Download Title: Attitudes toward advertising in general and the attitude toward

Title:
Attitudes toward advertising in general and the attitude
toward the ad in the European context
Christian Dianoux, (CEREFIGE - University of Paul Verlaine-Metz IUT, Ile du Saulcy, 57045 METZ, France),
Zdenek Linhart, (Czech University of Life Sciences, Prague, Faculty of Economics and
Management)
Galjina Ognjanov (Faculty of Economics - University of Belgrade)
Abstract
Purpose – Mehta (2000) clearly shows “that individual attitudinal factors related to
advertising in general do influence how a respondent reacts to any particular advertisement”.
In an international context, this question becomes more acute because of the many more or
less important differences in terms of attitudes towards advertising between various countries.
Therefore the main purpose of this paper is two-fold: to compare the attitudes towards
advertising in general between four European countries and to analyze the relationship
between attitudes toward advertising in general and the attitude towards a particular ad.
Design/methodology/approach – The European countries covered by the scope of our
research are the two Countries of Eastern Europe (Czech Republic and Serbia) and two
countries of Western Europe (France and Spain) due to their quite different economic and
cultural backgrounds. We have interviewed 456 students about their attitudes toward
advertising in general (Mehta’s, Durvasula’s and Muehling’s scales) and their attitudes
toward an ad for a mobile phone.
Findings – Firstly, there are systematically significant differences between the four countries
whatever the type of dimension which is measured: overall attitude, attitude-instrument,
attitude-institution or beliefs. Secondly, we can advance that attitudes toward advertising in
general are more positive in less developed market economies, although the results are
weaker. Finally, we can observed that, whatever the country, we have a positive significant
correlation between AG and Aad and RA ?????? which is (to explain with the last statistics).
Research limitations/implications – The reliability of the research sample is maintained by
random removal of some respondents in each cell to have a good balance. Each country and
each group of respondents was randomly balanced in this way. Balanced cells enabled us to
use all the data and compensate lacking respondents.
Practical implications – Firms have to be cautious when applying standard advertising
campaigns in different European countries because the link between the attitude toward
advertising in general and the attitude towards specific ad differ even if they have positive
correlation, although we had a very homogeneous sample (young students).
Originality/value – Sets of questions show how consumer’s respect towards “institutions” can
be decreased or increased by found attitudes towards “instrument”. Less respect and more
changing attitudes were found in New European countries in oppose to old EU countries.
Keywords:
Attitude toward advertising, Attitude toward advertising in general, Serbia, Czech Republic,
France, Spain.
The study presented in this paper aims at comparing the attitudes towards advertising in
general between four European countries (two old capitalist countries and two new capitalist
countries) while at the same time analysing the relationship between attitudes toward
advertising in general and the attitude towards a particular ad. The paper starts with the
theoretical background aiming at better understanding the constructs of attitude toward
advertising in general and attitude toward the ad as well as their relationship. The
international context of the research is presented and research hypotheses developed
according to the relevant theoretical background and empirical evidence. The second part of
the paper brings to light the methodology used and our research findings followed by the
discussion, conclusions and implications for managers. We conclude that it exists a lot of
significant differences between countries in terms of attitude toward the advertising in
general, and it is undoubtedly important to take in count when a firm want to launch an
international campaign.
Background and short references to pertinent previous articles
[Note of publisher: Specifically omit endless strings of quotations by other authors, especially
if the ideas are currently well accepted. This is particularly true of citations in the literature
that are five or more years old. If previous material is pertinent, please paraphrase it and
eliminate endnotes and authors. Citations should be used only for significant and timely
contributions. Also, standard textbooks should not be used as references.]
Attitude toward an ad (Aad) is seen as an important theoretical construct, essentially since
1981 with the publication of the two influential articles in the field: Shimp (1981), and
Mitchel and Olson (1981). After these seminal articles, many other studies were particularly
dedicated to show the effects of attitude toward an ad on consumers brand attitudes, brand
choice and purchase intentions (eg. Gardner, 1985; MacKenzie, Lutz, and Belch, 1986;
McKenzie and Lutz, 1989).
On the other hand, a number of studies showed that the attitude toward an ad had, among
other important factor (notably ad credibility, attitudes toward the advertiser, mood), been
influenced by the consumer attitudes toward advertising in general -AG- (eg. Muehling, 1987;
Mehta, 2000).
Paradoxically, “the influence of general advertising attitudes directly on advertising
effectiveness has hardly been studied” (Mehta 2000, p.68), and specifically in cross-national
studies. Indeed, about the questions of standardization or adaptation of the ads, we have to
question if the AG is not an important variable to take in account when an advertiser has to
start an international campaign. Because there are a lot of reasons that the AG differs
significantly between countries (Durvasula, Andrews, Lysonski, Netemeyer, 1999), we can
advance that this relationship influence the Aad and finally the influence of the ads.
Attitude toward advertising in general (AG)
The attitude toward advertising in general (AG) as an important construct in advertising
research has been thoroughly studied in marketing ever since the mid of last century. Firstly,
it has been considered a multidimensional construct incorporating both economic and social
aspects of advertising (Anderson, Engledow and Becker, 1978). Then Sandage and Leckenby
(1980) differentiated advertising as an institution from advertising as an instrument. Linking
his study to the previous research, Muehling (1987) empirically showed that attitudes toward
advertising in general are made up of two dimensions: institution dimension (its purpose and
its effect), and instrument dimension (executional qualities and shortcomings).
Attitude toward an Ad (Aad)
In their extensive overview of the literature on Aad, Percy and Rossiter (1992) explain two
prevailing conceptualizations of the constructs based on two different streams of research
viewing Aad as unidimensional and Aad as multidimensional construct. Aad as
unidimensional construct assumes exclusively an affective component and is derived from the
following definition: a predisposition to respond in a favourable or unfavourable manner to a
particular advertising stimulus during a particular exposure occasion (MacKenzie, Lutz and
Belch, 1986, p.130). On the other hand, the other view of Aad as a multidimensional construct
assumes that it is consisted of both emotional (positive and negative feelings including which
is different from their overall liking/disliking, i.e. affective reaction) as well as cognitive
dimension (i.e. consumer conscious reactions to particular advertisements and its execution
elements).
Classifying the research studies in three broader categories Muehling and McCann (1993)
have also raised the question of further conceptualization of the Aad construct which should
lead to a better understanding of relations between their antecedents, dimensions, moderators
and consequences. Among them AG has been largely accepted in literature as an antecedent
of Aad.
The relationship between AG and Aad
In their structural model of cognitive and affective antecedents of Aad, MacKenzie and Lutz
(1989) proposed attitude toward advertising in general (abbreviated as Atts in their
interpretation) being an important factor to influence attitude toward an advertisement
together with several other factors (ad credibility, ad perceptions, attitude toward advertiser
and mood). Moreover, the two authors analyzed four ad exposure situations (i.e. pure affect
transfer, message based persuasion, contextual evaluation transfer and dual mode persuasion)
dependant on the levels of both ad message and ad execution involvement in all of which AG
were viewed as an important construct explaining ad-based persuasion mechanisms.
Though the theory has been vastly accepted by many researchers in the field, specific research
on the relationship between the two constructs is rare. Mehta (2000) names only a few studies
dedicated to the research on the effects of AG on recalls of advertisements (Donthu, Cherian
and Bhargava, 1993), and how AG influenced consumer involvement in specific
advertisements (James and Kover, 1992). His own research showed the influence of AG on
the overall attention paid to print advertisements (measured as brand recall) as well as on as
persuasiveness (measured as buying interest).
AG in cross-national studies
Literature review in the field has revealed a substantive interest in cross-national
comparisons of AG. However, the studies mostly cover comparisons between US and
other countries such are for example Russia (Andrews, Durvasula and Netemeyer,
1994), Denmark, New Zeland, Greece and India (Andrews, Lysonski, Durvasula, 1991;
Durvasula, Andrews, Lysonski, Netemeyer, 1993). Apart from these, the other most
important cross-cultural studies on attitudes toward advertising in general include
comparisons between two Asian countries – Singapure vs. India (Durvasula, Lysonski,
Mehta, 1999) and between two Eastern Europe countries in transition – Rumania vs.
Bulgaria (Petrovici and Marinov, 2007). These studies are rather consistent in their
findings regarding the differences appearing in attitudes toward advertising across
different nations even if they are mostly based on homogenous samples derived from
student populations. Moreover a study which covers general population (Petrovici and
Marinov, 2007, p.247) strengthens this by showing variations in public opinion towards
advertising between socio-cultural areas in Romania”, p. 247).
Basic premise, major thoughts, problems or concept.
With such a theoretical background, we have hypothesized that we should find significant
differences in attitudes toward advertising in general between most of European countries and
notably in the four countries covered by our research. Therefore, our H1 is stated as follows:
H1: Attitudes toward advertising in general differ significantly between European
countries
In addition, a study revealing the differences in AG in US vs. Russia (Andrews, Durvasula
and Netemeyer, 1994) has thought us that the AG may be more favorable in the countries with
a shorter history of advertising practice and less developed advertising industry. Indeed,
except attitude toward the institution which is much more favorable in US than in Russia, AG
and beliefs toward the social issues are more favorable in Russia than in USA (there is not
significant difference about attitude-instrument).
Since our study aims at investigating whether the same may hold true if European market
economies are compared with their less developed East European counterparts. With rather
limited prior empirical evidence we have thus hypothesized that the same conclusion will
persist among the more and less developed European countries, hence our second hypothesis:
H2: In Europe, the attitudes toward advertising in general are more positive in less
developed market economies of Eastern Europe than in more developed market
economies.
According to the literature AG is regarded among the most important factors influencing Aad
(MacKenzie and Lutz, 1989). Further, several authors discussed the links between AG and
Aad (Donthu, Cherian and Bhargava, 1993 and James and Kover, 1992, Mehta, 2000).
Therefore, the second main goal of our study was to analyze the relationship between the
constructs of AG and Aad in the cross-cultural context while providing empirical evidence for
the existence of the link between positive AG and positive Aad. With the existing theoretical
backdrop we predicted that regardless the countries overall cultural and economic heritage
positive AG are linked to the positive Aad and vice versa. In consequence, our H3 predicted
as follows:
H3: Regardless the country, positive AG is followed by positive Aad with more positive
AG leading to more positive Aad and vice versa.
Discussion of the theory incorporating research.
Our research is focused on the four European countries: the Czech Republic, France, Serbia
and Spain. We found a comparison among them to be very interesting due to their quite
different economic and cultural backgrounds. France and Spain are representing developed
market economies of Western Europe, while the Czech Republic and Serbia are the countries
in transition sharing similar economic and social values deeply rooted in all former socialist
economies of the Eastern Europe. On the other hand, today France, Spain and the Czech
Republic are all member of European Union while Serbia is considered still a developing
market economy of the Western Balkans.
Economically the countries differ very much with France being the biggest market with the
population of 60.9 million and GDP per capita of 31,067 Euros1 while Serbia has been the
smallest market both in terms of the population size (7.3 million) and GDP per capita of 4,578
Euros2. Spain with its population of 43.6 million and 24,083 GDP per capita is closer to
France, while the Czech Republic with a population of 10.2 million and GDP per capita of
12,922 is more next to Serbia. According to total advertising spending per capita the Czech
Republic (211 Euros) is leading before the other three, i.e. France (195 Euros), Serbia (28
Euros) and Spain (23 Euros)3.
Besides economic, there are also deep cultural differences between the four countries. In
terms of cultural dimensions developed by Hofstede, Spain and France were found to be
individualistic cultures (Hofstede, Bond, 1988, p.12). On the other hand, the cultural values in
Serbia are still based on collectivism, which is deeply rooted in orthodox Christianity. The
global individualistic Hofstede (2005) scores are the following: Serbia (25), Spain (51), CR
(60), and France (71).
According to de Mooij (2000) the media structure of overall TV spending well mirrors the
acquired cultural values, with individualistic cultures being more relying on newspapers and
collectivist cultures on TV in their overall media consumption. The advertising data for the
four countries covered by our survey well support this theory. In Serbia, the share of TV ad
spending in 2008 was 59%, while print media accounted for 25%. The situation in other three
countries was well different in 2008 with TV accounting at 45% in the Czech Republic, 45%
in Spain and 35% in France. In the same year the share of print advertising spending was
highest in France (36%), followed by the Czech Republic (34%), and Spain (30%).
The sample
Most cross-national studies are based on student samples due to their homogeneity which is
acknowledged highly important by authors (Durvasula, Andrews, Lysonski, Netemeyer,
1993). Therefore, in our study we also use student samples consisting of 456 (undergraduate
and graduate) business students at four universities in the countries covered by our research:
the Czech Republic, France, Serbia and Spain.
The questionnaire administration and the measures
During a business course respondents from each country were asked firstly to answer some
questions about their attitudes toward the advertisements in general. For measuring AG, we
have used:
-Muehling’s scale (1987) to measure the overall attitude toward advertising in general
(advertising in general is good/bad, Unfavorable/favorable, negative/positive) with a
seven-point semantic differential pairs;
-Durvasula et al.’s scale (1993) to measure attitude institution (important/unimportant,
worthless/valuable, unnecessary/necessary) and attitude instrument (dirty/clean,
1
GDP per capita for France, Spain and the Czech Republic (2008) were calculated based on Pocket World in
Figures, 2010 Edition, The Economist, Profile Books, London. Data for Serbia were not available from the same
source,
2
Calculated based on data (2008) available at Republican Statistical Office Serbia
http://webrzs.stat.gov.rs/axd/drugastrana.php?Sifra=0001&izbor=odel&tab=30 (accessed September, 17th 2010)
3
Data for France, Spain and the Czech Republic (2008) were calculated based on Euromonitor International for
World Association of Newspapers, while the data for Serbia (2008) were obtained from Strategic Marketing at
Beta Press, http://80.93.235.24/?tip=static&kategorija=industrija&ida=2355639&id=KVXX0003&ime=Prixtina
dishonest/honest, insincere/sincere, and dangerous/safe) with a seven-point semantic
differential pairs;
- Durvasula et al.’s Scale (1999) to measure the beliefs on economic issues (advertising
in general is essential, provide lower prices, raises standard living, better products) and
on social issues (advertising insults intelligence, often persuades people to buy things
they shouldn't buy, and presents true picture);
-Mehta’s scale (2000) with a seven-point Likert scale (advertising helps me keep up-todate about products and services that I need or would like to have; Too many products
do not perform as well as the ads claim; advertising is more manipulative than it is
informative; Much of advertising is way too annoying; I like to look at advertising; On
average, brands that are advertised are better in quality than brands that are not
advertised). We asked these questions about three media (magazine, TV, billboards).
Secondly, we have shown to students an ad for a mobile phone (it was exactly the same ad in
each country except characteristic information which was translated) and we have asked them
to complete a second questionnaire. This questionnaire contained 21 verbal measures of their
affective reactions toward the ad (Derbaix, 1995); 8 questions regarding their attitude toward
the ad (adapted from Coulter, 1998; MacKenzie, Lutz, and Belch, 1986); and 16 questions on
product involvement with mobile phones (Kapferer and Laurent, 1986). All items originally
in English-language were translated into Czech, French, Serbian, and Spanish using the
procedure suggested by Brislin (1976), then finalized according to three expert reactions in
each country. During the questions on Aad and affective reactions, respondents had under
their eyes the ad.
Case example supporting concept
With the last results……………
We can see in table 1 and table 2 that H1 is confirmed. Except for 5 items, we have globally a
significant difference between countries (p.<0.05) and we can advance that attitudes toward
advertising in general in France, Spain, the Czech Republic and Serbia differ significantly.
Post-hoc tests show that this trend is globally supported.
Table 1: Attitude toward advertising in general in the four countries (Durvasula’s and
Muehling’s scales)
Dependent variables
CR
Fr.
Serbia Spain Total
F
p.
A- Overall attitude1
Q2a
Unfavorable/Favorable
Q2b
Bad/Good
Q2c
Negative/Positive
Q3a
Dislike/Like*
3,57
4,47
5,17
3,40
3,17
3,98
3,10
2,83
3,96
4,52
3,87
4,20
3,69
3,81
3,43
3,44
3,60
4,22
3,95
3,48
2,222
3,181
20,106
5,599
,088
,025
,000
,001
B- Attitudes2
Attitude Instrument
Q2d
Dishonest/Honest
Q2e
Dangerous/Safe
Q2f
Insincere/Sincere
Q2g
Dirty/Clean
3,28
3,70
2,94
3,94
2,74
2,29
2,52
3,43
3,56
3,89
3,24
3,80
3,33
4,06
3,31
4,06
3,23
3,48
2,99
3,80
2,976
18,484
3,397
1,807
,033
,000
,019
,148
Q2h
Q2i
Q2j
Q2k
Q2l
Q2m
4,57
2,19
3,66
3,19
4,30
4,19
3,76
2,00
3,50
2,33
3,90
3,88
4,89
2,91
3,61
3,64
3,83
4,72
4,94
2,81
3,94
3,61
3,83
4,69
4,54
2,47
3,67
3,19
3,98
4,36
4,672
2,963
,589
7,762
1,011
3,472
,004
,034
,623
,000
,389
,017
C- Beliefs3
Social Issues
Q3b
Insults intelligence
Q3c
Presents true picture
Q3e
Often persuades
4,53
2,85
5,40
5,33
2,14
6,00
4,46
3,30
6,00
3,67
2,86
4,92
4,53
2,80
5,61
7,686
5,526
4,942
,000
,001
,003
3,41
3,15
3,79
4,63
4,630
2,827
9,910
1,760
,004
,040
,000
,157
Attitude Institution
Unnecessary/Necessary
Unimportant/Important
Worthless/Valuable
Weak/Strong
Boring/Interesting*
Useless/Useful*
Economic Issues
Q3d
Lower prices
3,51
2,69
3,40
4,11
Q3f
Raises std living
3,28
2,57
3,22
3,56
Q3g
Essential
2,85
3,86
4,48
4,06
Q3h
Better products
4,55
4,21
4,93
4,83
1- Muehling’s scale (1987) 2- Durvasula et al.’s scale (1993) 3- Durvasula et al.’s scale (1999)
* Not present in original scales, added by authors
In grey: no significant at p.=0.05
Table 2: Attitude toward advertising in general in the four countries (Mehta’s scale, 1987)
Dependent variables
CR
Spain
Fr.
Serbia Total
F
p.
(n=47)
a)...helps me
keep up-todate…
b)… products
do not perform
as well as the
ads claim
c)… is more
manipulative
than it is
informative
d) Much of
advertising is
way too
annoying
Mag.
TV
Billboard
Mag.
TV
Billboard
Mag.
TV
Billboard
Mag.
TV
Billboard
Mag.
e) I like to look
at advertising
TV
Billboard
f) Advertised
brands are
better in quality
than others
Mag.
TV
Billboard
Mag.
g) There are too
many ads*
TV
Billboard
(n=42)
(n=46)
(n=36)
4,62
3,76
4,58
4,58
4,39
3,347
,021
3,85
4,10
4,93
4,72
4,38
4,600
,004
2,87
3,50
4,18
3,67
3,54
5,962
,001
4,36
5,88
4,93
4,75
4,97
8,292
,000
5,43
6,31
5,98
5,86
5,88
4,466
,005
4,83
5,36
4,89
4,56
4,92
2,234
,086
4,26
5,79
4,22
4,33
4,64
10,631
,000
5,74
6,26
5,54
5,56
5,78
3,071
,029
5,04
5,29
4,87
4,69
4,98
1,152
,330
4,19
4,26
3,78
4,24
4,11
,731
,535
5,60
3,40
3,96
4,74
4,43
13,155
,000
4,70
4,02
4,07
3,85
4,19
2,344
,075
3,09
4,00
4,37
4,16
3,87
5,530
,001
2,74
4,24
4,47
3,94
3,81
9,501
,000
2,91
4,43
4,18
4,19
3,88
8,229
,000
3,53
3,21
4,47
3,71
3,74
4,124
,007
3,06
3,10
4,33
4,34
3,67
6,651
,000
3,17
3,19
4,24
4,06
3,64
4,710
,004
5,55
5,55
5,65
5,36
5,54
,211
,889
6,09
6,71
6,57
6,28
6,41
2,350
,074
5,72
5,19
5,35
4,89
5,32
1,809
,147
* Not present in Mehta’s scale
In grey: no significant at p.=0.05
Globally we can observe the following trend: French have the most negative attitude, and
Serbian have the most positive attitude. Czech and Spanish have a median position. So these
results confirm H2: Attitudes toward advertising in general are more positive in less
developed market economies. The post hoc tests confirm this trend.
Table 3: Pearson’s correlation between AG and Aad (dislike/like the ad) in the four countries
with Muehling’s and Durvasula et al.’s scales
Dependent variables
All
CR
Spain
Fr.
Serbia
(n=47)
(n=42)
(n=46)
(n=36)
countries
(n=171)
A- Overall attitude
Q2a
Unfavorable/Favorable1
Q2b
Bad/Good1
Q2c
Negative/Positive1
Q3a
Dislike/Like
,393**
,379**
0,09
0,02
0,16
0,23
0,20
,334*
0,02
0,12
0,17
0,15
0,19
0,10
0,04
0,25
,189*
,219**
,240**
,179*
B- Attitudes
Attitude Instrument
Q2d
Dishonest/Honest2
Q2e
Dangerous/Safe2
Q2f
Insincere/Sincere2
Q2g
Dirty/Clean2
-0,16
0,13
0,11
0,21
0,06
0,07
0,14
0,12
0,11
0,17
0,11
-0,19
0,01
0,31
0,21
0,16
0,05
,239**
,160*
0,13
Q2h
Q2i
Q2j
Q2k
Q2l
Q2m
0,03
0,09
0,22
0,24
0,27
,357*
0,29
0,14
0,22
0,12
,312*
0,30
0,19
0,08
,430**
0,14
0,06
-0,07
,406*
0,13
-0,03
0,19
0,13
0,19
,245**
0,11
,240**
,214**
,214**
,206**
C- Beliefs
Social Issues
Q3b
Insults intelligence3
Q3c
Presents true picture3
Q3e
Often persuades3
-0,26
-0,15
0,03
-0,02
0,00
,395**
0,12
0,27
0,21
-0,32
-0,03
0,17
-,162*
0,07
0,10
0,01
,380**
0,06
0,23
0,18
0,06
0,28
0,23
0,12
-0,04
0,27
0,10
0,09
0,06
,386*
0,22
,153*
,168*
0,13
,202**
Attitude institution
Unnecessary/Necessary2
Unimportant/Important2
Worthless/Valuable2
Weak/Strong
Boring/Interesting******
Useless/Useful
Economic Issues
Lower prices3
Raises std living3
Essential3
Better products3
Q3d
Q3f
Q3g
Q3h
1- Muehling’s
scale (1987)
et al.’s scale (1993)
3- Durvasula et al.’s Scale (1999)
2- -Durvasula
Yellow- Not present in original scales, added by authors
In grey: no significant at p.=0.05 - * p<0.05 - ** p<0.01 - (two-tailed)
About H3, table 3 show that when we take all countries together (CR, Spain, France and
Serbia) we have quasi systematically a significant correlation between the items which
measure AG and the principal item which measures Aad (dislike/like the ad for mobile phone
that we have shown to the respondents). We observe more or less the same results when we
compare the answers for the other items measuring Aad.
So we can advance that globally there is a link between positive AG and positive Aad and
vice-versa. Indeed, with the level of significance for two-tailed test (p<0.05), we have
received always r>0 except for one item which is a negative item (“advertising in general
insults the intelligence”) with r= -0,162*.
When we look at the other results for each country separately, we can mention that we have
the same trends but it is rarely significant because of the size of the sample. For example, in
Serbia the level of significance for two-tailed test is 0.325 which is a very strong correlation.
Although we are not able to accept our hypothesis with these results, they encourage us to
think that with a larger sample H3 should not be dismissed and we should point up that
whatever the country, there is a positive link between positive AG and positive Aad and vice
versa.
Table 4: Pearson’s correlation between AG and Aad (dislike/like the ad) in the four countries
with Mehta’s scale
Dependent variables
a)...helps me
keep up-todate…
b)… products
do not perform
as well as the
ads claim
c)… is more
manipulative
than it is
informative
d) Much of
advertising is
way too
annoying
e) I like to look
at advertising
f) Advertised
brands are
better in quality
than others
g) There are too
many ads1
CR
(n=47)
Spain
(n=42)
Fr.
(n=46)
Serbia
(n=36)
All
countries
(n=171)
Mag.
,158
,308*
,464**
,066
,293**
TV
,218
,500**
-,058
-,002
,160*
Billboard
,291*
,157
-,061
-,004
,032
Mag.
,222
-,054
-,147
,115
-,085
TV
,106
-,007
,201
-,152
-,042
Billboard
,319*
-,015
-,028
-,113
-,003
Mag.
-,025
-,111
-,323*
,072
-,187*
TV
-,009
-,022
-,174
-,122
-,114
Billboard
,039
-,001
-,371*
-,136
-,113
Mag.
-,089
-,282
-,244
,054
-,136
TV
-,175
-,301
-,016
-,028
,031
Billboard
-,363*
-,155
-,014
,048
-,069
Mag.
,061
,253
,172
,425*
,118
TV
-,015
,348*
,302*
,011
,043
Billboard
,310*
,250
,048
,174
,065
Mag.
,184
,261
,030
,127
,139
TV
,091
,243
-,062
,341*
,111
Billboard
,142
,313*
-,155
-,042
,063
Mag.
,179
-,171
,069
,082
,032
TV
,060
-,013
,192
,086
,000
Billboard
-,077
-,004
,004
-,027
,000
1- Not present in original scales, added by authors
In grey: no significant at p.=0.05 - * p<0.05 - ** p<0.01 - (two-tailed)
Results show in table 4 are more difficult to interpret because there are not a lot of significant
results for each country separately and also for all countries (with n=171). All the significant
results show a logical correlation: when the item is positive r is positive and vice-versa, but
the results are not very strong to invite us in this way. So, maybe metha’s scale is not
appropriate here.
Summary of key ideas
We have to wait the last results with all data and aggregated variables………….
In conclusion, it would seem that H1 should be accepted because we notice significant
differences between the four groups. So we can advance that Attitudes toward advertising in
general in France, Spain, the Czech Republic and Serbia differ significantly. Of course it is
not always the same trend between countries, but globally there are systematically differences
between them whatever the type of dimension which is measured: attitude-instrument,
attitude-institution or beliefs. Mehta’s scale confirms this trend whatever the support.
For H2, although the results are weaker, we can also advance that apparently, attitudes toward
advertising in general are more positive in less developed market economies.
Beyond the fact that these results are worthy of deeper statistical investigations to detail
relationships, three main limitations should be emphasized.
Firstly and it is the most important, the sample is too small and we must have complementary
survey with a bigger sample if we want to confirm our hypotheses.
Secondly we must reinforce the number of countries if we want to have a representative
European sample.
Thirdly these partial results are encouraging but essentially with Muehling’s scale (1987),
Durvasula et al.’s scale (1993), and Durvasula et al.’s Scale (1999). The Metha’s scale seem
not very useful in this context.
Managerial Implications and Applications
Managers can apply only two rules through the all EU countries. Firstly, managers know that
all advertising together creates noise, but their specific ad of can skip out of it. It was
confirmed by sentence “Advertising in general insults the intelligence” with r= -0,162*.
Secondly, an attitude towards their ad will correlate with general attitude towards advertising,
which is in each country different. Answers on all other questions have no generally
applicable explanation in researched countries. Therefore, the ad standardization between EU
countries was denied and ad adaptation needed. It is suggested that managers can reduce costs
for ad adaptation for two categories of countries based on experience with communism, which
divides Europe on the new and the old capitalistic countries.
References
Anderson, R.D., Engledow, J.L., Becker, H. (1978), “How Consumer Reports Subscribers See
Advertising”. Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 18 No. 6, pp. 29-35.
Andrews, J.C., Durvasula, S., Netemeyer, R.G. (1994) “Testing the Cross-National
Applicability of U.S. and Russian Advertising Belief and Attitude Measures”. Journal of
Advertising, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 71-82.
Andrews, J., Lysonski, S., Durvasula, S. (1991), “Understanding Cross-Cultural Student
Perceptions of Advertising in General: Implications for Advertising Educators and
Practitioners”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 20 No.2, pp. 15-28.
Brislin, R. (1976), “Comparative research methodology: Cross-cultural studies”, International
Journal of Psychology, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 215-229.
de Mooij, M. (2000), “The future is predictable for international marketers: Converging
incomes lead to diverging consumer behavior”, International Marketing Review, Vol.
17, pp. 103–113.
Derbaix, C. M. (1995), “The Impact of Affective Reactions on Attitudes Toward the
Advertisement and the Brand: A Step Toward Ecological Validity”, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 470-479.
Donthu, N. J., Cherian, J., Bhargava, M. (1993), "Factors Influencing Recall of Outdoor
Advertising," Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 64-72.
Durvasula, S., Andrews, J. C., Lysonski, S., Netemeyer, R.G. (1993), “Assessing the Crossnational Applicability of Consumer Behavior Models: A Model of Attitude toward
Advertising in General”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 626-636.
Durvasula, S., Lysonski, S., Mehta, S.C. (1999), “A Cross-Cultural Comparison Of Cognitive
Responses, Beliefs, And Attitudes Toward Advertising In General In Two Asian
Countries”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 48-59.
Gardner, M.P. (1985), “Does Attitude Toward the Ad Affect Brand Attitude Under a Brand
Evaluation Set?”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp.192-198.
Hofstede, G., Bond, M.H. (1988), “The Confucius connection: From cultural roots to
economic growth”, Organizational Dynamics Vol. 16, pp. 4-21.
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G.J. (2005). Cultures and organizations: software of the mind
(Revised and expanded 2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
James, W.L., Kover, A.J. (1992), “Observations: do overall attitudes toward advertising affect
involvement with specific advertisements?” Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 32
No. 5, pp. 78-83.
Kapferer, J.N., Laurent, G. (1986), “Consumer involvement profiles: A new practical
approach to consumer involvement”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 25 No. 6,
pp. 48-56.
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, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 130-143.
MacKenzie, S.B., Lutz, R.J. (1989) “Am Empirical Examination of the Structural
Antecedents of Attitude Toward the Ad in an Advertising Pretesting Context.” Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 53, No. 2, pp. 48 - 65.
Mehta, A. (2000), “Advertising Attitudes and Advertising Effectiveness”, Journal of
Advertising Research, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 67-72.
Mitchell, A.A., Olson, J.C. (1981), “Are Product Attribute Beliefs the Only Mediator of
Advertising Effects on Brand Attitude?” Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 3,
pp. 318-332.
Muehling, D.D. (1987), “An Investigation Of Factors Underlying Attitude-TowardAdvertising-In-General”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 32-40.
Muehling, D.D., McCann, M., (1993) „Attitude Toward The Ad: A Review”, Journal of
Current Issues & Research in Advertising, Vol. 15 No.2, pp. 25-59.
Percy, L., Rossiter, J.R. (1992), “Advertising Stimulus Effects: A Review” Journal of
Current Issues & Research in Advertising, Vol. 14 No.1, pp.75-90.
Petrovici, D., Marinov, M. (2007), “Determinants and antecedents of general attitudes
towards advertising: A study of two EU accession countries” European Journal of
Marketing”, Vol. 41 No. 3/4.
Sandage, C. H., Leckenby, J.D. (1980), “Student Attitudes Toward Advertising: Institution
Vs. Instrument”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp.29-44.
Shimp, T.A., (1981) “Attitude Toward The Ad As A Mediator Of Consumer Brand Choice”,
Journal of Advertising, Vol. 10 No.2, pp. 9-48.