Do Celebrity Endorsed Advertisements in Fashion Magazines Influence Purchase
Intentions of Generation Y?
By
Callie Worthen, B.S. A
Thesis
In
HOSPITALITY AND RETAIL MANAGEMENT
Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of
Texas Tech University in Partial
Fulfillment of
the requirements of the
degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
Dr. Deborah Fowler
Committee Chair
Dr. Hyo Jung Chang
Dr. Natalia Velikova
Mark Sheridan
Dean of the Graduate School
May 2014
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT v
LIST OF TABLES vi
LIST OF FIGURES vii
I. INTRODUCTION 1
Statement of the Problem 2
Significance 3
Hypotheses 3
Description of the testing 11
Limitations 11
Data Collection 12
Definition of Terms 12
II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE 14
Introduction 14
Celebrity Credibility 14
Attitude Toward the Celebrity 18
Attitude Toward the Advertisement 19
Attitude Toward the Brand 19
Process of Social Influences 20
“Match-Up” Hypothesis 23
Purchase Intentions 25
Generation Y 25
Theoretical Framework 26
Summary 29
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
iii
III. METHODS AND PROCEDURES 30
Introduction 30
Hypothesis 30
Method 38
Demographics 39
Research Design 45
Data Collection 48
Data Analysis 48
Summary 49
IV. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS 50
Introduction 50
Research Design 50
Analysis 50
Hypothesis Testing 51
Summary 113
V. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS 114
Introduction 114
Conclusions 114
Discussion 115
Implications 119
Future Research 120
Summary 121
BIBLIOGRAPHY 122
APPENDICES 128
A. RECRUITMENT STATEMENT FOR EMAIL 128 B. RECRUITMENT STATEMENT ON FACEBOOK 129 C. RECRUITMENT STATEMENT ON REDDIT.COM 130
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
iv
D. QUALTRICS SURVEY 131 E. TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY INTERNAL REVIEW BOARD LETTER 186
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
v
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study is to see if celebrity endorsed advertisements in fashion
magazines influence purchase intentions of Generation Y. Celebrity endorsers are seen
everywhere from television to billboards and fashion magazines therefore, it is important
to understand if celebrity endorsed advertisements in fashion magazines affect purchase
intentions. For this study there are 3 major fashion magazines used: Elle, InStyle and
Vogue. These fashion magazines were chosen because they are 3 of the most common.
All the celebrity endorsed advertisements in the magazines were removed from the
magazines and were reviewed by a panel of experts for this study. For the purpose of this
study the sample consisted of anyone who fell within the Generation Y category.
For this study the data which was sought was to see how celebrity endorsed
advertisements affected purchase intentions of Generation Y. To find the data, a survey
was created on Qualtrics asking participants questions about demographics, purchase
intention, celebrity credibility and their attitude toward the celebrity, advertisement and
brand. Data was collected through the Qualtrics survey and the data was collected from
November 23, 2013 through February 10, 2014. The data consisted of a convenience
sample. The survey was emailed to family and friends, posted on Facebook and posted on
Reddit.
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
vi
LIST OF TABLES
1. Demographic Characteristics of the Respondents (N= 263) 41
2. Consumers’ Purchasing Behavior of Products 42
3. Consumers’ Purchasing Behavior of Similar Products 43
4. Consumers’ Purchase Intentions of Brands 44
5. Consumers’ Purchase Intentions of Celebrities 45
6. Consumers’ Purchase Intentions of Advertisements 46
7. One-Way ANOVA of Hair Products 58
8. Tukey HSD for Hair Products 60
9. One-Way ANOVA of Beverages 71
10. Tukey HSD of Beverages 73
11. One-Way ANOVA of Perfume 82
12. Tukey HSD of Perfume 85
13. One-Way ANOVA of Apparel 94
14. Tukey HSD of Apparel 97
15. One-Way ANOVA of Cosmetics 106
16. Tukey HSD of Cosmetics 108
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
1. Theory of Planned Behavior 27
2. Impact of a Celebrity Endorser 113
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
A celebrity endorser is “Any individual who enjoys public recognition and who
uses that recognition on behalf of a consumer good by appearing with it in an
advertisement” (McCracken, 1989, p. 310). Using a celebrity endorser to advertise
products is not a new concept. Using celebrity endorsers goes all the way back to the
1800’s with Queen Victoria’s laundress being used to endorse Glenfield Patent Starch, as
well as Mark Twain’s face was on a flour bag and two different cigar boxes (Piccalo,
2005). Celebrities are able to make consumers notice what they are endorsing, therefore
consumers immediately create an identity for the product (Cooper, 1984). Also,
Celebrities have the ability to attract attention, make the copy more memorable, refine the
company’s image, add charm to the product, and make it more wanted, reliable and
trusted (Spielman, 1981).
Hiring a celebrity to endorse products for a company is a popular way of
marketing. About 20% of commercials use a celebrity endorser and around 10% of all
advertising money goes to celebrity endorsements (Bradley, 1996). There is potential for
an adult to see 3,000 advertisements a day, with 2 million brands all trying to draw
consumers’ attention (Hotz, 2005). Advertising is considered to be one of the main ways
to inform consumers about products (Meenaghan, 1995). Since there are so many
companies marketing products, many times consumers will make purchase intentions
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
2
based on the brand’s advertised image, other than the actual physical aspect of the brand
(Graeff, 1996). With so many celebrity endorsed advertisements many companies believe
celebrity endorsers will positively impact consumers’ attitudes toward the brand being
advertised, consumers’ purchase intentions, and other measures of effectiveness (Kaikati,
1987; Ohanian, 1991; Tripp et al., 1994; Goldsmith et al., 2000; Erdogan et al., 2001).
Companies spend millions of dollars a year to have their products endorsed by a
celebrity (Walker, Langmeyer, & Langmeyer, 1992). Cooper (1984) says the key to using
a celebrity in advertisements is to use a celebrity who is popular enough to draw
attention, but also the celebrity does not need to upstage the product; the product needs to
be most important. Companies use celebrity endorsers because they allow a way to
differentiate their brand from others (Buck, 1993). Companies are placing celebrity
endorsed advertisements everywhere from television, to magazines, and the internet. The
main focus of this research study is celebrity endorsed advertisements in fashion
magazines. Many elements make up a fashion magazine such as: 40 to 52 pictures to
show off designers’ newest fashions with the pictures being a full page and colored, an
endless amount of advertisements, and showing off people in the fashion world such as
designers, photographers, models etc. (Moeran, 2006).
Statement of the Problem
Many companies use celebrity endorsers for advertisements in fashion magazine.
There have been many studies conducted which have found celebrities to be likeable and
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
3
attractive; however, these perceptions have not always been linked to credibility and
purchase intentions (Kamins, Brand, Hoeke, & Moe, 1989) There have not been any
studies conducted on the exact topic of this study which is, whether or not celebrity
endorsed advertisements in fashion magazines affect purchase intentions of Generation
Y. This study will determine the factors which increase purchase intentions by looking at
celebrity credibility, purchase intentions, and the consumer’s attitude toward the
celebrity, brand, and advertisement. The topic of this study is important for marketers, so
they can understand if using celebrity endorsed advertisements in fashion magazines
affects Generation Y’s purchase intention to buy products.
Significance
These findings are crucial to understand if celebrity endorsed advertisements in
fashion magazines influence purchase intentions of Generation Y. All marketing
companies can use this information if they use celebrity endorsers or are considering
using celebrity endorsers to advertise in fashion magazines. This study focuses on
Generation Y, which is a generation that consists of a large amount of consumers and
purchasing power.
Hypotheses
Hypothesis 1: There was a significant difference of customers’ behavioral intention
regarding the purchase of hair products based on the celebrity endorser.
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
4
RQ1-1: Is there a significant difference in buying intention of hair products based on the
celebrity endorser?
Hypothesis 2: There was a significant difference of customer’s opinions of hair products
based on the celebrity endorser.
RQ2-1: Is there a significant difference in the assumed use by the endorser of hair
products based on the celebrity endorser?
RQ2-2: Is there a significant difference in the perceived attractiveness of the endorser?
RQ2-3: Is there a significant difference in the perceived classiness of the endorser?
RQ2-4: Is there a significant difference in the perceived beauty of the endorser?
RQ2-5: Is there a significant difference in the perceived elegance of the endorser?
RQ2-6: Is there a significant difference in the perceived sexiness of the endorser?
RQ2-7: Is there a significant difference in the perceived dependability of the endorser?
RQ2-8: Is there a significant difference in the perceived honesty of the endorser?
RQ2-9: Is there a significant difference in the perceived reliability of the endorser?
RQ2-10: Is there a significant difference in the perceived sincerity of the endorser?
RQ2-11: Is there a significant difference in the perceived trustworthiness of the endorser?
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
5
RQ2-12: Is there a significant difference in the perceived expertise of the endorser?
RQ2-13: Is there a significant difference in the perceived experience of the endorser?
RQ2-14: Is there a significant difference in the perceived knowledge of the endorser?
RQ2-15: Is there a significant difference in the perceived qualifications, regarding
fashion and beauty, of the endorser?
RQ2-16: Is there a significant difference in the perceived skills of the endorser?
Hypothesis 3: There was a significant difference of customers’ behavioral intention
regarding the purchase of beverages based on the celebrity endorser.
RQ3-1: Is there a significant difference in buying intention of beverages based on the
celebrity endorser?
Hypothesis 4: There was a significant difference of customer’s opinions of beverages
based on the celebrity endorser.
RQ4-1: Is there a significant difference in the assumed use by the endorser of beverages
based on the celebrity endorser?
RQ4-2: Is there a significant difference in the perceived attractiveness of the endorser?
RQ4-3: Is there a significant difference in the perceived classiness of the endorser?
RQ4-4: Is there a significant difference in the perceived beauty of the endorser?
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
6
RQ4-5: Is there a significant difference in the perceived elegance of the endorser?
RQ4-6: Is there a significant difference in the perceived sexiness of the endorser?
RQ4-7: Is there a significant difference in the perceived dependability of the endorser?
RQ4-8: Is there a significant difference in the perceived honesty of the endorser?
RQ4-9: Is there a significant difference in the perceived reliability of the endorser?
RQ4-10: Is there a significant difference in the perceived sincerity of the endorser?
RQ4-11: Is there a significant difference in the perceived trustworthiness of the endorser?
RQ4-12: Is there a significant difference in the perceived expertise of the endorser?
RQ4-13: Is there a significant difference in the perceived attractiveness of the endorser?
RQ4-14: Is there a significant difference in the perceived knowledge of the endorser?
RQ4-15: Is there a significant difference in the perceived qualifications, regarding
fashion and beauty, of the endorser?
RQ4-16: Is there a significant difference in the perceived skills of the endorser?
Hypothesis 5: There was a significant difference of customers’ behavioral intention
regarding the purchase of perfume based on the celebrity endorser.
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
7
RQ5-1: Is there a significant difference in buying intention of perfume based on the
celebrity endorser?
Hypothesis 6: There was a significant difference of customer’s opinions of perfume based
on the celebrity endorser.
RQ6-1: Is there a significant difference in the assumed use by the endorser of perfume
based on the celebrity endorser?
RQ6-2: Is there a significant difference in the perceived attractiveness of the endorser?
RQ6-3: Is there a significant difference in the perceived classiness of the endorser?
RQ6-4: Is there a significant difference in the perceived beauty of the endorser?
RQ6-5: Is there a significant difference in the perceived elegance of the endorser?
RQ6-6: Is there a significant difference in the perceived sexiness of the endorser?
RQ6-7: Is there a significant difference in the perceived dependability of the endorser?
RQ6-8: Is there a significant difference in the perceived honesty of the endorser?
RQ6-9: Is there a significant difference in the perceived reliability of the endorser?
RQ6-10: Is there a significant difference in the perceived sincerity of the endorser?
RQ6-11: Is there a significant difference in the perceived trustworthiness of the endorser?
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
8
RQ6-12: Is there a significant difference in the perceived expertise of the endorser?
RQ6-13: Is there a significant difference in the perceived experience of the endorser?
RQ6-14: Is there a significant difference in the perceived knowledge of the endorser?
RQ6-15: Is there a significant difference in the perceived qualifications, regarding
fashion and beauty, of the endorser?
RQ6-16: Is there a significant difference in the perceived skills of the endorser
Hypothesis 7: There was a significant difference of customers’ behavioral intention
regarding the purchase of apparel based on the celebrity endorser.
RQ7-1: Is there a significant difference in buying intention of apparel based on the
celebrity endorser?
Hypothesis 8: There was a significant difference of customer’s opinions of apparel based
on the celebrity endorser.
RQ8-1: Is there a significant difference in the assumed use by the endorser of apparel
based on the celebrity endorser?
RQ8-2: Is there a significant difference in the perceived attractiveness of the endorser?
RQ8-3: Is there a significant difference in the perceived classiness of the endorser?
RQ8-4: Is there a significant difference in the perceived beauty of the endorser?
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
9
RQ8-5: Is there a significant difference in the perceived elegance of the endorser?
RQ8-6: Is there a significant difference in the perceived sexiness of the endorser?
RQ8-7: Is there a significant difference in the perceived dependability of the endorser?
RQ8-8: Is there a significant difference in the perceived honesty of the endorser?
RQ8-9: Is there a significant difference in the perceived reliability of the endorser?
RQ8-10: Is there a significant difference in the perceived sincerity of the endorser?
RQ8-11: Is there a significant difference in the perceived trustworthiness of the endorser?
RQ8-12: Is there a significant difference in the perceived expertise of the endorser?
RQ8-13: Is there a significant difference in the perceived experience of the endorser?
RQ8-14: Is there a significant difference in the perceived knowledge of the endorser?
RQ8-15: Is there a significant difference in the perceived qualifications, regarding
fashion and beauty, of the endorser.
RQ8-16: Is there a significant difference in the perceived skills of the endorser?
Hypothesis 9: There was a significant difference of customers’ behavioral intention
regarding the purchase of cosmetics based on the celebrity endorser.
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
10
RQ9-1: Is there a significant difference in buying intention of cosmetics based on the
celebrity endorser?
Hypothesis 10: There was a significant difference of customers’ opinions of cosmetics
based on the celebrity endorser.
RQ10-1: Is there a significant difference in the assumed use by the endorser of cosmetics
based on the celebrity endorser?
RQ10-2: Is there a significant difference in the perceived attractiveness of the endorser?
RQ10-3: Is there a significant difference in the perceived classiness of the endorser?
RQ10-4: Is there a significant difference in the perceived beauty of the endorser?
RQ10-5: Is there a significant difference in the perceived elegance of the endorser?
RQ10-6: Is there a significant difference in the perceived sexiness of the endorser?
RQ10-7: Is there a significant difference in the perceived dependability of the endorser?
RQ10-8: Is there a significant difference in the perceived honesty of the endorser?
RQ10-9: Is there a significant difference in the perceived reliability of the endorser?
RQ10-10: Is there a significant difference in the perceived sincerity of the endorser?
RQ10-11: Is there a significant difference in the perceived trustworthiness of the
endorser?
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
11
RQ10-12: Is there a significant difference in the perceived expertise of the endorser?
RQ10-13: Is there a significant difference in the perceived experience of the endorser?
RQ10-14: Is there a significant difference in the perceived knowledge of the endorser?
RQ10-15: Is there a significant difference in the perceived qualifications, regarding
fashion and beauty, of the endorser?
RQ10-16: Is there a significant difference in the perceived skills of the endorser?
Description of the Testing
The survey, which was used for this study, was created on Qualtrics, the survey
was open from November 23, 2013 through February 10, 2014 for the participants to
complete. The survey was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Texas Tech
before the survey was emailed or posted via Facebook or Reddit for the participants to
take. If the participants did not wish to complete the survey then they did not have to and
could exit out of the survey at any time. There was not a time limit, for the survey, so the
participants could take as long as they wished to complete the survey.
Limitations
There were several limitations for this research. The sample for this research was
a convenience sample. The survey the participants completed was created on Qualtrics
and sent to friends and family via email and was posted to Facebook as well. The survey
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
12
was also posted to a website, Reddit which allows people to participate in surveys which
have been uploaded on the website. Also this research conducted was only for Generation
Y which consists of participants between the ages of 19-36.
Data Collection
A survey was created on Qualtrics and was then sent out to family and friends via
email. The survey was also posted on Facebook, where people were allowed to share the
survey link to others. Also, the survey was posted on Reddit, a website which allows
people to participate in surveys which have been uploaded to the website. The
participants, who took the survey had to be in Generation Y, which consisted of
participants between the ages of 19-36. The participants were allowed to take the survey
anytime they wanted while the survey was open from November 23, 2013 to February 10,
2014 they were also allowed to take the survey wherever they wished. The participants
were allowed to stop at any point during the survey and did not have to finish the survey
if they did not wish to. Also, the participants were allowed to spend as much time as they
wanted on the survey because there was not a time limit.
Definition of Terms
Celebrity Endorser: Anyone who likes public recognition and they use the recognition on
behalf of a consumer good when they appear with it in an advertisement (McCracken,
1989, p. 310).
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
13
Fashion Magazines: Consist of 40 to 52 pictures to show off designer’s newest fashions
with the pictures being a full page and colored, an endless amount of advertisements, and
showing off people in the fashion world such as designers, photographers, models etc.
(Moeran, 2006).
Generation Y: This generation is comprised of people who were born between the years
of 1977 and 1994 (Engebretson, 2004). There are 76 million people who fall into the
Generation Y category (Kennedy, 2001).
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
14
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Introduction
This chapter provides information on the topics of celebrity credibility, the
attitude toward the celebrity, the attitude toward the advertisement, the attitude toward
the brand, the match up hypothesis, the process of social influences, purchase intentions
and Generation Y. This chapter also includes the theoretical framework of this study.
Celebrity Credibility
When it comes to celebrity credibility, studies illustrate the majority of the time
consumers view celebrities as credible for information regarding the products they
endorse and the companies they are endorsing (Goldsmith et al., 2000). Celebrity
endorser credibility focuses on three qualities: expertise, trustworthiness, and
attractiveness (DeSarbo & Harshman, 1985; Ohanian, 1990).
Celebrity Expertise
Expertise is considered to be the knowledge, experience, or skills the celebrity
endorser has (Hovland, Janis, & Kelley, 1953). Research has shown it is not as important
to know if the endorser is a true expert but instead if consumers perceive the endorser as
an expert (Hovland et al., 1953; Ohanian, 1990; Erdogan, 1999). The receiver’s view on
the source’s expertise positively influences the source effectiveness (Ohanian, 1990).
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
15
Consumers’ reactions to a source’s endorsement are very different due to the sources
perceived level of expertise and the consumers’ level of agreement with the endorsement.
Consumers’ who are exposed to a source who is viewed as highly expert agree more with
the source’s recommendation other than source’s who were viewed as having low
expertise (Ohanian, 1990). Therefore, Atkin and Block (1983) stated when comparing a
celebrity and non-celebrity endorser a celebrity endorser will have a greater impact on
responses, be more credible, and create more favorable attitudes. When looking at
purchase intentions Ohanian (1990) concluded from physical attractiveness,
trustworthiness, and expertise, expertise is the characteristic which is associated with the
intent to purchase the product which is being endorsed. However, Speck, Schumann, and
Thompson (1988) concluded celebrities who consumers’ believe to be an expert will
produce a higher recall of the product information, for the product they are endorsing,
than compared to non-expert celebrities but, the difference is not significantly different.
Celebrity Trustworthiness
“Trustworthiness refers to the honesty, integrity, and believability of an endorser
as perceived by the consumer” (Erdogan, Baker, & Tagg, 2001, p. 40). Trust in
communication is considered to be how much confidence and acceptance the listener has
in the speaker of the message (Ohanian, 1990). Celebrities which are liked will also be
trusted, Friedman and Friedman (1979) and Friedman, Santeramo, and Traina (1978),
therefore, advertisers focus on trustworthiness and choose endorsers who are highly
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
16
viewed as honest, believable and dependable (Shimp, 1997). Friedman et al. (1978)
inferred trustworthiness is a major matter of source credibility and discovered likability
was the biggest characteristic of trust. After their findings authors pushed advertisers, to
use a celebrity which is likeable and trustworthy when using a celebrity to endorse
products. Whenever celebrities are constantly in the media; they are trusted more other
than celebrities who are not constantly in the media Friedman et al. (1978). This shows
when consumers continually see a celebrity exposed in the spotlight they seem to feel a
greater connection with them other than celebrities who are not constantly in the spotlight
(Renton, 2006). Desphande and Stayman (1994) looked at trustworthiness in a different
way and concluded ethnic status affects endorser’s trustworthiness which affects the
attitudes of the brand being endorsed. This happens because individuals want to be able
to trust other individuals which are like them. When marketers are targeting ethnic groups
they need to be aware of the ethnic backgrounds in which they are targeting. An assertive
message coming from a highly trustworthy communicator generates a direct attitude
change, however, communicators who are not viewed as trusted impact proven
insignificance (Miller & Baseheart, 1969). McGinnies & Ward, (1980) stated a
communicator who is observed as trustworthy has been shown to generate a larger
attitude change other than observed expertise.
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
17
Celebrity Physical Attractiveness
Physically attractive people are normally used on television and in print media
because research have proven consumers’ usually will form a positive stereotype about
these people (Ohanian, 1991). Research which has been conducted states attractive
people will have more successes when it comes to changing beliefs than unattractive
people (Kamins, 1990; Till & Busler, 1998; Kahle & Homer, 1985; Ohanian, 1991;
Chaiken, 1979; Baker & Churchill, 1977; Petroshius & Crocker, 1989; Horai, Naccari, &
Fatoullah, 1974). Joseph (1982) conducted a study to look at more than just personality
traits, he researched how much influence an endorsers attractiveness has on opinion
change, product evaluation, and other factors of effectiveness. He discovered using
endorsers, which are considered to be attractive, will generate a larger positive impact on
products they are endorsing other than endorsers who are considered to be less attractive.
Kahle & Homer (1985) conducted a study and concluded the more likeable and attractive
a celebrity the more consumers’ had positive attitudes towards the advertisements and the
product as well as the consumers’ had higher purchase intentions for the product being
advertised. However, Baker and Churchill (1977) found attractiveness increases positive
advertisement evaluations but attractiveness was not effective when it comes to
generating strong purchase intentions. Also, Caballero et al. (1989) concluded endorser’s
attractiveness has no effect on advertising effectiveness.
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
18
Attitude Toward the Celebrity
Erdogan (1999, p. 299) defined likeability as “affection for the source as a result
of the source’s physical appearance and behaviour”. McCracken (1986, 1989) concluded
celebrities will add value through the process of meaning transfer. The meaning transfer
process states a celebrity creates a certain personality about them, which evolves, from
how they are seen in the media and how they act in society. When a company uses a
celebrity to endorse a product, the company hopes, the meaning a consumer has for the
celebrity, will transfer to the product, brand or company (Erdogan & Baker, 2000). The
process of meaning transfer happens in three parts which are: formation of the celebrity
image, the meaning of transfer from the celebrity to the product, and the meaning of
transfer from the product to the consumer (Erdogan, 1999). When a consumer identifies
themselves with a celebrity identification will happen, when a consumer accepts
influence from a person (Kelman 2006, p.3) they will purchase the product being
endorsed, hoping they will transfer some of the meaning into their lives (McCracken,
1989). Celebrities are hired to endorse products because companies believe consumers
absorb images of celebrities therefore, advertisers want consumers’ to use products which
are linked to celebrities (Fowles, 1996). Fortini-Campbell (1992) states products have
personalities just like people, and people will use products which are similar with the
personality traits they have or personality traits they want to have, which are in
celebrities, friends, or family.
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
19
Attitude Toward the Advertisement
Attitude toward the advertisement is defined as “a predisposition to respond in a
favorable or unfavorable manner to a particular advertising stimulus during a particular
exposure situation” (Mackenzie, Lutz, & Belch, 1986, p. 130-131). The attitude toward
the advertisement has the ability to create affective reactions and evaluations. The
affective reactions consist of the advertisement creating a feeling of happiness and the
evaluations consist of the advertisements credibility (Baker & Lutz, 1988). The attitude
toward the advertisement is both cognitive and emotional (Shimp, 1981). The attitude
toward the advertisement is cognitive because consumers’ will form attitudes by
consciously thinking about specific executional parts of the advertisement such as the
endorser, copy, presentation style, etc (Shimp, 1981). The attitude toward the brand is
emotional because consumers’ form attitudes by consciously thinking about executional
parts of the advertisements this includes the parts which are found within the
advertisement, such as the endorser, color, and text (Shimp, 1981). The attitude toward
the advertisement may happen because the advertisement provokes an emotional
response such as love, joy, longing or sorrow this happens without consciously
processing any executional elements (Shimp, 1981).
Attitude Toward the Brand
Brands are very important to consumers; they let them express who they are,
what they are, and how they want to be perceived by others (Graeff, 1996). Consumers
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
20
do not buy brands for who they are but rather for what they are (Aaker & Biel, 1993).
When consumers are choosing the brand they want to buy, the feelings and attitudes they
have towards a brand are very important to them when they are deciding which brand to
choose to earn loyalty too (Gardner & Levy, 1955). Comparing brands is one way
consumers’ eliminate brands early on in the decision making process. If two brands seem
to be very similar, sometimes it tends to be difficult for consumers to discern between
them. If consumers want to choose the best brand they might consider other brand-related
information such as, advertisement reactions (Biehal et al., 1992). Consumers enjoy
brands because they have meaning; they allow consumers to make a short cut in their’’
head when it comes time to make a decision (Aaker & Biel, 1993). By choosing a brand
it allows consumers’ to choose what they like and for them to become brand loyal (Aaker
& Biel, 1993). A study by Till & Busler (1998) concluded a consumers’ attitude toward
the brand and their intent to purchase was increasingly higher with celebrities which were
considered attractive, other than celebrities who are considered to be unattractive.
Process of Social Influences
The processes of social influences were identified first by Kelman (1956). The
three processes suggest when a consumer is persuaded there is a potential the consumer
will accept influence from another person or group. The three processes consist of
compliance, identification, and internationalization.
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
21
Compliance
Compliance will occur when a consumer accepts influence from a person or group
because they want a favorable reaction from them (Kelman, 1956). A consumer may be
trying to get certain rewards or avoid certain punishments which influencing agents
control or they could be worried about gaining approval or avoiding disproval from the
influencing agent (Kelman, 1956). An influencing agent could be a celebrity, and a
consumer will comply with the celebrity so they can feel they have the approval of the
purchase they made. By doing what the controlling agent wants the consumer to do, or
doing what the consumer thinks the controlling agent wants, the consumer sees this as
getting a desired response from the controlling agent (Kelman, 1956). During this process
the consumer learns what to do or say and what is expected in certain situations, no
matter what the consumers’ personal beliefs are. Opinions which are selected through this
process should only be used when the consumers’ behavior is noticeable by the
influencing agent (Kelman, 1956).
Identification
Identification occurs when a consumer chooses behaviors from a group or another
person because this behavior is identified with this group or person to be a good self-
defining relationship. (Kelman, 1956; Cohen & Golden, 1972). In this process the
consumer tries to be just like the group or person for example by saying what they say, or
wearing what they wear, they maintain a self-satisfying relationship (Kelman, 1956). The
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
22
consumer will buy something which they see a celebrity wearing or endorsing because
they want to be like the celebrity. The consumer believes if they buy something a
celebrity wears then they will look like or be like the celebrity. During this process
physical attractiveness is considered to be one of the main factors (Kelman, 1956). Also,
in this process consumers want to identify with the endorser so they take influence from
attractable/ likeable endorsers (Kamins & Gupta, 1994). During identification celebrity
advertisements become effective, especially on products which are high in psychological
or social risk. The effectiveness of celebrity endorsed advertisements is highly associated
with the process of identification through the likeability of the personality. Identification
has a strong connection with internalization by jointly increasing the credibility of the
appeal (Kamins, Brand, Hoeke & Moe, 1989).
Internalization
Internalization happens when a consumer takes influence because the induced
behavior is the same as their value system (Kelman, 1956). The content of the induced
behavior is essentially rewarding, the consumer adopts the behavior because they might
find it useful for a solution to a problem, because the behavior is in agreeance with their
own character, or because it is demanded for their values. Therefore, the main reason a
consumer adopts the behavior is because they view it as ingrained capability to the fullest
of their values (Kelman, 1956). During the process of internalization a consumer may
choose to accept recommendations from an expert, because they might find them to be
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
23
related to their problems and they correspond with their value system (Kelman, 1956).
Usually when this process happens, the consumer will not completely accept the
recommendations, but instead will modify them to fit their situation (Kelman, 1956).
During this time the consumer will look to the celebrity for expertise, if the consumer
feels the celebrity is knowledgeable enough the consumer will purchase the product they
are endorsing. When using celebrity endorsers for advertising, the celebrity needs to be
able to match the image of the product which is being endorsed, because it makes it
easier for the consumer to internalize (Kamins & Gupta, 1994).
All three of the processes compliance, identification, and internalization are
applicable to the way consumers buy. However, the manner in which the consumer
relates to the product, the advertisement and the celebrity all determine which products
the consumer will purchase. The celebrity may have many roles when they are endorsing
a product such as they can act as an expert, a spokesperson, a promoter, or “just be a
pretty face” (Erdogan et al., 2001). The celebrity will add value to the brand they are
endorsing and they enhance the brand from a competitive standpoint (Till, 1998).
“Match-Up Hypothesis”
The Match-Up hypothesis “generally suggests that the message conveyed
by the image of the celebrity and the image of the product should converge in effective
advertisements and implies a need for congruency between product image and celebrity
image on an attractiveness basis” (Kamins, 1990, p. 5). The element between the match
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
24
of the celebrity and the brand being endorsed is built upon the amount of perceived “fit”
between the brand being endorsed and the image of the celebrity endorser (Mirsa &
Beatty, 1990). This match–up between the brand and the celebrity endorser is considered
to be one of the main factors of endorsement effectiveness (e.g. Friedman et al., 1978;
Friedman & Friedman 1979; Kahle & Homer, 1985; Kamins 1989, 1990; Kamins &
Gupta, 1994; Erdogan & Baker, 2000; Till & Busler, 2000; Erdogan et al., 2001; Batra &
Homer, 2004). Friedman and Friedman (1979) found if the consumer perceives there to
be a good match-up, the higher level of endorsement effectiveness there will be. When a
company is choosing a celebrity endorser they should look at the product attributes which
are to be ingrained, as well as looking at the broader meanings which are associated with
the endorser (Walker et al., 1992). Till & Busler (2000) concluded the match-up was
effective but only for certain aspects such as brand attitude, but not for other factors such
as purchase intentions. Kahle & Homer (1985) concluded when the physical
attractiveness of a celebrity is in accordance with the product in which they are
advertising the “Match-Up Hypothesis” will anticipate a positive impact on the product
as well as the advertisement evaluations. If there is no accordance with the product they
are advertising then the evaluations will decline. The findings by Kahle & Homer (1985)
can have much truth on products which are beauty enhancing, and are being endorsed by
celebrities. A consumer might think the product being endorsed influences their own
attractiveness (Kamins, 1990).
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
25
Purchase Intentions
Intentions can be made by processing and knowing all brand information which is
there at the moment (Biehal et al., 1992). However, when consumers make choices
sometimes they do not always process and know all the available brand information
therefore, there is not always a close relationship between intentions and choice (Biehal
et al., 1992). Also, sometimes consumers will not make known their intentions about a
brand but they might form attitudes toward a brand without making choices (Biehal et al.,
1992). Woodside & Taylor (1978) concluded products which have a lot of advertising
and the higher quality the product is, the more the product will be purchased. Woodside
& Taylor (1978) also concluded nationally advertised products were considered higher
quality in the eyes of consumers, which makes these products have increased purchase
intentions. Advertising as well as the amount of advertising has the ability to influence
consumers’ perception of quality which affects consumer purchase behavior (Woodside
& Taylor, 1978).
Generation Y
Generation Y is the focus of this study. Generation Y is comprised of people who
were born between the years of 1977 and 1994 (Engebretson, 2004). There are 76 million
people who fall into the Generation Y category (Kennedy, 2001). Research has proven
Generation Y does not react well to traditional advertising. Generation Y tends to distrust
traditional advertising because they see advertising everywhere through media, which is
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
26
not common of most generations at their age. Generation Y tends to believe marketers
have unfavorable intentions and their only intentions are to trick consumers into buying
products (Wolburg & Pokrywczynski, 2001). Marketers have problems on deciding
which mediums to use to reach Generation Y because they have access to the internet,
television, cell phones video games, and PDAs (Morton, 2002). Even though Generation
Y is numb to celebrity images, there is proof using celebrity spokespersons and athletes
will have a lot of impact on Generation Y, along with journalist and early adopters
(Morton, 2002).
Theoretical Framework
The Theory of Planned Behavior is an expansion of the Theory of Reasoned
Action (Ajzen, 1985, 1991). The Theory of Planned Behavior looks at attitude toward a
behavior, subjective norm and perceived behavioral control as three independent factors
of behavioral intent (Han, Hsu & Sheu, 2009).
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
27
Figure 1: Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen, 1985, 1991)
Behavioral Attitude
Attitude is the first factor of behavioral intention and is described as “The degree
to which a person has a favorable or unfavorable evaluation or appraisal of the behavior
in a question” (Ajzen, 1991, p. 188). The attitude toward a behavior functions as a
behavioral belief which recognizes consequences of the behavior and the person’s
assessment of the significance of the consequences (Eagry & Chailen, 1993). Behavioral
beliefs are a person’s subjective probability, in that partaking in certain behavior, will
have certain consequences (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980). When deciding to partake in a
certain behavior, a person will think about the risk from partaking in the behavior
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
28
(Cheng, Lam, & Ham, 2006). When a person has a positive attitude toward a certain
behavior it strengthens their purpose to act in the behavior (Ajzen, 1991).
Subjective Norm
Subjective norm is “the perceived social pressure to perform or not to perform the
behavior” (Ajzen, 1991, p. 188). Subjective norm functions as a person’s normative
belief about what behavior beliefs they think they should or should not do, and their
motivation to comply with the beliefs (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980). Normative beliefs are
“perceptions of significant others’ preferences about whether one should engage in a
behavior” (Eagry & Chailen, 1993, p. 171).
Perceived Behavioral Control
Perceived Behavioral Control is “The perceived ease or difficulty of performing
the behavior” (Ajzen, 1999, p.122). Therefore, it is the perception of how well a person
can control factors which may ease/hold down the actions to deal with certain situations
(Han, Hsu & Sheu, 2009). This is considered to be the control beliefs, which is
someone’s knowledge of the presence/ absence of resources/ opportunities which are
needed to perform certain behavior, and their judgment of the importance of the
resources/ opportunities for the success of outcomes (Ajzen & Madden, 1986; Chang,
1998).
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
29
Summary
This chapter gave information about celebrity credibility, the consumers’ attitude
toward the celebrity, the consumers’ attitude toward the advertisement, the consumers’
attitude toward the brand, the “match-up hypothesis”, the process of social influences,
consumers’ purchase intentions and Generation Y. This chapter also included the
theoretical framework for the study, the Theory of Planned Behavior.
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
30
CHAPTER III
METHODS AND PROCEDURES
Introduction
This chapter includes sections on research questions, method, demographics,
research design, data collection, and data analysis.
Using celebrities to endorse products in fashion magazine advertisements is a
very popular way of marketing. Limited research has been conducted to see if celebrity
endorsed advertisements in fashion magazines affect purchase intentions of Generation Y
by looking at celebrity credibility, purchase intentions and consumer’s attitude toward the
celebrity, attitude toward the advertisement and attitude toward the brand. This study will
be helpful for companies who use celebrities to endorse products in fashion magazine
advertisements. For this study three fashion magazines, Elle, Vogue, and Glamor were
used to analyze the celebrity endorsed advertisements. These three magazines were
chosen because they are three of the more well-known fashion magazines.
Hypothesis
Hypothesis 1: There was a significant difference of customers’ behavioral intention
regarding the purchase of hair products based on the celebrity endorser.
RQ1-1: Is there a significant difference in buying intention of hair products based on the
celebrity endorser?
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
31
Hypothesis 2: There was a significant difference of customer’s opinions of hair products
based on the celebrity endorser.
RQ2-1: Is there a significant difference in the assumed use by the endorser of hair
products based on the celebrity endorser?
RQ2-2: Is there a significant difference in the perceived attractiveness of the endorser?
RQ2-3: Is there a significant difference in the perceived classiness of the endorser?
RQ2-4: Is there a significant difference in the perceived beauty of the endorser?
RQ2-5: Is there a significant difference in the perceived elegance of the endorser?
RQ2-6: Is there a significant difference in the perceived sexiness of the endorser?
RQ2-7: Is there a significant difference in the perceived dependability of the endorser?
RQ2-8: Is there a significant difference in the perceived honesty of the endorser?
RQ2-9: Is there a significant difference in the perceived reliability of the endorser?
RQ2-10: Is there a significant difference in the perceived sincerity of the endorser?
RQ2-11: Is there a significant difference in the perceived trustworthiness of the endorser?
RQ2-12: Is there a significant difference in the perceived expertise of the endorser?
RQ2-13: Is there a significant difference in the perceived experience of the endorser?
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
32
RQ2-14: Is there a significant difference in the perceived knowledge of the endorser?
RQ2-15: Is there a significant difference in the perceived qualifications, regarding
fashion and beauty, of the endorser?
RQ2-16: Is there a significant difference in the perceived skills of the endorser?
Hypothesis 3: There was a significant difference of customers’ behavioral intention
regarding the purchase of beverages based on the celebrity endorser.
RQ3-1: Is there a significant difference in buying intention of beverages based on the
celebrity endorser?
Hypothesis 4: There was a significant difference of customer’s opinions of beverages
based on the celebrity endorser.
RQ4-1: Is there a significant difference in the assumed use by the endorser of beverages
based on the celebrity endorser?
RQ4-2: Is there a significant difference in the perceived attractiveness of the endorser?
RQ4-3: Is there a significant difference in the perceived classiness of the endorser?
RQ4-4: Is there a significant difference in the perceived beauty of the endorser?
RQ4-5: Is there a significant difference in the perceived elegance of the endorser?
RQ4-6: Is there a significant difference in the perceived sexiness of the endorser?
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
33
RQ4-7: Is there a significant difference in the perceived dependability of the endorser?
RQ4-8: Is there a significant difference in the perceived honesty of the endorser?
RQ4-9: Is there a significant difference in the perceived reliability of the endorser?
RQ4-10: Is there a significant difference in the perceived sincerity of the endorser?
RQ4-11: Is there a significant difference in the perceived trustworthiness of the endorser?
RQ4-12: Is there a significant difference in the perceived expertise of the endorser?
RQ4-13: Is there a significant difference in the perceived attractiveness of the endorser?
RQ4-14: Is there a significant difference in the perceived knowledge of the endorser?
RQ4-15: Is there a significant difference in the perceived qualifications, regarding
fashion and beauty, of the endorser?
RQ4-16: Is there a significant difference in the perceived skills of the endorser?
Hypothesis 5: There was a significant difference of customers’ behavioral intention
regarding the purchase of perfume based on the celebrity endorser.
RQ5-1: Is there a significant difference in buying intention of perfume based on the
celebrity endorser?
Hypothesis 6: There was a significant difference of customer’s opinions of perfume based
on the celebrity endorser.
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
34
RQ6-1: Is there a significant difference in the assumed use by the endorser of perfume
based on the celebrity endorser?
RQ6-2: Is there a significant difference in the perceived attractiveness of the endorser?
RQ6-3: Is there a significant difference in the perceived classiness of the endorser?
RQ6-4: Is there a significant difference in the perceived beauty of the endorser?
RQ6-5: Is there a significant difference in the perceived elegance of the endorser?
RQ6-6: Is there a significant difference in the perceived sexiness of the endorser?
RQ6-7: Is there a significant difference in the perceived dependability of the endorser?
RQ6-8: Is there a significant difference in the perceived honesty of the endorser?
RQ6-9: Is there a significant difference in the perceived reliability of the endorser?
RQ6-10: Is there a significant difference in the perceived sincerity of the endorser?
RQ6-11: Is there a significant difference in the perceived trustworthiness of the endorser?
RQ6-12: Is there a significant difference in the perceived expertise of the endorser?
RQ6-13: Is there a significant difference in the perceived experience of the endorser?
RQ6-14: Is there a significant difference in the perceived knowledge of the endorser?
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
35
RQ6-15: Is there a significant difference in the perceived qualifications, regarding
fashion and beauty, of the endorser?
RQ6-16: Is there a significant difference in the perceived skills of the endorser
Hypothesis 7: There was a significant difference of customers’ behavioral intention
regarding the purchase of apparel based on the celebrity endorser.
RQ7-1: Is there a significant difference in buying intention of apparel based on the
celebrity endorser?
Hypothesis 8: There was a significant difference of customer’s opinions of apparel based
on the celebrity endorser.
RQ8-1: Is there a significant difference in the assumed use by the endorser of apparel
based on the celebrity endorser?
RQ8-2: Is there a significant difference in the perceived attractiveness of the endorser?
RQ8-3: Is there a significant difference in the perceived classiness of the endorser?
RQ8-4: Is there a significant difference in the perceived beauty of the endorser?
RQ8-5: Is there a significant difference in the perceived elegance of the endorser?
RQ8-6: Is there a significant difference in the perceived sexiness of the endorser?
RQ8-7: Is there a significant difference in the perceived dependability of the endorser?
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
36
RQ8-8: Is there a significant difference in the perceived honesty of the endorser?
RQ8-9: Is there a significant difference in the perceived reliability of the endorser?
RQ8-10: Is there a significant difference in the perceived sincerity of the endorser?
RQ8-11: Is there a significant difference in the perceived trustworthiness of the endorser?
RQ8-12: Is there a significant difference in the perceived expertise of the endorser?
RQ8-13: Is there a significant difference in the perceived experience of the endorser?
RQ8-14: Is there a significant difference in the perceived knowledge of the endorser?
RQ8-15: Is there a significant difference in the perceived qualifications, regarding
fashion and beauty, of the endorser.
RQ8-16: Is there a significant difference in the perceived skills of the endorser?
Hypothesis 9: There was a significant difference of customers’ behavioral intention
regarding the purchase of cosmetics based on the celebrity endorser.
RQ9-1: Is there a significant difference in buying intention of cosmetics based on the
celebrity endorser?
Hypothesis 10: There was a significant difference of customers’ opinions of cosmetics
based on the celebrity endorser.
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
37
RQ10-1: Is there a significant difference in the assumed use by the endorser of cosmetics
based on the celebrity endorser?
RQ10-2: Is there a significant difference in the perceived attractiveness of the endorser?
RQ10-3: Is there a significant difference in the perceived classiness of the endorser?
RQ10-4: Is there a significant difference in the perceived beauty of the endorser?
RQ10-5: Is there a significant difference in the perceived elegance of the endorser?
RQ10-6: Is there a significant difference in the perceived sexiness of the endorser?
RQ10-7: Is there a significant difference in the perceived dependability of the endorser?
RQ10-8: Is there a significant difference in the perceived honesty of the endorser?
RQ10-9: Is there a significant difference in the perceived reliability of the endorser?
RQ10-10: Is there a significant difference in the perceived sincerity of the endorser?
RQ10-11: Is there a significant difference in the perceived trustworthiness of the
endorser?
RQ10-12: Is there a significant difference in the perceived expertise of the endorser?
RQ10-13: Is there a significant difference in the perceived experience of the endorser?
RQ10-14: Is there a significant difference in the perceived knowledge of the endorser?
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
38
RQ10-15: Is there a significant difference in the perceived qualifications, regarding
fashion and beauty, of the endorser?
RQ10-16: Is there a significant difference in the perceived skills of the endorser?
Method
This study was conducted to see if celebrity endorsers in fashion magazines affect
purchase intentions of Generation Y. For this research study a survey was created on
Qualtrics. The survey included demographic questions, questions about purchase
intentions, and questions about consumers’ towards the celebrity, brand and
advertisement. Also, there were pictures of celebrity endorsed advertisement which were
taken out of the fashion magazines. The pictures which were used in the survey had
questions along with them which focused on celebrity credibility by using the Source
Credibility Scale by Ohanian (1990).
Source-Credibility Scale
Attractiveness Attractive-Unattractive Classy-Not Classy Beautiful-Ugly Elegant-Plain Sexy-Not sexy Trustworthiness Dependable-Undependable Honest-Dishonest Reliable-Unreliable Sincere-Insincere Trustworthy-Untrustworthy
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
39
Expertise Expert-Not an expert Experienced-Inexperienced Knowledgeable-Unknowledgeable Qualified-Unqualified Skilled-Unskilled
The questions about celebrity credibility were asked on a Likert scale. The survey
was emailed to friends and family and posted on Facebook and Reddit from November
23, 2013 through February 10, 2014. This research only focused on Generation Y,
meaning anyone between the ages of 19 and 36 were allowed to participate in the survey.
Once the survey was emailed and posted on Facebook and Reddit it was shared and sent
to others to take the survey as well. The participants were allowed to take the survey at
any time they wished and they were allowed to take the survey anywhere they wished.
There was no time limit on the survey so the participants were allowed to spend as much
time as they wanted on the survey. If the participants wanted to stop taking the survey
they were allowed to exit out of the survey at any time.
Demographics
This research study only focused on Generation Y. For the purpose of this study
this means anyone who was born between 1977-1994 meaning the participants were
anywhere between the ages of 19-36. There were no restrictions within Generation Y,
therefore anyone who fell into this category could participate in the study. Table 1
describes the demographics of the participants who participated in the survey.
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
40
Table 1. Demographic Characteristics of the Respondents (N=263)
Characteristics Frequency/Percentage
Number of Respondents 317 Valid (usable) Sample Size 263 Gender Total Percentage (%)
Female Male
209 54
79.5 20.5
Missing 0 0
Age 18-21 114 43.3
Ethnicity
22-25 26-29 30-33 34-36 Missing
113 26 8 2 0
43.0 9.9 3.0 .8
0
African American 11 4.2 Asian 5 1.9Caucasian 199 76.0Hispanic 38 14.4Other 9 3.4Missing 1 .4
Money Spent on Clothing a Month
$0-$50 71 27.2 $51-$100 91 34.9$101-$150 45 17.2$151-$200 24 9.2$201-$250 11 4.2$251-$300 10 3.8More than $301 9 3.4 Missing 2 .8
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
41
Most participants, 55 percent, said they buy products which celebrities endorse in
fashion magazine advertisements less than one a month. 33.2 percent of the participants
said they never buy products celebrities endorse in fashion magazines. Only 11.8 percent
of the participants said they purchase items celebrities endorse in fashion magazines, at
least once a month or more.
Table 2: Consumers’ Purchasing Behavior of Products
How often do you buy things you see a celebrity endorse in a fashion magazine?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid
Never 87 33.1 33.2 33.2
Less than Once a Month
144 54.8 55.0 88.2
Once a Month 20 7.6 7.6 95.8
2-3 Times a Month 9 3.4 3.4 99.2
Daily 2 .8 .8 100.0
Total 262 99.6 100.0
Missing System 1 .4
Total 263 100.0
When looking at how often the participants buy products similar to what they see
celebrities endorse in fashion magazine advertisements, 46.4 percent of the consumers
said less than once a month. 25.1 percent of the participants said they never buy products
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
42
similar to what they see celebrities endorse in fashion magazine advertisements. Only
28.5 percent of the participants said they buy products similar to the products celebrities
endorse in fashion magazine advertisements at least once a month or more.
Table 3: Consumer’s Purchasing Behavior of Similar Products
How often do you buy things similar to what a celebrity endorses in a fashion magazine?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid
Never 66 25.1 25.1 25.1
Less than Once a Month
122 46.4 46.4 71.5
Once a Month 50 19.0 19.0 90.5
2-3 Times a Month 23 8.7 8.7 99.2
2-3 Times a Week 1 .4 .4 99.6
Daily 1 .4 .4 100.0
Total 263 100.0 100.0
When looking at the participant’s purchase intentions of products celebrities
endorse in fashion magazines, 80.7 percent of them, said they buy the products because
they like the brand. Only 5.3 percent of the participants said they did not buy the products
which were endorsed by celebrities in fashion magazines because of the brand.
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
43
Table 4: Consumers’ Purchase Intentions of Brands
Please only choose one answer for each question: I buy the clothes celebrities endorse in fashion magazines...-I like the BRAND.
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid
Strongly Agree 71 27.0 29.1 29.1
Agree 126 47.9 51.6 80.7
Neither Agree nor Disagree
34 12.9 13.9 94.7
Disagree 5 1.9 2.0 96.7
Strongly Disagree 8 3.0 3.3 100.0
Total 244 92.8 100.0
Missing System 19 7.2
Total 263 100.0
When looking at consumers’ purchase intentions, 31.4 percent, of participants
said they buy products they see celebrities endorse in fashion magazines because they
like the celebrity endorsing the product. Whereas, 31.4 percent of participants said they
do not buy products celebrities endorse in fashion magazines, just because of the
celebrity.
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
44
Table 5: Purchase Intentions of Celebrities
Please only choose one answer for each question: I buy the clothes celebrities endorse in fashion magazine because...-I like the CELEBRITY.
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid
Strongly Agree 15 5.7 6.1 6.1
Agree 62 23.6 25.3 31.4
Neither Agree nor Disagree
91 34.6 37.1 68.6
Disagree 50 19.0 20.4 89.0
Strongly Disagree 27 10.3 11.0 100.0
Total 245 93.2 100.0
Missing System 18 6.8
Total 263 100.0
This information shows by looking at consumers’ purchase intentions of products
celebrities endorse in fashion magazines 37.9 percent of the participants said they buy
these products because they like the advertisement. On the other hand 25.7 percent of the
participants said the advertisement in not a reason why they buy products which are
endorsed by celebrities in fashion magazines.
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
45
Table 6: Consumers’ Purchase Intentions of Advertisements
Please only choose one answer for each question: I buy the clothes celebrities endorse in fashion magazines...-I like the ADVERTISEMENT.
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid
Strongly Agree 6 2.3 2.4 2.4
Agree 87 33.1 35.5 38.0
Neither Agree nor Disagree
89 33.8 36.3 74.3
Disagree 39 14.8 15.9 90.2
Strongly Disagree 24 9.1 9.8 100.0
Total 245 93.2 100.0
Missing System 18 6.8
Total 263 100.0
Research Design
This research was conducted by using three different fashion magazines Vogue,
InStyle, and Elle. These magazines were chosen because they are three of the better
known fashion magazines. The September and October 2013 issues were the issues
which were used. However, the October issue of Vogue was not used because it was
already evident from the previous magazines, the magazines had very similar
advertisements and many of the same advertisements.
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
46
After all of the magazines had been examined and all of the celebrity endorsed
advertisements were removed from the magazines the advertisements were put into
categories, there were a total of five different categories and within the categories there
were three different advertisements. The five different categories consisted of hair
products, beverages, perfume, apparel and cosmetics. These were the different categories
of celebrity endorsed advertisements which were found within the magazines. After the
advertisements were placed into categories a panel of experts were shown each
advertisement and were asked to identify who they thought the celebrity was in the
advertisement. If the celebrity in the advertisement was unidentifiable to the panel of
experts then the celebrity advertisement was taken out and was not used for this study.
Also, advertisements which had celebrities wearing sunglasses were removed since they
covered up the celebrities face. After all the unidentifiable advertisements were removed
the categories were then reviewed.
For this research three celebrity advertisements were chosen for each of the five
categories. The celebrity endorsed advertisements which were chosen, were based off of
the product and the brand. Therefore, brands which had multiple celebrity endorsed
advertisements only ended up with one advertisement for the brand. If the brand had
several celebrities advertising the brand the celebrity which was most well-known to the
panel of experts was the celebrity which was chosen. For this research in the hair
products category the celebrity advertisements which were used were Beyoncé for
L’Oreal Paris, Deschanel for Pantene Pro V and, Tina Fey for Garnier. Hair products
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
47
celebrity endorsed advertisements which were not used for this research were Jennifer
Lopez for L’Oreal Paris and Lea Michele for L’Oreal Paris. In the beverages group the
celebrity endorsed advertisements which were used were Taylor Swift for Diet Coke,
Jennifer Aniston for Smart Water and, Sofia Vergara for Pepsi. These were the only
beverage celebrity endorsed advertisements in the magazines. For the celebrity endorsed
advertisements which were used for the perfume category were Charlize Theron for Dior,
Julia Roberts for Lancôme, and Blake Lively for Gucci. These were the only celebrity
endorsed advertisements for the perfume category. Next was the apparel category the
celebrity endorsed advertisements which were used were Kate Hudson for Ann Taylor,
Jennifer Garner for MaxMara and Nicole Kidman for Jimmy Choo. The celebrity
endorsed advertisements which were not used were Kate Moss for Stuart Weitzman, and
Ashlee Simpson for Jessica Simpson. For the cosmetics category the celebrity endorsed
advertisements which were used were for this research were Emma Stone for Revlon,
Natalie Portman for Christian Dior, and Diane Kruger for Chanel. The cosmetic celebrity
endorsed advertisements were chosen by looking at a chart online and picking the top
selling cosmetic companies. The celebrity endorsed advertisements which were not used
were Olivia Wilde for Revlon, PINK for CoverGirl, Sofia Vergara for CoverGirl,
Beyoncé for L’Oreal Paris, and Scarlett Johansson for Dolce & Gabbana.
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
48
Data Collection
A survey was created on Qualtrics and was then sent out to family and friends via
email. The survey was also posted on Facebook, where people were allowed to share the
survey link to others. Also, the survey was posted on Reddit, a website which allows
people to participate in surveys which have been uploaded to the website. The
participants, who took the survey had to be in Generation Y, which consisted of
participants between the ages of 19-36. The participants were allowed to take the survey
anytime they wanted while the survey was open from November 23, 2013 to February 10,
2014 they were also allowed to take the survey wherever they wished. The participants
were allowed to stop at any point during the survey and did not have to finish the survey
if they did not wish to. Also, the participants were allowed to spend as much time as they
wanted on the survey because there was not a time limit.
Data Analysis
After the survey was closed the data was analyzed in SPSS. The data which was
focused on celebrity, if the participants would buy products endorsed by the celebrity and
if they believe the celebrity uses the product they endorse were put into an Excel file. The
Excel file was broken into five different categories which consisted of hair products,
beverages, perfume, apparel, and cosmetics. The data were reviewed for each category
and participants which did not answer all the questions or answered for more than one
celebrity were removed from the data. After the data of the five groups were analyzed it
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
49
was transferred to SPSS. After the data was put into SPSS a one way ANOVA was
conducted as well as a Post Host Tukey test and a Homogeneity of Variance test. These
tests were conducted to answer the hypothesis and research questions which are discussed
in detail in chapter four.
Summary
This chapter discussed the research hypothesis along with the research method,
which included demographic information about the participants who participated in the
study. Next the research study was discussed into detail of the research design, steps of
the data collection, and steps on how the data was analyzed in the data analysis.
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
50
CHAPTER IV
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
Introduction
This study sought to see if celebrity endorsed advertisements in fashion
magazines influence purchase intentions of Generation Y. The theoretical framework for
this study was the Theory of Planned Behavior which is an expansion of the Theory of
Reasoned Action (Ajzen, 1985, 1991). After this study was conducted a new framework
was developed.
Research Design
For this study a survey was created on Qualtrics. The survey was sent to friends
and family via email. The survey was also posted on Facebook as well as Reddit. The
survey was open from November 23, 2013 to February 10, 2014. During this time
participants participated in completing the survey. When the survey was closed the
results of the survey were analyzed through SPSS.
Analysis
After the survey was closed there was 319 total participants who participated in
taking to survey. However, some of those participants had to be removed because they
did not complete the whole survey or they did not fall within the Generation Y category.
Therefore, there ended up being a total of 263 participants which were analyzed.
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
51
Hypothesis Testing
Hypothesis 1: There was a significant difference of customers’ behavioral intention
regarding the purchase of hair products based on the celebrity endorser.
RQ1-1: Is there a significant difference in buying intention of hair products based on the
celebrity endorser?
An ANOVA was performed comparing buying intention of hair products based on the
celebrity endorser.
There was a significant difference, p<.000. The Tukey HSD was performed as a post hoc
test. There was significant difference when comparing the assumed buying intention of
Zooey Deschanel and Beyoncé Knowles p<.000 and, Tina Fey and Beyoncé Knowles
p<.000. There was no significant difference between Zooey Deschanel and Tina Fey.
Therefore, consumers’ are less likely to buy products which are endorsed by Beyoncé
Knowles. Consumers’ are more likely to buy products with are endorsed by Tina Fey.
Hypothesis 2: There was a significant difference of customer’s opinions of hair products
based on the celebrity endorser. The results are presented in tables 2 and 3.
RQ2-1: Is there a significant difference in the assumed use by the endorser of hair
products based on the celebrity endorser?
An ANOVA was performed comparing assumed use by the endorser of hair products
based on celebrity endorser.
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
52
There was a significant difference, p<.000. The Tukey HSD was performed as a post hoc
test. There was significant difference when comparing the assumed use of products of
Zooey Deschanel and Beyoncé Knowles p<.005 and, Tina Fey and Beyoncé Knowles
p<.000. There was no significant difference between Tina Fey and Zooey Deschanel.
Therefore, consumers are less likely to believe Beyoncé Knowles uses the products
which she endorses. Consumers are more likely to believe Zooey Deschanel uses the
products she endorses.
RQ2-2: Is there a significant difference in the perceived attractiveness of the endorser?
An ANOVA was performed comparing perceived attractiveness of the endorser.
There was a significant difference, p<.000. The Tukey HSD was performed as a post hoc
test. There was significant difference when comparing the attractiveness of Zooey
Deschanel and Beyoncé Knowles p<.000, Zooey Deschanel and Tina Fey p<.019 and,
Tina Fey and Beyoncé Knowles p<.000.
RQ2-3: Is there a significant difference in the perceived classiness of the endorser?
An ANOVA was performed comparing perceived classiness of the endorser.
There was a significant difference, p<.000. The Tukey HSD was performed as a post hoc
test. There was significant difference when comparing the classiness of Beyoncé
Knowles and Tina Fey p<.000 and, Zooey Deschanel and Tina Fey p<.001. There was no
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
53
significant difference between Beyoncé Knowles and Zooey Deschanel. Therefore, the
participants found Zooey Deschanel to be the classiest endorser.
RQ2-4: Is there a significant difference in the perceived beauty of the endorser?
An ANOVA was performed comparing perceived beauty of the endorser.
There was no significant difference when comparing the beauty of Beyoncé Knowles,
Zooey Deschanel, and Tina Fey.
RQ2-5: Is there a significant difference in the perceived elegance of the endorser?
An ANOVA was performed comparing perceived elegance of the endorser.
There was a significant difference, p<.000. The Tukey HSD was performed as a post hoc
test. There was significant difference when comparing the elegance of Beyoncé Knowles
and Zooey Deschanel p <.001, Zooey Deschanel and Tina Fey p<.027 and, Beyoncé
Knowles and Tina Fey p<.000.
RQ2-6: Is there a significant difference in the perceived sexiness of the endorser?
An ANOVA was performed comparing perceived sexiness of the endorser.
There was a significant difference, p<.000. The Tukey HSD was performed as a post hoc
test. There was significant difference when comparing the sexiness of Beyoncé Knowles
and Zooey Deschanel p<.000 and, Beyoncé Knowles and Tina Fey p<.000. There was no
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
54
significant difference between Zooey Deschanel and Tina Fey. Therefore, respondents
found Beyoncé Knowles to be the sexiest endorser.
RQ2-7: Is there a significant difference in the perceived dependability of the endorser?
An ANOVA was performed comparing perceived dependability of the endorser.
There was a significant difference, p<.000. The Tukey HSD was performed as a post hoc
test. There was significant difference when comparing the dependability of Beyoncé
Knowles and Zooey Deschanel p<.000 and, Beyoncé Knowles and Tina Fey p<.000.
There was no significant difference between Zooey Deschanel and Tina Fey. Therefore,
respondents found Beyoncé Knowles to be the most dependable endorser.
RQ2-8: Is there a significant difference in the perceived honesty of the endorser?
An ANOVA was performed comparing perceived honesty of the endorser.
There was no significant difference when comparing the honesty of Beyoncé Knowles,
Zooey Deschanel, and Tina Fey.
RQ2-9: Is there a significant difference in the perceived reliability of the endorser?
An ANOVA was performed comparing perceived reliability of the endorser.
There was no significant difference when comparing the reliability of Beyoncé Knowles,
Zooey Deschanel, and Tina Fey.
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
55
RQ2-10: Is there a significant difference in the perceived sincerity of the endorser?
An ANOVA was performed comparing perceived sincerity of the endorser.
There was no significant difference when comparing the sincerity of Beyoncé Knowles,
Zooey Deschanel, and Tina Fey.
RQ2-11: Is there a significant difference in the perceived trustworthiness of the endorser?
An ANOVA was performed comparing perceived trustworthiness of the endorser.
There was a significant difference, p<.033. The Tukey HSD was performed as a post hoc
test. There was significant difference when comparing the trustworthiness of Beyoncé
Knowles and Tina Fey p<.025. There was no significant difference between Beyoncé
Knowles and Zooey Deschanel and Zooey Deschanel and Tina Fey. Therefore,
respondents found Beyoncé Knowles to be the most trustworthy endorser.
RQ2-12: Is there a significant difference in the perceived expertise of the endorser?
An ANOVA was performed comparing perceived expertise of the endorser.
There was a significant difference, p<.000. The Tukey HSD was performed as a post hoc
test. There was significant difference when comparing the expertise of Beyoncé Knowles
and Zooey Deschanel p<.000 and, Beyoncé Knowles and Tina Fey p<.000. There was no
significant difference between Zooey Deschanel and Tina Fey. Therefore, respondents
found Beyoncé Knowles to be the endorser with the most expertise.
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
56
RQ2-13: Is there a significant difference in the perceived experience of the endorser?
An ANOVA was performed comparing perceived experience of the endorser.
There was no significant difference when comparing the experience of Beyoncé
Knowles, Zooey Deschanel, and Tina Fey.
RQ2-14: Is there a significant difference in the perceived knowledge of the endorser?
An ANOVA was performed comparing perceived knowledge of the endorser.
There was no significant difference when comparing the knowledge of Beyoncé
Knowles, Zooey Deschanel, and Tina Fey.
RQ2-15: Is there a significant difference in the perceived qualifications, regarding
fashion and beauty, of the endorser?
An ANOVA was performed comparing perceived qualifications, regarding fashion and
beauty, of the endorser.
There was a significant difference, p<.008. The Tukey HSD was performed as a post hoc
test. There was significant difference when comparing the qualification, regarding
fashion and beauty, of Beyoncé Knowles and Tina Fey p<.006. There was no significant
difference between Beyoncé Knowles and Zooey Deschanel and Zooey Deschanel and
Tina Fey. Therefore, respondents found Beyoncé Knowles to be the endorser which is
most qualified.
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
57
RQ2-16: Is there a significant difference in the perceived skills of the endorser?
An ANOVA was performed comparing perceived skills of the endorser.
There was a significant difference, p<.036. The Tukey HSD was performed as a post hoc
test. There was significant difference when comparing the skills of Beyoncé Knowles and
Tina Fey p<.027. There was no significant difference between Beyoncé Knowles and
Zooey Deschanel and Zooey Deschanel and Tina Fey. Therefore, respondents found
Beyoncé Knowles to be the endorser which is most skilled.
Table 7: One-Way ANOVA of Hair Products ANOVA
Sum of Squares
df Mean Square
F Sig.
Buy
Between Groups
58.445 2 29.223 168.412 .000
Within Groups 35.224 203 .174 Total 93.670 205
Uses
Between Groups
8.058 2 4.029 10.927 .000
Within Groups 74.854 203 .369 Total 82.913 205
Attract
Between Groups
119.239 2 59.619 151.709 .000
Within Groups 79.776 203 .393 Total 199.015 205
Classy
Between Groups
14.784 2 7.392 13.918 .000
Within Groups 107.818 203 .531 Total 122.602 205
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
58
Table 7: One-Way ANOVA of Hair Products (continued) ANOVA
Sum of Squares df Mean Square
F Sig.
Beaut
Between Groups
2.326 2 1.163 1.863 .158
Within Groups 126.703 203 .624
Total 129.029 205
Elegant
Between Groups
21.683 2 10.842 19.414 .000
Within Groups 113.365 203 .558
Total 135.049 205
Sexy
Between Groups
26.676 2 13.338 19.575 .000
Within Groups 137.636 202 .681
Total 164.312 204
Depend
Between Groups
27.107 2 13.554 23.935 .000
Within Groups 114.951 203 .566
Total 142.058 205
Honest
Between Groups
1.887 2 .944 1.504 .225
Within Groups 127.341 203 .627
Total 129.228 205
Reliabl
Between Groups
1.896 2 .948 1.516 .222
Within Groups 126.959 203 .625
Total 128.854 205
Sincere
Between Groups
1.551 2 .775 1.161 .315
Within Groups 134.888 202 .668
Total 136.439 204
Trust
Between Groups
4.301 2 2.150 3.458 .033
Within Groups 126.223 203 .622
Total 130.524 205
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
59
Table 7: One-Way ANOVA of Hair Products (continued) ANOVA
Expert
Between Groups
66.086 2 33.043 45.909 .000
Within Groups 146.108 203 .720 Total 212.194 205
Exper
Between Groups
1.193 2 .596 .650 .523
Within Groups 186.268 203 .918 Total 187.461 205
Knowl
Between Groups
1.590 2 .795 .844 .431
Within Groups 191.167 203 .942 Total 192.757 205
Qualif
Between Groups
10.270 2 5.135 4.997 .008
Within Groups 208.589 203 1.028 Total 218.859 205
Skill
Between Groups
6.240 2 3.120 3.379 .036
Within Groups 187.449 203 .923 Total 193.689 205
Table 8: Tukey HSD for Hair Products Dependent Variable
(I) Celebrity
(J) Celebrity
Mean Difference (I-
J)
Std. Error Sig.
Buy
Beyoncé Zooey -1.088* .070 .000Tina -1.138* .071 .000
Zooey Beyoncé 1.088* .070 .000Tina -.050 .072 .767
Tina Beyoncé 1.138* .071 .000Zooey .050 .072 .767
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
60
Table 8: Tukey HSD for Hair Products (continued) Dependent Variable
(I) Celebrity
(J) Celebrity
Mean Difference (I-
J)
Std. Error Sig.
Uses
Beyoncé Zooey -.323* .102 .005Tina -.470* .104 .000
Zooey Beyoncé .323* .102 .005Tina -.147 .105 .346
Tina Beyoncé .470* .104 .000Zooey .147 .105 .346
Attract
Beyoncé Zooey -1.716* .106 .000Tina -1.420* .107 .000
Zooey Beyoncé 1.716* .106 .000Tina .296* .109 .019
Tina Beyoncé 1.420* .107 .000Zooey -.296* .109 .019
Classy
Beyoncé Zooey .157 .123 .409Tina .635* .124 .000
Zooey Beyoncé -.157 .123 .409Tina .478* .126 .001
Tina Beyoncé -.635* .124 .000Zooey -.478* .126 .001
Beaut
Beyoncé Zooey -.115 .133 .664Tina .149 .135 .512
Zooey Beyoncé .115 .133 .664Tina .264 .137 .134
Tina Beyoncé -.149 .135 .512Zooey -.264 .137 .134
Elegant
Beyoncé Zooey .451* .126 .001Tina .789* .127 .000
Zooey Beyoncé -.451* .126 .001Tina .338* .130 .027
Tina Beyoncé -.789* .127 .000Zooey -.338* .130 .027
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
61
Table 8: Tukey HSD for Hair Products (continued) Dependent Variable
(I) Celebrity
(J) Celebrity
Mean Difference (I-
J)
Std. Error Sig.
Sexy
Beyoncé Zooey .696* .140 .000Tina .802* .141 .000
Zooey Beyoncé -.696* .140 .000Tina .107 .144 .739
Tina Beyoncé -.802* .141 .000Zooey -.107 .144 .739
Depend
Beyoncé Zooey .590* .127 .000Tina .862* .128 .000
Zooey Beyoncé -.590* .127 .000Tina .272 .131 .096
Tina Beyoncé -.862* .128 .000Zooey -.272 .131 .096
Honest
Beyoncé Zooey -.112 .133 .678Tina .126 .135 .620
Zooey Beyoncé .112 .133 .678Tina .238 .137 .195
Tina Beyoncé -.126 .135 .620Zooey -.238 .137 .195
Reliabl
Beyoncé Zooey -.010 .133 .997Tina .201 .135 .297
Zooey Beyoncé .010 .133 .997Tina .212 .137 .274
Tina Beyoncé -.201 .135 .297Zooey -.212 .137 .274
Sincere
Beyoncé Zooey -.058 .138 .907Tina .151 .140 .525
Zooey Beyoncé .058 .138 .907Tina .210 .142 .304
Tina Beyoncé -.151 .140 .525Zooey -.210 .142 .304
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
62
Table 8: Tukey HSD for Hair Products (continued) Dependent Variable
(I) Celebrity
(J) Celebrity
Mean Difference (I-
J)
Std. Error Sig.
Trust
Beyoncé Zooey .171 .133 .405Tina .354* .134 .025
Zooey Beyoncé -.171 .133 .405Tina .183 .137 .377
Tina Beyoncé -.354* .134 .025Zooey -.183 .137 .377
Expert
Beyoncé Zooey 1.043* .143 .000Tina 1.293* .145 .000
Zooey Beyoncé -1.043* .143 .000Tina .250 .147 .207
Tina Beyoncé -1.293* .145 .000Zooey -.250 .147 .207
Exper
Beyoncé Zooey -.121 .161 .733Tina .065 .163 .917
Zooey Beyoncé .121 .161 .733Tina .186 .166 .503
Tina Beyoncé -.065 .163 .917Zooey -.186 .166 .503
Knowl
Beyoncé Zooey .148 .164 .639Tina .207 .165 .424
Zooey Beyoncé -.148 .164 .639Tina .060 .168 .933
Tina Beyoncé -.207 .165 .424Zooey -.060 .168 .933
Qualif
Beyoncé Zooey .339 .171 .118Tina .537* .173 .006
Zooey Beyoncé -.339 .171 .118Tina .198 .176 .499
Tina Beyoncé -.537* .173 .006Zooey -.198 .176 .499
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
63
Table 8: Tukey HSD for Hair Products (continued) Dependent Variable
(I) Celebrity
(J) Celebrity
Mean Difference (I-
J)
Std. Error Sig.
Skill
Beyoncé Zooey .209 .162 .404Tina .426* .164 .027
Zooey Beyoncé -.209 .162 .404Tina .217 .167 .394
Tina Beyoncé -.426* .164 .027Zooey -.217 .167 .394
*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
Hypothesis 3: There was a significant difference of customers’ behavioral intention
regarding the purchase of beverages based on the celebrity endorser. The results are
presented in tables 4 and 5.
RQ3-1: Is there a significant difference in buying intention of beverages based on the
celebrity endorser?
An ANOVA was performed comparing buying intention of beverages based on celebrity
endorser.
There was a significant difference, p<.000. The Tukey HSD was performed as a post hoc
test. There was significant difference when comparing the assumed buying intention of
Jennifer Aniston and Taylor Swift p<.000 and, Sophia Vergara and Taylor Swift p<.000.
There was no significant difference between Jennifer Aniston and Sophia Vergara.
Therefore, consumers are less likely to buy products which are endorsed by Taylor Swift.
Consumers are more likely to purchase products which are endorsed by Sophia Vergara.
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
64
Hypothesis 4: There was a significant difference of customer’s opinions of beverages
based on the celebrity endorser.
RQ4-1: Is there a significant difference in the assumed use by the endorser of beverages
based on the celebrity endorser?
An ANOVA was performed comparing assumed use by the endorser of beverages based
on celebrity endorser.
There was a significant difference, p<.000. The Tukey HSD was performed as a post hoc
test. There was significant difference when comparing the assumed use of products of
Taylor Swift and Jennifer Aniston p<.000 and, Sophia Vergara and Jennifer Aniston
p<.002. There was no significant difference between Taylor Swift and Sophia Vergara.
Therefore, consumers are less likely to believe Jennifer Aniston uses the products which
she endorses. Consumers are more likely to believe Sophia Vergara uses the products she
endorses.
RQ4-2: Is there a significant difference in the perceived attractiveness of the endorser?
An ANOVA was performed comparing perceived attractiveness of the endorser.
There was a significant difference, p<.000. The Tukey HSD was performed as a post hoc
test. There was significant difference when comparing the attractiveness of Jennifer
Aniston and Taylor Swift p<.000 and, Sophia Vergara and Taylor Swift p<.000. There
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
65
was no significant difference between Sophia Vergara and Jennifer Aniston. Therefore,
respondents found Sophia Vergara to be the most attractive endorser.
RQ4-3: Is there a significant difference in the perceived classiness of the endorser?
An ANOVA was performed comparing perceived classiness of the endorser.
There was a significant difference, p<.009. The Tukey HSD was performed as a post hoc
test. There was significant difference when comparing the classiness of Jennifer Aniston
and Sophia Vergara p<.009. There was no significant difference between Taylor Swift
and Sophia Vergara and Jennifer Aniston and Taylor Swift. Therefore, respondents found
Jennifer Aniston to be the classiest endorser.
RQ4-4: Is there a significant difference in the perceived beauty of the endorser?
An ANOVA was performed comparing perceived beauty of the endorser.
There was a significant difference, p<.001. The Tukey HSD was performed as a post hoc
test. There was significant difference when comparing the beauty of Jennifer Aniston and
Taylor Swift p<.001 and, Sophia Vergara and Taylor Swift p<.007. There was no
significant difference between Jennifer Aniston and Sophia Vergara. Therefore,
respondents found Sophia Vergara to be the most beautiful endorser.
RQ4-5: Is there a significant difference in the perceived elegance of the endorser?
An ANOVA was performed comparing perceived elegance of the endorser.
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
66
There was no significant difference when comparing the elegance of Taylor Swift,
Jennifer Aniston, and Sophia Vergara.
RQ4-6: Is there a significant difference in the perceived sexiness of the endorser?
An ANOVA was performed comparing perceived sexiness of the endorser.
There was a significant difference, p<.009. The Tukey HSD was performed as a post hoc
test. There was significant difference when comparing the sexiness of Jennifer Aniston
and Taylor Swift p<.014 and, Sophia Vergara and Taylor Swift p<.012. There was not a
significant difference between Sophia Vergara and Jennifer Aniston. Therefore,
respondents found Jennifer Aniston to be the sexiest endorser.
RQ4-7: Is there a significant difference in the perceived dependability of the endorser?
An ANOVA was performed comparing perceived dependability of the endorser.
There was a significant difference, p<.038. The Tukey HSD was performed as a post hoc
test. There was no significant difference when comparing the dependability of Taylor
Swift, Jennifer Aniston, and Sophia Vergara.
RQ4-8: Is there a significant difference in the perceived honesty of the endorser?
An ANOVA was performed comparing perceived honesty of the endorser.
There was no significant difference when comparing the honesty of Taylor Swift,
Jennifer Aniston, and Sophia Vergara.
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
67
RQ4-9: Is there a significant difference in the perceived reliability of the endorser?
An ANOVA was performed comparing perceived reliability of the endorser.
There was a significant difference, p<.044. The Tukey HSD was performed as a post hoc
test. There was significant difference when comparing the reliability of Jennifer Aniston
and Sophia Vergara p<.033. There was not a significant difference between Taylor Swift
and Sophia Vergara and Jennifer Aniston and Taylor Swift. Therefore, respondents found
Sophia Vergara to be the most reliable endorser.
RQ4-10: Is there a significant difference in the perceived sincerity of the endorser?
An ANOVA was performed comparing perceived sincerity of the endorser.
There was a significant difference, p<.032. The Tukey HSD was performed as a post hoc
test. There was no significant difference when comparing the sincerity of Taylor Swift,
Jennifer Aniston, and Sophia Vergara.
RQ4-11: Is there a significant difference in the perceived trustworthiness of the endorser?
An ANOVA was performed comparing perceived trustworthiness of the endorser.
There was no significant difference when comparing the trustworthiness of Taylor Swift,
Jennifer Aniston, and Sophia Vergara.
RQ4-12: Is there a significant difference in the perceived expertise of the endorser?
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
68
An ANOVA was performed comparing perceived expertise of the endorser.
There was a significant difference, p<.015. The Tukey HSD was performed as a post hoc
test. There was significant difference when comparing the expertise of Taylor Swift and
Sophia Vergara p<.012. There was not a significant difference between Taylor Swift and
Jennifer Aniston and Jennifer Aniston and Sophia Vergara. Therefore, respondents found
Taylor Swift to be the most endorser with the most expertise.
RQ4-13: Is there a significant difference in the perceived experience of the endorser?
An ANOVA was performed comparing perceived experience of the endorser.
There was a significant difference, p<.001. The Tukey HSD was performed as a post hoc
test. There was significant difference when comparing the experience of Jennifer Aniston
and Taylor Swift p<.001. There was not a significant difference between Jennifer Aniston
and Sophia Vergara and Sophia Vergara and Taylor Swift. Therefore, respondents found
Jennifer Aniston to be the most endorser with the most experience.
RQ4-14: Is there a significant difference in the perceived knowledge of the endorser?
An ANOVA was performed comparing perceived knowledge of the endorser.
There was no significant difference when comparing the knowledge of Taylor Swift,
Jennifer Aniston, and Sophia Vergara.
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
69
RQ4-15: Is there a significant difference in the perceived qualifications, regarding
fashion and beauty, of the endorser?
An ANOVA was performed comparing perceived qualifications, regarding fashion and
beauty, of the endorser.
There was no significant difference when comparing the qualifications, regarding fashion
and beauty, of Taylor Swift, Jennifer Aniston, and Sophia Vergara.
RQ4-16: Is there a significant difference in the perceived skills of the endorser?
An ANOVA was performed comparing perceived skills of the endorser.
There was no significant difference when comparing the skills of Taylor Swift, Jennifer
Aniston, and Sophia Vergara.
Table 9: One-Way ANOVA for Beverages ANOVA
Sum of Squares
df Mean Square
F Sig.
Buy
Between Groups
19.064 2 9.532 31.080 .000
Within Groups 64.712 211 .307 Total 83.776 213
Uses
Between Groups
9.775 2 4.887 13.105 .000
Within Groups 79.063 212 .373 Total 88.837 214
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
70
Table 9: One-Way ANOVA for Beverages (continued)
ANOVA
Attract
Between Groups
233.598 2 116.799 237.215 .000
Within Groups 104.384 212 .492
Total 337.981 214
Classy
Between Groups
5.429 2 2.714 4.768 .009
Within Groups 120.692 212 .569
Total 126.121 214
Beaut
Between Groups
6.623 2 3.311 6.769 .001
Within Groups 103.703 212 .489
Total 110.326 214
Elegant
Between Groups
.691 2 .346 .599 .550
Within Groups 122.258 212 .577
Total 122.949 214
Sexy
Between Groups
5.828 2 2.914 4.824 .009
Within Groups 128.061 212 .604
Total 133.888 214
Depend
Between Groups
5.094 2 2.547 3.329 .038
Within Groups 162.190 212 .765
Total 167.284 214
Honest
Between Groups
3.715 2 1.857 2.542 .081
Within Groups 154.918 212 .731
Total 158.633 214
Reliabl
Between Groups
4.759 2 2.379 3.172 .044
Within Groups 159.037 212 .750
Total 163.795 214
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
71
Table 9: One-Way ANOVA for Beverages (continued) ANOVA
Sincere
Between Groups
5.192 2 2.596 3.511 .032
Within Groups 156.743 212 .739 Total 161.935 214
Trust
Between Groups
3.572 2 1.786 2.184 .115
Within Groups 173.331 212 .818 Total 176.902 214
Expert
Between Groups
7.769 2 3.884 4.254 .015
Within Groups 193.580 212 .913 Total 201.349 214
Exper
Between Groups
13.029 2 6.514 7.484 .001
Within Groups 184.525 212 .870 Total 197.553 214
Knowl
Between Groups
3.882 2 1.941 2.266 .106
Within Groups 181.606 212 .857 Total 185.488 214
Qualif
Between Groups
1.857 2 .929 1.016 .364
Within Groups 193.864 212 .914 Total 195.721 214
Skill
Between Groups
3.888 2 1.944 1.994 .139
Within Groups 205.743 211 .975 Total 209.631 213
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
72
Table 10: Tukey HSD of Beverages Dependent Variable
(I) Celebrity
(J) Celebrity
Mean Difference (I-
J)
Std. Error Sig.
Buy
Taylor Jennifer -.793* .105 .000Sophia -.807* .118 .000
Jennifer Taylor .793* .105 .000Sophia -.014 .089 .987
Sophia Taylor .807* .118 .000Jennifer .014 .089 .987
Uses
Taylor Jennifer .529* .116 .000Sophia .190 .130 .311
Jennifer Taylor -.529* .116 .000Sophia -.339* .098 .002
Sophia Taylor -.190 .130 .311Jennifer .339* .098 .002
Attract
Taylor Jennifer -2.780* .133 .000Sophia -2.816* .149 .000
Jennifer Taylor 2.780* .133 .000Sophia -.036 .112 .943
Sophia Taylor 2.816* .149 .000Jennifer .036 .112 .943
Classy
Taylor Jennifer -.224 .143 .263Sophia .136 .160 .673
Jennifer Taylor .224 .143 .263Sophia .360* .121 .009
Sophia Taylor -.136 .160 .673Jennifer -.360* .121 .009
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
73
Table 10: Tukey HSD of Beverages (continued) Dependent Variable
(I) Celebrity
(J) Celebrity
Mean Difference (I-
J)
Std. Error Sig.
Beaut
Taylor Jennifer -.476* .133 .001Sophia -.455* .148 .007
Jennifer Taylor .476* .133 .001Sophia .021 .112 .980
Sophia Taylor .455* .148 .007Jennifer -.021 .112 .980
Elegant
Taylor Jennifer -.097 .144 .779Sophia .026 .161 .986
Jennifer Taylor .097 .144 .779Sophia .123 .121 .569
Sophia Taylor -.026 .161 .986Jennifer -.123 .121 .569
Sexy
Taylor Jennifer -.416* .148 .014Sophia -.476* .165 .012
Jennifer Taylor .416* .148 .014Sophia -.060 .124 .880
Sophia Taylor .476* .165 .012Jennifer .060 .124 .880
Depend
Taylor Jennifer -.292 .166 .186Sophia .029 .186 .987
Jennifer Taylor .292 .166 .186Sophia .321 .140 .059
Sophia Taylor -.029 .186 .987Jennifer -.321 .140 .059
Honest
Taylor Jennifer -.303 .162 .150Sophia -.068 .181 .925
Jennifer Taylor .303 .162 .150Sophia .235 .137 .199
Sophia Taylor .068 .181 .925Jennifer -.235 .137 .199
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
74
Table 10: Tukey HSD of Beverages (continued) Dependent Variable
(I) Celebrity
(J) Celebrity
Mean Difference (I-
J)
Std. Error Sig.
Reliabl
Taylor Jennifer -.112 .164 .775Sophia .237 .184 .404
Jennifer Taylor .112 .164 .775Sophia .348* .138 .033
Sophia Taylor -.237 .184 .404Jennifer -.348* .138 .033
Sincere
Taylor Jennifer -.317 .163 .130Sophia -.006 .182 .999
Jennifer Taylor .317 .163 .130Sophia .311 .137 .063
Sophia Taylor .006 .182 .999Jennifer -.311 .137 .063
Trust
Taylor Jennifer -.146 .172 .674Sophia .153 .192 .704
Jennifer Taylor .146 .172 .674Sophia .299 .144 .099
Sophia Taylor -.153 .192 .704Jennifer -.299 .144 .099
Expert
Taylor Jennifer .317 .181 .191Sophia .587* .203 .012
Jennifer Taylor -.317 .181 .191Sophia .271 .153 .181
Sophia Taylor -.587* .203 .012Jennifer -.271 .153 .181
Exper
Taylor Jennifer -.642* .177 .001Sophia -.300 .198 .286
Jennifer Taylor .642* .177 .001Sophia .342 .149 .059
Sophia Taylor .300 .198 .286Jennifer -.342 .149 .059
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
75
Table 10: Tukey HSD of Beverages (continued) Dependent Variable
(I) Celebrity
(J) Celebrity
Mean Difference (I-
J)
Std. Error Sig.
Knowl
Taylor Jennifer -.292 .176 .223Sophia -.035 .196 .982
Jennifer Taylor .292 .176 .223Sophia .256 .148 .195
Sophia Taylor .035 .196 .982Jennifer -.256 .148 .195
Qualif
Taylor Jennifer -.181 .182 .578Sophia .010 .203 .999
Jennifer Taylor .181 .182 .578Sophia .191 .153 .425
Sophia Taylor -.010 .203 .999Jennifer -.191 .153 .425
Skill
Taylor Jennifer -.350 .188 .151Sophia -.161 .210 .723
Jennifer Taylor .350 .188 .151Sophia .189 .158 .456
Sophia Taylor .161 .210 .723Jennifer -.189 .158 .456
*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
Hypothesis 5: There was a significant difference of customers’ behavioral intention
regarding the purchase of perfume based on the celebrity endorser.
RQ5-1: Is there a significant difference in buying intention of perfume based on the
celebrity endorser?
An ANOVA was performed comparing buying intention of perfume based on celebrity
endorser.
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
76
There was a significant difference, p<.000. The Tukey HSD was performed as a post hoc
test. There was significant difference when comparing the assumed buying intention of
Julia Roberts and Charlize Theron p<.000, Julia Roberts and Blake Lively p<.023 and,
Blake Lively and Charlize Theron p<.000.
Hypothesis 6: There was a significant difference of customer’s opinions of perfume based
on the celebrity endorser.
RQ6-1: Is there a significant difference in the assumed use by the endorser of perfume
based on the celebrity endorser?
An ANOVA was performed comparing assumed use by the endorser of perfume based
the on celebrity endorser.
There was a significant difference, p<.029. The Tukey HSD was performed as a post hoc
test. There was significant difference when comparing the assumed use of products of
Julia Roberts and Blake Lively p<.023. There was no significant difference between
Charlize Theron and Blake Lively and Julia Roberts and Charlize Theron. Therefore,
consumers are less likely to believe Blake Lively uses the products which she endorses.
Consumers are more likely to believe Julia Roberts uses the products she endorses.
RQ6-2: Is there a significant difference in the perceived attractiveness of the endorser?
An ANOVA was performed comparing perceived attractiveness of the endorser.
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
77
There was a significant difference, p<.000. The Tukey HSD was performed as a post hoc
test. There was significant difference when comparing the attractiveness of Julia Roberts
and Charlize Theron p<.000 and, Blake Lively and Charlize Theron p<.000 .There was
no significant difference between Blake Lively and Julia Roberts. Therefore, respondents
found Julia Roberts to be the most attractive endorser.
RQ6-3: Is there a significant difference in the perceived classiness of the endorser?
An ANOVA was performed comparing perceived classiness of the endorser.
There was no significant difference when comparing the classiness of Charlize Theron,
Julia Roberts, and Blake Lively.
RQ6-4: Is there a significant difference in the perceived beauty of the endorser?
An ANOVA was performed comparing perceived beauty of the endorser.
There was no significant difference when comparing the beauty of Charlize Theron, Julia
Roberts, and Blake Lively.
RQ6-5: Is there a significant difference in the perceived elegance of the endorser?
An ANOVA was performed comparing perceived elegance of the endorser.
There was no significant difference when comparing the elegance of Charlize Theron,
Julia Roberts, and Blake Lively.
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
78
RQ6-6: Is there a significant difference in the perceived sexiness of the endorser?
An ANOVA was performed comparing perceived sexiness of the endorser.
There was a significant difference, p<.011. The Tukey HSD was performed as a post hoc
test. There was significant difference when comparing the sexiness of Blake Lively and
Julia Roberts p<.008. There was no significant difference between Charlize Theron and
Julia Roberts and, Blake Lively and Charlize Theron. Therefore, respondents found Blake
Lively to be the sexiest endorser.
RQ6-7: Is there a significant difference in the perceived dependability of the endorser?
An ANOVA was performed comparing perceived dependability of the endorser.
There was a significant difference, p<.002. The Tukey HSD was performed as a post hoc
test. There was significant difference when comparing the dependability of Charlize
Theron and Julia Roberts p<.003 and, Charlize Theron and Blake Lively p<.002. There
was no significant difference between Blake Lively and Julia Roberts. Therefore,
respondents found Charlize Theron to be the most dependable endorser.
RQ6-8: Is there a significant difference in the perceived honesty of the endorser?
An ANOVA was performed comparing perceived honesty of the endorser.
There was no significant difference when comparing the honesty of Charlize Theron,
Julia Roberts, and Blake Lively.
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
79
RQ6-9: Is there a significant difference in the perceived reliability of the endorser?
An ANOVA was performed comparing perceived reliability of the endorser.
There was no significant difference when comparing the reliability of Charlize Theron,
Julia Roberts, and Blake Lively.
RQ6-10: Is there a significant difference in the perceived sincerity of the endorser?
An ANOVA was performed comparing perceived sincerity of the endorser.
There was no significant difference when comparing the sincerity of Charlize Theron,
Julia Roberts, and Blake Lively.
RQ6-11: Is there a significant difference in the perceived trustworthiness of the endorser?
An ANOVA was performed comparing perceived trustworthiness of the endorser.
There was no significant difference when comparing the trustworthiness of Charlize
Theron, Julia Roberts, and Blake Lively.
RQ6-12: Is there a significant difference in the perceived expertise of the endorser?
An ANOVA was performed comparing perceived expertise of the endorser.
There was a significant difference, p<.013. The Tukey HSD was performed as a post hoc
test. There was significant difference when comparing the expertise of Charlize Theron
and Julia Roberts p<.031 and, Blake Lively and Julia Roberts p<.028. There was no
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
80
significant difference between Charlize Theron and Blake Lively. Therefore, respondents
found Charlize Theron to be the endorser with the most expertise.
RQ6-13: Is there a significant difference in the perceived experience of the endorser?
An ANOVA was performed comparing perceived experience of the endorser.
There was a significant difference, p<.008. The Tukey HSD was performed as a post hoc
test. There was significant difference when comparing the experience of Blake Lively
and Charlize Theron p<.029. There was no significant difference between Julia Roberts
and Charlize Theron and Blake Lively and Julia Roberts. Therefore, respondents found
Blake Lively to be the most experienced endorser.
RQ6-14: Is there a significant difference in the perceived knowledge of the endorser?
An ANOVA was performed comparing perceived knowledge of the endorser.
There was a significant difference, p<.001. The Tukey HSD was performed as a post hoc
test. There was significant difference when comparing the knowledge of Blake Lively
and Julia Roberts p<.001. There was no significant difference between Charlize Theron
and Julia Roberts and Blake Lively and Charlize Theron. Therefore, respondents found
Blake Lively to be the most knowledgeable endorser.
RQ6-15: Is there a significant difference in the perceived qualifications, regarding
fashion and beauty, of the endorser?
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
81
An ANOVA was performed comparing perceived qualifications, regarding fashion and
beauty, of the endorser.
There was a significant difference, p<.023. The Tukey HSD was performed as a post hoc
test. There was significant difference when comparing the qualifications, regarding
fashion and beauty, of Blake Lively and Julia Roberts p<.017. There was no significant
difference between Charlize Theron and Julia Roberts and Blake Lively and Charlize
Theron. Therefore, respondents found Blake Lively to be the most qualified endorser.
RQ6-16: Is there a significant difference in the perceived skills of the endorser
An ANOVA was performed comparing perceived skills of the endorser.
There was no significant difference when comparing the skills of Charlize Theron, Julia
Roberts, and Blake Lively.
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
82
Table 11: One-Way ANOVA of Perfume
ANOVA Sum of Squares
df Mean Square
F Sig.
Buy
Between Groups
21.101 2 10.550 28.921 .000
Within Groups 75.514 207 .365 Total 96.614 209
Uses
Between Groups
2.836 2 1.418 3.595 .029
Within Groups 81.645 207 .394 Total 84.481 209
Attract
Between Groups
174.849 2 87.425 251.487 .000
Within Groups 72.307 208 .348 Total 247.156 210
Classy
Between Groups
.818 2 .409 .754 .472
Within Groups 112.935 208 .543 Total 113.754 210
Beaut
Between Groups
.814 2 .407 1.060 .348
Within Groups 79.878 208 .384 Total 80.692 210
Elegant
Between Groups
.653 2 .326 .692 .502
Within Groups 97.614 207 .472 Total 98.267 209
Sexy
Between Groups
4.878 2 2.439 4.601 .011
Within Groups 110.250 208 .530 Total 115.128 210
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
83
Table 11: One-Way ANOVA of Perfume (continued) ANOVA
Depend
Between Groups
8.921 2 4.461 6.567 .002
Within Groups 140.607 207 .679 Total 149.529 209
Honest
Between Groups
.584 2 .292 .403 .669
Within Groups 149.897 207 .724 Total 150.481 209
Reliabi
Between Groups
.731 2 .365 .539 .584
Within Groups 140.393 207 .678 Total 141.124 209
Sincere
Between Groups
1.677 2 .839 1.153 .318
Within Groups 149.883 206 .728 Total 151.560 208
Trust
Between Groups
.393 2 .196 .270 .763
Within Groups 150.464 207 .727 Total 150.857 209
Expert
Between Groups
7.866 2 3.933 4.458 .013
Within Groups 182.629 207 .882 Total 190.495 209
Exper
Between Groups
7.695 2 3.848 4.908 .008
Within Groups 162.286 207 .784 Total 169.981 209
Knowl
Between Groups
10.438 2 5.219 7.357 .001
Within Groups 146.843 207 .709 Total 157.281 209
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
84
Table 11: One-Way ANOVA of Perfume (continued) ANOVA
Qualif
Between Groups
6.545 2 3.273 3.862 .023
Within Groups 174.555 206 .847
Total 181.100 208
Skill
Between Groups
4.541 2 2.270 2.532 .082
Within Groups 184.703 206 .897
Total 189.244 208 Table 12: Tukey HSD of Perfume
Dependent Variable
(I) Celebrity
(J) Celebrity
Mean Difference
(I-J)
Std. Error Sig.
Buy
Charlize Julia -1.055* .140 .000Blake -.795* .126 .000
Julia Charlize 1.055* .140 .000Blake .259* .097 .023
Blake Charlize .795* .126 .000Julia -.259* .097 .023
Uses
Charlize Julia -.144 .146 .585Blake .125 .131 .605
Julia Charlize .144 .146 .585Blake .270* .101 .023
Blake Charlize -.125 .131 .605Julia -.270* .101 .023
Attract
Charlize Julia -2.589* .136 .000Blake -2.718* .123 .000
Julia Charlize 2.589* .136 .000Blake -.128 .095 .365
Blake Charlize 2.718* .123 .000Julia .128 .095 .365
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
85
Table 12: Tukey HSD of Perfume (continued) Dependent Variable
(I) Celebrity
(J) Celebrity
Mean Difference
(I-J)
Std. Error Sig.
Classy
Charlize Julia .196 .171 .483Blake .087 .154 .839
Julia Charlize -.196 .171 .483Blake -.110 .118 .624
Blake Charlize -.087 .154 .839Julia .110 .118 .624
Beaut
Charlize Julia -.018 .143 .991Blake -.138 .129 .534
Julia Charlize .018 .143 .991Blake -.121 .099 .447
Blake Charlize .138 .129 .534Julia .121 .099 .447
Elegant
Charlize Julia .144 .161 .646Blake .022 .146 .987
Julia Charlize -.144 .161 .646Blake -.121 .110 .516
Blake Charlize -.022 .146 .987Julia .121 .110 .516
Sexy
Charlize Julia .304 .169 .172Blake -.048 .152 .948
Julia Charlize -.304 .169 .172Blake -.351* .117 .008
Blake Charlize .048 .152 .948Julia .351* .117 .008
Depend
Charlize Julia .643* .191 .003Blake .583* .172 .002
Julia Charlize -.643* .191 .003Blake -.060 .132 .895
Blake Charlize -.583* .172 .002Julia .060 .132 .895
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
86
Table 12: Tukey HSD of Perfume (continued) Dependent Variable
(I) Celebrity
(J) Celebrity
Mean Difference
(I-J)
Std. Error Sig.
Honest
Charlize Julia -.143 .197 .749Blake -.159 .178 .645
Julia Charlize .143 .197 .749Blake -.016 .137 .993
Blake Charlize .159 .178 .645Julia .016 .137 .993
Reliabi
Charlize Julia -.143 .191 .734Blake -.179 .172 .554
Julia Charlize .143 .191 .734Blake -.036 .132 .961
Blake Charlize .179 .172 .554Julia .036 .132 .961
Sincere
Charlize Julia -.268 .197 .366Blake -.261 .178 .312
Julia Charlize .268 .197 .366Blake .007 .137 .998
Blake Charlize .261 .178 .312Julia -.007 .137 .998
Trust
Charlize Julia -.107 .197 .850Blake -.131 .178 .743
Julia Charlize .107 .197 .850Blake -.024 .137 .983
Blake Charlize .131 .178 .743Julia .024 .137 .983
Expert
Charlize Julia .554* .217 .031Blake .163 .196 .685
Julia Charlize -.554* .217 .031Blake -.391* .151 .028
Blake Charlize -.163 .196 .685Julia .391* .151 .028
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
87
Table 12: Tukey HSD of Perfume (continued) Dependent Variable
(I) Celebrity
(J) Celebrity
Mean Difference
(I-J)
Std. Error Sig.
Exper
Charlize Julia -.143 .205 .765Blake -.476* .185 .029
Julia Charlize .143 .205 .765Blake -.333 .142 .052
Blake Charlize .476* .185 .029Julia .333 .142 .052
Knowl
Charlize Julia .161 .195 .688Blake -.337 .176 .136
Julia Charlize -.161 .195 .688Blake -.498* .135 .001
Blake Charlize .337 .176 .136Julia .498* .135 .001
Qualif
Charlize Julia .321 .213 .289Blake -.089 .192 .889
Julia Charlize -.321 .213 .289Blake -.410* .148 .017
Blake Charlize .089 .192 .889Julia .410* .148 .017
Skill
Charlize Julia .103 .220 .886Blake -.226 .198 .489
Julia Charlize -.103 .220 .886Blake -.329 .153 .082
Blake Charlize .226 .198 .489Julia .329 .153 .082
*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
Hypothesis 7: There was a significant difference of customers’ behavioral intention
regarding the purchase of apparel based on the celebrity endorser. The results are
presented in tables 8 and 9.
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
88
RQ7-1: Is there a significant difference in buying intention of apparel based on the
celebrity endorser?
An ANOVA was performed comparing buying intention of apparel based on the celebrity
endorser.
There was no significant difference, therefore it is unlikely the respondents would
purchase apparel endorsed by a celebrity.
Hypothesis 8: There was a significant difference of customer’s opinions of apparel based
on the celebrity endorser.
RQ8-1: Is there a significant difference in the assumed use by the endorser of apparel
based on the celebrity endorser?
An ANOVA was performed comparing assumed use by the endorser of apparel based on
celebrity endorser.
There was a significant difference, p<.004. The Tukey HSD was performed as a post hoc
test. There was significant difference when comparing the assumed use of Kate Hudson
and Nicole Kidman p<.024, and Jennifer Garner and Nicole Kidman, p<.003. Therefore,
respondents are less likely to believe Nicole Kidman wears products she endorses.
Consumers are more likely to believe Kate Hudson uses the products she endorses.
RQ8-2: Is there a significant difference in the perceived attractiveness of the endorser?
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
89
An ANOVA was performed comparing perceived attractiveness of the endorser.
There was a significant difference, p<.003. The Tukey HSD was performed as a post hoc
test. There was significant difference when comparing the attractiveness of Kate Hudson
and Jennifer Garner p<.019, Kate Hudson and Nicole Kidman p<.034. There was no
significant difference between Jennifer Garner and Nicole Kidman. Therefore,
respondents found Kate Hudson to be the most attractive endorser.
RQ8-3: Is there a significant difference in the perceived classiness of the endorser?
An ANOVA was performed comparing perceived classiness of the endorser.
There was a significant difference, p<.014. The Tukey HSD was performed as a post hoc
test. There was no significant difference when comparing the classiness of Kate Hudson,
Jennifer Garner and Nicole Kidman.
RQ8-4: Is there a significant difference in the perceived beauty of the endorser?
An ANOVA was performed comparing perceived beauty of the endorser.
There was a significant difference, p<.001. The Tukey HSD was performed as a post hoc
test. There was significant difference when comparing the beauty of Kate Hudson and
Jennifer Garner p<.010, Kate Hudson and Nicole Kidman p<.008. There was no
significant difference between Jennifer Garner and Nicole Kidman. Therefore,
respondents found Kate Hudson to be the most beautiful endorser.
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
90
RQ8-5: Is there a significant difference in the perceived elegance of the endorser?
An ANOVA was performed comparing perceived elegance of the endorser.
There was a significant difference, p<.000. The Tukey HSD was performed as a post hoc
test. There was significant difference when comparing the elegance of Kate Hudson and
Jennifer Garner p<.001, Kate Hudson and Nicole Kidman p<.006. There was no
significant difference between Jennifer Garner and Nicole Kidman. Therefore,
respondents found Kate Hudson to be the most elegant endorser.
RQ8-6: Is there a significant difference in the perceived sexiness of the endorser?
An ANOVA was performed comparing perceived sexiness of the endorser.
There was a significant difference, p<.000. The Tukey HSD was performed as a post hoc
test. There was significant difference when comparing the sexiness of Kate Hudson and
Jennifer Garner p<.000. There was no significant difference between Kate Hudson and
Nicole Kidman and Nicole Kidman and Jennifer Garner. Therefore, respondents found
Kate Hudson to be the sexiest endorser.
RQ8-7: Is there a significant difference in the perceived dependability of the endorser?
An ANOVA was performed comparing perceived dependability of the endorser.
There was no significant difference when comparing the dependability of Kate Hudson,
Jennifer Garner and Nicole Kidman.
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
91
RQ8-8: Is there a significant difference in the perceived honesty of the endorser?
An ANOVA was performed comparing perceived honesty of the endorser.
There was a significant difference, p<.030. The Tukey HSD was performed as a post hoc
test. There was significant difference when comparing the honesty of Kate Hudson and
Jennifer Garner p<.026. There was no significant difference between Kate Hudson and
Nicole Kidman and Nicole Kidman and Jennifer Garner. Therefore, respondents found
Kate Hudson to be the most honest endorser.
RQ8-9: Is there a significant difference in the perceived reliability of the endorser?
An ANOVA was performed comparing perceived reliability of the endorser.
There was no significant difference when comparing the reliability of Kate Hudson,
Jennifer Garner and Nicole Kidman.
RQ8-10: Is there a significant difference in the perceived sincerity of the endorser?
An ANOVA was performed comparing perceived sincerity of the endorser.
There was a significant difference, p<.039. The Tukey HSD was performed as a post hoc
test. There was significant difference when comparing the sincerity of Kate Hudson and
Jennifer Garner p<.045. There was no significant difference between Kate Hudson and
Nicole Kidman and Nicole Kidman and Jennifer Garner. Therefore, respondents found
Kate Hudson to be the most sincere endorser.
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
92
RQ8-11: Is there a significant difference in the perceived trustworthiness of the endorser?
An ANOVA was performed comparing perceived trustworthiness of the endorser.
There was a significant difference, p<.022. The Tukey HSD was performed as a post hoc
test. There was significant difference when comparing the trustworthiness of Kate
Hudson and Jennifer Garner p<.017. There was no significant difference between Kate
Hudson and Nicole Kidman and Nicole Kidman and Jennifer Garner. Therefore,
respondents found Kate Hudson to be the most trustworthy endorser.
RQ8-12: Is there a significant difference in the perceived expertise of the endorser?
An ANOVA was performed comparing perceived expertise of the endorser.
There was no significant difference when comparing the expertise of Kate Hudson,
Jennifer Garner and Nicole Kidman.
RQ8-13: Is there a significant difference in the perceived experience of the endorser?
An ANOVA was performed comparing perceived experience of the endorser.
There was no significant difference when comparing the experience of Kate Hudson,
Jennifer Garner and Nicole Kidman.
RQ8-14: Is there a significant difference in the perceived knowledge of the endorser
An ANOVA was performed comparing perceived knowledge of the endorser.
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
93
There was a significant difference, p<.013. The Tukey HSD was performed as a post hoc
test. There was significant difference when comparing the knowledge of Kate Hudson
and Jennifer Garner p<.012. There was no significant difference between Kate Hudson
and Nicole Kidman and Nicole Kidman and Jennifer Garner. Therefore, respondents
found Kate Hudson to be the most knowledgeable endorser.
RQ8-15: Is there a significant difference in the perceived qualifications, regarding
fashion and beauty, of the endorser
An ANOVA was performed comparing perceived qualifications, regarding fashion and
beauty, of the endorser.
There was no significant difference when comparing the qualifications, regarding fashion
and beauty, of Kate Hudson, Jennifer Garner and Nicole Kidman.
RQ8-16: Is there a significant difference in the perceived skills of the endorser?
An ANOVA was performed comparing perceived skills of the endorser.
There was a significant difference, p<.044. The Tukey HSD was performed as a post hoc
test. There was significant difference when comparing the skills of Kate Hudson and
Jennifer Garner p<.034. There was no significant difference between Kate Hudson and
Nicole Kidman and Nicole Kidman and Jennifer Garner. Therefore, respondents found
Kate Hudson to be the most skilled endorser.
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
94
Table 13: One-Way ANOVA of Apparel ANOVA
Sum of Squares
df Mean Square
F Sig.
Buy
Between Groups
2.233 2 1.116 2.875 .058
Within Groups 88.922 229 .388
Total 91.155 231
Uses
Between Groups
4.304 2 2.152 5.581 .004
Within Groups 88.316 229 .386 Total 92.621 231
Attract
Between Groups
4.483 2 2.241 5.815 .003
Within Groups 88.272 229 .385 Total 92.754 231
Classy
Between Groups
3.798 2 1.899 4.369 .014
Within Groups 99.094 228 .435 Total 102.892 230
Beaut
Between Groups
5.187 2 2.594 7.465 .001
Within Groups 79.567 229 .347 Total 84.754 231
Elegant
Between Groups
8.273 2 4.137 10.122 .000
Within Groups 93.584 229 .409 Total 101.858 231
Sexy
Between Groups
12.427 2 6.213 11.111 .000
Within Groups 128.056 229 .559 Total 140.483 231
Depend
Between Groups
3.325 2 1.663 2.781 .064
Within Groups 136.294 228 .598 Total 139.619 230
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
95
Table 13: One-Way ANOVA of Apparel (continued) ANOVA
Honest
Between Groups
4.684 2 2.342 3.568 .030
Within Groups 149.679 228 .656 Total 154.364 230
Reliabi
Between Groups
2.417 2 1.208 1.882 .155
Within Groups 146.423 228 .642 Total 148.840 230
Sincere
Between Groups
4.132 2 2.066 3.296 .039
Within Groups 142.941 228 .627 Total 147.074 230
Trust
Between Groups
4.900 2 2.450 3.865 .022
Within Groups 144.537 228 .634 Total 149.437 230
Expert
Between Groups
2.325 2 1.162 1.155 .317
Within Groups 230.567 229 1.007 Total 232.892 231
Exper
Between Groups
2.352 2 1.176 1.354 .260
Within Groups 198.919 229 .869 Total 201.272 231
Knowl
Between Groups
6.955 2 3.478 4.421 .013
Within Groups 180.131 229 .787 Total 187.086 231
Qualif
Between Groups
3.139 2 1.570 1.755 .175
Within Groups 204.843 229 .895 Total 207.983 231
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
96
Table 13: One-Way ANOVA of Apparel (continued) ANOVA
Skill
Between Groups
5.397 2 2.698 3.159 .044
Within Groups 195.634 229 .854
Total 201.030 231
Table 14: Tukey HSD of Apparel
Dependent Variable
(I) Celebrity
(J) Celebrity
Mean Difference (I-
J)
Std. Error Sig.
Buy
Kate Jennifer -.189 .102 .156Nicole -.243 .132 .159
Jennifer Kate .189 .102 .156Nicole -.054 .151 .932
Nicole Kate .243 .132 .159Jennifer .054 .151 .932
Uses
Kate Jennifer -.155 .102 .279Nicole .347* .131 .024
Jennifer Kate .155 .102 .279Nicole .502* .151 .003
Nicole Kate -.347* .131 .024Jennifer -.502* .151 .003
Attract
Kate Jennifer .277* .102 .019Nicole .330* .131 .034
Jennifer Kate -.277* .102 .019Nicole .053 .151 .935
Nicole Kate -.330* .131 .034Jennifer -.053 .151 .935
Classy
Kate Jennifer .238 .108 .072Nicole .327 .140 .052
Jennifer Kate -.238 .108 .072Nicole .089 .160 .844
Nicole Kate -.327 .140 .052Jennifer -.089 .160 .844
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
97
Table 14: Tukey HSD of Apparel
Dependent Variable
(I) Celebrity
(J) Celebrity
Mean Difference (I-
J) Std. Error Sig.
Beaut
Kate Jennifer .284* .096 .010Nicole .375* .125 .008
Jennifer Kate -.284* .096 .010Nicole .091 .143 .800
Nicole Kate -.375* .125 .008Jennifer -.091 .143 .800
Elegant
Kate Jennifer .395* .105 .001Nicole .420* .135 .006
Jennifer Kate -.395* .105 .001Nicole .025 .155 .986
Nicole Kate -.420* .135 .006Jennifer -.025 .155 .986
Sexy
Kate Jennifer .558* .122 .000Nicole .318 .158 .112
Jennifer Kate -.558* .122 .000Nicole -.240 .181 .383
Nicole Kate -.318 .158 .112Jennifer .240 .181 .383
Depend
Kate Jennifer .267 .128 .094Nicole .238 .164 .316
Jennifer Kate -.267 .128 .094Nicole -.029 .188 .987
Nicole Kate -.238 .164 .316Jennifer .029 .188 .987
Honest
Kate Jennifer .348* .134 .026Nicole .180 .172 .546
Jennifer Kate -.348* .134 .026Nicole -.168 .197 .671
Nicole Kate -.180 .172 .546Jennifer .168 .197 .671
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
98
Table 14: Tukey HSD of Apparel (continued)
Dependent Variable
(I) Celebrity
(J) Celebrity
Mean Difference (I-
J) Std. Error Sig.
Reliabi
Kate Jennifer .216 .132 .234Nicole .225 .170 .381
Jennifer Kate -.216 .132 .234Nicole .010 .195 .999
Nicole Kate -.225 .170 .381Jennifer -.010 .195 .999
Sincere
Kate Jennifer .313* .131 .045Nicole .225 .168 .374
Jennifer Kate -.313* .131 .045Nicole -.088 .193 .891
Nicole Kate -.225 .168 .374Jennifer .088 .193 .891
Trust
Kate Jennifer .362* .131 .017Nicole .148 .169 .653
Jennifer Kate -.362* .131 .017Nicole -.213 .194 .515
Nicole Kate -.148 .169 .653Jennifer .213 .194 .515
Expert
Kate Jennifer .227 .164 .353Nicole -.079 .212 .927
Jennifer Kate -.227 .164 .353Nicole -.305 .243 .423
Nicole Kate .079 .212 .927Jennifer .305 .243 .423
Exper
Kate Jennifer .250 .153 .230Nicole .079 .197 .915
Jennifer Kate -.250 .153 .230Nicole -.171 .226 .730
Nicole Kate -.079 .197 .915Jennifer .171 .226 .730
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
99
Hypothesis 9: There was a significant difference of customers’ behavioral intention
regarding the purchase of cosmetics based on the celebrity endorser.
RQ9-1: Is there a significant difference in buying intention of cosmetics based on the
celebrity endorser?
Table 14: Tukey HSD of Apparel (continued)
Dependent Variable
(I) Celebrity
(J) Celebrity
Mean Difference (I-
J) Std. Error Sig.
Knowl
Kate Jennifer .420* .145 .012Nicole .226 .188 .452
Jennifer Kate -.420* .145 .012Nicole -.194 .215 .640
Nicole Kate -.226 .188 .452Jennifer .194 .215 .640
Qualif
Kate Jennifer .280 .155 .169Nicole .163 .200 .695
Jennifer Kate -.280 .155 .169Nicole -.117 .229 .867
Nicole Kate -.163 .200 .695Jennifer .117 .229 .867
Skill
Kate Jennifer .379* .151 .034Nicole .061 .196 .948
Jennifer Kate -.379* .151 .034Nicole -.319 .224 .332
Nicole Kate -.061 .196 .948Jennifer .319 .224 .332
*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
100
An ANOVA was performed comparing buying intention of cosmetics based on celebrity
endorser.
There was a significant difference, p<.043. The Tukey HSD was performed as a post hoc
test. There was significant difference when comparing the assumed buying intention of
Diane Krueger and Emma Stone p<.049. There was no significant difference between
Natalie Portman and Emma Stone and Diane Krueger and Natalie Portman. Therefore,
consumers are less likely to buy products which are endorsed by Emma Stone.
Consumers are more likely to buy products endorsed by Diane Krueger.
Hypothesis 10: There was a significant difference of customer’s opinions of cosmetics
based on the celebrity endorser.
RQ10-1: Is there a significant difference in the assumed use by the endorser of cosmetics
based on the celebrity endorser?
An ANOVA was performed comparing assumed use by the endorser of cosmetics based
on celebrity endorser.
There was no significant difference therefore, consumers do not believe celebrities use
products which they endorse.
RQ10-2: Is there a significant difference in the perceived attractiveness of the endorser?
An ANOVA was performed comparing perceived attractiveness of the endorser.
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
101
There was a significant difference, p<.004. The Tukey HSD was performed as a post hoc
test. There was significant difference when comparing the attractiveness of Natalie
Portman and Diane Krueger p<.006. There was no significant difference between Emma
Stone and Diane Krueger and Natalie Portman and Emma Stone. Therefore, respondents
found Natalie Portman to be the most attractive endorser.
RQ10-3: Is there a significant difference in the perceived classiness of the endorser?
An ANOVA was performed comparing perceived classiness of the endorser.
There was a significant difference, p<.013. The Tukey HSD was performed as a post hoc
test. There was significant difference when comparing the classiness of Natalie Portman
and Diane Krueger p<.022. There was no significant difference between Emma Stone and
Diane Krueger and Natalie Portman and Emma Stone. Therefore, respondents found
Natalie Portman to be the classiest endorser.
RQ10-4: Is there a significant difference in the perceived beauty of the endorser?
An ANOVA was performed comparing perceived beauty of the endorser.
There was a significant difference, p<.001. The Tukey HSD was performed as a post hoc
test. There was significant difference when comparing the beauty of Natalie Portman and
Emma Stone p<.005, and Natalie Portman and Diane Krueger p<.010. There was no
significant difference between Emma Stone and Diane Krueger. Therefore, respondents
found Natalie Portman to be the most beautiful endorser.
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
102
RQ10-5: Is there a significant difference in the perceived elegance of the endorser?
An ANOVA was performed comparing perceived elegance of the endorser.
There was a significant difference, p<.000. The Tukey HSD was performed as a post hoc
test. There was significant difference when comparing the elegance of Natalie Portman
and Emma Stone p<.004, and Natalie Portman and Diane Krueger p<.002. There was no
significant difference between Emma Stone and Diane Krueger. Therefore, respondents
found Natalie Portman to be the most elegant endorser.
RQ10-6: Is there a significant difference in the perceived sexiness of the endorser?
An ANOVA was performed comparing perceived sexiness of the endorser.
There was a significant difference, p<.000. The Tukey HSD was performed as a post hoc
test. There was significant difference when comparing the sexiness of Natalie Portman
and Emma Stone p<.000, and Natalie Portman and Diane Krueger p<001. There was no
significant difference between Emma Stone and Diane Krueger. Therefore, respondents
found Natalie Portman to be the sexiest endorser.
RQ10-7: Is there a significant difference in the perceived dependability of the endorser?
An ANOVA was performed comparing perceived dependability of the endorser.
There was no significant difference when comparing the dependability of Emma Stone,
Natalie Portman, and Diane Krueger.
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
103
RQ10-8: Is there a significant difference in the perceived honesty of the endorser?
An ANOVA was performed comparing perceived honesty of the endorser.
There was a significant difference, p<.041. The Tukey HSD was performed as a post hoc
test. There was no significant difference when comparing the honesty of Emma Stone,
Natalie Portman, and Diane Krueger.
RQ10-9: Is there a significant difference in the perceived reliability of the endorser?
An ANOVA was performed comparing perceived reliability of the endorser.
There was no significant difference when comparing the reliability of Emma Stone,
Natalie Portman, and Diane Krueger.
RQ10-10: Is there a significant difference in the perceived sincerity of the endorser?
An ANOVA was performed comparing perceived sincerity of the endorser.
There was no significant difference when comparing the sincerity of Emma Stone,
Natalie Portman, and Diane Krueger.
RQ10-11: Is there a significant difference in the perceived trustworthiness of the
endorser?
An ANOVA was performed comparing perceived trustworthiness of the endorser.
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
104
There was no significant difference when comparing the trustworthiness of Emma Stone,
Natalie Portman, and Diane Krueger.
RQ10-12: Is there a significant difference in the perceived expertise of the endorser?
An ANOVA was performed comparing perceived expertise of the endorser.
There was no significant difference when comparing the expertise of Emma Stone,
Natalie Portman, and Diane Krueger.
RQ10-13: Is there a significant difference in the perceived experience of the endorser?
An ANOVA was performed comparing perceived experience of the endorser.
There was no significant difference when comparing the experience of Emma Stone,
Natalie Portman, and Diane Krueger.
RQ10-14: Is there a significant difference in the perceived knowledge of the endorser?
An ANOVA was performed comparing perceived knowledge of the endorser.
There was no significant difference when comparing the knowledge of Emma Stone,
Natalie Portman, and Diane Krueger.
RQ10-15: Is there a significant difference in the perceived qualifications, regarding
fashion and beauty, of the endorser?
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
105
An ANOVA was performed comparing perceived qualifications, regarding fashion and
beauty, of the endorser.
There was no significant difference when comparing the qualifications, regarding fashion
and beauty, of Emma Stone, Natalie Portman, and Diane Krueger.
RQ10-16: Is there a significant difference in the perceived skills of the endorser?
An ANOVA was performed comparing perceived skills of the endorser.
There was no significant difference when comparing the skills of Emma Stone, Natalie
Portman, and Diane Krueger.
Table 15: One-Way ANOVA of Cosmetics ANOVA
Sum of Squares
df Mean Square
F Sig.
Buy
Between Groups
2.610 2 1.305 3.192 .043
Within Groups 85.021 208 .409 Total 87.630 210
Uses
Between Groups
1.991 2 .995 2.267 .106
Within Groups 91.327 208 .439 Total 93.318 210
Attract
Between Groups
3.826 2 1.913 5.652 .004
Within Groups 70.401 208 .338 Total 74.227 210
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
106
Table 15: One-Way ANOVA of Cosmetics (continued) Sum of
Squares df Mean
Square F Sig.
Classy
Between Groups
3.595 2 1.797 4.458 .013
Within Groups 83.865 208 .403
Total 87.460 210
Beaut
Between Groups
5.493 2 2.747 7.014 .001
Within Groups 81.455 208 .392
Total 86.948 210
Elegant
Between Groups
6.783 2 3.391 8.386 .000
Within Groups 84.118 208 .404
Total 90.900 210
Sexy
Between Groups
13.049 2 6.525 12.051 .000
Within Groups 112.075 207 .541
Total 125.124 209
Depend
Between Groups
1.357 2 .678 1.073 .344
Within Groups 131.440 208 .632
Total 132.796 210
Honest
Between Groups
4.027 2 2.013 3.244 .041
Within Groups 129.120 208 .621
Total 133.147 210
Reliabi
Between Groups
1.598 2 .799 1.226 .296
Within Groups 135.549 208 .652
Total 137.147 210
Sincere
Between Groups
3.528 2 1.764 2.584 .078
Within Groups 142.017 208 .683
Total 145.545 210
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
107
Table 15: One-Way ANOVA of Cosmetics (continued)
Sum of Squares df Mean
Square F Sig. Sum of
Squares
Trust
Between Groups
2.315 2 1.158 1.760 .175
Within Groups 136.841 208 .658
Total 139.156 210
Expert
Between Groups
.597 2 .298 .322 .725
Within Groups 193.024 208 .928
Total 193.621 210
Exper
Between Groups
.338 2 .169 .228 .796
Within Groups 154.012 208 .740
Total 154.351 210
Knowl
Between Groups
.399 2 .200 .262 .770
Within Groups 158.501 208 .762
Total 158.900 210
Qualif
Between Groups
.130 2 .065 .079 .924
Within Groups 171.993 208 .827
Total 172.123 210
Skill
Between Groups
.017 2 .009 .010 .990
Within Groups 178.466 208 .858
Total 178.483 210
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
108
Table 16: Tukey HSD of Cosmetics Dependent Variable
(I) Celebrity
(J) Celebrity
Mean Difference
(I-J)
Std. Error Sig.
Buy
Emma Natalie -.130 .095 .360Diane -.392* .166 .049
Natalie Emma .130 .095 .360Diane -.263 .172 .281
Diane Emma .392* .166 .049Natalie .263 .172 .281
Uses
Emma Natalie .175 .098 .176Diane .260 .172 .286
Natalie Emma -.175 .098 .176Diane .085 .178 .884
Diane Emma -.260 .172 .286Natalie -.085 .178 .884
Attract
Emma Natalie -.198 .086 .059Diane .287 .151 .139
Natalie Emma .198 .086 .059Diane .485* .157 .006
Diane Emma -.287 .151 .139Natalie -.485* .157 .006
Classy
Emma Natalie -.203 .094 .080Diane .254 .164 .272
Natalie Emma .203 .094 .080Diane .458* .171 .022
Diane Emma -.254 .164 .272Natalie -.458* .171 .022
Beaut
Emma Natalie -.294* .093 .005Diane .205 .162 .418
Natalie Emma .294* .093 .005Diane .499* .169 .010
Diane Emma -.205 .162 .418Natalie -.499* .169 .010
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
109
Table 16: Tukey HSD of Cosmetics (continued) Dependent Variable
(I) Celebrity
(J) Celebrity
Mean Difference
(I-J)
Std. Error Sig.
Elegant
Emma Natalie -.308* .094 .004Diane .281 .165 .205
Natalie Emma .308* .094 .004Diane .589* .171 .002
Diane Emma -.281 .165 .205Natalie -.589* .171 .002
Sexy
Emma Natalie -.484* .110 .000Diane .217 .191 .492
Natalie Emma .484* .110 .000Diane .701* .198 .001
Diane Emma -.217 .191 .492Natalie -.701* .198 .001
Depend
Emma Natalie .134 .118 .493Diane .236 .206 .486
Natalie Emma -.134 .118 .493Diane .102 .214 .882
Diane Emma -.236 .206 .486Natalie -.102 .214 .882
Honest
Emma Natalie .268 .117 .058Diane .320 .204 .262
Natalie Emma -.268 .117 .058Diane .052 .212 .968
Diane Emma -.320 .204 .262Natalie -.052 .212 .968
Reliabi
Emma Natalie .137 .120 .490Diane .270 .209 .401
Natalie Emma -.137 .120 .490Diane .134 .217 .812
Diane Emma -.270 .209 .401Natalie -.134 .217 .812
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
110
Table 16: Tukey HSD of Cosmetics (continued) Dependent Variable
(I) Celebrity
(J) Celebrity
Mean Difference
(I-J)
Std. Error Sig.
Sincere
Emma Natalie .257 .122 .092Diane .278 .214 .398
Natalie Emma -.257 .122 .092Diane .020 .223 .995
Diane Emma -.278 .214 .398Natalie -.020 .223 .995
Trust
Emma Natalie .197 .120 .232Diane .262 .210 .427
Natalie Emma -.197 .120 .232Diane .065 .218 .952
Diane Emma -.262 .210 .427Natalie -.065 .218 .952
Expert
Emma Natalie -.004 .143 .999Diane -.197 .250 .710
Natalie Emma .004 .143 .999Diane -.193 .259 .739
Diane Emma .197 .250 .710Natalie .193 .259 .739
Exper
Emma Natalie -.071 .128 .844Diane .057 .223 .964
Natalie Emma .071 .128 .844Diane .128 .232 .845
Diane Emma -.057 .223 .964Natalie -.128 .232 .845
Knowl
Emma Natalie -.065 .129 .870Diane .090 .226 .916
Natalie Emma .065 .129 .870Diane .156 .235 .786
Diane Emma -.090 .226 .916Natalie -.156 .235 .786
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
111
Table 16: Tukey HSD of Cosmetics (continued) Dependent Variable
(I) Celebrity
(J) Celebrity
Mean Difference
(I-J)
Std. Error Sig.
Qualif
Emma Natalie .000 .135 1.000Diane .091 .236 .920
Natalie Emma .000 .135 1.000Diane .091 .245 .927
Diane Emma -.091 .236 .920Natalie -.091 .245 .927
Skill
Emma Natalie .019 .137 .989Diane .000 .240 1.000
Natalie Emma -.019 .137 .989Diane -.019 .249 .997
Diane Emma .000 .240 1.000Natalie .019 .249 .997
*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
112
Behavioral Intention Customers’ Opinions
Figure 2: Impact of a Celebrity Endorser
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
113
Summary
This study sought to see if celebrity endorsers in fashion magazines influence
purchase intentions of Generation Y by having participants participate in a survey. This
study shows Generation Y’s purchase intentions are influenced by celebrity endorsers in
fashion magazines because most consumers’ said they would buy products endorsed by
the celebrities. However, this study shows there are differences between the products
which are being endorsed. For example the apparel products category was the only
category where there was no significant difference if the participants would buy apparel
products endorsed by their favorite celebrity.
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
114
CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATION
Introduction
The Theory of Planned Behavior was the theoretical framework for this study.
This study examined the impact of celebrity endorsed advertisements in fashion
magazines on Generation Y’s purchase intentions. This chapter will discuss this study’s
conclusions, a discussion, implications and recommendations.
Conclusions
This study examined to look at if Generation Y’s purchase intentions were
influenced by celebrity endorsed advertisements in fashion magazines. This study looked
closely at participants attitudes towards the celebrity’s credibility by using the Source-
Credibility Scale by Ohanian (1990). Even though this study proves Generation Y’s
purchase intentions are influenced by celebrity endorsers in fashion magazines,
participants attitudes towards the celebrity’s credibility differs from celebrity to celebrity
and the products in which they are endorsing. Sometimes the participants might find one
factor of celebrity credibility significant when endorsing cosmetics but when endorsing
hair products they might not find that same factor to be significant.
By looking at the survey the participants completed to survey proves very
interesting results. When the participants completed the survey they majority or
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
115
participants, 88.2 percent, said they buy products endorsed by a celebrity in fashion
magazines either less than one a month or never. Also, 71.5 percent of participants, said
they buy products similar to the products celebrities endorse in fashion magazines less
than once a month or never. When participants were shown celebrity endorsed
advertisements in fashion magazines and asked if they would buy products endorsed by
the celebrity every category showed a significant difference, meaning the participants
would buy products endorsed by the celebrity, except for the apparel category.
Another interesting fact found in this study was when the participants were asked
why they bought products endorsed in celebrity endorsed advertisements 80.7 percent
said because of the brand, 31.4 percent said because of the celebrity and, 37.9 percent
said because of the advertisement. This shows the participants are buying the products
because of the brand of the product being endorsed by the celebrity. Therefore, the
celebrity endorsing the product is the least important factor.
Discussion
This discussion will talk about the ten different hypothesis and what was found
from the study.
Hypothesis 1: There was a significant difference of customers’ behavioral intention
regarding the purchase of hair products based on the celebrity endorser.
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
116
The findings of this study show this hypothesis was supported. When comparing
the celebrity endorsers, Beyoncé Knowles, Zooey Deschanel, and Tina Fey, consumers’
said they would buy hair products which were endorsed by Tina Fey
Hypothesis 2: There was a significant difference of customer’s opinions of hair products
based on the celebrity endorser.
This hypothesis shows to be partially supported. Some interesting findings of this
study show consumers believe celebrities are using the products in which they are
endorsing. For this study consumers’ believed Zooey Deschanel is using the hair products
she is endorsing for Pantene Pro V. These findings also show it does not matter how
beautiful, honest, reliable, experienced, or knowledgeable consumers’ feel about the
celebrity endorsing hair products. When comparing Beyoncé Knowles, Zooey Deschanel,
and Tina Fey consumers’ were not able to see a significant difference between these
qualities of the endorsers.
Hypothesis 3: There was a significant difference of customers’ behavioral intention
regarding purchase of beverages based on the celebrity endorser.
This hypothesis shows to be supported. When comparing behavioral intention
regarding purchasing beverages endorsed by Taylor Swift, Jennifer Aniston and Sofia
Vergara consumers’ said they were more likely to buy beverages which were endorsed by
Sophia Vergara.
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
117
Hypothesis 4: There was a significant difference of customer’s opinions of beverages
based on the celebrity endorser.
This hypothesis showed to be partially supported. Once again consumers’
believed celebrities use the products which they endorse. Consumers’ believed Sophia
Vergara drinks Pepsi, which she is endorsing. This study found consumers’ found
elegance, honesty, sincerity, trustworthiness, knowledge, qualifications, and skills to be
factors which were not important about the celebrity endorser when they are endorsing
beverages. Out of all of the factors which had significance Jennifer was the celebrity
which was most commonly chosen. This shows consumers’ find Jennifer Aniston to be
the endorser which is more relatable to them.
Hypothesis 5: There was a significant difference of customers’ behavioral intention
regarding the purchase of perfume based on the celebrity endorser.
This hypothesis shows to be supported. When comparing Charlize Theron, Julia
Roberts, and Blake Lively consumers’ said they would first buy products from Julia
Roberts, then Blake Lively, the Charlize Theron.
Hypothesis 6: There was a significant difference of customer’s opinions of perfume based
on the celebrity endorser.
This hypothesis shows to be partially supported. Once again consumers’ believed
the celebrity endorsers were using the product in which they endorsed. Consumers’ said
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
118
they believe Julia Roberts uses the Lancôme perfume which she endorses. Consumers’
found classiness, beauty, elegance, honesty, reliability, sincerity, trustworthiness, and
skilled to be factors with no significance when celebrity endorsers are endorsing perfume
products. With factors which were significant most of the time Blake Lively was the
celebrity endorser chosen. This could also be because she is within Generation Y
therefore the consumers’ of this study, Generation Y, can relate to her.
Hypothesis 7. There was a significant difference of customers’ behavioral intention
regarding purchase of apparel based on the celebrity endorser.
This hypothesis is not supported. Consumers’ said there was no significance when
purchasing apparel from celebrity endorser’s such as Kate Hudson, Nicole Kidman, and
Jennifer Garner.
Hypothesis 8: There was a significant difference of customer’s opinions of apparel based
on the celebrity endorser.
This hypothesis shows to be partially supported. Consumers’ believe Kate
Hudson wears the Ann Taylor clothing she is endorsing. Consumers’ found
dependability, reliability, expertise, experience, and qualifications to be factors with no
significance for celebrities endorsing apparel. Consumers’ mainly choose Kate Hudson
for all of the factors. This shows Kate Hudson is most relatable to Generation Y,
probably because she is also part of Generation Y.
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
119
Hypothesis 9: There was a significant difference of customers’ behavioral intention
regarding the purchase of cosmetics based on the celebrity endorser.
This hypothesis shows to be supported. When comparing behavioral intention
regarding purchasing cosmetics endorsed by Emma Stone, Natalie Portman, and Diane
Krueger consumers’ said they were most likely to buy cosmetics endorsed by Diane
Krueger.
Hypothesis 10: There was a significant difference of customer’s opinions of cosmetics
based on the celebrity endorser.
This hypothesis shows to be partially supported. Consumers’ do not believe any
of the celebrity endorsers wear the products which they are endorsing. Consumers’ found
dependability, honesty, reliability, sincerity, trustworthiness, expertise, experience,
knowledge, qualifications or skills to be factors with no significance for celebrities
endorsing cosmetics. This is interesting because consumers’ believe only factors which
have to do with attractiveness are significant for celebrities endorsing cosmetics.
Implications
After this study was conducted there were implications which affected Generation
Y’s purchase intent when it comes to celebrity endorsed advertisements. Photo shopping
could be seen as an implication of this study. If the consumers’ did not pay attention to
the name of the celebrity endorser and they only looked at the photograph of the celebrity
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
120
endorser on the survey, they might not have recognized who the endorser was, because of
all the photoshopping which had been to some of the photographs. In return this could
have affected the consumers’ responses.
Another implication of this study is the celebrity endorser’s age. All of the
consumers’ which participated in the survey were in Generation Y, between the ages of
19-36. Most of the celebrity endorsers were not in Generation Y. This could have
affected the consumers’ responses because they may not be able to relate as well to some
of the celebrity endorsers which are part of an older generation. The consumers’ might
have only chosen a celebrity who was in their Generation Y, because they are more
relatable.
This study proves Generation Y consumers’ will buy products which are endorsed
by their favorite celebrity. However, when looking at factors which seem to be important
(attractiveness, skills, honesty…) for a celebrity endorser, consumers’ view these factors
differently depending on the product which they are endorsing.
Future Research
With this research study there are many opportunities for future research. For this
research Generation Y, consumers’ 19-36, were the only participants. For the marketing
aspect, this study shows majority of the time Generation Y will buy products which are
endorsed by celebrity endorsers, but if this study were conducted with other generations
there could be a different result. Also, for this study the majority of consumers’ were
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
121
Caucasian. This study could conducted in another country where the majority of
consumers’ are not Caucasian and where consumers’ have a different view on celebrity
endorsers.
Summary
This chapter discussed the main conclusions which were found in this study. This
chapter went into detail about the findings of each of the hypothesis for this study. Also,
included into this chapter were the implications of this study and future recommendations
for this study.
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
122
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aaker, D., A., & Biel, A., L. (Eds.). (1993). Brand Equity and Advertising:Advertising’s role in building strong brands. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In j. Kuhl, &, J. Beckman (Eds.), Action-control: From cognition to behavior (pp.11-39). Heilberg: Springer.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitude and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Ajzen, I., & Madden, T. (1986). Prediction of the goal-directed behavior: attitude, intentions, and perceived behavioral control. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 22, 453-474.
Atkin, C., & Block, M. (1983, March). Effectiveness of celebrity endorsers. Journal of Advertising Research, 23, 57-6.
Baker, M., J., & Churchill, G., A. (1977). The impact of physically attractive models on advertising evaluations. Journal of Marketing Research, 14, 538-555.
Baker, W., E., & Lutz, R., J. (1988). The relevance-accessibility model of advertising Effectiveness In Nonverbal Communication in Advertising, Sidney Hecker and David W. Stewart, eds., Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 59-84.
Batra, R. & Homer, P. (2004). The situational impact of brand image beliefs. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(3), 318–330.
Biehal, D., Gabriel, C., & Stephens, E. (1992). Attitude toward the ad and brand choice. Journal of Advertising, 21(3), 19-37.
Bradley, S. (1996, February 26). Marketers are always looking for good pitchers. Brandweek, 37, 36-37.
Buck, R. (1993, September 13). Celebrity endorsers: Rewards and risks. Brandweek, 34, 16.
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
123
Caballero, M.J., Lumpkin, J. & Madden, C.D. (1989). Using physical attractiveness as an advertising tool: An empirical test of attraction phenomenon. Journal of Advertising Research, 29(4), 16–23.
Chaiken, S. (1979). Communicator physical attractiveness and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1387-1397.
Chang, M. K. (1998). Predicting unethical behavior: a comparison of the theory of reasoned action and theory of planned behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 17, 1825-1934. Cheng, S., Lam, T., & Hsu, C. H. C. (2006). Negative word-of-mouth communication intention: an application of the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 30(1), 95-116. Cohen J. B., & Golden. E. (1972, February). Informational social influence and product evaluation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 56, 54-59. Cooper, M. (1984,September 1). Can celebrities really sell products? Marketing & Media
Decisions, 19, 64-67. DeSarbo, W. S., & Harshman, R. A. (1985). Celebrity-brand congruence analysis. Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 8(1), 17-52. Desphande, R., & Staymaa D. (1994). A tale of two cities: Distinctiveness theory and advertising effectiveness. Joumal of Marketing Research, 31(1), 57-64. Eagry, A. H., & Chailen, S. (1993). Psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth, Tx: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Engebreston, J. (2004). Odd gen out. American Demographics, 26(24), 7-14. Erdogan, B.Z. (1999). Celebrity endorsement: A literature review. Journal of Marketing Management, 15(3), pp. 291–314. Erdogan, B.Z. & Baker, M.J. (2000). Towards a practitioner-based model of selecting celebrity endorsers. International Journal of Advertising, 19(1), 25–43. Erdogan, B., Z., Baker, J., B., & Tagg, S. (2001). Selecting celebrity endorsers: The practioners perspective. Journal of Advertising Research, 41(3), 39-49.
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
124
Fortini-Campbell, L. (1992). Hitting the sweet spot. Chicago, IL: The Copy Work Shop.
Fowles, J. (1996). Advertising and popular culture. London: Sage Publication Ltd.
Friedman, H., H., Santeramo, M., J., & Traina, A. ( 1978). Correlates of trustworthiness for celebrities. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 6, 291-299.
Friedman, H., H., & Friedman. (1979). Endorser effectiveness by product type. Journal of Advertising Research, 19(5), 63-71.
Gardner, B., B., & Levy, S., J. (March/April, 1955). The product and the brand. Harvard Business Review, 33-39.
Goldsmith, R. E., Lafferty, B. A., & Newell, S. J. (2000 a). The impact of corporate credibility and celebrity credibility on consumer reaction to advertisements and brands. Journal of Advertising, 43-54.
Goldsmith, R. E., Lafferty, B. A., & Newell, S. J. (2000 b). The influence of corporate credibility on consumer attitudes and purchase intent. Corporate Reputation Review, 3(4), 304-318.
Graeff, T., R. (1996). Using promotional messages to manage the effects of brand andself-image on brand evaluations. The Journal of Consumer Marketing, 13(3), 4-
17.
Han, H., Hsu, L., & Sheu, C. (2009). Application of the theory of planned behavior to Green hotel choice: Testing the effect of the environmental friendly activities. Tourism Management, 325-334.
Horai, J., Naccari, N., & Fatoullah, E. (1974). The effects of expertise and physicalattractiveness upon opinion agreement and liking. Soiometry, 37, 601-606.
Hotz, R., L. (2005, February 27). Searching for the why of buy. Los Angeles Times, p. A1.
Hovland, C., Irving, J. & Harold, K. (1953). Communication and Persuasion; Psychological Studies of Opinion Change. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Joseph, W., B. (1982). The credibility of physically attractive communicators: A review.Journal of Advertising, 11, (3), 15-24.
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
125
Kahle, L., & Homer, P., M. (1985). Physical attractiveness of the celebrity endorser:A social adaptation perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 11, 954-962.
Kaikati, J.G. (1987). Celebrity advertising: a review and synthesis. International Journal of Advertising, 6(2), pp. 93–10.
Kamins, M.A., Brand, M., Hoeke, S. & Moe, J.C. (1989). Two-sided versus one-sided celebrity endorsements: The impact on advertising effectiveness and credibility. Journal of Advertising, 18(2), pp. 4–10.
Kamins, M., A. (1990). An investigation into the match-up hypothesis in celebrity advertising: When beauty may be only skin deep. Journal of Advertising, 19 (1), 4-13.
Kamins, M., A., & Gupta, K. (1994). Congruence between spokesperson and product type: A match-up hypothesis perspective. Psychology & Marketing, 11, 569-586.
Kelman, H., C. (1956, Spring). Process of opinion change. Public Opinion Quarterly, 33, 57-78.
Kelman, H.C. (2006). Interests, relationships, identities: Three central issues for individuals and groups in negotiating their social environment. Annual Review of Psychology, 57(1), pp. 1–26.
Kennedy, L. (2001). The up & coming generation. Retail Merchandiser, 41(8), 66.
MacKenzie, S., B., Lutz, R., J., & Belch, G., E. (1986). The role of attitude toward the Ad as a mediator of advertising effectiveness: A test of competing explanations.Journal of Marketing Research, 23, 130-143.
McCracken, G. (1986). Culture and consumption: A theoretical account of thestructure and movement of the cultural meaning of consumer goods. Journal of Consumer Research, 13(1), pp. 71–85.
McCracken, G. (1989). Who is the celebrity endorser? Cultural foundations of the endorsement process. Journal of Consumer Research, 16(3), pp. 310–322.
McGinnies, E., & Ward, C., D. (1980). Better liked than right: Trustworthiness and expertise as factors in credibility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 6, 467-472.
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
126
Meenaghan, T. (1995). The role of advertising in brand image development. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 4(4), 23-4.
Miller, G.P. & Basehart, J. (1969). Source trustworthiness, opinionated statements, and response to persuasive communication. Speech Monographs, 36(1), pp. 1–7.
Misra, S. & Beatty, S. (1990). Celebrity spokesperson and brand congruence. Journal of Business Research, 21(2), pp. 159–173.
Moeran, B. (2006). More than just a fashion magazine. Current Sociology, 54(5), 725- 744.
Morton, L., P. (2002). Targeting generation y. Public Relations Quarterly, 47(2), 8-46.
Ohanian, R. (1990). Construction and validation of a scale to measure celebrity endorsers' perceived expertise, trustworthiness, and attractiveness. Journal of Advertising, 39-52.
Ohanian, R. (1991). The impact of celebrity spokespersons perceived image on consumers intention to purchase. Journal of Advertising Research, 31(1), 46-54.
Petroshius, S., M., & Crocker, K., E. (1989). An empirical analysis of spokesperson characteristics on advertisement and product evaluations. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 17, 217-225.
Piccalo, G. (2005, January 30). Aligning stars with the perfect pitches. Los Angeles Times, p. E1.
Renton, K. (2006). The relationship of celebrity advertisements to consumers attitudes and purchase intentions. Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations, paper 1895. The Florida State University.
Shimp, T. (1981). Attitude toward the ad as a mediator of consumer brand choice. Journal of Advertising Research, 10(2), 9-1.
Shimp, T. E. (Eds). (1997). Advertising. Promotion and Supplemental Aspects of Integrated Marketing Communication. Fort Worth, Texas: The Dryden Press.
Speck, P. S., Schumann, D. W., & Thompson, C. (1988). Celebrity endorsements-scripts, schema and roles: Theoretical framework and preliminary tests. Advances in
Consumer Research, (Eds) Michael J. Houston, 15, 68-76.
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
127
Spielman, H., M. (1981, November/December). The celebrity sell: Making it work. Marketing Times, 28, 13-14. Till, B., D. (1998). Using celebrity endorsers effectively: Lessons from associate learning. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 7, 400-409. Till, B., & Busler, M. (1998). Matching products with endorsers: Attractiveness versus expertise. The Journal of Consumer Marketing, 15, 576-586. Till, B.D. & Busler, M. (2000). The match-up hypothesis: Physical attractiveness,
expertise, and the role of fit on brand attitude, purchase intentions, and brand beliefs. Journal of Advertising, 29(3), pp. 1–13.
Tripp, C., Jenson, T. & Carlson, L. (1994). The effect of multiple product endorsements
by celebrities on consumers’ attitudes and intentions. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(4), pp. 535–547.
Walker, M., Langmeyer, L., & Langmeyer, D. (1992). Celebrity endorsers: Do you get pay for?. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 9(2), 69-76. Wolburg, J. M., & Pokrywczynski J. (2001). A Psychographic analysis of generation y college students. Journal of Advertising Research, 4(5), 33-53. Woodside, A., G., & Taylor, J., L. (1978). Consumer purchase intentions and perceptions of product quality and national advertising. Journal of Advertising, 7, 48-51.
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
128
APPENDIX A
RECRUITMENT STATEMENT FOR EMAIL
Hello,
My name is Callie Worthen and I am pursuing my master’s degree in Hospitality and Retail Management at Texas Tech University. I am conducting this research to further understand if celebrity endorsed advertisements in fashion magazines influence purchase intentions. For the purpose of this study I will need Generation Y, Generation X and Baby Boomers. If you could please forward this email to anyone that falls under that description it would be greatly appreciated and will make a huge impact on the completion of this study.
The survey is completely anonymous, meaning that your identity cannot be connected in any way to your survey answers, and it is voluntary, so you can opt out at any time. You must be of 18 years or older to complete the following survey. To access the survey please click on the following link: (insert link) If the survey does not open automatically, please copy and paste the link into your internet browser.
If you have any questions about the survey please contact Dr. Deborah Fowler at 806- 742-3068 X 295.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Callie E. Worthen
Texas Tech University
*TTU also has a board that protects the rights of people who participate in research.You can call to ask them questions at 806- 742- 2064. You can mail your questions to the Human Research Protection Program, Office of the Vice President for Research, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas 79409, or you can email your questions to [email protected]
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
129
APPENDIX B
RECRUITMENT STATEMENT ON FACEBOOK
The purpose of this research is to gain a better understanding if celebrity endorsed advertisements in fashion magazines affect purchase intentions of Generation Y, Generation X and Baby Boomers. The survey takes about 10 minutes, below is the link that will take you directly to the survey.
https://ttuhumansciences.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_cZLq2IYl9Tlc1SZ
This is completely voluntary and you may quit at any time throughout the survey. There is no right or wrong answer to answer any question; I am only interested in your opinions. Your responses will be anonymous and will not be associated with you personally or professionally in any way. Thank you so much for your participation.
If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to contact Dr. Deborah Fowler at 806- 742- 3068 X 295. Thank you for participating, Callie Worthen, Texas Tech University.
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
130
APPENDIX C
RECRUITMENT STATEMENT ON REDDIT.COM
The purpose of this research is to gain a better understanding if celebrity endorsed advertisements in fashion magazines affect purchase intentions of Generation Y, Generation X and Baby Boomers. The survey takes about 10 minutes, below is the link that will take you directly to the survey.
https://ttuhumansciences.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_cZLq2IYl9Tlc1SZ
This is completely voluntary and you may quit at any time throughout the survey. There is no right or wrong answer to answer any question; I am only interested in your opinions. Your responses will be anonymous and will not be associated with you personally or professionally in any way. Thank you so much for your participation.
If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to contact Dr. Deborah Fowler at 806- 742- 3068 X 295. Thank you for participating, Callie Worthen, Texas Tech University.
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
131
APPENDIX D
QUALTRICS SURVEY
Thesis
Q1 Dr. Deborah Fowler and Callie Worthen would like to find out more about celebrity endorsed
advertisements in fashion magazines and how they affect purchase intentions of Generation Y.
There are no right or wrong answers to the questions, just what you think. This survey will take
about 10 minutes of your time, and we will use the results for a research study. We will not be
able to identify you individually. Please do not put your name on this survey. If you would prefer
not to answer a question, please leave it blank. Your participation is voluntary and you can stop
at any time. If you have any questions about this study, please contact Dr. Deborah Fowler at
806 742 3068 X 295. Thank you for helping us with this research. Please keep the information
sheet provided. Thank you for helping us with this research. TTU also has a board that protects
the rights of people who participate in research. You can call to ask them questions at 806‐742‐
2064. You can mail your questions to the Human Research Protection Program, Office of the
Vice President for Research, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas 79409, or you can email your
questions to [email protected]. Please press the double arrows on the bottom right hand corner to
continue. Thank you for helping us with this research.
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
132
Q2 Do you read fashion magazines?
yes (1)
no (2)
Q3 What is your age?
18‐21 (1)
22‐25 (2)
26‐29 (3)
30‐33 (4)
34‐36 (5)
37‐40 (6)
41‐44 (7)
45‐48 (8)
49‐52 (9)
53‐56 (10)
57‐60 (11)
61‐64 (12)
65‐67 (13)
Q4 What is your gender?
Male (1)
Female (2)
Q5 What is your ethnicity?
African American (1)
Asian (2)
Caucasian (3)
Hispanic (4)
Other (5)
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
133
Q6 How often do you read fashion magazines?
Never (1)
Less than Once a Month (2)
Once a Month (3)
2‐3 Times a Month (4)
Once a Week (5)
2‐3 Times a Week (6)
Daily (7)
Q7 Would you buy a product if your favorite celebrity endorsed a product?
Yes (1)
Maybe (2)
No (3)
Q8 Which of these is the most important factor when selecting a product?
Friends (1)
Family (2)
Previous Experience (3)
Brand (4)
Other (5) ____________________
Q9 Have you ever bought a product solely because you liked the celebrity endorsing the
product?
Yes (1)
Maybe (2)
No (3)
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
134
Q10 When you buy a product a celebrity endorses, do you buy it so you will look more like the
celebrity endorsing the product?
Yes (1)
Sometimes (2)
No (3)
Q11 How often do you buy things you see a celebrity endorse in a fashion magazine?
Never (1)
Less than Once a Month (2)
Once a Month (3)
2‐3 Times a Month (4)
Once a Week (5)
2‐3 Times a Week (6)
Daily (7)
Q12 How often do you buy things similar to what a celebrity endorses in a fashion magazine?
Never (1)
Less than Once a Month (2)
Once a Month (3)
2‐3 Times a Month (4)
Once a Week (5)
2‐3 Times a Week (6)
Daily (7)
Q13 What types of social media do you use to look at celebrities fashion?
Facebook (1)
Instagram (2)
Pinterest (3)
Twitter (4)
Blogs (5)
None (6)
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
135
Q14 Do you believe you are knowledgeable about fashion?
Yes (1)
Somewhat (2)
No (3)
Q15 How often do you go shopping for clothing?
Never (1)
Less than Once a Month (2)
Once a Month (3)
2‐3 Times a Month (4)
Once a Week (5)
2‐3 Times a Week (6)
Daily (7)
Q16 How much money do you spend a month on clothing?
$0‐$50 (1)
$51‐$100 (2)
$101‐$150 (3)
$151‐$200 (4)
$201‐$250 (5)
$251‐$300 (6)
More than $301 (7)
Q17 Do you feel that it is important to dress like everyone else?
Yes (1)
Sometimes (2)
No (3)
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
136
Q18 When you choose a dress for an event do you buy something similar to what you have seen
a celebrity wear?
Yes (1)
Sometimes (2)
No (3)
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
137
Q19 Please choose only one answer for each question. How often do you pay attention to the:
Always (1) Most of the Time (2)
Sometimes (3)
Rarely (4) Never (5)
BRAND in a
celebrity
endorsed
advertisement?
(1)
CELEBRITY in a
celebrity
endorsed
advertisement?
(2)
ADVERTISEMENT
in a celebrity
endorsed
advertisement?
(3)
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
138
Q20 Please only choose one answer for each question, I buy the clothes celebrities endorse in
fashion magazines because
Strongly Agree (1)
Agree (2) Neither Agree nor Disagree (3)
Disagree (4) Strongly
Disagree (5)
I like the BRAND.
(1)
I like the
CELEBRITY. (2)
I like the
ADVERTISEMENT.
(3)
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
139
Q147
Q146 Click to write the question text
Click to write Choice 1 (1)
Click to write Choice 2 (2)
Click to write Choice 3 (3)
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
140
Q21 Which of these 3 celebrities do you like the most?
Beyonce Knowles (1)
Zoey Deschanel (2)
Tina Fey (3)
(Skip Logic)
Q148
Q22
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
141
Q23 Would you buy a product that Beyonce is endorsing?
Yes (1)
Maybe (2)
No (3)
Q24 Do you believe Beyonce Knowles uses this product she is endorsing?
Yes (1)
Maybe (2)
No (3)
Q25 I believe this celebrity is:
Strongly disagree (1)
Disagree (2) Neither Agree nor Disagree (3)
Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5)
Attractive (1)
Classy (2)
Beautiful (3)
Elegant (4)
Sexy (5)
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
142
Q26 I believe this celebrity is:
Strongly Disagree (1)
Disagree (2) Neither Agree nor Disagree (3)
Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5)
Dependable
(1)
Honest (2)
Reliable (3)
Sincere (4)
Trustworthy
(5)
Q27 In regard to this brand, I believe this celebrity is:
Strongly Disagree (1)
Disagree (2) Neither Agree nor Disagree (3)
Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5)
Expert (1)
Experienced
(2)
Knowledgeable
(3)
Qualified (4)
Skilled (5)
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
143
Q28 Thank you, if you have completed this section, please press yes.
Yes (1)
No (2)
(Skip Logic)
Q29
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
144
Q30 Would you buy a product that Zoey Deschanel Endorsed?
Yes (1)
Maybe (2)
No (3)
Q31 Do you believe Zoey Deschanel uses this product she is endorsing?
Yes (1)
Maybe (2)
No (3)
Q32 I believe this celebrity is:
Strongly Disagree (1)
Disagree (2) Neither Agree nor Disagree (3)
Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5)
Attractive (1)
Classy (2)
Beautiful (3)
Elegant (4)
Sexy (5)
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
145
Q33 I believe this celebrity is:
Strongly
Disagree (1) Disagree (2)
Neither Agree nor Disagree (3)
Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5)
Dependable
(1)
Honest (2)
Reliable (3)
Sincere (4)
Trustworthy
(5)
Q34 In regard to this brand, I believe this celebrity is:
Strongly
Disagree (1) Disagree (2)
Neither Agree nor Disagree (3)
Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5)
Expert (1)
Experienced
(2)
Knowledgeable
(3)
Qualified (4)
Skilled (5)
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
146
Q35 If you have completed this section, please press yes
Yes (1)
No (2)
(Skip Logic)
Q36
Q37 Would you buy a product that Tina Fey endorsed?
Yes (1)
Maybe (2)
No (3)
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
147
Q38 Do you think Tina Fey uses this product she is endorsing?
Yes (1)
Maybe (2)
No (3)
Q39 I believe this celebrity is:
Strongly Disagree (1)
Disagree (2) Neither Agree nor Disagree (3)
Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5)
Attractive (1)
Classy (2)
Beautiful (3)
Elegant (4)
Sexy (5)
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
148
Q40 I believe this celebrity is:
Strongly Disagree (1)
Disagree (2) Neither Agree nor Disagree (3)
Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5)
Dependable
(1)
Honest (2)
Reliable (3)
Sincere (4)
Trustworthy
(5)
Q41 In regard to this brand, I believe this celebrity is:
Strongly Disagree (1)
Disagree (2) Neither Agree nor Disagree (3)
Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5)
Expert (1)
Experienced
(2)
Knowledgeable
(3)
Qualified (4)
Skilled (5)
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
149
Q42 If you have completed this section, please press yes
Yes (1)
No (2)
(Skip Logic)
Q43 Beverages, which of these 3 celebrities do you like the most?
Taylor Swift (1)
Jennifer Aniston (2)
Sophia Vergara (3)
(Skip Logic)
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
150
Q44
Q45 Would you buy a product that Taylor Swift endorsed?
Yes (1)
Maybe (2)
No (3)
Q46 Do you think Taylor Swift uses this product she is endorsing?
Yes (1)
Maybe (2)
No (3)
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
151
Q47 I believe this celebrity is:
Strongly Disagree (1)
Disagree (2) Neither Agree nor Disagree (3)
Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5)
Attractive (1)
Classy (2)
Beautiful (3)
Elegant (4)
Sexy (5)
Q48 I believe this celebrity is:
Strongly Disagree (1)
Disagree (2) Neither Agree nor Disagree (3)
Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5)
Dependable
(1)
Honest (2)
Reliable (3)
Sincere (4)
Trustworthy
(5)
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
152
Q49 In regard to this brand, I believe this celebrity is:
Strongly Disagree (1)
Disagree (2) Neither Agree nor Disagree (3)
Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5)
Expert (1)
Experienced
(2)
Knowledgeable
(3)
Qualified (4)
Skilled (5)
Q50 If you have completed this section, please press yes
Yes (1)
No (2)
(Skip Logic)
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
153
Q51
Q52 Would you buy a product Jennifer Aniston endorsed?
Yes (1)
Maybe (2)
No (3)
Q53 Do you think Jennifer Aniston uses this product she is endorsing?
Yes (1)
Maybe (2)
No (3)
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
154
Q54 I believe this celebrity is:
Strongly
Disagree (1) Disagree (2)
Neither Agree nor Disagree (3)
Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5)
Attractive (1)
Classy (2)
Beautiful (3)
Elegant (4)
Sexy (5)
Q55 I believe this celebrity is:
Strongly
Disagree (1) Disagree (2)
Neither Agree nor Disagree (3)
Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5)
Dependable
(1)
Honest (2)
Reliable (3)
Sincere (4)
Trustworthy
(5)
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
155
Q56 In regard to this brand, I believe this celebrity is:
Strongly Disagree (1)
Disagree (2) Neither Agree nor Disagree (3)
Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5)
Expert (1)
Experienced
(2)
Knowledgeable
(3)
Qualified (4)
Skilled (5)
Q57 If you have completed this section, press yes
Yes (1)
No (2)
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
156
Q58
Q59 Would you buy a product Sophia Vergara endorsed?
Yes (1)
Maybe (2)
No (3)
Q60 Do you think Sophia Vergara uses this product she is endorsing?
Yes (1)
Maybe (2)
No (3)
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
157
Q61 I believe this celebrity is:
Strongly Disagree (1)
Disagree (2) Neither Agree nor Disagree (3)
Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5)
Attractive (1)
Classy (2)
Beautiful (3)
Elegant (4)
Sexy (5)
Q62 I believe this celebrity is:
Strongly Disagree (1)
Disagree (2) Neither Agree nor Disagree (3)
Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5)
Dependable
(1)
Honest (2)
Reliable (3)
Sincere (4)
Trustworthy
(5)
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
158
Q63 In regard to this brand, I believe this celebrity is:
Strongly
Disagree (1) Disagree (2)
Neither Agree nor Disagree (3)
Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5)
Expert (1)
Experienced
(2)
Knowledgeable
(3)
Qualified (4)
Skilled (5)
Q64 If you have completed this section, press yes
Yes (1)
No (2)
(Skip Logic)
Q65 Perfume, which of these 3 celebrities do you like the most?
Charlize Theron (1)
Julia Roberts (2)
Blake Lively (3)
(Skip Logic)
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
159
Q66
Q67 Would you buy a product Charlize Theron endorsed?
Yes (1)
Maybe (2)
No (3)
Q68 Do you think Charlize Theron uses this product she is endorsing?
Yes (1)
Maybe (2)
No (3)
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
160
Q69 I believe this celebrity is:
Strongly
Disagree (1) Disagree (2)
Neither Agree nor Disagree (3)
Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5)
Attractive (1)
Classy (2)
Beautiful (3)
Elegant (4)
Sexy (5)
Q70 I believe this celebrity is:
Strongly
Disagree (1) Disagree (2)
Neither Agree nor Disagree (3)
Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5)
Dependable
(1)
Honest (2)
Reliable (3)
Sincere (4)
Trustworthy
(5)
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
161
Q71 In regard to this brand, I believe this celebrity is:
Strongly Disagree (1)
Disagree (2) Neither Agree nor Disagree (3)
Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5)
Expert (1)
Experienced
(2)
Knowledgeable
(3)
Qualified (4)
Skilled (5)
Q72 If you have completed this section, press yes
Yes (1)
No (2)
(Skip Logic)
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
162
Q73
Q74 Would you buy a product Julia Roberts endorsed?
Yes (1)
Maybe (2)
No (3)
Q75 Do you think Julia Roberts uses this product she is endorsing?
Yes (1)
Maybe (2)
No (3)
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
163
Q76 I believe this celebrity is:
Strongly Disagree (1)
Disagree (2) Neither Agree nor Disagree (3)
Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5)
Attractive (1)
Classy (2)
Beautiful (3)
Elegant (4)
Sexy (5)
Q77 I believe this celebrity is:
Strongly Disagree (1)
Disagree (2) Neither Agree nor Disagree (3)
Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5)
Dependable
(1)
Honest (2)
Reliable (3)
Sincere (4)
Trustworthy
(5)
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
164
Q78 In regard to this brand, I believe this celebrity is:
Strongly
Disagree (1) Disagree (2)
Neither Agree nor Disagree (3)
Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5)
Expert (1)
Experienced
(2)
Knowledgeable
(3)
Qualified (4)
Skilled (5)
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
165
Q79 If you completed this section, press yes
Yes (1)
No (2)
Q80
Q81 Would you buy a product Blake Lively endorsed?
Yes (1)
Maybe (2)
No (3)
Q82 Do you think Blake Lively uses this product she is endorsing?
Yes (1)
Maybe (2)
No (3)
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
166
Q83 I believe this celebrity is:
Strongly Disagree (1)
Disagree (2) Neither Agree nor Disagree (3)
Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5)
Attractive (1)
Classy (2)
Beautiful (3)
Elegant (4)
Sexy (5)
Q84 I believe this celebrity is:
Strongly Disagree (1)
Disagree (2) Neither Agree nor Disagree (3)
Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5)
Dependable
(1)
Honest (2)
Reliable (3)
Sincere (4)
Trustworthy
(5)
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
167
Q85 In regard to this brand, I believe this celebrity is:
Strongly
Disagree (1) Disagree (2)
Neither Agree nor Disagree (3)
Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5)
Expert (1)
Experienced
(2)
Knowledgeable
(3)
Qualified (4)
Skilled (5)
Q86 If you finished this section, press yes
Yes (1)
No (2)
(Skip Logic)
Q87 Clothing, which of these 3 celebrities do you like the most?
Kate Hudson (1)
Jennifer Garner (2)
Nicole Kidman (3)
(Skip Logic)
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
168
Q88
Q89 Would you buy a product Kate Hudson endorsed?
Yes (1)
Maybe (2)
No (3)
Q90 Do you think Kate Hudson uses this product she is endorsing?
Yes (1)
Maybe (2)
No (3)
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
169
Q91 I believe this celebrity is:
Strongly Disagree (1)
Disagree (2) Neither Agree nor Disagree (3)
Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5)
Attractive (1)
Classy (2)
Beautiful (3)
Elegant (4)
Sexy (5)
Q92 I believe this celebrity is:
Strongly Disagree (1)
Disagree (2) Neither Agree nor Disagree (3)
Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5)
Dependable
(1)
Honest (2)
Reliable (3)
Sincere (4)
Trustworthy
(5)
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
170
Q93 In regard to this brand, I believe this celebrity is:
Strongly
Disagree (1) Disagree (2)
Neither Agree nor Disagree (3)
Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5)
Expert (1)
Experienced
(2)
Knowledgeable
(3)
Qualified (4)
Skilled (5)
Q94 If you have finished this section, press yes
Yes (1)
No (2)
(Skip Logic)
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
171
Q95
Q96 Would you buy a product Jennifer Garner endorsed?
Yes (1)
Maybe (2)
No (3)
Q97 Do you think Jennifer Garner uses this product she is endorsing?
Yes (1)
Maybe (2)
No (3)
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
172
Q98 I believe this celebrity is:
Strongly Disagree (1)
Disagree (2) Neither Agree nor Disagree (3)
Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5)
Attractive (1)
Classy (2)
Beautiful (3)
Elegant (4)
Sexy (5)
Q99 I believe this celebrity is:
Strongly Disagree (1)
Disagree (2) Neither Agree nor Disagree (3)
Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5)
Dependable
(1)
Honest (2)
Reliable (3)
Sincere (4)
Trustworthy
(5)
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
173
Q100 In regard to this brand, I believe this celebrity is:
Strongly Disagree (1)
Disagree (2) Neither Agree nor Disagree (3)
Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5)
Expert (1)
Experienced
(2)
Knowledgeable
(3)
Qualified (4)
Skilled (5)
Q101 If you have finished this section, press yes
Yes (1)
No (2)
If Yes Is Selected, Then Skip To Cosmetics, of the 3 celebrities which...
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
174
Q102
Q103 Would you buy a product Nicole Kidman endorsed?
Yes (1)
Maybe (2)
No (3)
Q104 Do you think Nicole Kidman uses this product she is endorsing?
Yes (1)
Maybe (2)
No (3)
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
175
Q105 I believe this celebrity is:
Strongly Disagree (1)
Disagree (2) Neither Agree nor Disagree (3)
Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5)
Attractive (1)
Classy (2)
Beautiful (3)
Elegant (4)
Sexy (5)
Q106 I believe this celebrity is:
Strongly Disagree (1)
Disagree (2) Neither Agree nor Disagree (3)
Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5)
Dependable
(1)
Honest (2)
Reliable (3)
Sincere (4)
Trustworthy
(5)
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
176
Q107 In regard to this brand, I believe this celebrity is:
Strongly
Disagree (1) Disagree (2)
Neither Agree nor Disagree (3)
Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5)
Expert (1)
Experienced
(2)
Knowledgeable
(3)
Qualified (4)
Skilled (5)
Q108 If you have finished this section, press yes
Yes (1)
No (2)
If Yes Is Selected, Then Skip To Cosmetics, of the 3 celebrities which...
Q109 Cosmetics, which of these 3 celebrities do you like the most?
Emma Stone (1)
Natalie Portman (2)
Diane Kruger (3)
If Emma Stone Is Selected, Then Skip To Emma stone thesisIf Natalie Portman Is Selected, Then
Skip To Natalie portman thesisIf Diane Kruger Is Selected, Then Skip To Diane kruger 2 thesis
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
177
Q110
Q111 Would you buy a product Emma Stone endorsed?
Yes (1)
Maybe (2)
No (3)
Q112 Do you think Emma Stone uses this product she is endorsing?
Yes (1)
Maybe (2)
No (3)
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
178
Q113 I believe this celebrity is:
Strongly Disagree (1)
Disagree (2) Neither Agree nor Disagree (3)
Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5)
Attractive (1)
Classy (2)
Beautiful (3)
Elegant (4)
Sexy (5)
Q114 I believe this celebrity is:
Strongly Disagree (1)
Disagree (2) Neither Agree nor Disagree (3)
Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5)
Dependable
(1)
Honest (2)
Reliable (3)
Sincere (4)
Trustworthy
(5)
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
179
Q115 In regard to this brand, I believe this celebrity is:
Strongly Disagree (1)
Disagree (2) Neither Agree nor Disagree (3)
Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5)
Expert (1)
Experienced
(2)
Knowledgeable
(3)
Qualified (4)
Skilled (5)
Q116 If you have finished this section, press yes
Yes (1)
No (2)
If Yes Is Selected, Then Skip To End of Survey
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
180
Q117
Q118 Would you buy a product Natalie Portman endorsed?
Yes (1)
Maybe (2)
No (3)
Q119 Do you think Natalie Portman uses this product she is endorsing?
Yes (1)
Maybe (2)
No (3)
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
181
Q120 I believe this celebrity is:
Strongly Disagree (1)
Disagree (2) Neither Agree nor Disagree (3)
Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5)
Attractive (1)
Classy (2)
Beautiful (3)
Elegant (4)
Sexy (5)
Q121 I believe this celebrity is:
Strongly Disagree (1)
Disagree (2) Neither Agree nor Disagree (3)
Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5)
Dependable
(1)
Honest (2)
Reliable (3)
Sincere (4)
Trustworthy
(5)
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
182
Q122 In regard to this brand, I believe this celebrity is:
Strongly Disagree (1)
Disagree (2) Neither Agree nor Disagree (3)
Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5)
Expert (1)
Experienced
(2)
Knowledgeable
(3)
Qualified (4)
Skilled (5)
Q123 If you have completed this section, press yes
Yes (1)
No (2)
If Yes Is Selected, Then Skip To End of Survey
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
183
Q124
Q125 Would you buy a product Diane Kruger endorsed?
Yes (1)
Maybe (2)
No (3)
Q126 Do you think Diane Kruger uses this product she is endorsing?
Yes (1)
Maybe (2)
No (3)
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
184
Q127 I believe this celebrity is:
Strongly Disagree (1)
Disagree (2) Neither Agree nor Disagree (3)
Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5)
Attractive (1)
Classy (2)
Beautiful (3)
Elegant (4)
Sexy (5)
Q128 I believe this celebrity is:
Strongly Disagree (1)
Disagree (2) Neither Agree nor Disagree (3)
Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5)
Dependable
(1)
Honest (2)
Reliable (3)
Sincere (4)
Trustworthy
(5)
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
185
Q129 In regard to this brand, I believe this celebrity is:
Strongly Disagree (1)
Disagree (2) Neither Agree nor Disagree (3)
Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5)
Expert (1)
Experienced
(2)
Knowlegeable
(3)
Qualified (4)
Skilled (5)
Q130 If you have finished this section, press yes
Yes (1)
No (2)
If Yes Is Selected, Then Skip To End of Survey
Q131 Thank you again for helping us with this research Please complete the survey by pressing
the arrow to the right
Texas Tech University, Callie Elaine Worthen, May 2014
186
APPENDIX E
TEXAS TECH UNIVERTSITY REVIEW BOARD LETTER
November 19, 2013
Dr. Deborah Fowler Nutrition, Hospitality and Retailing (NHR) Mail Stop: 1240
Regarding: 504266 Do Celebrity Endorsed Advertisements Affect
Purchase Intentions Dr. Deborah Fowler:
The Texas Tech University Protection of Human Subjects Committee approved your claim for an exemption for the protocol referenced above on November 19, 2013.
Exempt research is not subject to continuing review. However, any modifications that (a) change the research in a substantial way, (b) might change the basis for exemption, or (c) might introduce any additional risk to subjects must be reported to the Human Research Protection Program (HRPP) before they are implemented.
To report such changes, you must send a new claim for exemption or a proposal for expedited or full board review to the HRPP. Extension of exempt status for exempt protocols that have not changed is automatic.
The HRPP staff will send annual reminders that ask you to update the status of your research protocol. Once you have completed your research, you must inform the HRPP office by responding to the annual reminder so that the protocol file can be closed.
Sincerely,
Rosemary Cogan, Ph.D., ABPP Protection of Human Subjects Committee
Box 41075 | Lubbock, Texas 79409-1075 | T 806.742.3905 | F 806.742.3947 | www.vpr.ttu.edu An EEO/Affirmative Action Institution
187