead to attitudes and behaviors more con-
sistent with someone that is characteristically close‐minded and vice
versa for priming open‐mindedness. Stated simply, consumers should
act in prime consistent ways (Minton, Cornwell, & Kahle, 2016).
Specifically, consumers that are primed to be more open‐minded
(rather than close‐minded) should also be more accepting of religious
cue use in advertising and report higher corresponding product
evaluations. Thus:
H2: Open‐mindedness moderates the relationship between religious cue
condition and product evaluations, such that consumers that are
higher, as opposed to lower, in open‐mindedness will have higher
product evaluations when exposed to marketing communications
with a religious cue. These effects will be magnified when
mindedness is primed.
To test these hypotheses, three studies are conducted. Specifi-
cally, Studies 1a and 1b examine the influence of advertisements
featuring religious cues versus no religious cue on product evalua-
tions (testing H1) with two different sample sources. Studies 2 and 3
then proceed to identify the moderating influence of open‐mind-
edness as a measured construct (Study 2) and isolating its effect as a
manipulated construct (Study 3) on response to advertising with
different religious cues (testing H2).
4 | STUDIES 1a AND 1b (RELIGIOUSCUES & PRODUCT EVALUATIONS)
Studies 1a and 1b seek to understand how religious cues in
marketing communications influence product evaluations (testing
H1) with an adult Amazon’s Mechanical Turk sample (Study 1a) and a
student sample (Study 1b). Before conducting the studies, a pretest is
run to identify religious symbol recognition and liking for different
religious groups to aid in the selection of religious cues for the
studies to follow.
4.1 | Pretest
4.1.1 | Method
One hundred and three adults (Mage = 34.18 years; SDage = 12.07
years; 45.1% female) from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk participated in
this pretest in exchange for a small cash incentive. Participants were
23.5% Protestant Christian, 4.9% Catholic, 2.0% Jewish, 2.0%
Muslim, 2.0% Buddhist, 1.0% Hindu, 9.8% spiritual but not religious,
24.5% Agnostic, 27.5% Atheist, and 2.8% other. All participants
answered all questions regarding recognition of religious cues and
attitudes toward religious groups. Recognition of religious cues was
assessed by asking participants whether or not they recognized the
religious symbol. This question was asked four times using one
question for each of the four largest religious groups worldwide:
Christian cross, Muslim crescent moon and star, Hindu Aum
(character representing the physical and metaphysical tenants of
Hinduism), and Buddhist wheel. It is important to note that whereas
some argue that Muslims (followers of Islam) do not have a religious
symbol, the crescent moon and star are one of the most often
associated symbols (along with the hijab or head scarf) that represent
Muslims (Hunt & Penwell, 2008). Attitudes toward religious groups
were assessed with three‐items on 7‐point bipolar scales: “Please
372 | MINTON
indicate your attitude toward [religious group]” (endpoints: unfavor-
able/favorable, bad/good, dislike/like). This set of questions was
asked four times for the four largest religious groups (Schmidt et al.,
2014): Christianity (α = 0.992), Islam (α = 0.992), Hinduism
(α = 0.989), and Buddhism (α = 0.988).
4.1.2 | Results and discussion
Respondents had the greatest awareness of the Christian religious
symbol, with the Muslim, Hindu, and Buddhist religious symbols
exhibiting lower awareness, in that order. Paired sample t‐tests were
used to test differences in attitudes toward religious groups. The
highest overall attitudes were for Buddhists in comparison to
Christians (t(102) = 1.00; p = .321), Hindus (t(102) = 5.24; p < 0.001),
and Muslims (t(102) = 5.92; p < .001). Overall attitudes were
significantly higher for Christians than Muslims, t(102) = 4.19;
p < .001, but not between Christians and Hindus, t(102) = 1.27;
p = .206. Finally, overall attitudes were significantly higher for Hindus
than Muslims, t(102) = 3.90; p < .001. See Table 1 for descriptive
statistics for symbol awareness and religious attitudes.
Given the highest awareness for the Christian and Muslim
religious symbols as well as a significant difference in attitudes
toward these religious groups, the symbols from these religious
groups (i.e., the Christian cross and the Muslim crescent moon and
star) are used in the stimuli for the studies to follow. It is important to
note, however, that this pretest was conducted with a U.S. sample,
and thus attitudes toward members of religious groups are likely to
differ if this pretest were repeated in countries featuring different
dominant religions.
4.2 | Method: Study 1a
One hundred and seventy‐four adults (Mage = 36.88 years; SDage = 12.57
years; 44.8% female) from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk participated in
this study in exchange for a small cash incentive. Procedures were used
to exclude people from taking the survey that had participated in the
pretest. Similar procedures were used for all subsequent studies,
excluding participants that had taken a previous study. Participants
were 27.6% Protestant Christian, 20.7% Catholic, 1.7% Jewish, 0.6%
Muslim, 2.3% Buddhist, 9.8% spiritual but not religious, 17.2% Agnostic,
16.7% Atheist, and 3.4% other. Participants were randomly assigned to
one of three conditions (religious cue: none, Christian, Muslim) of a
between‐subjects design. After seeing an advertisement with religious
cue condition, participants completed product evaluation measures and
then answered questions assessing religiosity and demographics, in that
order.
Religious cue condition was manipulated through advertisements
for a downtown pastry shop with Christian values, Muslim values, or
no religious cue at the bottom of the advertisement; see the
APPENDIX A for study stimuli. As an instructional check, participants
were asked at the end of the study which value system (or none at
all) they saw in the advertisement at the beginning of the study.
Product evaluations were assessed with two, three‐item, seven‐pointbipolar scales for overall attitude (endpoints: unfavorable/favorable,
bad/good, dislike/like; α = 0.990, M = 5.23; SD = 1.63) and purchase
intentions (endpoints: unlikely/likely, definitely would not/definitely
would; not probable/probable; α = 0.981; M = 4.92; SD = 1.77).
Additionally, Minton's (2015) religiosity scale (α = 0.975; M = 3.68;
SD = 2.03), age, and income were included to rule out potential
covariates. These are the same product evaluations and religiosity
measures that have been used in prior research on religion and
advertising (c.f., Minton, 2016). Religious affiliation was not included
as a potential covariate in this or the following studies given small
sample sizes of all religious affiliations other than Christians.
4.3 | Results: Study 1a
Nine participants failed to answer the instructional check correctly,
leaving the data from 165 participants for further analysis. Results
from analysis of variance revealed a significant effect of religious cue
condition on both overall attitude, F(2, 162) = 6.67; p = .002, and
purchase intentions, F(2, 162) = 3.82; p = .024.
Simple contrast effects showed that overall attitude was highest
for the advertisement with no religious cue (M = 5.85, SD = 1.00) in
comparison to the advertisement with the Christian religious cue
(M = 4.94; SD = 1.88; p = .003) or the advertisement with the Muslim
religious cue (M = 4.88; SD = 1.73; p = .001). Similarly, purchase
intentions were highest for the advertisement with no religious cue
(M = 5.44; SD = 1.29) in comparison to the advertisement with the
Christian religious cue (M = 4.65; SD = 2.04; p = .019) or the adver-
tisement with the Muslim religious cue (M = 4.64; SD = 1.83; p = .018).
There were no significant differences in overall attitude or purchase
intentions between the Christian and Muslim religious cue condi-
tions.
The ANOVA tests were also repeated controlling for the three
possible covariates mentioned earlier (religiosity, age, income).
Controlling for these variables did not substantially change results,
with significant effects of religious cue condition still resulting for
overall attitude, F(2, 159) = 7.29; p = .001, and purchase intentions,
F(2, 159) = 4.45, p = 0.013. Additionally, potential interaction effects
between religious cue condition and religiosity were explored using
regression analysis after creating two dummy variable conditions
(Christian cue vs. none and Muslim cue vs. none). Demographic
covariates were excluded from regression analysis given that they
TABLE 1 Awareness and attitudes toward religions (pretest forStudies 1a and 1b)
Seen &
knowsymbol
Seen
symbol, notknow
Never
seensymbol
Attitude
towardreligion
Christianity 97.1% 2.9% 0% 4.85 (1.58)
Islam 55.3% 35.9% 8.7% 4.11 (1.57)
Hinduism 21.4% 34.0% 44.7% 4.66 (1.20)
Buddhism 7.8% 36.9% 55.3% 5.02 (1.23)
Note: Symbol cells are percentages. Attitude cells are means and standard
deviations.
MINTON | 373
had little effect on the dependent variables. The full model was
significant for both overall attitude, F(5, 159) = 6.75; p < .001;
r2 = 0.18, and purchase intentions, F(5, 159) = 6.74, p < .001,
r2 = 0.18. While there were no significant interaction effects with
the Muslim vs. none dummy code (p > .5), there were significant
interactions with the Christian vs. none dummy code for both overall
attitude, b = 0.41; p = .004, and purchase intentions, b = 0.61; p < .001.
As could be expected, consumers that were more religious and in the
Christian cue condition reported the greatest evaluations. This is
reasonable given that a majority of the highly religious respondents
were Christian. Study 1b proceeds to replicate these findings with a
different sample (students).
4.4 | Method: Study 1b
One hundred and thirty‐three college students (Mage = 20.96 years;
SDage = 1.84 years; 46.6% female) in introductory business courses at
a university in the Pacific Northwest voluntarily participated in this
study. Participants were 45.8% Protestant Christian, 24.4% Catholic,
4.6% Jewish, 4.6% Agnostic, 11.5% Atheist, and 9.1% other.
Participants were randomly assigned to one of three conditions
(religious cue condition: none, Christian, Muslim) of a between‐subjects design. The purpose of this study was to replicate the
findings from Study 1b with a different sample source (college
students in Study 1b as opposed to adults on Amazon’s Mechanical
Turk in Study 1a). Additionally, this study featured a new ad for cat
food; see the APPENDIX A for study stimuli. All other procedures
and measures mimicked Study 1a, including assessment of overall
attitude (α = 0.972; M = 3.90; SD = 1.51) and purchase intention
(α = 0.982; M = 3.55; SD = 1.67). Additionally, the same potential
covariates were collected including religiosity (α = 0.975; M = 4.51;
SD = 1.91) and age. Income was not included as a covariate (unlike
Study 1a), given less relevance to the college student sample.
4.5 | Results: Study 1b
Four participants failed to answer the instructional check correctly,
leaving the data from 129 participants for further analysis. Results
from ANOVAs revealed a significant effect of religious cue condition
on purchase intentions, F(2, 126) = 3.62; p = .030, but not for overall
attitude, F(2, 126) = 2.89; p = .059.
Simple contrast effects showed that purchase intentions were
highest for the advertisement with no religious cue (M = 4.05,
SD = 1.58) in comparison to the advertisement with the Muslim
religious cue (M = 3.10; SD = 1.59; p = .008) or the advertisement with
the Christian religious cue, although not significantly (M = 3.50;
SD = 1.72; p = .120). Similarly, overall attitude was higher for the
advertisement with no religious cue (M = 4.15, SD = 1.41) in
comparison to the advertisement with the Muslim religious cue
(M = 3.45; SD = 1.62; p = .030) or the advertisement with
the Christian religious cue, although not significantly (M = 4.08;
SD = 1.42; p = .813). There were no significant differences in overall
attitude or purchase intentions between the Christian and Muslim
religious cue conditions.
Follow‐up analyses were also conducted controlling for the
covariates collected in this study (religiosity and age), revealing no
substantial changes from when the covariates were controlled
for (Fpurchase intentions (2, 123) = 3.73; p= .027; Foverall attitude
(2, 123) = 3.30; p = .040). Similar to Study 1a, interaction analyses were
performed using regression with religiosity and the religious cue
condition dummy codes (Christian cue vs. none and Muslim cue vs.
none). While the full models for both purchase intentions,
F(5, 123) = 4.20; p = .001; r2 =0.15, and overall attitude,
F(5, 123) = 3.50; p = .005; r2 = 0.13, were significant, none of the
interaction effects significantly added to the models.
4.6 | Discussion: studies 1a and 1b
Results from Studies 1a and 1b show that marketing communications
including a religious cue produced lower product evaluations in
comparison to communications with no religious cue, regardless of a
consumer’s level of religiosity, thereby supporting H1. These results
are confirmed with both a sample of adults from Amazon’s
Mechanical Turk (Study 1a) and college students (Study 1b), showing
the pervasiveness of this effect. Findings also rule out potential
confounds in testing models with and without covariates (religiosity,
age, and income).
It is possible that the lower product evaluations for advertise-
ments featuring religious cues could be due to the product category
(food and pet offerings in Studies 1a and 1b, respectively) not being
perceived as being directly relevant to religion. With that said
though, it is necessary to test religious cues in advertisements
outside of just religious offerings to match current practice (e.g., the
food establishment Chick‐fil‐A using religious references in advertis-
ing). Some may also argue that the findings here are merely due to a
nonreligious sample reacting to the religious cues in the advertise-
ments, but descriptive statistics for religiosity show that consumers
reported religiosity levels that were in the middle of the religiosity
scale (MStudy 1a with mTurk sample = 3.68; SD = 2.03; MStudy 1b with student
sample = 4.51; SD = 1.91). Additionally, only 36.3% and 19.9% of
respondents were atheist or agnostic in Studies 1a and 1b,
respectively, which represent values higher and lower than national
data collected by the PEW forum, which identified that roughly
22.8% of people in the U.S. are atheist or agnostic. Thus, there is not
evidence to support the argument that respondents are simply not
religious, which then resulted in the lower product evaluations for
advertised products featuring religious cues. Another explanation for
the negative influence of religious cues on product evaluations may
be due to consumers, regardless of religiosity level, feeling that
mixing the domains of the sacred (religion) and secular (advertising)
is not appropriate (Zehra & Minton, 2019). Related to this,
consumers may be close‐minded toward religious cue use outside
of religious contexts or be exhibiting situational reactance toward
the religious cue presence in the advertisement.
374 | MINTON
There were also no significant differences in product evaluations
between marketing communications with Muslim versus Christian
religious cues, suggesting that it is the presence and activation of
religious concepts in general, rather than specific religious affilia-
tions, that produces lower product evaluations. With this basic effect
established, Study 2 proceeds to test if consumers’ open‐mindedness
moderates response to marketing communications with religious
cues (vs. a control with no religious cue), thereby helping to answer
the question as to whether open/close‐mindedness may be an
explanation to the reduced product evaluations for advertisements
featuring religious cues.
5 | STUDY 2 (RELIGIOUS CUES& MODERATING EFFECT OFOPEN‐MINDEDNESS)
This study seeks to understand why consumers may be reacting to
religious cues in marketing communications by exploring moderating
effects with open‐mindedness, thereby testing H2.
5.1 | Method
One hundred and twenty adults (Mage = 37.90 years; SDage = 13.59
years; 45.4% female) from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk participated in
this study in exchange for a small cash incentive. Participants were
25.0% Protestant Christian, 23.1% Catholic, 1.9% Jewish, 0.9%
Muslim, 0.9% Buddhist, 7.4% Spiritual but not Religious, 20.4%
Agnostic, 16.7% Atheist, and 3.7% other. Similar to Studies 1a and 1b,
participants were randomly assigned to one of three conditions
(religious cue: none, Christian, Muslim) of a between‐subjects design.After seeing an advertisement with religious cue condition, partici-
pants completed product evaluation measures and then answered
questions assessing open‐mindedness and demographics, in that
order.
Religious cue condition was manipulated through advertisements
for a chocolate company with a Christian, Muslim, or no religious cue
at the bottom of the advertisement; see the APPENDIX A for study
stimuli. As an instructional check, participants were asked at the end
of the study which religious symbol (or none at all) they saw in the
advertisement at the beginning of the study. Product evaluations
were assessed with the same scales for overall attitude (α = 0.973;
M = 5.75; SD = 1.26) and purchase intentions (α = 0.973; M = 5.33;
SD = 1.59) as used in Studies 1a and 1b. Open‐mindedness was
measured using Haran, Ritov, and Mellers (2013) seven‐point, seven‐item open‐minded thinking scale (α = 0.767; M = 5.17; SD = 0.80).
5.2 | Results
Twelve participants failed to answer the instructional check
correctly, leaving the data from 108 participants for further analysis.
To explore moderating effects of open‐mindedness on overall
attitudes and purchase intentions, Hayes’ (2013) PROCESS macro
(model 1) was used with 10,000 bootstrapped samples. Religious cue
condition was entered as the independent variable using PROCESS’
multicategorical feature, which created two dummy codes for the
independent variable (i.e., dummy variables for Christian and Muslim
religious cue condition versus the control cue condition). Open‐mindedness was entered as the moderator. Two separate models
were run for each dependent variable (overall attitude and purchase
intentions).
For overall attitude, the full model was significant, F(5,102) = 3.41;
p= .007; r2=0.14. Both the interaction between open‐mindedness and
the Christian vs. no religious cue condition, b=−1.02; p= .006, and the
interaction between open‐mindedness and the Muslim vs. no religious
cue condition, b=−0.72; p= .041, significantly predicted overall attitude.
To better understand this interaction, a Johnson‐Neyman analysis was
conducted (Spiller, Fitzsimons, Lynch, & McClelland, 2013). Results
showed a significant cutoff value of 5.14, with 45.37% of respondents
falling below this value, and 54.63% of respondents falling above this
value. Values greater than 5.14 on open‐mindedness produced the
significant interaction. In other words, consumers low in open‐mind-
edness responded to all ads similarly, while consumers high in open‐mindedness, surprisingly, responded less positively to the advertisements
with religious cues than the advertisement with no religious cue. To
provide ease in visually understanding these results, a spotlight technique
was used at one standard deviation above and below the mean for open‐mindedness; see Figure 1.
For purchase intentions, only the interaction between the
Christian vs. no religious cue condition and open‐mindedness was
significant, b = −0.98, p = 0.040, with the full model not being
significant, F(5,102) = 2.03; p = .081. Despite non‐significance, mean
values showed that the interaction between the Muslim vs. no
religious cue dummy code and open‐mindedness trended in the same
direction as for overall attitude, b = −0.71; p = .118. For the Christian
versus no religious cue condition, a Johnson–Neyman analysis was
again conducted to better understand this interaction. Results
showed a significant cutoff value of 5.17, with 50.0% of respondents
falling below this value, and 50.0% of respondents falling above this
value. Values greater than 5.17 on open‐mindedness produced the
F IGURE 1 Spotlight analysis of open‐mindedness’ moderatingeffect on overall attitude (Study 2)
MINTON | 375
significant interaction. The same pattern of effects as observed for
overall attitude were exhibited for purchase intentions.
5.3 | Discussion
As expected, open‐mindedness influenced consumer response to
religious cues in marketing communications. Most interesting is
the finding that consumers high in open‐mindedness, rather than
low in open‐mindedness, had the most negative evaluations of
products advertised using religious cues, thereby not supporting
H2. It is possible that consumers that self‐identify as open‐minded
are only saying this because this is their ideal self and indicating
open‐mindedness is an act of protection of their desired identity.
In this case, self‐reported open‐mindedness may not reflect actual
attitudes and behavior, fitting with the literature on self‐reportbias (Baumeister, Clark, Kim, & Lau, 2017). Alternatively, con-
sumers may be open‐minded toward noncontroversial topics, but
given the controversial nature of religion (Mathras et al., 2016;
Minton & Kahle, 2014), this general open‐mindedness may not be
carried over to religious cue use in marketing. This logic fits with
the types of questions in Haran et al. (2013) open‐mindedness
scale that assesses general, rather than specific, open‐mindedness
(e.g., “Changing your mind is a sign of weakness” or “Intuition is the
best guide in making decisions”). To confirm these effects and
explore alternative ways of assessing open‐mindedness, Study 3
proceeds to manipulate open and close‐mindedness to see if a
similar pattern of effects emerges.
6 | STUDY 3 (RELIGIOUS CUES &MANIPULATING OPEN ANDCLOSE ‐MINDEDNESS)
This study continues to examine evaluations of marketing commu-
nications with religious cues from different religious groups (H1). In
addition, this study seeks to test the influence of an open and close‐mindedness prime on evaluation of marketing communications using
religious cues (H2). Before proceeding to examine the effects of this
manipulation on product evaluations, a pretest is conducted to verify
that the open and close‐mindedness task does in fact influence
consumers’ open and close‐mindedness.
6.1 | Pretest
6.1.1 | Method
Fifty‐six adults (Mage = 37.10 years; SDage= 11.39 years; 41.8%
female) from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk participated in this study
in exchange for a small cash incentive. Participants were randomly
assigned to one condition of a two‐way design (mindedness prime:
open‐mindedness, close‐mindedness). After participation in the
mindedness prime task, participants completed two self‐generatedscales to assess state open‐mindedness. First, participants
responded with their present feelings regarding open‐mindedness
(“How do you feel right now?”) using three‐items on 7‐point bipolarscales (close‐minded/open‐minded, not open to new ideas/open to
new ideas, not willing to change/willing to change; α = 0.911). Next,
participants indicated words that they most identified with at the
moment (“Which words do you identify with more right now?”)
using five items, each measured on 7‐point bipolar scales (closed/
open, barred/free, stuffy/airy, blocked/unblocked sealed/unsealed;
α = 0.907).
Mindedness was manipulated using a self‐generated mindedness
prime task. In the open (closed) mindedness prime, participants were
told, “To begin, please list five topics below on which you think you
are very open‐minded (close‐minded) about.” Participants were then
provided five text boxes to respond to the prompt.
6.1.2 | Results
All participants answered the instructional check question
correctly, and thus the data from all participants were retained
for further analysis. ANOVA was used to assess the influence of
the mindedness prime condition on the two open‐mindedness
measures. Participants in the open‐mindedness condition reported
greater feelings of open‐mindedness (M = 5.99; SD = 1.04)
and association with open‐mindedness related words (M = 6.27;
SD = 0.83) in comparison to participants in the close‐mindedness
condition (Mfeelings = 4.63; SD = 0.95; Mwords = 4.48; SD = 1.08),
Fopen‐minded feelings (1, 31) = 28.91; p < .001; Fopen‐minded words
(1, 31) = 15.48; p < .001.
6.1.3 | Discussion
Results from this pretest confirm that writing about open versus
close‐minded topics can be used to prime open and close‐mind-
edness, and therefore, this task is used in Study 3.
6.2 | Method
Three hundred adults (Mage = 36.84 years; SDage = 11.12 years; 44.4%
female) from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk participated in this study in
exchange for a small cash incentive. Participants were 37.4%
Protestant Christian, 15.5% Catholic, 1.1% Jewish, 1.4% Muslim,
1.8% Buddhist, 0.4% Hindu, 6.8% spiritual but not religious, 18.0%
Agnostic, 14.7% Atheist, and 2.9% other. Participants were randomly
assigned to one condition of a two (mindedness manipulation: open,
closed) × three (religious cue condition: none, Christian, Muslim)
design. After the mindedness manipulation, each participant saw an
ad, followed by product evaluation measures and then religiosity and
demographic questions, in that order.
Mindedness was manipulated using the same priming task from
the pretest, and participants were again asked whether they wrote
about open‐mindedness or close‐mindedness as an instructional
check. Advertisements featured a used car dealership with either a
Christian (cross), Muslim (crescent moon and star), or no religious
cue; see the APPENDIX A for study stimuli. Product evaluations were
376 | MINTON
assessed with the same measures from Studies 1–2 for overall
attitude (α = 0.955; M = 4.49; SD = 1.54) and purchase intentions
(α = 0.967; M = 4.00; SD = 1.70). Additionally, the same state mea-
sures of open‐mindedness from the pre‐test for open‐minded feelings
(α = 0.946; M = 4.97; SD = 1.76) and open‐minded word association
(α = 0.962; M = 5.01; SD = 1.63) were used as a manipulation check
for the open‐mindedness prime in this study. To further show the
influence of the prime, the trait measure of open‐mindedness
(α = 0.806; M = 5.13; SD = 0.99) as used in Study 2 was also collected
here.
6.3 | Results
Twenty‐two participants failed to answer at least one of the
instructional check questions correctly (many of which guessed
there was a religious symbol when in fact there was none), and they
were removed from the data set, leaving the data of 278 participants
for further analysis. To confirm manipulation of open and close‐mindedness, ANOVAs were conducted with the prime condition as
the IV and the three open‐mindedness measures as DVs. As
expected, participants in the open‐minded prime condition reported
significantly greater open‐minded feelings (M = 5.83; SD = 1.10;
F(1,276) = 89.94; p < .001), association with open‐minded words
(M = 5.75; SD = 1.06; F(1,276) = 74.85; p < .001), and also exhibited
higher trait open‐mindedness (M = 5.26; SD = 0.94; F(1,276) = 5.65;
p = .018) in comparison to participants in the close‐minded prime
condition (Mfeelings = 4.09, SD = 1.87; Mwords = 4.25, SD = 1.76;
Mtrait = 4.98; SD = 1.03).
Additionally, results from ANOVAs revealed a significant inter-
action of open‐mindedness condition and religious cue condition on
overall attitude, F(2, 272) = 3.49; p = .032, and purchase intentions,
F(2, 272) = 3.10; p = .047. Planned contrasts revealed that priming
open‐mindedness for participants in the no cue condition increased
overall attitude (p = .006) and purchase intentions (p = .001) in
comparison to those primed with close‐mindedness. The open‐mindedness and close‐mindedness primes had no effect on the
participants in the Muslim cue condition (p > 0.7) or the Christian cue
condition (p > 0.3). See Table 2 for descriptive statistics and Figure 2
for a graph of results.
6.4 | Discussion
Mindedness was manipulated in Study 3 (in comparison to being
measured in Study 2) to show that consumers primed with open‐mindedness (close‐mindedness) exhibited more positive product
evaluations in response to marketing communications with no
religious cue (Christian or Muslim religious cue), thereby continuing
to not support H2 which suggested that open‐mindedness should
lead to more positive evaluations for religious cues. In essence, the
close‐mindedness prime helped to extinguish the negative evalua-
tions brought on by the religious cues. The results are particularly
interesting, given the expectation that priming open‐mindedness
should increase openness to religious ideas (Uzarevic et al., 2017).
While some could argue that the manipulation of open and close‐mindedness is poor, the pre‐test confirmed that the manipulation
influences a pre‐established scale of open‐mindedness, and these
results also follow the interesting pattern of effects found in Study 2.
Stated another way, the results from both Studies 2 and 3 show that,
contradictory to expectations, open‐mindedness actually decreases
positive religious attitudes, as assessed through consumer response
to marketing communications with religious cues.
As posited in the discussion section of Study 2, these interesting
and contradictory findings may be a result of consumers responding
to the open‐mindedness scale in a way more consistent with their
ideal self rather than actual self (c.f., Baumeister et al., 2017);
however, the manipulation of open and close‐mindedness in Study 3
provides evidence to refute this explanation given that mindedness
was manipulated rather than measured. The other possible explana-
tion provided in the discussion section of Study 2 regarding the
generality of the open‐mindedness scale would still be relevant here,
in that general open‐mindedness was primed rather than specific
open‐minded views regarding religious groups. The close‐mindedness
manipulation may have actually enabled the consumer to experience
cognitive consistency between the mindedness prime and attitudes
toward the religious cue in the ad, thereby increasing product
evaluations. Additionally, it is possible that writing about close‐mindedness in particular led consumers to realize how many areas in
TABLE 2 Descriptive statistics by religious cue condition andmindedness manipulation (Study 3)
Religious cuecondition
Mindednessmanipulation
Overallattitude
Purchaseintentions
Christian cue Open 4.10 (1.63) 3.84 (1.97)
Closed 4.48 (1.70) 4.03 (1.77)
Muslim cue Open 4.64 (1.55) 4.24 (1.75)
Closed 4.48 (1.70) 4.15 (1.71)
No cue Open 4.97 (1.48) 4.35 (1.54)
Closed 4.16 (1.38) 3.37 (1.38)
Note: Cells represent means (standard deviations).
F IGURE 2 Interaction of religious cue condition and mindednessmanipulation (open vs. closed) on overall attitude (Study 3)
MINTON | 377
which they were close‐minded and thereby feel a need to be more
open‐minded in the subsequent study. Future research should
explore these alternative explanations in more depth.
7 | GENERAL DISCUSSION
Through three studies, this research work reveals that religious cues
integrated into marketing communications negatively influence consu-
mers’ corresponding product evaluations, and open‐mindedness also
influences these evaluations. Alongside these findings, this research work
addresses the three purposes set forth in the introduction. Specifically,
marketing communications with different types of religious cues (whether
representing Christianity or Islam) were found to lower product
evaluations in comparison to marketing communications with no religious
cue. This finding is interesting given different affective responses among
religious groups (Gallup, 2017; Pew Research Center, 2014) as well as
prior research showing that religious cue usage in marketing commu-
nications generally increases product evaluations (Dotson & Hyatt, 2000;
Minton, 2015; Taylor et al., 2010). These findings are particularly
interesting in that they also contradict a large body of prior research
showing a positive halo effect of religion on evaluations of people (c.f.,
Bailey & Vietor, 1996; Bailey & Young, 1986; Isaac, Bailey, & Isaac, 1995)
as well as greater trust of religious people (c.f., Gervais, Shariff, &
Norenzayan, 2011; McCullough, Swartwout, Shaver, Carter, & Sosis,
2016; Moon, Krems, & Cohen, 2018). Put simply, results from the studies
herein suggest that religious cues do not have the same effect for
products as they do for people. This difference could be due to the mixing
of the domains of the sacred (religion) and secular (marketing) (Belk et al.,
1989; Wu & Cutright, 2018), leading consumers to evaluate products
with more of a secular, critical mindset. Consumers may also be skeptical
of the motives behind religious cue use in marketing communications
(Zehra & Minton, 2019), in comparison to one's personal display of their
religious values. Further research would benefit from a deeper
examination of the mechanisms at play here.
Additionally, open‐mindedness was measured and manipulated to
show, interestingly, that open‐mindedness leads to lower product
evaluations for marketing communications with religious cues (in
comparison to no religious cue), and vice versa for close‐mindedness.
The contradictory and novel finding of open‐mindedness is worthy of
further discussion. Prior research has shown a negative correlation
between open‐mindedness and antireligious sentiment (Uzarevic et al.,
2017). With open‐mindedness representing a willingness to entertain
alternative perspectives that are contradictory to one’s beliefs (Flynn,
2005; Webster & Kruglanski, 1994), it seems reasonable that open‐mindedness would positively influence product evaluations for marketing
communications featuring religious cues. However, just the opposite was
found in Studies 2 and 3. While self‐report bias could be influential in
explaining why consumers respond in a way that was more in line with
the consumer's ideal self (Baumeister et al., 2017; Fisher & Katz, 2000;
Roehm, 2016), results from Study 3 rule out this explanation by showing
the same pattern of effects when open‐mindedness is manipulated rather
than measured.
Yet another possible explanation is that the open‐mindedness
scale and prime both relate to general open‐mindedness rather than
specific views toward religious groups. Some could argue that being
open‐minded toward all religions is not logically possible, given that
many religious beliefs necessitate exclusivity of beliefs (e.g., there is
only one god, there is only one right way) (Merino, 2010). It is also
possible that the growing negative attitudes toward religion in
general (Gallup, 2017; Pew Research Center, 2014) could lead to
more congruence for consumers when marketing communications
using religious cues are partnered with a close‐minded attitude.
Regardless of the reason, it is clear that religious cue use in
marketing communications is not as universally positive as once
thought, and more research assessing cue use, particularly in relation
to open and close‐mindedness is needed.
7.1 | Theoretical contributions
This study builds on prior research on open‐mindedness showing that
open‐mindedness enhances consumers’ product evaluations (Kohne,
2006; Kruglanski, 2004; Peifer & Holbert, 2016). Specifically, the
studies herein show, in the context of religion, that the opposite
pattern of effects actually exists ‐ that close‐mindedness can increase
product evaluations. This highlights the importance of understanding
the individual difference measure of open‐mindedness in models of
consumer decision making, particularly when consumers are evaluat-
ing topics such as religion that consumers may be more close‐minded
towards. Additionally, the finding that open‐mindedness does not
always lead to more positive evaluations toward religious cue use in
marketing communications is very interesting, especially in light of
what the construct of open‐mindedness represents. This finding
provides theoretical insight into the conceptualization of open‐mindedness and how it may need to be considered more as
situationally dependent (e.g., someone that is generally open‐minded
may actually be close‐minded toward religion).
The studies herein also contribute to cue utilization theory
(Richardson et al., 1994) in showing that religious cues serve as a
source of information for consumers in evaluating marketing commu-
nications, and these cues then influence product evaluations. However,
findings show that religious cues cannot be viewed in isolation but
instead need to be interpreted alongside individual difference measures
(particularly open‐mindedness) to fully understand consumer response
to such cues. In other words, a more accurate model of cue utilization
theory for consumer research would identify how individual difference
measures serve as the foundation for interpreting informational cues.
With that being said, the studies herein only examined extrinsic
informational cues, and further research would need to examine
open‐mindedness alongside evaluation of both extrinsic cues (e.g.,
religious references in ads) and intrinsic cues (e.g., product nutrition
facts or technical specifications) to more thoroughly contribute insight
to cue utilization theory that highlights that both extrinsic and
intrinsic informational cues can inform consumers’ product evaluations
(Jamal et al., 2012; Loebnitz, Schuitema, & Grunert, 2015; Richardson
et al., 1994; Woodside, 2012).
378 | MINTON
Additionally, this research work contributes to cue utilization theory
applied in the context of religion to show that the individual difference
measure of religiosity is not the only influencer in response to religious
cues. Results from Studies 1a and 1b show that including religiosity in the
model predicting product evaluations did not significantly change results.
Religious cues serve as information assisting with product evaluations to
consumers across religiosity levels, which may be in part due to universal
perspectives on the intertwining of the domains of the sacred (religious
cues) and secular (marketing communications). However, actual motives
were not assessed in this research work, and thus this argument is only a
conjecture for theory extension, thereby leading to an interesting area for
further research.
7.2 | Implications for practitioners
In addition to contributions to theory, this study provides many
implications for marketing practitioners, particularly those working in
global marketing where target markets reach across many different
religious backgrounds. Integrating religious cues within marketing efforts
may or may not add value to a brand. As the results of the studies herein
reveal, consumers as a whole have lower evaluations of businesses using
religious cues in marketing communications. Marketers should be excited
to know, however, that response to marketing communications featuring
religious cues is not altered by a consumer's level of religiosity.
Before considering use of religious cues, marketers need to identify
how their target market feels toward various religious groups—much of
which can be gathered through generalizations from a geographic area,
particularly in terms of political leaning. Certain geographic regions may
have more positive attitudes toward religious groups in general and find
it more the norm for the integration of the sacred (religious cues) and
secular (advertising). Marketers also need to rigorously conduct testing to
assess possible negative reactions to cues used in advertising and identify
ways to reduce these negative reactions. Perhaps mentioning the
protective benefits of close‐mindedness, using the word “closed,” or
showing pictures of closed containers or packages within marketing
communications would be enough to prime close‐mindedness. Also,
marketers should consider opening dialog regarding the factors that may
drive response to close‐mindedness toward religious cues and what
would make consumers more open to considering this marketing
technique.
Additionally, online advertising is especially pertinent for
religious‐related marketing communications given the ease in
identifying target markets representing specific psychological char-
acteristics. For example, marketers could identify activities or groups
on social media that are associated with open or close‐mindedness
(e.g., artistic endeavors may foster open‐mindedness to new ideas,
while groups centered around pride toward brands or political
figures may foster close‐mindedness to alternative beliefs). Market-
ers could then target marketing messages with religious cues toward
consumers participating in such close‐minded groups. However,
marketers would be prudent to test such tactics first with a smaller
audience to ensure they produce the desired effect. Marketers could
also develop interactive advertising (e.g., social media or online radio
ads) that attempts to manipulate open or close‐mindedness to
influence consumer perceptions.
7.3 | Limitations and future research
The studies herein tested perceptions of marketing communications
featuring Christian or Muslim religious cues because the cues represent-
ing these religious affiliations had the highest level of awareness among
U.S. study participants. Future research needs to extend these findings to
examine how perceptions may differ using cues representing other
dominant religious traditions (e.g., Hinduism or Buddhism). This type of
research would be particularly beneficial through comparative cross‐cultural research where marketers are approaching more religiously‐diverse target markets. Additional research could also identify when
religious cues from certain religious groups add value to relevant product
categories (e.g., highlighting Muslim values for Middle Eastern food or
Hindu values for Indian food) versus when they detract (e.g., highlighting
Christian values for Middle Eastern food).
Related to this, the studies herein solely examined nonreligious
products to maximize applicability to the majority of marketers that do
not sell religious‐based products. With that being said, further examina-
tion and replication of the findings from the studies herein with religious‐based products would be an interesting avenue for further research, and
an area where religiosity is likely to moderate the effects as well. A
thorough understanding in this area will allow global marketing efforts to
be better tailored to consumers’ core values and reach like‐minded
consumers, while not deterring other consumers in a business’ target
market. It is important to note that the small sample sizes of Muslim
participants in all studies necessitate caution in interpreting findings
about differences between response to the Christian and Muslim
religious cues, especially in applying these findings to other countries
with varying proportions of adherents of different religious affiliations.
Thus, further research with equal sample sizes of all major religious
affiliations would be beneficial.
Additionally, further research should assess other measures of
consumers’ religious identity (e.g., intrinsic or extrinsic religiosity,
inclusion of religion in self‐concept) as well as pre‐existing attitudes
toward religious groups for a more thorough understanding of religious
cue response. Given previous research that shows that religious primes
are most effective for religious individuals, alongside positive effects of
religious priming on consumer behavior (Schumann, McGregor, Nash, &
Ross, 2014; Shariff, Willard, Andersen, & Norenzayan, 2016; Van Elk
et al., 2015; Wu & Cutright, 2018), further research should also explore
how religious identity moderates the effect of mindedness on consumer
response to marketing messages featuring religious cues. Examining
religious primes on mindedness is an especially fruitful area for additional
research given that prior research shows a negative relationship between
religion (and arguably more so for religiously dogmatic individuals) and
open‐mindedness (Browne et al., 2014; Pennycook et al., 2014).
More important than mere extension to other groups and sample
sources, however, is further understanding why close‐mindedness
(rather than open‐mindedness) produces more positive product
evaluations for marketing communications with religious cues. As
MINTON | 379
mentioned earlier, the majority of prior research suggests the
opposite relationship (c.f., Uzarevic et al., 2017), and thus alternative
explanations rooted in the breadth of open‐mindedness measures,
contradictions with exclusiveness in religion, and attitudes toward
melding of the sacred and secular should all be explored. These
alternative explanations would benefit from being tested in other
contexts (e.g., on product packaging rather than in advertising) and
with other religious groups as well. Future research in this area also
needs to include a control condition when priming open and close‐mindedness to better assess how the primes influence response to
religious cues in comparison to no prime at all.
Qualitative research on consumer values could also be beneficial
to glean a greater understanding regarding the relationship between
open‐mindedness, religious cues, and product evaluations. Addition-
ally, further research should use more comprehensive manipulation
checks as well as identify other moderators that may increase
positive response to religious cues in marketing communications. In
the studies herein, messages with religious cues were almost
universally evaluated more negatively than messages without
religious cues. Thus, in what situations do messages with religious
cues outperform their nonreligious counterparts?
Alternative explanations for the interesting study findings should
also be explored, such as belongingness and social exclusion with
religious cues highlighting either inclusion or exclusion from the
business’ religious category. To truly show the process mechanism at
play in the negative influence of religious cues in advertisements on
product evaluations, future research should also identify mediating
mechanisms that are not based on consumers’ prior trait character-
istics (e.g., perhaps the religious cue produces situational reactance).
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author would like to thank Saman Zehra and Heejung Park for
helpful feedback on drafts of this paper.
ORCID
Elizabeth A. Minton http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3567-5230
REFERENCES
Al‐Olayan, F. S., & Karande, K. (2000). A content analysis of magazine
advertisements from the united states and the arab world. Journal of
Advertising, 29(3), 69–82.
Bailey, R. C., & Young, M. D. (1986). The value and vulnerability of
perceived religious involvement. The Journal of Social Psychology,
126(5), 693–694.
Bailey, R. C., & Vietor, N. A. (1996). A religious female who engages in
casual sex: Evidence of a boomerang effect. Social Behavior and
Personality: an international journal, 24(3), 215–220.
Baumeister, R. F., Clark, C. J., Kim, J., & Lau, S. (2017). Consumers (and
consumer researchers) need conscious thinking in addition to uncon-
scious processes: A call for integrative models, a commentary on williams
and poehlman. Journal of Consumer Research, 44(2), 252–257.
Baumgartner, H. (2002). Toward a personology of the consumer. Journal of
Consumer Research, 29(2), 286–292.
Bautista, N., Misco, T., & Quaye, S. J. (2017). Early childhood open‐mindedness: An investigation into preservice teachers' capacity to
address controversial issues. Journal of Teacher Education.
Belk, R. W., Wallendorf, M., & Sherry, J. F. (1989). The sacred and the
profane in consumer behavior: Theodicy on the odyssey. Journal of
Consumer Research, 16(1), 1–38.
Browne, M., Pennycook, G., Goodwin, B., & McHenry, M. (2014).
Reflective minds and open hearts: Cognitive style and personality
predict religiosity and spiritual thinking in a community sample.
European Journal of Social Psychology, 44(7), 736–742.
Calantone, R. J., Cavusgil, S. T., & Zhao, Y. (2002). Learning orientation,
firm innovation capability, and firm performance. Industrial Marketing
Management, 31(6), 515–524.
Cheng, Y., Mukhopadhyay, A., & Schrift, R. Y. (2017). Do costly options
lead to better outcomes? How the protestant work ethic influences
the cost–benefit heuristic in goal pursuit. Journal of Marketing
Research, 54(4), 636–649.
Dick, A., Chakravarti, D., & Biehal, G. (1990). Memory‐based inferences
during consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 17(1), 82–93.
Dotson, M. J., & Hyatt, E. M. (2000). Religious symbols as peripheral cues
in advertising. Journal of Business Research, 48(1), 63–68.
Durkheim, E. (1912). The elementary forms of the religious life. Oxford,
United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
Economist. (2014). Competing to be the real thing. Retrieved from
http://www.economist.com/blogs/erasmus/2014/03/religion‐and‐advertising
Fisher, R. J., & Katz, J. E. (2000). Social‐desirability bias and the validity of
self‐reported values. Psychology & Marketing, 17(2), 105–120.
Flynn, F. J. (2005). Having an open mind: The impact of openness to
experience on interracial attitudes and impression formation. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(5), 816–826.
Gallup. (2017). Islamophobia: Understanding anti‐muslim sentiment
in the west. Retrieved from http://www.gallup.com/poll/157082/
islamophobia‐understanding‐anti‐muslim‐sentiment‐west.aspx
Gervais, W. M., Shariff, A. F., & Norenzayan, A. (2011). Do you believe in
atheists? Distrust is central to anti‐atheist prejudice. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 101(6), 1189–1206.
Haran, U., Ritov, I., & Mellers, B. A. (2013). The role of actively open‐minded thinking in information acquisition, accuracy, and calibration.
Judgment and Decision Making, 8(3), 188–201.
Hare, W. (1993). Open‐mindedness and education. Montreal, Canada:
McGill‐Queen's University Press.
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional
process analysis: A regression‐based approach. New York, NY: Guilford
Press.
Henley, W. H., Jr, Philhours, M., Ranganathan, S. K., & Bush, A. J. (2009).
The effects of symbol product relevance and religiosity on consumer
perceptions of christian symbols in advertising. Journal of Current
Issues & Research in Advertising, 31(1), 89–103.
Hill, P. C., & Hood, R. W. (1999). Measures of religiosity. Birmingham, AL:
Religious Education Press.
Hood, R. W., Jr., Hill, P. C., & Spilka, B. (2009). The psychology of religion: An
empirical approach (Fourth ed.). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Hunt, J., & Penwell, D. (2008). Amg's handi‐reference world religions and
cults. Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers.
Hutchins, B., & Stielstra, G. (2009). Faith‐based marketing: The guide to reaching
140 million christian customers. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.
Isaac, S. V., Bailey, R. C., & Isaac, W. L. (1995). Perceptions of religious and
nonreligious targets who participate in premarital sex. Social Behavior
and Personality: an international journal, 23(3), 229–233.
Jamal, A., Khan, M. S., & Tsesmetzi, M. S. (2012). Information cues roles in
product evaluations: The case of the uk cosmetics market. Journal of
Strategic Marketing, 20(3), 249–265.
380 | MINTON
Jauregui, A. (2012). Dr. Pepper ‘evolution of flavor’ ad sparks backlash from
christians on facebook. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
2012/09/13/dr‐pepper‐evolution‐ad‐backlash‐christians‐facebook_n_1882066.html
Kim, S., & Littrell, M. A. (2001). Souvenir buying intentions for self versus
others. Annals of Tourism Research, 28(3), 638–657.
Kirkpatrick, L. A. (1999). Toward an evolutionary psychology of religion
and personality. Journal of Personality, 67(6), 921–952.
Kohne, M. L. (2006). Effects of self‐affirmation and individualistic‐collectivisticappeals on open‐mindedness and advertising effectiveness. University of
Cincinnati.
Kruglanski, A. W. (2004). The psychology of closed mindedness. New York,
NY: Psychology Press.
Kruglanski, A. W., & Ajzen, I. (1983). Bias and error in human judgment.
European Journal of Social Psychology, 13(1), 1–44.
Kruglanski, A. W., & Webster, D. M. (1996). Motivated closing of the mind:
"Seizing" And "Freezing.". Psychological Review, 103(2), 263–283.
Liu, R. L., & Minton, E. A. (2018). Faith‐filled brands: The interplay of
religious branding and brand engagement in the self‐concept. Journalof Retailing and Consumer Services, 44, 305–314.
Liu, S. S., Luo, X., & Shi, Y.‐Z. (2002). Integrating customer orientation,
corporate entrepreneurship, and learning orientation in organiza-
tions‐in‐transition: An empirical study. International Journal of Research
in Marketing, 19(4), 367–382.
Loebnitz, N., Schuitema, G., & Grunert, K. G. (2015). Who buys oddly shaped
food and why? Impacts of food shape abnormality and organic labeling
on purchase intentions. Psychology & Marketing, 32(4), 408–421.
Mathras, D., Cohen, A. B., Mandel, N., & Mick, D. G. (2016). The effects of
religion on consumer behavior: A conceptual framework and research
agenda. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 26(2), 298–311.
McCullough, M. E., Swartwout, P., Shaver, J. H., Carter, E. C., & Sosis, R. (2016).
Christian religious badges instill trust in christian and non‐christianperceivers. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 8(2), 149–163.
McDaniel, S. W. (1986). Church advertising: Views of the clergy and
general public. Journal of Advertising, 15(1), 24–29.
Merino, S. M. (2010). Religious diversity in a “christian nation”: The effects
of theological exclusivity and interreligious contact on the acceptance
of religious diversity. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 49(2),
231–246.
Minton, E. A. (2015). In advertising we trust: Religiosity's influence on
marketplace and relational trust. Journal of Advertising, 44(4),
403–414.
Minton, E. A. (2016). Sacred attributions: Implications for marketplace
behavior. Psychology & Marketing, 33(6), 437–448.
Minton, E. A. (2018). Affective and cognitive religiosity: Influences on
consumer reactance and self‐control. Journal of Consumer Behaviour,
17(2), 175–186.
Minton, E. A. (2019). Believing is buying: Religiosity, advertising
skepticism, and corporate trust. Journal of Management, Spirituality &
Religion, 16(1), 54–75.
Minton, E. A., & Kahle, L. R. (2014). Belief systems, religion, and behavioral
economics: Marketing in multicultural environments. New York, NY:
Business Expert Press.
Minton, E. A., Cornwell, T. B., & Kahle, L. R. (2016). A theoretical review of
consumer priming: Prospective theory, retrospective theory, and the
affective‐behavioral‐cognitive model. Journal of Consumer Behaviour.
Mokhlis, S. (2006). The effect of religiosity on shopping orientation: An
exploratory study in malaysia. Journal of American Academy of Business,
9, 64–74.
Moon, J. W., Krems, J. A., & Cohen, A. B. (2018). Religious people are
trusted because they are viewed as slow life‐history strategists.
Psychological Science, 29, 947–960.
Muhamad, N., & Mizerski, D. (2013). The effects of following islam in
decisions about taboo products. Psychology & Marketing, 30(4),
357–371.
Nan, X., & Heo, K. (2007). Consumer responses to corporate social
responsibility (CSR) initiatives: Examining the role of brand‐cause fit
in cause‐related marketing. Journal of Advertising, 36(2), 63–74.
Nisen, M. (2013). 18 Extremely religious big american companies.
Retrieved from http://www.businessinsider.com/18‐extremely‐religious‐big‐american‐companies‐2013‐6
Peifer, J. T., & Holbert, R. L. (2016). Appreciation of pro‐attitudinal versuscounter‐attitudinal political humor: A cognitive consistency approach
to the study of political entertainment. Communication Quarterly,
64(1), 16–35.
Pennycook, G., Cheyne, J. A., Barr, N., Koehler, D. J., & Fugelsang, J. A.
(2014). Cognitive style and religiosity: The role of conflict detection.
Memory & Cognition, 42(1), 1–10.
Pew Research Center. (2014). How americans feel about religious
groups. Retrieved from http://www.pewforum.org/2014/07/16/how‐americans‐feel‐about‐religious‐groups/
PEW. (2017). The changing global religious landscape. Retrieved from
http://www.pewforum.org/2017/04/05/the‐changing‐global‐religious‐landscape/
Richardson, P. S., Dick, A. S., & Jain, A. K. (1994). Extrinsic and intrinsic cue
effects on perceptions of store brand quality. Journal of Marketing,
58(4), 28–36.
Roehm, M. L. (2016). An exploration of flashbulb memory. Journal of
Consumer Psychology, 26(1), 1–16.
Schmidt, R., Sager, G. C., Carney, G. T., Muller, A. C., Zanca, K. J., Jackson,
J. J., … Burke, J. C. (2014). Patterns of religion (3rd ed.). Boston, MA:
Wadsworth.
Schneiderman, C. (Producer). (2011, May 18, 2013). Best buy ad's
mention of muslim holiday irks some consumers. Huffington Post.
Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/25/best‐buy‐flyers‐muslim‐ho_n_369583.html
Schumann, K., McGregor, I., Nash, K. A., & Ross, M. (2014). Religious
magnanimity: Reminding people of their religious belief system
reduces hostility after threat. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 107(3), 432–453.
Shariff, A. F., Willard, A. K., Andersen, T., & Norenzayan, A. (2016).
Religious priming: A meta‐analysis with a focus on prosociality.
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 20(1), 27–48.
Sinkula, J. M., Baker, W. E., & Noordewier, T. (1997). A framework for
market‐based organizational learning: Linking values, knowledge, and
behavior. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25(4), 305–318.
Smith, R. E., Chen, J., & Yang, X. (2008). The impact of advertising
creativity on the hierarchy of effects. Journal of Advertising, 37(4),
47–62.
Spiller, S. A., Fitzsimons, G. J., Lynch, J. G., & McClelland, G. H. (2013).
Spotlights, floodlights, and the magic number zero: Simple effects tests in
moderated regression. Journal of Marketing Research, 50(2), 277–288.
Taylor, R. M. (2016). Open‐mindedness: An intellectual virtue in the
pursuit of knowledge and understanding. Educational Theory, 66(5),
599–618.
Taylor, V. A., Halstead, D., & Haynes, P. J. (2010). Consumer responses to
christian religious symbols in advertising. Journal of Advertising, 39(2),
79–92.
Thompson, A. D. (1974). Open‐mindedness and indiscrimination antireligious
orientation. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 13(4), 471–477.
Troy, L. C., Szymanski, D. M., & Varadarajan, P. R. (2001). Generating new
product ideas: An initial investigation of the role of market
information and organizational characteristics. Journal of the Academy
of Marketing Science, 29(1), 89–101.
Uzarevic, F., Saroglou, V., & Clobert, M. (2017). Are atheists undogmatic?
Personality and Individual Differences, 116, 164–170.
Van Elk, M., Matzke, D., Gronau, Q. F., Guan, M., Vandekerckhove, J.,
& Wagenmakers, E.‐J. (2015). Meta‐analyses are no substitute for
registered replications: A skeptical perspective on religious priming.
Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1–7.
MINTON | 381
Ward, C., Fischer, R., Zaid Lam, F. S., & Hall, L. (2009). The convergent,
discriminant, and incremental validity of scores on a self‐reportmeasure of cultural intelligence. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 69(1), 85–105.
Webster, D. M., & Kruglanski, A. W. (1994). Individual differences in need
for cognitive closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(6),
1049–1062.
Wilson, D. S. (2010). Darwin's cathedral: Evolution, religion,
and the nature of society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Press.
Woodside, A. G. (2012). Consumer evaluations of competing brands:
Perceptual versus predictive validity. Psychology & Marketing, 29(6),
458–466.
Wu, E. C., & Cutright, K. M. (2018). In god's hands: How reminders of god
dampen the effectiveness of fear appeals. Journal of Marketing
Research.
Yang, X., & Smith, R. E. (2009). Beyond attention effects: Modeling the
persuasive and emotional effects of advertising creativity. Marketing
Science, 28(5), 935–949.
Zehra, S., & Minton, E. (2019). Should businesses use religious cues in
advertising? A comparison of consumer perceptions across christian-
ity and islam. International Journal of Consumer Studies.
Zhang, L.‐f (2006). Thinking styles and the big five personality traits
revisited. Personality and Individual Differences, 40(6), 1177–1187.
How to cite this article: Minton EA. When open‐mindedness
lowers product evaluations: Influencers to consumers’
response to religious cues in advertising. Psychol Mark. 2020;
37:369–383. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21296
APPENDIX: STUDY STIMULI
Study 1a Stimuli
Study 1b Stimuli
382 | MINTON
Study 2 Stimuli
Study 3 Stimuli
MINTON | 383
