Download the influence of consumers` ethnic identity on advertising responses

THE INFLUENCE OF
CONSUMERS’ ETHNIC IDENTITY ON
ADVERTISING RESPONSES
BY
ELISABETH A. DER KINDEREN
(SURINAME)
“This paper was submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Masters of
Business Administration (MBA) degree at the Maastricht School of Management (MSM),
Maastricht, the Netherlands, July 2005.”
The Influence of Consumers’ Ethnic Identity on Advertising Reponses
ii
The Influence of Consumers’ Ethnic Identity on Advertising Reponses
DEDICATION
This research is dedicated to my parents
for their unconditional support during
my whole ‘MBA-journey’.
iii
The Influence of Consumers’ Ethnic Identity on Advertising Reponses
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
A number of people made this research possible. I am grateful to all who have
contributed to and supported my work. I would like to express my appreciation first to my
supervisor Mr. Peter Coekelebergh who provided me with his kind and useful feedback
I sincerely recognize the contribution of Drs. Wim Zeggen who helped me a lot and I
am thankful to him for sharing his knowledge and being so patience with me.
Thanks to my fellow students of MBA-intake 1, I cannot put in words my gratitude
for their friendship and support during the past two years. I also appreciate the indefatigable
support from my family and friends.
Special mention goes out to Eng. Patrick Krolis who introduced me to the MBA
program and who has been supportive throughout the program.
Last but not least, I would like to extend my thanks to Mr. Hans Lim A Po, director
F.H.R Lim A Po Institute for Social Studies and Mrs. Ollye Chin A Sen for making this MBA
program a success and an experience worthwhile.
iv
The Influence of Consumers’ Ethnic Identity on Advertising Reponses
ABSTRACT
Nearly all research on the relation between ethnicity and consumers’ response to
advertisements has been done in the United States. The ethnic, racial and cultural
composition of the population of Suriname is different from the population of the United
States. This raises the question if findings of these researches - demonstrating the effects of
consumers’ ethnic identity on responses to advertisements - are cross culturally robust. This
research examines the cross culturally robustness of these findings by employing a ‘2 x 6
between subjects’ design to investigate the influence of consumers’ ethnic identity on
advertising responses in Suriname. The focus of the research is on advertising responses of
members of Suriname’s two largest ethnic groups: Hindustanis and Creoles. The types of
advertising responses investigated are attitudinal responses: Attitude toward the
Advertisement, Attitude toward the Model, Identification with the Model and Targetedness.
The hypotheses test whether or not ethnicity of the model featured in the advertisement and
the level of cultural embeddedness of advertisements influence advertising responses.
Furthermore, the hypotheses test whether or not multi-cultural cues in an advertisement
moderate the effect of model’s ethnicity on advertising responses and if viewers’ strength of
ethnic identification affects these advertising responses. In total 126 subjects were involved
with the experiment of which 49 identified themselves as Creole and 47 as Hindustani.
Findings of this study indicate that Creoles as well as Hindustanis identify themselves
more with the model of own ethnicity and feel more targeted by the advertisement featuring a
model of similar ethnicity than by the advertisement featuring a model of dissimilar ethnicity.
Findings also suggest that, contrary to expectations, neither Creoles nor Hindustanis have
more favorable advertising responses to the high culturally embedded advertisements than to
the low culturally embedded advertisements; only Hindustanis feel more targeted by a high
Hindustani culturally embedded advertisement. Additionally, multi-cultural advertising cues
do moderate the effect of a model’s ethnicity on viewers’ advertising responses; suggesting
that an advertiser may be able to reach multiple groups of different cultural or ethnic
backgrounds. Creoles as well as Hindustanis feel more targeted and have a more favorable
attitude towards the multi-cultural embedded advertisement featuring a model of dissimilar
ethnicity than towards an advertisement without these multi-cultural cues.
Keywords: Ethnic Identity, Advertising, Cultural Embeddedness
v
The Influence of Consumers’ Ethnic Identity on Advertising Responses
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEGDEMENT……………………………………………………...iv
ABSTRACT…………………………………………………………………….v
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1
Introduction................................................................................................................4
1.2
Suriname context .......................................................................................................4
1.2.1
Ethnic groups .........................................................................................................5
1.2.2
Advertising in Suriname.........................................................................................5
1.3
Problem Statement .....................................................................................................7
1.4
Objectives of Research ..............................................................................................7
1.5
Research Questions....................................................................................................8
1.6
Scope and Limitations of Research............................................................................9
1.7
Approach and Research Method..............................................................................10
1.8
Relevance of Research.............................................................................................10
1.9
Structure of Research Paper.....................................................................................10
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1
Introduction..............................................................................................................11
2.2
Marketing to Ethnic Consumers ..............................................................................11
2.3
Ethnic Identity..........................................................................................................12
2.3.1
Definition of Ethnic Identity.................................................................................13
2.3.2
Components of Ethnic Identity.............................................................................14
2.3.3
Types of Ethnic Identity .......................................................................................15
2.3.4
Previous Research on the Impact of Ethnic Identity............................................16
2.4
Theoretical Foundation ............................................................................................18
2.4.1
Distinctiveness Theory .........................................................................................18
2.4.2
Identification Theory............................................................................................21
2.4.3
Intercultural Accommodation ..............................................................................23
1
The Influence of Consumers’ Ethnic Identity on Advertising Responses
2.5
Advertising Effectiveness ........................................................................................26
2.5.1
Definition of Advertising Effectiveness................................................................26
2.5.2
Advertising Response Models ..............................................................................26
2.5.3
Techniques for Measuring Advertising Effectiveness ..........................................27
2.5.4
Copy Testing ........................................................................................................29
2.6
Summary ..................................................................................................................31
CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY
3.1
Introduction..............................................................................................................33
3.2
Hypotheses...............................................................................................................33
3.3
Design ......................................................................................................................36
3.4
Subjects ....................................................................................................................37
3.5
Stimuli material........................................................................................................37
3.6
Procedure .................................................................................................................38
3.7
Measurements ..........................................................................................................39
3.7.1
Ethnic salience .....................................................................................................39
3.7.2
Ethnic identity ......................................................................................................39
3.7.3
Attitude towards the Advertisement .....................................................................40
3.7.4
Attitude towards the Model..................................................................................40
3.7.5
Identification with the Model ...............................................................................41
3.7.6
Targetedness ........................................................................................................41
3.8
Analysis....................................................................................................................41
3.9
Summary ..................................................................................................................42
CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS
4.1
Introduction..............................................................................................................43
4.2
Salience of Ethnicity ................................................................................................43
4.3
Advertising Responses.............................................................................................43
4.3.1
Interaction and Main Effects................................................................................44
4.3.2
Hypotheses Testing..............................................................................................44
4.4
Summary ..................................................................................................................54
2
The Influence of Consumers’ Ethnic Identity on Advertising Responses
CHAPTER FIVE
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1
Introduction..............................................................................................................55
5.2
Conclusions on The Influence of Ethnic Identity on Advertising Responses (in
Suriname).............................................................................................................................55
5.3
Conclusions on Cross Culturally Robustness of Previous Research .......................56
5.4
Limitations of the Study...........................................................................................58
5.5
Recommendations for Effective Advertisements ....................................................58
5.6
Recommendations for Future Research ...................................................................59
LIST OF REFERENCES………………………………………………………61
APPENDIX 1……………………………………………………………………I
APPENDIX 2.………………………………………………………………..VIII
APPENDIX 3…………………………………………………………………XX
APPENDIX 4………………………………………………………………XXIX
TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Strategies for Marketing to Ethnic Consumers .......................................................12
Figure 2. A Partial Model of Intercultural Accommodation...................................................24
Table 1. Mean Responses and Standard Deviations for Creole Identifiers .............................45
Table 2. Mean Responses and Standard Deviations for Hindustani Identifiers .....................46
3
The Influence of Consumers’ Ethnic Identity on Advertising Responses
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction
An important challenge for a marketer in a multicultural marketplace is to make an
advertisement that is relevant to many people as possible, without offending or alienating
others. In the process of creating targeted advertisements for multicultural marketplaces,
marketers look for meaningful characteristics by which to divide a single heterogeneous
market into separate homogenous segments (Grier and Brumbaugh 2002). Ethnicity is one of
those characteristics. In many cases, ethnic consumers have no visible preferences for certain
product attributes or features, but the communication element regarding a product may vary
greatly among consumers, in terms of values, languages, advertising appeals and media usage
patterns. Therefore, when designing advertising messages and selecting channels, marketers
need to ensure that one is sensitive to the traditions and feelings of ethnic consumers (Chui
1997).
The title of the paper already indicates that this research paper deals with the subject of
consumer’s ethnic identity in relation to their advertising responses. In order to put the
subject in a Surinamese context the next paragraph will discuss briefly the different ethnic
groups in Suriname and provides a general overview of advertising in Suriname. This first
chapter is an introductory chapter. After the paragraph on Surinamese context subsequently
the problem statement, the research objectives, scope, research questions, research
methodology and relevance will be discussed. Chapter one will finish off with an overview of
the structure of this research paper.
1.2 Suriname context
As mentioned above, this paragraph is dedicated to discuss briefly the different ethnic
groups in Suriname and to provide an impression on advertising in Suriname.
4
The Influence of Consumers’ Ethnic Identity on Advertising Responses
1.2.1 Ethnic groups
The population of Suriname is very much ethnically diverse. Suriname's population
consists of:
•
Hindustani (37%): the ‘East Indians’, their ancestors emigrated from northern India in
the latter part of the 19th century;
•
Creole (31%): African or mixed African and European ancestry.
•
Javanese (15%): their ancestors emigrated from Java (Indonesia) to Suriname in the
last decennia of the 19th century;
•
Maroons (10%): the Maroons are the descendents of escaped slaves who fought
themselves free and established viable, autonomous communities along the major
rivers of Suriname rainforest interior in the 17th and 18th centuries;
•
Amerindian (2%): the indigenous people, the original inhabitants of Suriname;
•
Chinese (2%);
•
White (1%) and other (2%)
Dutch is still the official language, but in the streets you hear a "lingua franca" called
Sranang Tongo, which has elements from English, African, Dutch and many other languages.
But the original mother-languages are also spoken within cultural groups, such as
Surinamese-Hindustani (Sarnami), Indonesian (Javanese), Chinese and several Amerindian
and Maroon languages. Christianity, Hinduism and Islam are all practiced religions. Most
ethnic groups tend to maintain their own language, culture and religion, which is apparent
also throughout the existing media, politics and (social) organizations.
1.2.2 Advertising in Suriname
The most common forms of advertising in Suriname are TV advertisements, radio
advertisements, print advertisements, billboards and wall paintings. There are currently about
fifteen television channels, more than twenty five radio stations, four daily newspapers and
several periodicals and magazines. About twenty-five percent of a newspaper consists of
advertisements and ten to eighteen minutes per hour are used for commercial purposes on the
radio. This figure is lower for television. Radio advertising is relatively cheap, as well as
television advertising. Print advertising is one of the most expensive forms of advertising in
Suriname.
5
The Influence of Consumers’ Ethnic Identity on Advertising Responses
Media organizations, as well as advertising agencies and other practitioners in the field
of advertising declare that there has been an increase in advertising over the last five years.
Although there are no numbers available to support this statement, they state that the number
of advertisers as well as the frequency of advertising has increased.
Surinamese consumers are being exposed to locally produced advertisements as well as
international produced advertisements. These international or ‘foreign’ advertisements
promoting an international brand or product are most of the time in English and feature
models with whom probably only a small part of the viewers can identify based on the
ethnicity of the model. For example, TV commercials for Dutch beer (e.g. Grolsch, Bavaria)
feature usually only white models, or Coca-Cola commercials aired in Suriname - which have
been produced in the Caribbean or Latin- America - feature typically black or Latin models.
In locally produced advertisements one often tries to represent the diverse ethnic groups
by using several models with different ethnicity or one has a tendency to use models in
advertisements that represent their own ethnic group. In other words, an advertisement for a
company that is owned by a person with a Hindustani ethnicity features usually models with
a Hindustani ethnicity.
A media- and advertising research of 2002 provides insight on the ‘viewing -, reading
and listening habits’ of consumers in Suriname. This research was conducted among 600
respondents living in different areas of Suriname by the Institute for Social Scientific
Research (IMWO). The findings of this research demonstrate that:
92% of the population reads one or more newspapers, or magazine available in
Suriname. The main reason for selecting a newspaper or magazine to read is the news and
other information the reader is able to obtain from that newspaper or magazine. The
advertising in the newspapers or magazines does not influence the selection of a newspaper
of magazine;
99% of the population listens to one or more radio channels. One listens during the
whole day to the radio. The news- and informative character of the preferred radio station is
the most important reason for the majority for listening to a radio channel. The second most
import reason is the ethnic language spoken on a channel. The combination of these two
reasons explains the popularity of different radio channels in different areas of Suriname,
where the population is dominated by certain ethnic group;
6
The Influence of Consumers’ Ethnic Identity on Advertising Responses
98% of the population watches one or more Surinamese television channels. One mainly
watches television in the evening. The choice for a certain channels depends on the programs
shown. As well as for selecting a radio or television channel the advertising on the different
channels does not have any impact on the selection.
Other important findings of this research were that 86% of the respondents were able to
recall an advertisement out of the newspaper, 89% remembered an advertisement on the radio
and that 92% of the respondents remembered a television advertisement. Advertisements in
newspapers were mainly remembered because of a rich illustrative lay-out. The likeability of
the advertisement and the frequency of being exposed to an advertisement were the main
factors for recalling advertisements on radio and television.
Further more this research also concluded that respondents prefer advertisement in Dutch
(official language) above English, Sranang Tongo or one of the ethnic languages.
Respondents seemed not to have a preference for types of music, gender and ethnicity of the
models. It is important to mention that the respondents were directly addressed with these
questions, in contradiction to the methods employed in the majority of research dealing with
these issues.
1.3 Problem Statement
Nearly all research on the relation between ethnicity and consumers’ response to
advertisements has been done in the United States.
The ethnic, racial and cultural
composition of the population of Suriname is different from the population of the United
States. This raises the issue whether or not findings of these researches - demonstrating the
effects of consumers’ ethnic identity on responses to advertisements - are robust cross
culturally.
1.4 Objectives of Research
The objectives of this research are:
•
To provide an (partial) answer to the question raised in the problem statement by
investigating the effect of consumers’ ethnic identity on response to advertisements in
Suriname
•
To make recommendations for effective advertisements in Suriname as a multicultural marketplace.
7
The Influence of Consumers’ Ethnic Identity on Advertising Responses
1.5 Research Questions
In order to understand the effect of consumers’ ethnic identity on advertising response in
Suriname it is important to know whether or not ethnicity can be perceived as a distinctive
salient trait for Surinamese consumers as part of an ethnic diverse population. Following the
distinctiveness theory of McGuire and colleagues (1978) it is to be expected that ethnicity is
more salient to people living in ethnically mixed society than to people living in a segregated
society, and that consumers of a numerical minority group will be more likely to deem their
ethnic identity salient than members of numerical majority group would.
RQ 1:
Is ethnicity a distinctive salient trait for Surinamese consumers?
The authors of the study “A Tale of two cities: Distinctiveness Theory and Advertising
Effectiveness” (Deshpande and Stayman 1994) found that members of minority (versus
majority) groups were more likely than majority groups to have their ethnicity salient.
Furthermore they found that members of minority groups find an advertisement spokesperson
of their own ethnicity to be more trustworthy which led to more positive attitudes towards the
advertisement and to the brand being advertised.
The results of the study by Whittler and Spira (2002) “Model’s Race: A Peripheral cue in
Advertising Messages” suggests that black viewers’ differential responses to an
advertisement featuring black and white models are moderated by the level of their
identification with black culture, Specifically, blacks who identify strongly with the black
culture (strong black identifiers) have more favorable evaluations of advertisement, product
and model when the model is black, whereas weak black identifiers’ evaluations do not differ
on models’ race.
RQ 2a:
Does the ethnicity of the model featured in the advertisement affect viewers’
responses to the advertisement?
RQ 2b:
Does viewers’ level of ethnic identification affect viewers’ responses -- influenced by
the ethnicity of the model featured in the advertisement - to the advertisement?
The study “Ethnic Identification on Adolescents’ Evaluations of Advertisements” (Osei
Appai 2001) does not perform the research with only a model’s ethnicity taken into account,
but also examines the effects of different cultural advertising cues. The study suggests that
8
The Influence of Consumers’ Ethnic Identity on Advertising Responses
the presence of black characters in advertisements, and in some cases black cultural cues,
significantly influenced black and white adolescents’ responses. The main effects indicated
that black adolescents felt more targeted by, and rated more favorably, black characters in
culturally embedded advertisements than they did white characters in culturally embedded
advertisements.
RQ 3a:
Does the level of cultural embeddedness of advertisements affect viewers’ responses
to the advertisement?
RQ 3b:
Does viewers’ level of ethnic identification affect viewers’ responses to high and low
cultural embedded advertisements?
A research by Greenlee and Oakenfull (2000) suggests that an advertiser may be able to
reach multiple target segments with one advertising appeal that combines cues viewed
favorably by consumers from different cultural backgrounds. Does this indicate that the effect
of a model’s ethnicity on consumers’ responses to advertisements can be moderated by using
multi-cultural cues in the advertisement?
RQ 4:
Do multi-cultural cues in the advertisement moderate the effect of a model’s ethnicity
on viewers’ responses to the advertisement?
1.6 Scope and Limitations of Research
Even though this research will explore ethnic identification and the advertising responses
of members of the different ethnic groups in Suriname, this study will focus on the
advertising responses of members of the two largest ethnic groups, that is the Hindustani and
the Creole group. The types of advertising responses to be investigated in this study are
limited to four attitudinal responses: attitude toward the advertisement; attitude toward the
model; identification with the model and targetedness.
It should be clear that this study will only be a small part of a much more complex study.
9
The Influence of Consumers’ Ethnic Identity on Advertising Responses
1.7 Approach and Research Method
The literature study will be based on previous researches and underlying theories
published in academic journals. In order to provide answers to the research questions and
address the issue raised in the problem statement a “2 x 6 between-subjects” (see chapter
three) experiment will be performed.
1.8 Relevance of Research
Since there is little to no knowledge on this subject based on actual research in Suriname
it is expected that the findings of this research should be of interest to both academics and
practitioners in the field of marketing and advertising.
1.9 Structure of Research Paper
This research paper consists of five chapters. Chapter one is an introductory chapter
discussing the background of this research, the research objectives and research questions
together with the relevance of this research.
Chapter two will provide a brief overview of marketing strategies to ethnic consumers,
followed by the discussion on the key concept ‘Ethnic Identity’. The relation between ethnic
identity and advertising responses will be explored by reviewing findings of previous
research. Thereafter three theories used by researchers to interpret and understand these
findings will be explored. In order to complete the literature review relevant advertising key
concepts will be discussed.
Chapter three will provide the hypotheses to be tested and explain the employed
methodology of research in this study. The results of the research will be presented and
discussed in chapter four and this paper will be concluded by chapter five discussing the
conclusions, the limitations of the study and by providing recommendations for effective
advertisements in Suriname. Also recommendations for future research will be done.
10
The Influence of Consumers’ Ethnic Identity on Advertising Responses
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
This literature review commence with a brief overview of marketing strategies to
ethnic consumers followed by the discussion on the key concept ethnic identity. The relation
between ethnic identity and advertising responses will be explored by reviewing findings of
previous research. Thereafter three theories used by researches to interpret and understand
these findings will be provided. In order to complete the literature review relevant advertising
key concepts will be discussed.
2.2 Marketing to Ethnic Consumers
Diversity of the population requires that marketers understand the needs from each
group, as their demographics, media usage, consumption patterns of each group. For
marketers to design effective marketing strategies in order to reach these groups, one should
examine the meanings of concepts such as race, ethnicity, ethnic identification and their
interaction with the marketing mix variables (Cui 1997). An important question marketers
have to deal with nowadays is whether or not standardized marketing strategies can be used
in a market with ethnic diverse consumers without adapting the marketing strategy to the
different ethnic target groups.
The study “Marketing Strategies in a Multi-ethnic environment” by Geng Cui (1997)
provides a framework (see figure 1.) of alternative strategies for marketing to consumers of
diverse ethnic background. This framework compares four distinctive approaches to
marketing to ethnic consumers: standardized marketing, product adaptation, advertising
adaptation and ethnic marketing, and discusses the optimal environment for adopting each
strategy (Cui 1997). It deals primarily with two elements of the marketing mix; product and
promotion (communication). In order to determine which of the four strategies a viable
strategy is, the marketer needs to answer two essential questions: 1) Are the needs and
product preferences of ethnic minorities similar to or different from those of the majority
population? And 2) are the media usage patterns and advertising responses of ethnic
minorities similar to or different from those of the majority population? (Cui 1997).
11
The Influence of Consumers’ Ethnic Identity on Advertising Responses
Figure 1. Strategies for Marketing to Ethnic Consumers
COMMUNICATION
PRODUCT
Similar:
Different:
Standardize
Customize
I
III
Total Standardization:
Advertising
Similar:
Use current marketing
Adaptation:
Standardize
mix without
Use current marketing
II
IV
Different:
Product Adaptation:
Ethnic Marketing:
Customize
Use current marketing
Use totally new
mix except product
marketing mix
Source: Geng Cui (1997).
In many cases, ethnic consumers have no visible preferences for certain product
attributes or features. However the communication element regarding a product may vary
greatly among consumers, in terms of values, languages, advertising appeals and media usage
patterns. The language barrier often requires marketers to translate or re-create their
messages. Different advertising responses and media usage patterns mandate modification of
advertising messages and selection of channels (Cui 1997). However when designing
advertising messages and selecting channels, marketers need to ensure that these decisions
are sensitive to the traditions and feelings of ethnic consumers (Cui 1997). The sensitivity of
those traditions and feelings are determined by the ethnic identity of a consumer.
2.3 Ethnic Identity
This segment will provide the definition of ethnic identity, descriptions of the
components of ethnic identity together with an overview of the different types of ethnic
identity. This part of the literature review will be finished with a review of previous research
on the impact of ethnic identity on consumers ethnic attitudes, consumption (of ethnicassociated) products and response to ethnic cues (e.g. ethnic actors) in advertising.
12
The Influence of Consumers’ Ethnic Identity on Advertising Responses
2.3.1 Definition of Ethnic Identity
The first part of the construct, the term ethnic, (originally also ethnik[e] and even
ethnique) is an old term in English and glossed in the Oxford English Dictionary as "heathen,
pagan, uncouth, neither Christian nor Jewish". The term has Latin and Greek origins.
Ethnicus and ethnikas in Latin both mean nation. Ethos in Greek means custom, disposition
or trait. Taken the two terms ethnikas en ethos together can mean something like ‘people
living together (nation) who share and acknowledge common customs’. The second part of
the construct, identity, is derived from the Latin word identitas; the word is formed from
idem meaning same (Trimble and Dickson). A more precise meaning of identity given by
Simpson and Weiner (1989) and cited by Trimble and Dickson is “the sameness of a person
or thing at all times in all circumstances; the condition or fact that a person or thing is itself
and not something else”.
The discussion on ethnic identity is interdisciplinary and, therefore highly diversified in
its underlying theories and assumptions. Definitions of ethnic identity vary according these
underlying theories. There is no widely agreed on definition of ethnic identity. The
psychologist Jean Phinney notes in her study “Ethnic Identity in Adolescents and Adults:
Review of Research” (1990) that researchers appeared to share a broad understanding of the
term ethnic identity, but the specific aspects that they emphasized differ widely. These
differences are due to the diversity how researchers have conceptualized ethnic identity and
in the questions the have sought to answer.
The most widely used definition of ethnic identity in the psychology and the definition to
be used in this research, is developed by Phinney, “Ethnic identity is a dynamic
multidimensional construct that refers to one’s identity, or sense of self as a member of an
ethnic group. Ethnic identity is not a fixed categorization, but rather a fluid and dynamic
understanding of self and ethnic background. Ethnic identity is constructed and modified as
individuals become aware of their ethnicity, within the large (social cultural) setting” (2003).
Phinney (2003) states that “an ethnic group claims a common ancestry and of which members
share at least a similar culture, race, religion, language, kinship or place of origin”. According
to Smith (1991) “an ethnic group may be defined as a reference group called upon people
who share a common history and culture, who may be identifiable because they share similar
physical features and values, and who - through the process of interacting with each other and
establishing boundaries with others - identify themselves as being a member of that group”.
13
The Influence of Consumers’ Ethnic Identity on Advertising Responses
2.3.2 Components of Ethnic Identity
Previous research addressing research questions on ethnic identity can basically be
divided in two types of studies. The first type concerns studies with the focus on what might
be called the state of ethnic identity, which is a person’s identification at a given time. The
second types of studies are those focused on stages of ethnic identity, or changes over time in
a person’s identification (Phinney 1990). Elements being used assessing the state of one’s
ethnic identity are: ethnicity and self-identification, sense of belonging, attitude towards the
ethnic group and ethnic involvement. Following a brief description of the different
components of ethnic identity based on the examination of previous researches by Phinney
(1990):
• Ethnicity and Self Identification:
Self-identification refers to the ethnic label that one uses for oneself. If a person selfIdentifies as a member of a particular ethnic group, then he or she is willing to be
perceived and treated as a member of that group. Thus self-ascribed ethnic labels are the
obvious manifestations of individuals' identification with a particular ethnicity (Fishman
1999).
However, among those who are racially distinct, by features or skin color, or
whose culture (language, dress, customs, etc.) clearly distinguishes them from other
groups, self-identification is at least partly imposed.
• Sense of Belonging:
People may use an ethnic label when specifically asked for one and yet may not have a
strong sense of belonging to the group chosen. Therefore it is important to asses to
feeling of belonging. A sense of belonging to one’s own group can also be defined in
contrast to another group by the experience of exclusion, contrast or separateness from
other groups.
• Attitudes towards One’s Ethnic Group:
In addition to their self-identification and a sense of a belonging, people can have both
positive and negative attitudes towards their own ethnic group. Positive attitudes include
pride, in and pleasure, satisfaction and contentment with one’s own group. The absence
of positive attitudes can be seen as a denial of one’s ethnic identity.
14
The Influence of Consumers’ Ethnic Identity on Advertising Responses
• Ethnic Involvement:
Involvement in the social life and cultural practices of one’s ethnic group is seen as one
of the most important components of one’s ethnic identity. Indicators of ethnic
involvement are language, friendship, social organizations, religion, cultural traditions
and politics.
The ethnic identity of an individual can be measured by the extent to which the
individual has a sense of belonging to the ethnic group, a positive or negative attitude towards
the group and uses the signs, symbols and language of the culture associated with the ethnic
membership group. The range of identification may vary from little or no ethnic identification
with one’s membership group to high identification with the group in question (Smith 1991).
Strong or high ethnic identifiers are likely to display attitudes and behaviors that are
consistent with the core cultural values of their ethnic group.
2.3.3 Types of Ethnic Identity
Ethnic identity is to a large extent defined by context (Phinney 1990). Amada M. Padilla
cited Heller in Handbook of Language & Ethnic Identity that ethnicity becomes important
only when ethnic groups come into contact with each other. “In isolation, it means nothing to
be English, Arab, French, or Mexican. Ethnicity may be more meaningful in certain intergroup contexts than in other situations, moreover, the ethnic label that an individual chooses
to wear may differ according to social context” (Fishman 1999). There are different
researches providing evidence that one’s ethnic identity varies in strength according context.
Saylor and Aries (1999) examined in their study maintenance and change in ethnic
identity among U.S. college students over the course of an academic year as they moved
through a significant change in social context from home to a residential college. Although
measures of ethnic identity at the beginning and end of the year were highly correlated,
results of the study showed that the students showed a significant increase in ethnic identity
and greater involvement in ethnic behaviors and practices by the end of the year. Joining
ethnic organizations provided support for ethnic identity.
Tiffany Yip and Andrew J. Fuligni provided with their study (2002), examining the links
among Chinese American adolescents’ ethnic identity and their ethnic behaviors, ethnic
identity salience and psychological well-being, support that feelings of ethnic identity vary
considerably on a daily basis and that situational characteristics can be responsible for
15
The Influence of Consumers’ Ethnic Identity on Advertising Responses
fluctuations in feelings of ethnic salience. For example, participation in ethnic behaviors such
as speaking Chinese, eating Chinese Food and interacting with other Chinese people can
influence momentary feelings of one’s ethnic identification.
This momentary state of ethnic identification is called by others ethnic-self awareness, a
temporary state during which a person is more sensitive to his of her ethnicity, or also
explained as the momentary salience of people’s ethnic identification (Forehand and
Deshpande 2001). Ethnic self-awareness is similar to the term felt-ethnicity, introduced by
Stayman and Deshpande (1989). They distinguished felt-ethnicity from objective ethnic
membership by arguing that ethnicity is “not just who one is, but how one feels in and about
a particular situation” (Stayman and Deshpande 1989). Donthy and Cherian (1994) identified
a similar distinction in types of ethnic identification: enduring- and episodic ethnic
identification. “Enduring identification refers to the base-level of ethnic group membership
and episodic identification refers to situational surges of ethnic feelings brought on by
relevant cultural events “(e.g. Stayman and Deshpande 1989; Wooten and Galvin 1993).
This paper concentrates only on the enduring ethnic identification of consumers.
2.3.4 Previous Research on the Impact of Ethnic Identity
Research has demonstrated that individuals vary in their degree in identification with
their ethnic group. Researchers have also demonstrated that consumer strength of ethnic
identity is correlated with ethnic attitudes, consumption (of ethnic-associated) products and
response to ethnic cues (e.g. ethnic actors) in advertising (Appaih 2001; Donthy and Cherian
1994; Green 1999; Whittler and DiMeo 1991; Whittler and Spira 2002; Young-Kyung 2001).
The authors of the study “Impact of Strength of Ethnic Identification on Hispanic
Shopping Behavior” argue that the strength of ethnic identification moderates retail shopping
behavior of Hispanic consumers. The study explores the differences in retail shopping
behavior of strong and weak Hispanic identifiers. The results show that strong Hispanic
identifiers prefer more than weak Hispanic identifiers Hispanic vendors in general, and for
low-involvement services in particular. Other results show that: strong Hispanic identifiers
are more brand loyal (especially to brands purchased by their parents and friends) than weak
Hispanic identifiers; and strong identifiers are more affected by advertisements (especially
those targeted on Hispanics) than weak identifiers (Donthu and Cherian 1994).
The study by Corliss Green (1999) examines the effects of strength of ethnic
identification, media placement, and racial composition of advertisements on attitudes and
16
The Influence of Consumers’ Ethnic Identity on Advertising Responses
purchase intentions among African-Americans. Results indicate that strong ethnic identifiers
generally have more positive evaluations of advertisements that feature African-American in
positions of dominance and are place in racially targeted media, whereas weak ethnic
identifiers have more positive evaluations of advertisements that feature whites in position of
dominance and are placed in non targeted media. In addition, the type of product advertised,
in this case two personal care products: foundation, a race-based product, and perfume, a
racially neutral product, effects audience members’ evaluations.
The study of Whittler and DiMeo examines viewers’ processing of ethnic cues in
advertising stimuli. The findings indicated that, regardless of their attitude towards blacks,
whites were less likely to purchase the products and had less favorable attitudes towards the
products and the advertisements when the advertisements featured black actors (Whittler and
Dimeo 1991). This study was conducted among 160 white adults.
Findings of study by Whittler and Spira, among a total of 160 black adults, suggest that
black’ differential responses to advertisements featuring black and white models are
moderated by their identification with black culture. Specifically, blacks with a high ethnic
identification have more favorable evaluations of the advertisement, product, and model
when the model is black than when the model is white. Evaluations of blacks with a low
identification do not differ depending on the model’s ethnicity (2002).
A similar study is the study by Osei Appaih (2000) that examines whether the strength of
ethnic identity influences black and white adolescents’ responses to advertisements featuring
models of different races. The researcher digitally manipulated the race of characters in the
advertisements as well as the number race-specific cultural cues while maintaining all other
visual features of the advertisements. One hundred seventy-three black and white adolescents
evaluated black or white character advertisements. The findings demonstrate that black
adolescents who have a strong black ethnic identity perceive themselves more similar to and
identify more strongly with black character advertisements than black adolescents with
weaker ethnic identities do. Other results suggest that white adolescents, despite their ethnic
identity, find black character advertisements with varying degrees of black cultural cues as
appealing as similar white character advertisements (Osei Appaih 2001).
Researchers have used several theories and or models that may explain the correlation
between ethnic identity and how people deal with ethnic cues in advertising. Three
underlying theories are: Distinctiveness theory (McGuire et al. 1978); Kelman’s (1961)
Identification Theory and the Intercultural Accommodation model (Holland and Gentry
17
The Influence of Consumers’ Ethnic Identity on Advertising Responses
1997).
2.4 Theoretical Foundation
In the next sections the three theories: Distinctiveness theory, Identification theory and the
Intercultural Accommodation model will be explained together with applications in several
researches.
2.4.1 Distinctiveness Theory
The central prediction of the Distinctiveness theory is that an individual’s distinctive trait
in relation to other people in the environment will be more salient to the individual than more
common traits (McGuire et al. 1978).
The theory was developed as a response to a perceived dominance of a “reactive
approach” in self-concept research that studied participants’ reactions to dimensions of the
self which have been selected a priori by the researcher. McGuire and his colleagues felt that
it was more appropriate to investigate individuals’ self-concept by exploring the dimensions
that one spontaneously chooses to describe oneself instead of those chosen by the researcher
(McGuire, McGuire, Child and Fujioka 1978). They hypothesized that the spontaneous
salience of a personal characteristic to the self-concept is evoked by the distinctiveness of that
characteristic in a given situation, and that it will become part of one’s identity at that
moment. For example, a black woman will likely to be more aware of her race when she is
associating with white women, but more aware of her gender when she is associating with
black men. So, the postulate implies that one is conscious of oneself insofar one is different
and perceives oneself in terms of these distinctive features, and by changing a person’s social
context so that different characteristics become distinctive, a person’s self-concept can be
changed in a predictable way (McGuire, McGuire, Child and Fujioka 1978).
The study “Salience of Ethnicity in the Spontaneous Self-concept” (McGuire et al 1978)
investigated ethnicity as a dimension of the self-concept. The distinctiveness postulate was
used to predict the salience of ethnicity in the spontaneous self-concept. The postulate implies
that ethnicity is more salient in people’s self-concepts in an ethnically mixed society than in a
segregated society, and that in an integrated society, ethnicity is more salient in the selfconcepts of members of the minority group than of the majority group (McGuire et al 1978).
The measure of salience of ethnicity used in this study was whether children mentioned
18
The Influence of Consumers’ Ethnic Identity on Advertising Responses
spontaneously their ethnicity in response to a nondirective “Tell us about yourself” question.
The findings of the study were supportive of the distinctiveness postulate. The findings
suggest that people do partly act like information processing-machines, noticing aspects of
their environment insofar as they contain information and that one is more conscious of one’s
ethnicity (or religion, sex , etc.) to the extent that one’s own kind on this variable is in the
minority in one’s usual social environment and that ethnicity (or religion, etc.) becomes more
salient in people’s self-concept as their social milieu becomes more heterogeneous in this
regard; An integrated society heightens rather than erases consciousness of ethnicity and
feelings of difference between the integrated groups (McGuire, McGuire, Child and Fujioko
1978).
The distinctiveness postulate has been applied to consumer behavior and advertising
contexts and supports the notion that numeric minorities respond more favorably to
marketing efforts designed to resonate with their distinctive characteristics. Previous research
has found that consumer distinctiveness results in a heightened sensitivity to targeting efforts,
more identification with and trust of a similar source, and increased favorability towards
advertisement and brand (Aaker, Brumbaugh and Grier 2000; Appaih 2001; Deshpande and
Stayman 1994; Forehand and Deshpande 2001; Grier and Brumbaugh 1999).
One of the first research to apply the distinctiveness theory within an advertising context
is the study “A Tale of Two Cities: Distinctiveness theory and Advertising Effectiveness” by
Deshpande and Stayman (1994). They integrated prior research on strength of ethnic
identification, the effect of race of actors in ads, and distinctiveness theory to derive a model
and a set of hypothesis concerning how distinctiveness applies to advertising effects. The
study tested that: ethnic situation affects ethnic salience; ethnic salience moderates the
influence of the ethnicity of the spokesperson on spokesperson trustworthiness; and that these
changes in spokesperson trustworthiness are expected to impact brand attitude. The research
was conducted among 205 adult subjects. The subjects’ ethnic situation was varied by
recruiting subjects from one city, San Antonio, in which Hispanics are in the majority (and
Anglos in the minority) and a second city, Austin, in which Anglos are in the majority (and
Hispanics in the minority).
The researchers have found strong support for McGuire’s distinctiveness theory within
an advertising context. More specifically, minority group consumers are more likely to
spontaneously evoke their ethnicity when they are in a numerical minority rather than a
majority in their cities. Hispanic Americans in the study were more likely to spontaneously
mention their ethnicity when they lived in Austin (where they constitute a minority of the
19
The Influence of Consumers’ Ethnic Identity on Advertising Responses
city’s population) than when they lived in San Antonio (where they constitute a majority) and
vice versa for Anglos. Furthermore, there appears to be a carryover between ethnic identity
and responsiveness to ethnic elements of advertising. Hispanic (the traditional “minority”
group) consumers were more likely to believe that a Hispanic spokesperson was trustworthy
when they lived in Austin than they lived in San Antonio. Hispanic consumers in Austin were
also more likely than those in San Antonio to have positive attitudes towards a brand for
which the ad featured a Hispanic spokesperson. These results apply also for the Anglos (the
traditional “majority” group). Based on these findings the authors concluded that ethnically
targeted stimuli (e.g. an advertisement featuring a spokesperson of the same ethnicity as a
targeted viewer) were more effective among numerically distinctive consumers than nondistinctive consumers (Deshpande and Stayman 1994).
Other researchers integrated distinctiveness theory into research on ethnicity and target
marketing (Aaker, Brumbaugh and Grier 2000; Grier and Brumbaugh 1999). The research by
Grier and Brumbaugh “Noticing Cultural Differences: Ad Meanings created by Target and
Non-target markets” (1999) examined the meanings consumers create from marketing efforts
targeting black heterosexuals (distinctive based on ethnicity), white heterosexuals (nondistinctive), and white homosexuals (distinctive based on sexual orientation), when
consumers are (are not) members of the intended target market. Results provide empirical
support for the proposition that target and non-target consumers differ in the way the
construct meanings from targeted advertisements. Target market consumers are likely to take
a positive referential interpretive attitude and create meanings that relate the advertisement
positively to themselves. Non-target market consumers are likely to take a negative
referential interpretive attitude when reading an advertisement targeted to another group.
Target and non-target members differ in their ability to interpret specific cultural cues
embedded in the advertisement. One of the findings of this study is that the meanings target
and non-target consumers create from targeted advertisements depends, among other things,
on the distinctiveness of the viewer. Members of numerically less prevalent groups, blacks
and gay viewers in the study, were particularly aware of being targeted and incorporated that
awareness into the meanings they derived from targeted advertisements. Black and gay
viewers were able to create favorable links between themselves and the advertisement more
readily than white viewers due to the relative infrequency with which those groups are
targeted and their heightened salience of distinctive characteristics. Their ability to use the
cultural cues embedded in the advertisements added meanings for them that were not
20
The Influence of Consumers’ Ethnic Identity on Advertising Responses
available to non-target viewers. On the contrary white viewers were less likely to make
meaningful links between the advertisements and themselves, even when they were the target
market. Apparently “whiteness” is neither a salient nor a meaningful characteristic for those
non-distinctive viewers, and targeting on the basis of this characteristic does not factor into
the meaning they create (Grier and Brumbaugh 1999).
Aaker, Brumbaugh and Grier (2000) also explored this moderating role of distinctiveness
on the effects of targeted advertising. Their research examined the intended and unintended
effects of target marketing on members of the advertiser’s target market as well as members
of the non-target market. The results demonstrate that the effects of targeted are moderated
by viewer distinctiveness. Unfavorable non-target market effects are stronger for members of
non-distinctive (e.g. whites, heterosexuals) versus distinctive (e.g. blacks, homosexuals)
groups, and that favorable target market effects are stronger for members of distinctive versus
non-distinctive groups. Favorable target market effects occur for distinctive viewers because
of heightened levels of felt similarity with a source, while favorable target market effects for
non-distinctive viewers result from targetedness based on some aspects of the entire
configuration of advertisement cues. Unfavorable non-target market effects occur for nondistinctive viewers because of perceived dissimilarity with a source, while unfavorable nontarget market effects occur for distinctive viewers because of perceived exclusion from the
intended target market (Aaker, Brumbaugh and Grier 2000)
These results suggest that distinctive and non-distinctive viewers differ in the process by
which their attitudes are formed in response to targeted advertisements. The next step is to
understand what felt similarity and targetedness represent in relation to consumer attitudes
towards targeted marketing efforts. According Kelman (1961) these attitudes are formed by
the processes of identification and internalization. In the next section the identification theory
will be discussed and very briefly the theory of internalization.
2.4.2 Identification Theory
Identification occurs when one adopts behavior derived from another person or group
because this behavior is associated with a satisfying self-defining relationship (a role
relationship that forms a part of the person’s self-image) to this person or group (Kelman
1961). For example, a young man may be persuaded by a sneaker advertisement featuring
another young man because he feels that the spokesperson has similar needs, goals and a
common lifestyle. In such cases, persuasion may occur because one accepts the message of a
21
The Influence of Consumers’ Ethnic Identity on Advertising Responses
similar person and desires to maintain positive self-esteem in light of their shared traits
(Aaker et al. 2000). The Identification theory maintains that people automatically assess their
level of similarity with a source during an interaction and make similarity judgments. When
viewers perceive that the source possesses characteristics similar to their own, such as race,
they begin to infer that the source will also share other characteristics, all of which lead to
greater identification and therefore adopt the attitude, or behavior of the source.
Thus felt similarity occurs through the process of identification. Therefore, distinctive
viewers’ feelings of similarity with a source who shares the distinctive personally-relevant
trait (e.g. ethnicity) should lead to identification. However non-distinctive viewers should not
feel similar because the trait they share is not as personally relevant or salient (Aaker et al.
2000).
Non-distinctive viewers create positive attitudes towards targeted advertisement through
the process of internalization. Internalization occurs when one accepts influence because the
induced behavior is congruent with his value system. It is the content of the induced behavior
that is intrinsically rewarding. One adopts it because he finds it useful for the solution of a
problem or because it is congenial to his own orientation, or because it is demanded by his
own values. The characteristics of the source do play an important role in internalization, but
the crucial dimension here is the source’s credibility. A person may adopt the
recommendations of an expert because he finds them relevant to his own problem and
congruent with his own values (Kelman 1961). For example, a different young man may be
persuaded by the same sneaker advertisement as in previous example, because he feels the
spokesperson is knowledgeable about which sneakers are most effective on the basketball
court (Aaker et al. 2000). The study “The Effects of Preference Heterogeneity and Source
Characteristics on Ad Processing and Judgements about Endorsers” (Feick and Higie 1992)
provides insights about consumers’ use of source characteristics in developing attitudes and
intentions about the source of the communications and the recommended product. The results
suggest that for products and services characterized by higher preference heterogeneity, “the
man on the street” testimonials are likely to be effective if the source is perceived to be
similar to the target audience. Restaurants, night clubs, plays, movies and other goods and
services for which tastes vary could benefit by a clear identification of target audience
characteristics and the choice of similar spokesperson. For low preference heterogeneity
products and services, the results suggest the use of experienced individuals. For services
such as plumbers and dry cleaners the match of the spokesperson to the target audience does
22
The Influence of Consumers’ Ethnic Identity on Advertising Responses
not seem to be as important. For these products, communication of the spokesperson’s
experience is more important (Feick and Higie 1992).
The authors of the studies “The Effects of Actor’s Race in Commercial Advertising:
Review and Extension” (Whittler 1991), “Viewers’ Reaction to Racial Cues in Advertising
Stimuli” (Whittler and DiMeo 1991), “Model’s Race: A Peripheral Cue in Advertising
Messages?” (Whittler and Spira 2002) and “Ethnic Identification on Adolescents’
Evaluations of Advertisements” (Osei Appaih 2001) use the identification theory to interpret
their findings.
Corlin Green (1991) uses the Intercultural Accommodation theory as a framework to
understand viewers’ attitudes towards advertisements.
2.4.3 Intercultural Accommodation
What is meant by Intercultural Accommodation? In the research by Holland and Gentry
(1997) the term is used to indicate those efforts on the part of communicators to make
themselves more similar to members of another cultural group in order improve
communication. In marketing, Intercultural Accommodation could be manifested at various
strategic levels. For example, in marketing communications, the domain of accommodation
behavior would include such things as using spokespersons of similar ethnic background in
advertisements, hiring ethnic salespeople, or using language, music, art, national flags or
other cultural symbols as part of the brand or promotion. The term intercultural is used to
convey to idea that this communication is occurring across at least two cultures (Holland and
Gentry 1997). Thus, Intercultural Accommodation involves communicators of one group
borrowing cultural symbols from another group in order to appear more similar, enhance
communication, and gain approval (Holland and Gentry 1997).
Intercultural Accommodation finds its roots in the Speech Accommodation Theory
(SAT) which emerged in the early seventies. SAT has frequently been used to understand
communication patterns across cultures (Holland and Gentry 1997). The basis of SAT is that,
when people are motivated to seek approval or improve communication, they make an effort
to adopt the language or speech patterns of the other party, their speech patterns will
converge. When a communicator wishes to distance him/herself from the other or, a pattern
of divergence will develop (Holland and Gentry 1997).
Koslow, Shamdasani and Touchstone (1994) examined in their study “Exploring
Language Effects in Ethnic Advertising: A Sociolinguistic Perspective”, the effects of
23
The Influence of Consumers’ Ethnic Identity on Advertising Responses
Spanish-language usage in advertising in one predominant subculture, United States
Hispanics. The study proposes that use of Spanish language in advertising to Hispanic
consumers triggers the dynamics of accommodation theory. For accommodation to occur
Hispanics must perceive the choice and use of Spanish in the advertisement as an indicator of
the advertiser’s respect for the Hispanic culture and desire to break down cultural barriers
through reduction of linguistic dissimilarities. Furthermore, the study proposes that more
effortful accommodation results in a more favorable response. Thus, increasing the amount of
Spanish in an advertisement should increase the positive effects (Koslow 1994). The results
of this study demonstrates that Spanish-language usage increases Hispanic consumers’
perceptions of the advertiser’s sensitivity, which in turn have a positive influence on their
affect towards the advertisement.
Holland and Gentry developed a model of Intercultural Accommodation to understand
how consumers react to targeting attempts and how their reactions affect the effectiveness of
such attempts. The central concept of this model is that consumer’s affective and cognitive
responses to marketer’s targeting efforts will determine the outcomes of that effort. The
model demonstrates a variety of antecedents affecting the consumer’s response to the
accommodation attempt. However the consumer’s strength of ethnic identification is one of
the most important. If people do not identify strongly with their ethnic group, it is unlikely
that ethnic group membership will be a predictor of their behavior or response to an
advertisement. Ethnic group members who identify strongly with their heritage are likely to
have stronger emotional response to the use of their cultural symbols in marketing
communication than those who identify less with their heritage. However, this response may
be either positive or negative (Holland and Gentry 1997).
Figure 2. A Partial Model of Intercultural Accommodation
ANTECEDENTS
CONSUMER RESPONSE TO THE
CONSEQUENCES
ACCOMMODATION ATTEMPT
ATTITUDE TOWARDS
THE AD
STRENGTH OF ETHNIC
ATTRIBUTIONS
ATTITUDE TOWARDS
IDENTIFICATION
AFFECT
THE BRAND
MESSAGE RECALL
Source: Holland and Gentry (1997)
24
The Influence of Consumers’ Ethnic Identity on Advertising Responses
Holland and Gentry demonstrated in their study (1997) that: attitudes towards the ad and
attitudes towards the brand were significantly affected by the use of cultural symbols in
advertisements; the differential impact of positive and negative uses of cultural symbols in an
advertisement on ad and brand evaluations is an indication of the impact of ad effectiveness;
cultural images that evoke negative affect can result in lowered brand evaluations and that
advertisements with cultural images that evoke positive affect can significantly improve
brand evaluations. Holland and Gentry also demonstrated that consumers with strong ethnic
identification, so called strong ethnic identifiers, also react stronger to advertisements with
cultural images than weak ethnic identifiers.
Ossei Appiah (2001) demonstrated in his study that black adolescents overall rated black
culturally embedded advertisements (advertisements with black cultural images and or cues)
more favorably than white culturally embedded advertisements (advertisements with white
cultural images and cues). Findings from this study suggest that the presence of black
characters in advertisements, and in some cases black cultural cues, significantly influenced
black (and white) adolescents’ responses. It was indicated that black adolescents felt more
targeted by, and rated more favorably, black characters in cultural embedded advertisements
than white characters in culturally embedded advertisements. Although these findings are
supportive of the concept of intercultural accommodation, the study failed to demonstrate that
the strength of ethnic identification would influence black adolescents’ attitude towards the
advertisements. However, high black ethnic identifiers did perceive themselves to be more
similar to black characters in black culturally embedded advertisements than black
adolescents with low black identity did.
The terms advertising responses and attitudes towards advertisements have often been
used discussing the correlation between ethnic identity and advertising or the underlying
theories of this correlation. In order to have full understanding of this discussion the next
segment discusses the related concepts of advertising effectiveness.
25
The Influence of Consumers’ Ethnic Identity on Advertising Responses
2.5 Advertising Effectiveness
Besides providing a definition of advertising effectiveness this closing part of the
literature review will discuss advertising response models and techniques for measuring
advertising effectiveness.
2.5.1 Definition of Advertising Effectiveness
In the literature the term advertising effectiveness and advertising effects are often used
interchangeably. According Beerli and Martin Santana (1999) advertising effectiveness refers
to the measurement of the results of an advertising campaign or of particular advertisement,
which must in turn to be defined in terms of the achievement of the advertising objectives
which the advertiser set for the campaign or advertisement. Wright-Isaak, Faber and Horner
(Fishman 1999) make a distinction between advertising effectiveness and advertising effects;
advertising effectiveness involves assessments of actual advertising campaigns in natural
settings and is cumulative over time and affects feelings, attitudes, and behaviors; and
advertising effects involves responses to individual ads.
Assessments of effectiveness are typically made over longer time spans than measures of
effects. Assessments of the effectiveness of advertising campaigns involve multiple
exposures to ads and multiple executions within campaigns. In contrast, measuring effects of
individual ads involves limited numbers of executions and exposures. Effects are as likely to
be evaluated in an experimental setting as in a natural field setting. Effectiveness must be
determined within a complex environment where other marketing activities and competitive
actions greatly add to the difficulty of assessing advertising's value (Wright- Isaak et al. in
Fisbman 1999).
2.5.2 Advertising Response Models
The evaluation of the effectiveness of an advertising campaign or effects of an
advertisement should be carried out with a view to the advertising objectives established and
based on the responses of individuals towards the advertising, analyzed by means of
advertising response models.
While the literature proposes a number of advertising response models which attempt to
explain the behavior of the consumer towards advertising, there is no single universally
26
The Influence of Consumers’ Ethnic Identity on Advertising Responses
accepted model, but rather a number of different models which deal with the same process
from different perspectives and which take into account the influence of a great number of
variables in the process (Beerli and Santana 1999). After reviewing existing models Beerli
and Santana (1999) identified that all of these models do have the same basis; a sequence of
three stages which a consumer experience when being exposed to an advertisement and
making a purchase decision. These three stages of learning, feeling and doing are related to
the three main functions of advertising: to inform, to create attitudes and to induce action.
The advertising response models can be grouped into four categories:
•
Global models of advertising response:
Developing and attempting to explain the process to which individuals are subjected
from the moment they are exposed to an advertisement to the moment they take
action;
•
Cognitive response models, which only analyze how individuals process information;
•
Attitude models, which explore the attitude component alone;
•
Behavior models which attempt to analyze how individuals act.
In the world of advertising the attitude models together with the global models stand out the
most in terms of relevance and application. Attitude models are based on the analysis of the
process of attitude formation and change, and of the factors which influence such attitudes
(Beerli and Santana 1999). According to Beerli and Santana the major models are those of
Fishbein and Azjen (1975), Mitchell (1981), Petty and Cacioppo (1981), Edel and Staelin
(1983), Greenwald and Leavitt (1984) and MacKenzie and Lutz (1989).
In this research paper an attitude model will be applied in order to answer the research
questions.
2.5.3 Techniques for Measuring Advertising Effectiveness
Besides the many advertising response models to explain consumers behavior towards
advertisement the literature offers, many different techniques for measuring advertisement
effectiveness are also being discussed in the literature. Beerli and Santana (1999) defined
three categories of techniques based on the three stages which underlie the advertising
response models. The three categories are named: cognitive, affective and conative
techniques.
27
The Influence of Consumers’ Ethnic Identity on Advertising Responses
•
Cognitive techniques:
Attempt to measure an advertisement’s ability to attract attention, be remembered and
communicate the desired message and also to analyze the levels of knowledge and
understanding and individual possesses about the advertisement.
1. Awareness measurements assess an individual’s awareness of the existence of a
product, brand or company.
2. Memory tests measure the intensity of the impact of a message through the
capacity of the individual to recall and/or recognize it.
•
Affective techniques:
These techniques measure the attitude which an advertisement is able to generate in the
individual, or change of attitude or a reinforcement of an already existing attitude.
Attitude towards the advertisement can be defined as a predisposition to respond in a
favorable or unfavorable manner to a particular advertising stimulus during a particular
exposure (MacKenzie and Lutz 1989). A positive attitude created towards an
advertisement is thus a predisposition which increases the probability of the advertised
object being purchased, although the purchase decision can still be influenced by a
number of other factors. A negative attitude towards an advertisement can be a reason
enough for a consumer not to buy the advertised object. The most commonly used
affective tests are liking, attitude towards the advertisement, attitude towards the brand
and persuasion.
1. The importance of liking in advertising testing is based on the idea that an
advertisement must be at the very least pleasing to the individual if it is to be
effective. Later in this literature study the importance of liking will be discussed in
more detail.
2. The aim of measuring attitude towards an advertisement is to detect the immediate
spontaneous reaction of the individual towards an advertisement.
3.
The objective of measuring attitude towards brand is to assess whether or not an
individual’s opinion about the brand is positive in comparison with competitors
brands.
4. Persuasion test determine the ability of an advertisement to provoke a change in
the individual’s attitude towards the advertised brand.
28
The Influence of Consumers’ Ethnic Identity on Advertising Responses
•
Conative techniques:
Conative techniques measure the response behavior of the individual in terms of purchase
and repurchase and in terms of predisposition to act in the desired manner. The most
important techniques are intention to purchase, inquiry tests and sales variations.
1. Intention to purchase measures the probability that an individual will try or buy
the advertised brand or product in the near future as a result of exposure to the
advertisement.
2. Inquiry tests evaluate how well the objectives of campaigns aiming to influence
individual behavior achieve their established objectives.
3. Sales variations measurements try to measure the sales as a direct result of
advertising.
The affective techniques will be used in this research in order to measure the impact of one’s
ethnic identity on their response or attitude towards advertisement.
2.5.4 Copy Testing
While the techniques for measuring advertising effectiveness basically describe what to
measure, copy testing is known as a procedure or method on how to measure advertising
effectiveness. The procedure of copy testing lays out the methodology and the data collection
instruments to be used. Copy testing can be done before or after an ad is released; to ensure
that will surface no surprises after the advertisement is released, or to ensure that the
advertising is well received. Copy testing is usually conducted as a large scale quantitative
research study where the target audience is exposed to the advertising. A copy testing must
meet a series of requirements in order to be considered a good measurement instrument.
Important requirements are validity, reliability, sensitivity and independency in its
applications. Variables which have an influence on advertising effectiveness should be
included in a copy testing. Such variables are:
•
Individual involvement with the product
•
General attitude towards advertising
•
Degree of credibility given to advertising
(Beerli and Santana 1999)
29
The Influence of Consumers’ Ethnic Identity on Advertising Responses
The Advertising Research Foundation‘s Copy Research Validity Project, hereafter
referred to as the CRPV is a comprehensive investigation on the predictive validity of TV
Commercial copy-testing measures. In the CRPV 35 advertising pre-test or “copy-test”
measures were examined for their ability to predict the sales effectiveness of five pairs of TV
commercials with a “winner” and a “loser” in each pair for consumer product brands.
The most widely drawn conclusion from the CRPV is that a single measure,” ad likeability”,
is the best predictor of an ad’s sales effectiveness (Rossiter and Eagleson 1994; Haley and
Baldinger 2000.) This finding in the study, the strong relationship between attitude towards
the ad (likeability) and its effects on sales has been intensively discussed by researchers and
practitioners. It was generally believed that the function of advertising was to sell and that
whether the copy was likable or not had little to do with it (Haley and Baldinger, 2000).
Haley and Baldinger discuss in their article The ARF Copy Research Validity (2000)
other support for the value of likeability provided by Jim Spaeth of Viewfacts, Inc., Gordon
Brown of Millward Brown, Inc., Alex Biel of the Center for Research and Development, and
Esther Thorson. Spaeth reported that liking was an excellent predictor of sales generated from
five pairs of TIME magazine commercials concerning a variety of subscription offers.
Gordon Brown of Millward Brown, Inc. cited a high correlation between likeability and his
awareness index which, in turn, he finds to be the strongest correlate of sales increases
reflected in tracking studies. He has three years of data and a large number of cases.
Alex Biel of the Center for Research and Development summarized an Ogilvy study
spanning 57 products in 11 categories that showed that likable ads were twice as persuasive
as the average ad. So the case for likeability is documented from other applied sources.
Academic researchers have also shown evidence, in the context of research on "Attitude
towards the Ad" and its effect on brand attitudes and purchase intentions, that likeability is an
important mediator of message effects. Esther Thorson, in a 1990 review of "Consumer
Processing of Advertising" for Current Issues & Research in Advertising, sums them up by
saying "These studies leave little doubt that the individual's response to the ad itself is a
powerful predictor of ad impact." (Haley and Baldinger 2000).
However the CRVP report concluded that the measure of likeability is the best predictor
for sales effectiveness, the study does not imply that this measure of likeability should be
considered as a stand-alone measure of advertisement effectiveness. Other measures such as
persuasion and recall are also important measures.
30
The Influence of Consumers’ Ethnic Identity on Advertising Responses
2.6 Summary
There are four distinctive approaches to marketing to ethnic consumers: standardized
marketing, product adaptation, advertising adaptation and ethnic marketing. In marketing to
ethnic consumers and specific in applying the strategy of advertising adaptation one needs to
ensure that decisions regarding designing advertising messages and selecting channels, are
sensitive to the traditions and feelings of ethnic consumers (Cui 1997). The sensitivity of
those traditions and feelings are determined by the ethnic identity of a consumer.
“Ethnic identity is a dynamic multidimensional construct that refers to one’s identity, or
sense of self as a member of an ethnic group. Ethnic identity is not a fixed categorization, but
rather a fluid and dynamic understanding of self and ethnic background. Ethnic identity is
constructed and modified as individuals become aware of their ethnicity, with in the large
(social cultural) setting”. “An ethnic group claims a common ancestry and of which members
share at least a similar culture, race, religion, language, kinship or place of origin” (Phinney
2003). Research has demonstrated that individuals vary in their degree in identification with
their ethnic group. Research has also demonstrated that consumer strength of ethnic identity
is correlated with ethnic attitudes, consumption (of ethnic-associated) products and response
to ethnic cues (e.g. ethnic actors) in advertising. Several theories and or models have been
used to explain the correlation ethnic identity and how people deal with ethnic cues in
advertising. Three theories are: Distinctiveness theory (McGuire et al. 1978); Kelman’s
(1961) Identification Theory and the Intercultural Accommodation model (Holland and
Gentry 1997).
The central prediction of the Distinctiveness theory is that an individual’s distinctive trait
in relation to other people in the environment will be more salient to the individual that more
common traits (McGuire et al. 1978). The distinctiveness postulate has been applied to
consumer behavior and advertising contexts and supports the notion that numeric minorities
respond more favorably to marketing efforts designed to resonate with their distinctive
characteristics. Previous research has found that consumer distinctiveness results in a
heightened sensitivity to targeting efforts, more identification with and trust of a similar
source, and increased favorability towards advertisement and brand (Aaker, Brumbaugh and
Grier 2000; Appaih 2001; Deshpande and Stayman 1994; Forehand and Deshpande 2001;
Grier and Brumbaugh 1999).
The Identification theory maintains that people automatically assess their level of
similarity with a source during an interaction and make similarity judgments. When viewers
31
The Influence of Consumers’ Ethnic Identity on Advertising Responses
perceive that the source possesses characteristics similar to their own, such as race, they
begin to infer that the source will also share other characteristics, all of which lead to greater
identification and therefore adopt the attitude, or behavior of the source.
Intercultural Accommodation indicates those efforts on the part of communicators to
make themselves more similar to members of another cultural group in order improve
communication.
Advertising effectiveness refers to the measurement of the results of an advertising campaign
or of particular advertisement, which must in turn to be defined in terms of the achievement
of the advertising objectives which the advertiser set for the campaign or advertisement.
The evaluation of the effectiveness of an advertising campaign or effects of an advertisement
should be based on the responses of individuals towards the advertising, analyzed by means
of advertising response models. Besides the many advertising response models to explain
consumers behavior towards advertisement the literature offers, many different techniques for
measuring advertisement effectiveness are also being discussed in the literature. Beerli and
Santana (1999) defined three categories of techniques based on the three stages which
underlie the advertising response models. The three categories are named: cognitive, affective
and conative techniques. While the techniques for measuring advertising effectiveness
basically describe what to measure, copy testing is known as a procedure or method on how
to measure advertising effectiveness. The procedure of copy testing lays out the methodology
and the data collection instruments to be used. The measure of likeability is the best predictor
for sales effectiveness.
32
The Influence of Consumers’ Ethnic Identity on Advertising Responses
CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction
In chapter one the problem statement addresses the issue whether or not findings of
previous research - which primarily has been done in the United States - demonstrating the
effects of consumers’ ethnic identity on responses to advertisements, are cross culturally
robust? In order to address the problem statement and answer the developed research
questions, this study investigates the effect of consumers’ ethnic identity on advertising
responses in Suriname. Therefore an experiment has been conducted to measure how people
with different ethnic identities in Suriname respond to advertisements featuring ethnic models
and cues, in terms of: attitude towards the advertisement; attitude towards the model;
identification with the model and targetedness. Though the experiment included all ethnic
groups in Suriname, the focus of the analyses is on subjects representing the two largest
ethnic groups in Suriname: Hindustanis and Creoles.
This chapter will elaborate on the hypotheses which have been developed, the design of
the experiment, subjects, stimuli material used in the experiment, procedure and the type of
analysis used.
3.2 Hypotheses
Based on the research questions 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b and 4 defined in chapter one and the
overall discussion in chapter two several hypotheses have been developed and will be tested.
The following hypotheses have been derived from the research questions: “Does the
ethnicity of the model featured in the advertisement affect viewers’ responses to the
advertisement?” and “Does viewers’ level of ethnic identification affect viewers’ responses influenced by the ethnicity of the model featured in the advertisement - to the
advertisement?”:
H2.1a:
Strong and weak ethnic identifiers have a more favorable attitude towards the
advertisement with a model of similar ethnicity than towards an advertisement with a
model of dissimilar ethnicity.
33
The Influence of Consumers’ Ethnic Identity on Advertising Responses
H2.1b:
Strong ethnic identifiers have a more favorable attitude towards an advertisement
featuring a model with similar ethnicity than weak identifiers
H2.2a:
Strong and weak ethnic identifiers respond more favorable to a model with similar
ethnicity featured in an advertisement than to a model with dissimilar ethnicity.
H2.2b:
Strong ethnic identifiers respond more favorable to the model with similar ethnicity
than weak ethnic identifiers.
H2.3a:
Strong and weak ethnic identifiers identify themselves more with a model of similar
ethnicity featured in the advertisement than with a model of dissimilar ethnicity.
H2.3b:
Strong ethnic identifiers identify themselves more with the model of a similar
ethnicity than weak ethnic identifiers.
H2.4a:
Strong and weak ethnic identifiers feel more targeted by an advertisement featuring a
model of similar ethnicity than by an advertisement featuring a model of dissimilar
ethnicity.
H2.4b:
Strong ethnic identifiers feel more targeted by an advertisement featuring a model
with similar ethnicity than weak ethnic identifiers
Based on the next two research questions: “Do cultural embedded advertisements affect
viewers’ responses to the advertisement?”, “Does viewers’ level of ethnic identification affect
viewers’ responses to high and low cultural embedded advertisements?”, and again on the
discussion, the following eight hypotheses have been developed:
H3.1a:
Strong and weak ethnic identifiers respond more favorable to a high culturally
embedded advertisement with ethnic cues related to viewers’ ethnicity than to a low
culturally embedded advertisement
H3.1b:
Strong ethnic identifiers respond more favorable to high culturally embedded
advertisement with ethnic cues related to their ethnicity than weak ethnic identifiers.
34
The Influence of Consumers’ Ethnic Identity on Advertising Responses
H3.2a:
Strong and weak ethnic identifiers respond more favorable to the model featured in a
high culturally embedded advertisement with ethnic cues related to viewers’ ethnicity
than in a low cultural embedded advertisement
H3.2b:
Strong ethnic identifiers respond more favorable to the model featured in a high
culturally embedded advertisement with ethnic cues related to viewers’ ethnicity than
weak ethnic identifiers
H3.3a:
Strong and weak ethnic identifiers identify themselves more with the model featured
in a high culturally embedded advertisement with ethnic cues related to viewers’
ethnicity than in a low cultural embedded advertisement
H3.3b:
Strong ethnic identifiers identify themselves more with the model featured in a high
culturally embedded advertisement with ethnic cues related to viewers’ ethnicity than
weak ethnic identifiers
H3.4a:
Strong and weak ethnic identifiers feel more targeted by a high culturally embedded
advertisement with ethnic cues related to viewers’ ethnicity than by a low cultural
embedded advertisement
H3.4b:
Strong ethnic identifiers feel more targeted by a high culturally embedded
advertisement with ethnic cues related to viewer’s ethnicity than weak identifiers
The last research question: “Do multi-cultural cues in the advertisement moderate the effect
of a model’s ethnicity on viewers’ responses to the advertisement?” led to the following
hypotheses:
H4.1:
Strong and weak ethnic identifiers with dissimilar ethnicity as the model featured in
the advertisement respond more favorable to the advertisement with multi-cultural
cues than to an advertisement without these cues.
H4.2:
Strong and weak ethnic identifiers with dissimilar ethnicity as the model featured in
the advertisement respond more favorable to this model in an advertisement with
multi-cultural cues than in an advertisement without these cues
35
The Influence of Consumers’ Ethnic Identity on Advertising Responses
H4.3:
Strong and weak ethnic identifiers with dissimilar ethnicity as the model featured in
the advertisement identify themselves more with this model in an advertisement with
multi-cultural cues than in an advertisement without these cues
H4.4:
Strong and weak ethnic identifiers with dissimilar ethnicity as the model featured in
the advertisement feel more targeted by an advertisement with multi-cultural cues
than by an advertisement without these cues
3.3 Design
The study employed a 2 x 6 (“two by six”) between-subjects (ANOVA) design to test the
hypotheses for diverse ethnic groups with a focus on the Hindustani and Creole groups. The
term “between subjects” reflects the comparisons between different groups of subjects. Each
number in the description “2 x 6” represents an independent variable and the value of the
number represents the number of levels of that independent variable. For example, 3 x 2
would mean two independent variables, one with three levels and one with two levels. Thus
in this experiment there were two independent variables. In describing an ANOVA (Analysis
of Variance) design, the term factor is used as a synonym of independent variable1.
The two independent variables, or factors in this experiment were: Strength of Ethnic
Identity and Cultural Embeddedness. The factor Strength of Ethnic Identity has two levels:
strong and weak. The factor Cultural Embeddedness has, corresponding to the six
advertisements used in the experiment (see paragraph 3.5), six levels. The six advertisements
varied in model’s ethnicity and level of cultural embeddeness. The six levels of the factor
Cultural Embeddedness were: low Hindustani cultural embeddedness (advertisement with
Hindustani model without ethnic cues), high Hindustani cultural embeddedness
(advertisement with Hindustani model and ethnic cues), Hindustani multi-cultural
embeddedness (advertisement with Hindustani model and multi-cultural cues), low Creole
cultural embeddedness (advertisement with Creole model without ethnic cues), high Creole
cultural embeddedness (advertisement with Creole model and ethnic cues) and Creole multicultural embeddedness (advertisement with Creole model and multi-cultural cues).
The four dependent variables were: Attitude towards the Advertisement, Attitude towards
the Model, Identification with the Model and Targetedness.
1
http://psych.rice.edu/online_stat/chapter12/anova_designs.html.
36
The Influence of Consumers’ Ethnic Identity on Advertising Responses
The design of this experiment is similar to designs employed in previous research as
discussed in the literature review.
3.4 Subjects
Subjects were selected from the group employees at Fernandes Bottling Company N.V.,
Surinamese franchise of The Coca-Cola Company. The two main reasons to select subjects
from this group were: the group is a relative good representation of the diverse ethnic groups
in Surinamese society, and it is assumed that all subjects selected from this group would have
a similar attitude towards the brand Coca-Cola (which is used in the stimuli material as
described in the next paragraph). Therefore any influence by subjects’ attitude towards the
brand on advertisement responses measured in this experiment will remain neutral when
comparing results between the subjects.
In total 126 subjects participated in the experiment: 49 (39%) Creoles, 47 (37%)
Hindustani, 16 (13%) ‘Others’ (Javanese, Maroon, Chinese, Amerindians) and 14 (11%)
participants did identify themselves with an ethnic group. 21% female and 79% male. All
participants were older than 20 years.
3.5 Stimuli material
The stimuli material consisted of six professionally prepared full-color print
advertisements. The six advertisements varied in the ethnicity of the model featured in the
advertisement and the level of cultural embeddeness. There were three advertisements
featuring a Hindustani model of which one advertisement did not feature any ethnic cues
(advertisement xh1), one advertisement featuring ethnic cues (advertisement xh2) and one
advertisement featuring multi-cultural cues (advertisement xh3) (see appendix 1: figure 1, 2,
and 3). The three other advertisements were featuring a Creole model of which also one
advertisement was without any ethnic cues (advertisement ck1), one with ethnic cues
(advertisement ck2) and one with multi-cultural cues (advertisement ck3) (see appendix 1:
figure 4, 5 and 6). The six advertisements were digitally manipulated to vary the ethnicity of
the model and the different types of ethnic cues in each advertisement while all other visual
features remained constant.
For this experiment it was chosen to feature a Hindustani model and a Creole model in
the advertisements because they represent the two largest ethnic groups in Suriname. Effort
37
The Influence of Consumers’ Ethnic Identity on Advertising Responses
was made to use equivalent Hindustani and Creole cues in the high culturally embedded
versions of the advertisement. Celebrities representing the ethnic group of the model, ethnical
clothing and traditional music instruments were used as ethnic cues in the advertisements (see
appendix 1: figure 2 and 5). The so called multi-cultural cues in advertisement 3 and 6 (see
appendix 1: figure 3 and 6) consisted of typical Surinamese symbols and images
All six advertisements were promoting the brand Coca-Cola. The main reason to use this
brand in the experiment is that Coca-Cola has itself proven to be adopted by almost all
cultures worldwide and even so by all cultures or ethnic groups in Suriname.
3.6 Procedure
The experiment was conducted at the site of the organization from which subjects were
chosen to participate. The experiment took place in four sessions with twenty-one
participants each session, one session with 16 participants and several sessions with smaller
groups (due to circumstances it was not achievable to have six sessions with twenty-one
participants each session as planned). The participants were told that they would be
participating in an advertising survey designed to obtain their opinion on proposed
advertisements in order for the advertising agency to improve the look, the style and content
of those advertisements. Each participant was given a booklet containing two advertisements
and a questionnaire (see appendix 2) which were randomly assigned. The questionnaire
consisted of six sets of questions. In the first set the subjects were asked to answer the
question: “Please tell us about yourself in your own words”. Subsequently subjects were
asked to answer the questions on the two advertisements. The first four questions of this set
were corresponding to the first advertisement and the last four questions to the second
advertisement. Each set of four questions were immediately answered by the subject after
reviewing the corresponding advertisement.
After finishing all the questions on the advertisements they were asked to answer the
following question: “Please tell us what you are not” The next set of questions concerned the
measure of the subject’s ethnic identity followed with a set of questions on age and level of
education. Finally a post-experimental question assessed whether participants were aware of
the true purpose of the study.
Once the questionnaires were completed subjects who did not identify themselves with
an ethnic group or were aware of the true purpose of the study were excluded from the
research from further analysis. Also incomplete questionnaires were excluded. Of the 126
38
The Influence of Consumers’ Ethnic Identity on Advertising Responses
participants, 9 (7.14%) subjects did not identify themselves with an ethnic group and 0
subjects indicated to be aware of the true purpose of the study. 3 (2.38%) questionnaires were
incomplete.
3.7 Measurements
As mentioned in the introduction of this chapter this experiment measures how people
with different ethnic identities in Suriname respond to advertisements featuring ethnic models
and cues. The responses to advertisements measured in this research are: attitude towards the
advertisement; attitude towards the model; identification with the model and targetedness.
These measurements are types of affective techniques. They measure the attitudes which an
advertisement is able to generate in the individual (paragraph 2.5.3), which are reliable
indicators for the sales effectiveness of an advertisement (paragraph 2.5.4).
In order to define the effect of consumers’ ethnic identity on responses to advertisement
it is essential to determine the ethnic group one identifies with and the strength of that ethnic
identification. And in order to understand the effect of consumers’ ethnic identity on
advertising response it is important to know whether or not ethnicity can be perceived as a
distinctive salient trait for Surinamese consumers. Therefore measurements of ethnic identity
and ethnic salience were included. The following six paragraphs provide a description of
these measurements.
3.7.1 Ethnic salience
Ethnic salience was measured by using the spontaneous self-concept measure according
Mc Guire (1978). For this measure the subjects were asked to describe aspects of them self in
response to the open-ended question. “Please tell us about yourself in your own words” and
“Please tell us what you are not”. The percentage identifying their background was used as
the measure of ethnic salience.
3.7.2 Ethnic identity
The strength of ethnic identification was measured by using The Multigroup Measure of
Ethnic Identity (MEIM), developed by Phinney. MEIM was originally published in the article
“The Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure: A new scale for use with adolescents and young
39
The Influence of Consumers’ Ethnic Identity on Advertising Responses
adults from diverse groups” by Phinney (1992)2. It has subsequently been used in dozens of
studies and has consistently shown good reliability, typically alphas above .80 across a wide
range of ethnic groups and ages. In this research a revised version of the measure will be
used. This measure comprises two factors. The first factor is ethnic identity search (a
developmental and cognitive component) and the second factor is affirmation, belonging and
commitment (an affective component). The items (see appendix 2)1, 2, 4, 8 and 10 of the
measure have to do with ethnic identity search and the items 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12 concern the
factor affirmation, belonging and commitment. Items 13, 14, and 15 are used only for
purposes of identification and categorization by ethnicity. Each item was measured using a 4point scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (4). An ethnic identity scale
was developed by averaging the mean scores from each of the 12 items. The median ethnic
identity scores for Hindustani, Creole and the group ‘Others’ were respectively 2.81, 2.98 and
3.01. Strong and weak ethnic identifiers scored either above or below the median for their
group.
3.7.3 Attitude towards the Advertisement
Participants’ attitude towards the advertisement was measured by using nine 7-point
semantic
differential
scales:
good/bad,
pleasant/unpleasant,
favorable/unfavorable
like/dislike, effective/not effective, interesting/not interesting, attractive/unattractive and
persuasive/not persuasive, positive/negative (MacKenzie and Lutz, 1989; Holbrook and
Batra, 1987). These scales have been successfully used in other similar studies and
demonstrated strong evidence of reliability (e.g. Deshpande and Stayman, 1994; Green 1999,
Appaih 2001). The single index of “Attitude towards the Advertisement” used in the analysis
was obtained by averaging the scores to these scales.
3.7.4 Attitude towards the Model
Participants rated their likeability of the model on six scales. These six 7-point semantic
differential scales were anchored by warm/cold, likable/unlikable, sincere/insincere,
friendly/unfriendly, trustworthy /untrustworthy and credible/not credible. The last two scales
2
http://www.calstatela.edu/academic/psych/ftp/meim.doc
40
The Influence of Consumers’ Ethnic Identity on Advertising Responses
mentioned are an extension on the 4 scales measure by Whittler and DiMeo (1991). The
scores on the six scales were averaged into a single measure of likeability of the model.
3.7.5 Identification with the Model
Participants also indicated on a 7-point Likert scale how strongly they identified with the
model in the advertisement by expressing their extent of agreement with the following
statements: “ A person whom I want to be like,” “My type of person,” and “A person who
speaks for a group of which I am a member” (Whittler and Spira, 2002). The scores were
averaged over the three scales.
3.7.6 Targetedness
To measure whether or not the subject felt targeted by the advertisement they had to
answer three felt targetedness questions. “I feel the advertisement was intended for people
like me”, “I don’t believe I was in the target market the company created the advertisement
for”, and “The advertiser made that advertisement to appeal people like me”. (Aaker,
Brumbaugh and Grier 2000) These felt targetedness items were measured on 7-point Likert
scale anchored by disagree completely (1) and agree completely (7).
3.8 Analysis
An experiment that includes two independent variables and one dependent variable is
appropriately analyzed using a two-way analysis of variance (two-way ANOVA).
ANOVA is used to uncover the main and interaction effects of the independent variables
on a dependent variable. A main effect is the direct effect of an independent variable on the
dependent variable. An interaction effect is de joint effect of two or more independent
variables on the dependent variable.
The key statistic in ANOVA is the F-test of difference of group means, testing if the
means of the groups formed by values of the independent variable (or combinations of values
for multiple independent variables) are different enough not to have occurred by chance. If
the group means do not differ significantly then it is inferred that the independent variables
did not have an effect on the dependent variable. If the F-test shows that overall the
independent variables are related to the dependent variable then Multiple comparison tests of
41
The Influence of Consumers’ Ethnic Identity on Advertising Responses
significance are used to explore just which group means of the independent variables differ
significantly from the others3.
To test the hypotheses for the different ethnic groups a series of two-way ANOVA,
Multiple comparisons tests have been conducted for each of the four dependent variables.
The results of the experiment are presented and discussed in the following chapter.
3.9 Summary
This study investigates the effect of consumers’ ethnic identity on advertising responses in
Suriname. Therefore an experiment has been conducted to measure how people with different
ethnic identities in Suriname respond to advertisements featuring ethnic models and cues, in
terms of: attitude towards the advertisement; attitude towards the model; identification with
the model and targetedness. The study employed a 2 x 6 (“two by six”) between-subjects
(ANOVA) design. The two independent variables, or factors in this experiment were:
Strength of Ethnic Identity and Cultural Embeddedness with respectively two and six levels.
The four dependent variables were: Attitude towards the Advertisement, Attitude towards the
Model, Identification with the Model and Targetedness. Also measures of ethnic salience and
ethnic identity were included in the experiment.
To uncover the main and interaction effects of the independent variables on a dependent
variable and to test the hypotheses for the different ethnic groups a series of two-way
ANOVA and Multiple comparisons tests have been conducted for each of the four dependent
variables.
3
http://www2.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/pa765/anova.htm
42
The Influence of Consumers’ Ethnic Identity on Advertising Responses
CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS
4.1 Introduction
In this chapter the results of the experiment will be presented and discussed. First the
results of the measure on the salience of ethnicity will be presented, followed by the
advertising responses of the Creole group and the Hindustani group to the six different
advertisements. In order to analyze the impact of the factors Strength of Ethnic Identity and
Cultural Embeddedness on the advertising responses and to test the hypotheses series of twoway ANOVA and Multiple comparisons tests have been performed.
4.2 Salience of Ethnicity
From the 112 subject who identified themselves with an ethnic group 17 subjects
mentioned their ethnicity when answering the question “Tell us about yourself” or “Tell us
what you are not”. Ethnicity is a salient trait for 12.77% (6 out of 47) of the Hindustani
subjects, 14.29% (7 out of 49) of the Creoles and for 25% (4 out of 16) of the group
consisting of subjects identifying with the Javanese, Maroon, Chinese or Amerindian
ethnicity.
4.3 Advertising Responses
In the next section the interaction and main effects of the independent variables: Cultural
Embeddedness and Strength of Ethnic Identity on the dependent variables: Attitude towards
the advertisement, Attitude towards the Model, Identification with the Model and
Targetedness will be discussed for the Creole group and for the Hindustani group. All results
of the series of two-way ANOVA for the two ethnic groups are available in appendices 3 and
4. The means for all independent and dependent variables for the two groups are presented in
table 1 and 2.
43
The Influence of Consumers’ Ethnic Identity on Advertising Responses
4.3.1 Interaction and Main Effects
In the case of the Creole group the ANOVA demonstrates an interaction effect of the two
independent variables on the dependent variables Identification with the Model (F5,84 = 2.142,
p< 0.1) and Targetedness (F5,84 =2.323, p< 0.1) (see appendix 3). These interactions effects
indicate that the advertising responses Identification with the Model and Targetedness are
influenced by the joint effect of the cultural embeddedness of the advertisement and the
strength of ethnic identity of the viewer.
The series of ANOVA demonstrate significant main effects for the dependent variable
Cultural Embeddedness on each of the four dependent variables: Attitude towards the
Advertisement (F5,86 = 7.910, p< 0.05), Attitude towards the Model (F5,86 = 4.601, p< 0.05),
Identification with the Model (F5,86 = 11.304, p< 0.05) and Targetedness (F5,86 = 12.071, p<
0.05) (see appendix 3). The analysis does not demonstrate a main effect for the dependent
variable Strength of Ethnic Identity on one of the four dependent variables.
For the Hindustani group the results of the ANOVA reveals interaction effects for:
Attitude towards the Advertisement (F5,82 = 4.086, p< 0.05), Attitude towards the Model (F5,82
= 2.582, p< 0.05), Identification with the Model (F5,82 = 2.864, p< 0.05) and Targetedness
(F5,82 = 5.027, p< 0.05) (see appendix 4).
The analyses reveal significant main effects for the dependent variable Cultural
Embeddedness on all four dependent variables: Attitude towards the Advertisement (F5,82 =
4.891, p< 0.05), Attitude towards the Model (F5,82 = 4.277, p< 0.05), Identification with the
Model (F5,82 = 6.270, p< 0.05) and Targetedness (F5,82 = 17.461, p< 0.05) (see appendix 4).
The analyses do not reveal a main effect for the dependent variable Strength of Ethnic
Identity on one of the four dependent variables.
4.3.2 Hypotheses Testing
As mentioned in chapter 3 (paragraph 3.8) and in the introduction of this chapter series
of two-way ANOVA and Multiple comparisons tests have been conducted to test the
hypotheses. Only in case of a significant main effect (see previous paragraph) further
investigation through Multiple comparisons tests has been performed in order to determine
whether or not the hypothesis is supported.
44
The Influence of Consumers’ Ethnic Identity on Advertising Responses
Table 1. Mean Responses and Standard Deviations for Creole Identifiers
Total
H2.1a:
Identifiers
Identifiers
Weak Creole
Strong Creole
AD
Attitude
Attitude
Identification
towards the
towards
with the Model
Advertisement
the Model
M
SD
M
SD
Targetedness
M
SD
M
SD
ck1
5.5271
.9505
5.4757
.9824
4.3343
1.7222
5.2857
.9512
ck2
5.8567
1.0342
6.2533
.4883
5.4833
1.1927
5.8056
1.3924
ck3
5.8567
.9806
6.0722
.9705
5.2475
1.1652
4.8322
1.2767
xh1
4.6667
1.7512
5.0833
1.0685
1.9340
.9256
2.5017
.5889
xh2
4.0570
.7845
4.5170
1.1882
3.1670
1.5089
3.7660
1.4231
xh3
5.3089
1.2166
4.8344
1.6566
3.9622
1.1599
4.4078
1.6565
ck1
5.5533
.8557
5.4256
1.0138
4.4822
.8188
4.7789
1.1116
ck2
5.1050
1.2234
6.0988
.6532
5.0763
1.1988
4.5838
1.8152
ck3
5.7343
.9141
5.1614
.5637
4.1429
.6624
5.3814
.7561
xh1
4.3071
1.3911
5.0714
1.0793
3.6229
1.0432
3.1914
1.3204
xh2
3.5078
1.3005
4.9244
1.2053
2.6289
1.0976
2.1300
1.1666
xh3
4.8413
1.0683
5.2300
.6569
3.4575
1.2213
4.3975
1.1302
ck1
5.5419
.8672
5.4475
.9669
4.4175
1.2448
5.0006
1.0184
ck2
5.5029
1.1573
6.1806
.5587
5.2918
1.1764
5.2306
1.6096
ck3
5.8031
.9225
5.6738
.92044
4.7320
1.0919
5.0725
1.0850
xh1
4.4731
1.5100
5.0769
1.0287
2.9192
1.2890
2.8731
1.0698
xh2
3.7968
1.0672
4.7100
1.1812
2.9121
1.3229
2.9911
1.5238
xh3
5.0888
1.0683
5.0206
1.2657
3.7247
1.1801
4.4029
1.3896
Strong and weak ethnic identifiers have a more favorable attitude towards the
advertisement with a model of similar ethnicity than towards an advertisement with a
model of dissimilar ethnicity.
The hypothesis is not supported in the case of the Creole group. Although the results
demonstrate a significant main effect for cultural embeddedness on the dependent variable
Attitude towards the Advertisement (F5,86 = 7.910, p< 0.05) and strong and weak Creole
identifiers have a more favorable attitude towards the advertisement featuring a model of
similar ethnicity (M= 5.5419) than towards the advertisement featuring a model of dissimilar
45
The Influence of Consumers’ Ethnic Identity on Advertising Responses
ethnicity (M= 4.4731, p > 0.05), the difference between means is not significant according
the Multiple comparisons (see table 1 and appendix 3).
The hypothesis is also not supported in the case of the Hindustani group. According to
the Multiple comparisons Hindustani identifiers overall do not have a significant more
favorable attitude towards the advertisement with a Hindustani model (M= 5.1411) than
towards the advertisement with a Creole model (M= 4.4180, p < 0.05) (see table 2 and
appendix 4).
Table 2. Mean Responses and Standard Deviations for Hindustani Identifiers
Identifiers
Hindustani
H2.1b:
Identifiers
Hindustani
Total
Weak
Strong
AD
Attitude
Attitude
Identification
towards the
towards
with the Model
Advertisement
the Model
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
Targetedness
M
SD
ck1
4.5713
.9323
4.7288
.9529
3.4588
.3547
2.7500
.6609
ck2
4.5633
.1.0901
4.6856
1.2654
4.0933
1.1878
4.1656
ck3
5.2325
.7159
5.3500
.7349
3.6650
2.4738
4.8763
xh1
6.0467
.4483
5.6289
.8999
4.9956
..7573
5.1856
xh2
5.6733
.8755
5.7450
.5434
5.7167
.7080
5.9450
.9748
xh3
5.2580
.7073
4.8500
.4877
4.4510
1.2855
4.8330
.8492
ck1
4.2429
.3379
4.5743
.4173
3.8571
.6344
3.5214
.6635
ck2
4.5500
.4474
4.5850
.6101
4.4800
.3390
4.0088
.5257
ck3
5.6329
1.4201
5.2614
.4492
4.2357
1.0145
5.5171
1.1996
xh1
4.3260
.9535
5.3460
1.1068
4.3500
.5250
3.9500
.7859
xh2
5.1140
.8755
5.2340
.8959
4.9960
.7290
5.3020
.6912
xh3
5.8986
.7073
6.1900
.6050
6.2371
.7642
6.1414
1.0126
ck1
4.4180
.7157
4.6567
.7314
3.6447
.5270
3.1100
.75212
ck2
4.5571
.8257
4.6382
.9629
4.2753
.8918
4.0918
.8264
1.0540
1.0368
.9577
ck3
5.4193
1.0602
5.3087
.5988
3.9313
1.8941
5.1753
1.1241
xh1
5.1411
1.1502
5.4800
.9968
4.6558
.7088
4.5353
1.0549
xh2
5.4191
1.0638
5.5127
.7348
4.9960
.7777
5.6527
.91373
xh3
5.5216
1.3706
5.4018
.8562
6.2371
1.4034
5.3718
1.0126
Strong ethnic identifiers have a more favorable attitude towards an advertisement
featuring a model with similar ethnicity than weak identifiers
46
The Influence of Consumers’ Ethnic Identity on Advertising Responses
There is no significant main effect for the independent variable Strength of Ethnic
Identity found (see appendix 3). A closer look at the means confirms that the difference
between the attitudes towards advertisement of strong and weak Creole identifiers is not
significant (see table 1). Therefore the hypothesis is not supported in the case of the Creole
group.
Also in the case of the Hindustani group the hypothesis is not supported. As discussed in
paragraph 4.2, there is no main effect for the independent variable Strength of Ethnic Identity
on the dependent variable Attitude towards the Advertisement found.
H2.2a:
Strong and weak ethnic identifiers respond more favorable to a model with similar
ethnicity featured in an advertisement than to a model with dissimilar ethnicity.
The ANOVA for the dependent variable Attitude towards the Model does demonstrate a
main effect for cultural embeddedness (F5,86 = 4.379, p< 0.05) for the Creole group. This
main effect is not established by differences of mean responses between the low Creole
culturally embedded advertisement and the low Hindustani culturally embedded
advertisement, because the results do not show a significant difference between the attitude of
strong and weak Creole identifiers towards the Creole model (M= 5.4475) and the attitude
towards the Hindustani model (M= 5.0769) (see table 1 and appendix 3). Therefore the
hypothesis is not supported in the case of the Creole group.
For the Hindustani group the ANOVA demonstrates a main effect for cultural
embeddedness on the dependent variable Attitude towards the Model (F5,82 = 4.277, p< 0.05).
The Multiple comparisons does not demonstrate that the difference between the attitude of
Hindustani identifiers towards the Hindustani model (M= 5.4800) and the attitude towards
the Creole model (M= 4.6567, p< 0.05) is significant (see table 2 and appendix 4). The
hypothesis is not supported in case of the Hindustani group.
H2.2b:
Strong ethnic identifiers respond more favorable to the model with similar ethnicity
than weak ethnic identifiers.
The analysis demonstrates that there is no significant main effect for the independent
variable Strength of Ethnic Identity on Attitude towards the Model. Again a closer look at the
means confirms that the difference between the attitudes of strong Creole identifiers and
47
The Influence of Consumers’ Ethnic Identity on Advertising Responses
weak Creole identifiers towards the model is not significant. Thus the hypothesis is not
supported in the case of the Creole group.
Also in the case of the Hindustani group the hypothesis is not supported. As discussed in
paragraph 4.2, there is no main effect for the independent variable Strength of Ethnic Identity
on the dependent variable Attitude towards the Model found.
H2.3a:
Strong and weak ethnic identifiers identify themselves more with a model of similar
ethnicity featured in the advertisement than with a model of dissimilar ethnicity.
A significant main effect for cultural embeddedness on the variable Identification with
the Model is found (F5,84 = 11.304 p<0.05). As predicted, strong and weak Creole identifiers
seem to identify themselves more with the Creole model (M= 4.4175) than with the
Hindustani model in the advertisements (M= 2.9192, p <0.05) (see table 1 and appendix 3).
Thus the hypothesis is supported in case of the Creole group.
Also for the Hindustani group a main effect for cultural embeddedness on the variable
Identification with the Model (F5,82 = 6.270, p< 0.05) is found. According to the Multiple
comparisons Hindustanis overall identify themselves more with the Hindustani model (M=
4.6558) than with the Creole model (M= 3.6447, p< 0.05) in the advertisements (see table 2
and appendix 4). The hypothesis is supported in case of the Hindustani group.
H2.3b:
Strong ethnic identifiers identify themselves more with the model of a similar
ethnicity than weak ethnic identifiers.
There is no main effect found for strength of ethnic identity on Identification with the
Model for both ethnic groups. This indicates that strong Creole (Hindustani) identifiers
identify themselves not significantly different with the model than weak Creole (Hindustani)
identifiers. Thus, the hypothesis is in the case of the Creole and Hindustani group not
supported.
H2.4a:
Strong and weak ethnic identifiers feel more targeted by an advertisement featuring a
model of similar ethnicity than by an advertisement featuring a model of dissimilar
ethnicity.
The hypothesis is supported in the case of the Creole group. The results reveal a
significant main effect for cultural embeddedness on Targetedness (F5,86 = 11.105, p< 0.05).
48
The Influence of Consumers’ Ethnic Identity on Advertising Responses
The hypothesis predicted that strong and weak Creole identifiers feel more targeted by the
advertisement featuring a Creole model (M= 5.1463) than a Hindustani model (M= 2.8731,
p< 0.05) (see table 1 and appendix 3).
In case of the Hindustani group the hypothesis is also supported. The ANOVA shows a
main effect for cultural embeddedness on Targetedness (F5,82 = 17.461, p< 0.05). The
Multiple comparisons demonstrate that Hindustanis overall feel more targeted by the
advertisement featuring a Hindustani model (M= 4.5353) than by the advertisement featuring
a Creole model (M= 3.1100, p< 0.05) (see table 2 and appendix 4).
H2.4b:
Strong ethnic identifiers feel more targeted by an advertisement featuring a model
with similar ethnicity than weak ethnic identifiers.
The results do not show a significant main effect for the strength of ethnic identity on
Targetedness for one of the ethnic groups. This indicates that there is no significant
difference between the felt targetedness of strong Creole (Hindustani) identifiers and weak
Creole (Hindustani) identifiers (see table 1 and 2). Thus, the hypothesis is in the case of the
Creole and Hindustani group not supported.
H3.1a:
Strong and weak ethnic identifiers respond more favorable to a high culturally
embedded advertisement with ethnic cues related to viewers’ ethnicity than to a low
culturally embedded advertisement.
Although there is a main effect for cultural embeddedness on Attitude towards the
Advertisement as mentioned before, a closer look at the means demonstrates that strong and
weak Creole identifiers do not respond more favorably to the high Creole culturally
embedded advertisements (M= 5.5029) than to the low Creole culturally embedded
advertisement (M= 5.5419, p> 0.05) (see table 1 and appendix 3). Therefore the hypothesis is
not supported in the case of the Creole group (see table 1 and appendix 3).
Also in the case of the Hindustani group the hypothesis is not supported. The Multiple
comparisons does not demonstrate that strong and weak Hindustani identifiers have a
significant more favorably attitude towards the high Hindustani culturally embedded
advertisement (M= 5.4191) than towards the low Hindustani culturally embedded
advertisement (M= 5.1411, p> 0.05) (see table 2 and appendix 4).
49
The Influence of Consumers’ Ethnic Identity on Advertising Responses
H3.1b:
Strong ethnic identifiers respond more favorable to high culturally embedded
advertisement with ethnic cues related to their ethnicity than weak ethnic identifiers.
The results do not demonstrate a main effect for the strength of ethnic identity on
Attitude towards the Advertisement for the two ethnic groups. This indicates that the
hypothesis is not supported in the case of both ethnic groups.
H3.2a:
Strong and weak ethnic identifiers respond more favorable to the model featured in a
high culturally embedded advertisement with ethnic cues related to viewers’ ethnicity
than in a low culturally embedded advertisement
The hypothesis is not supported in the case of the Creole group. As discussed earlier a
main effect for cultural embeddedness on Attitude towards the Model is found. Despite of the
main effect the Multiple comparisons test reveal that Creoles overall do not respond
significantly more favorable to the model featured in a high Creole culturally embedded
advertisements (M= 6.1806) than to the model in a low Creole culturally embedded
advertisement (M= 5.4475) (see table 1 and appendix 3).
In the case of the Hindustani group the hypothesis is not supported. The main effect for
cultural embeddedness for Attitude towards the Model as discussed earlier, is not a result
from the difference between the attitude towards the model in a high Hindustani culturally
embedded advertisement (M= 5.5127) and the attitude towards the model in a low Hindustani
culturally embedded advertisement (M= 5.4800) (see table 2 and appendix 4).
H3.2b:
Strong ethnic identifiers respond more favorable to the model featured in a high
culturally embedded advertisement with ethnic cues related to viewers’ ethnicity than
weak ethnic identifiers
The results do not demonstrate a main effect for the strength of ethnic identity on
Attitude towards the Model for the two ethnic groups. This indicates that the hypothesis is not
supported in the case of both ethnic groups.
H3.3a:
Strong and weak ethnic identifiers identify themselves more with the model featured
in a high culturally embedded advertisement with ethnic cues related to viewers’
ethnicity than in a low cultural embedded advertisement
50
The Influence of Consumers’ Ethnic Identity on Advertising Responses
Further investigation of the main effect for cultural embeddedness on Identification with
the Model reveals that Creole identifiers overall do not identify themselves significantly more
with the model in a high Creole culturally embedded advertisement (M=5.2918) than in a low
Creole culturally embedded advertisement (M = 4.4175) (see table 1 and appendix 3). Hence,
the hypothesis is not supported in the case of the Creole group.
Also in the case of the Hindustani group the hypothesis is not supported. The Multiple
comparisons test demonstrates that strong and weak Hindustani identifiers do not identify
themselves significantly more with the model in a high Hindustani culturally embedded
advertisement (M= 5.3891) than in a low Hindustani culturally embedded advertisement (M=
4.6558, p< 0.05) (see table 2 and appendix 4).
H3.3b:
Strong ethnic identifiers identify themselves more with the model featured in a high
culturally embedded advertisement with ethnic cues related to viewers’ ethnicity than
weak ethnic identifiers
The results do not demonstrate a main effect for the strength of ethnic identity on
Identification with the Model for the two ethnic groups. This indicates that the hypothesis is
not supported in the case of both ethnic groups.
H3.4a:
Strong and weak ethnic identifiers feel more targeted by a high culturally embedded
advertisement with ethnic cues related to viewers’ ethnicity than by a low cultural
embedded advertisement
The hypothesis is not supported in the case of the Creole group. Although a main effect
for cultural embeddedness on Targetedness is found, the results fail to support of the
hypothesis. The results show that strong and weak Creole identifiers do not feel significantly
more targeted by the high Creole culturally embedded advertisement (M= 5.2306) than by the
low Creole culturally embedded advertisement (M= 5.0006) (see table 1 and appendix 3).
In the case of the Hindustani group the hypothesis is supported. Besides the main effect
the results of the tests show a significant difference between the means of Targetedness for
the high Hindustani culturally embedded advertisement (M= 5.6523) and low Hindustani
culturally embedded advertisement (M= 4.5353, p< 0.05) (see table 2 and appendix 4). The
significant difference in means indicates that Hindustani overall feel more targeted by the
51
The Influence of Consumers’ Ethnic Identity on Advertising Responses
advertisement high in cultural embeddedness than by the advertisement low in cultural
embeddedness.
H3.4b:
Strong ethnic identifiers feel more targeted by a high culturally embedded
advertisement with ethnic cues related to viewer’s ethnicity than weak identifiers
The results do not demonstrate a main effect for the strength of ethnic identity on
Targetedness for the two ethnic groups. This indicates that the hypothesis is not supported in
the case of both ethnic groups.
H4.1:
Strong and weak ethnic identifiers with dissimilar ethnicity as the model featured in
the advertisement respond more favorable to the advertisement with multi-cultural
cues than to an advertisement without these cues.
This hypothesis is partially supported in the case of the Creole group. Exploration of the
means of the low culturally embedded advertisement (M= 4.4731) and the multi-cultural
embedded advertisement (M= 5.0888) with models of dissimilar ethnicity indicates that the
results fail to support the hypothesis, but investigation of the means for the high culturally
embedded advertisement (M= 3.7968) and again the multi-cultural embedded advertisement
with the Hindustani model (p< 0.05) indicates that the hypothesis is supported (see table 1
and appendix 3).
In the case of the Hindustani group the hypothesis is fully supported. Multiple
comparisons demonstrates that strong and weak Hindustani identifiers have a more favorable
attitude towards the multi-cultural embedded advertisement with a Creole model (M= 5.4193)
than towards the low culturally embedded (M= 4.4180) or high culturally embedded
advertisement with a Creole model (M= 4.5571, p< 0.05) (see table 2 and appendix 4).
H4.2:
Strong and weak ethnic identifiers with dissimilar ethnicity as the model featured in
the advertisement respond more favorable to this model in an advertisement with
multi-cultural cues than in an advertisement without these cues.
The hypothesis is not supported in the case of the Creole group. Creoles overall seem not
to have a more favorable attitude towards the model of dissimilar ethnicity being featured in
an advertisement with multi-cultural cues (M= 5.0206) than in an advertisement without
these cues (M= 5.0769, p> 0.05) (see table 1 and appendix 3).
52
The Influence of Consumers’ Ethnic Identity on Advertising Responses
Also In the case of the Hindustani group the hypothesis is not supported. The results
indicate that Hindustanis overall do not have a significantly more favorable attitude towards
the Creole model being featured in a multi-cultural embedded advertisement (M= 5.3087)
than in low Creole culturally embedded advertisement (M= 4.6567) or high Creole culturally
embedded advertisement (M= 4.6382 p> 0.05) (see table 2 and appendix 4).
H4.3:
Strong and weak ethnic identifiers with dissimilar ethnicity as the model featured in
the advertisement identify themselves more with this model in an advertisement with
multi-cultural cues than in an advertisement without these cues.
The hypothesis is not supported in the case of the Creole group. According to the
Multiple comparisons test Creoles overall do not identify themselves significantly more with
the model of a dissimilar ethnicity in the multi-cultural embedded advertisement (M= 3.7247)
than with the model in the high (M= 2.9121) or low culturally embedded advertisement (M=
2.9192, p> 0.05) (see table 1 and appendix 3).
Strong and weak Hindustani identifiers do not identify themselves more with the Creole
model in a multi-cultural embedded advertisement (M= 3.9313 than with the model in the
high (M= 4.2753) or low culturally embedded advertisement (M= 3.6447, p> 0.05). Hence, in
the case of the Hindustani group the hypothesis is not supported (see table 2 and appendix 4).
H4.4:
Strong and weak ethnic identifiers with dissimilar ethnicity as the model featured in
the advertisement feel more targeted by an advertisement with multi-cultural cues
than by an advertisement without these cues
The analysis indicates that strong and weak Creole identifiers feel more targeted by the
multi-cultural embedded advertisement featuring a model with dissimilar ethnicity (M=
4.4029) than by the advertisement with the same model without these multicultural cues (low
Hindustani culturally embedded advertisement M= 2.8731; high Hindustani culturally
embedded advertisement M= 2.911, p< 0.05) (see table 1 and appendix 3). Hence, the
hypothesis is supported in the case of the Creole group.
The hypothesis is also supported in the case of the Hindustani group. The multicomparisons test indicates that Hindustani overall feel more targeted by the Creole multicultural embedded advertisement (M= 5.1753) than by the low and high Creole culturally
embedded advertisements (M= 3.1100; M= 4.0918, p< 0.05) (see table 1 and appendix 4).
53
The Influence of Consumers’ Ethnic Identity on Advertising Responses
4.4 Summary
Ethnicity appeared to be a salient trait for 12.77% of the Hindustani subjects, 14.29% of
the Creoles and for 25% of the group consisting of subjects identifying with the Javanese,
Maroon, Chinese or Amerindian ethnicity.
For both groups (Hindustanis and Creoles) an interaction effect is found on the
dependent variables Identification with the Model and Targetedness. In the case of the
Hindustani group the results also reveal an interaction effect on Attitude towards the
Advertisement and Attitude towards the Model. Only for the independent variable Cultural
Embeddedness main effects on all four types of advertising responses for both groups are
found. The results do not reveal main effects for the independent variable Strength of Ethnic
Identity.
In the case of the Creole group as well as in the case of the Hindustani group the
hypotheses with regard to Attitude towards the Advertisement and multi-cultural cues in the
advertisements are supported. Also in both cases the hypotheses on the influence of the
ethnicity of the model in relation to the advertising response Identification with the Model are
supported by the results. The results also supported the hypotheses on Targetedness in
relation to the ethnicity of the model and multi-cultural cues for both groups. In the case of
the Hindustani group is the hypotheses with regard to felt Targetedness and high culturally
embedded advertisements also supported
54
The Influence of Consumers’ Ethnic Identity on Advertising Responses
CHAPTER FIVE
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Introduction
The objectives of this study are: to address the issue - which was raised in the problem
statement - “Are findings of previous research robust cross culturally?”, and to provide
recommendations for effective advertisements in Suriname as a multicultural marketplace. To
be able to meet the objectives of this study research questions and hypotheses were
developed, an experiment was conducted, results were analyzed and hypotheses were tested,
which will lead to some conclusions to address the research questions.
This chapter will first present the conclusions and based on these conclusions the
question raised in the problem statement will be addressed. Thereafter some limitations of the
study will be discussed followed by recommendations on effective advertisements. The
chapter will be completed with recommendations for future research.
5.2 Conclusions on The Influence of Ethnic Identity on Advertising
Responses (in Suriname)
Ethnicity appears to be a salient trait for Surinamese consumers. The findings support the
prediction of the Distinctiveness theory that a numerical minority group will be more likely to
deem their ethnic identity salient than members of numerical majority group would (Mc
Guire et al 1978). The next paragraph will discuss this in more detail.
The findings that Creoles as well as Hindustanis identify themselves more with the
model of own ethnicity and feel more targeted by the advertisement featuring a model of
similar ethnicity than by the advertisement featuring a model of dissimilar ethnicity supports
the expectation that the ethnicity of the model featured in the advertisement does affect
viewers’ responses to the advertisement. These findings also support the Identification
theory: when viewers perceive that the source, in this case the model, possesses
characteristics similar to their own, such as ethnicity, it will lead to greater identification
(Kelman 1961). The fact that one feels more targeted by an advertisement featuring a model
of similar ethnicity supports the theory on Intercultural accommodation maintaining it
improves communication when the communicators, in this case the advertisers, make
55
The Influence of Consumers’ Ethnic Identity on Advertising Responses
themselves more similar to members of a cultural group (Holland and Gentry 1997).When a
person feels targeted by advertisement it is likely that one at least takes the time to read or
view the advertisement more closely.
Different than expected, neither Creoles nor Hindustanis have more favorable advertising
responses to the high culturally embedded advertisements than to the low culturally
embedded advertisements. With the exception that Hindustanis feel more targeted by a high
Hindustani culturally embedded advertisement. The main effect for cultural embeddedness of
the advertisements on the advertising responses for the Creoles as well as for the Hindustanis
is mainly a result of differences in means of responses to advertisements which were not
further analyzed for addressing the purpose of this study.
Creoles as well as Hindustanis feel more targeted and have a more favorable attitude
towards the multi-cultural embedded advertisement featuring a model of dissimilar ethnicity
than towards an advertisement without these multi-cultural cues. Hence, multi-cultural
advertising cues do moderate the effect of a model’s ethnicity on viewers’ responses to the
advertisement to a certain extent and therefore an advertiser may be able to reach multiple
groups from different cultural or ethnic backgrounds. The finding that one has a more
favorable attitude towards the multi-culturally embedded advertisement featuring a model of
dissimilar ethnicity than towards an advertisement without these multi-cultural cues suggests
that a person is more likely to be effected by the advertisement to purchase the advertised
product than the person would be in case of an advertisement without these cues.
This study failed to prove that the level of ethnic identification does influence viewers’
responses to advertisements directly; no main effect for the variable Strength of Ethnic
Identity was found. Nevertheless, the interaction effects do indicate a joint effect of strength
of ethnic identity and cultural embeddedness.
5.3 Conclusions on Cross Culturally Robustness of Previous Research
As pointed out in chapter one (paragraph 1.3) nearly all research on the relation between
ethnicity and consumers’ advertising responses has been done in the United States. This
raises the issue whether or not findings of these researches - demonstrating the effects of
consumers’ ethnic identity on responses to advertisements - are cross culturally robust since
the ethnic, racial and cultural composition of the population of Suriname is different from the
population of the United States. The population of Suriname does not, like the population of
the United States, consist of clearly distinct majority (whites) and minority groups (blacks,
56
The Influence of Consumers’ Ethnic Identity on Advertising Responses
Hispanics). As described in chapter one (paragraph 1.2) the population of Suriname is much
ethnically diverse; it consists of many ethnic groups of which the two largest groups are
numerically very close. Since it is difficult to speak in terms of majority and minority groups
for Suriname, findings such as: “members of minority (versus majority) groups were more
likely than majority groups to have their ethnicity salient” (Deshpande and Stayman 1994)
are supported by this study to the extent that the results indicate that ethnicity for the
numerically largest ethnic group in Suriname (Hindustanis) is less salient than for smaller
ethnic groups. In other words: the smaller (numerically) the group is, the more salient
ethnicity is likely to be.
Furthermore, this study found support that findings such as: “members of minority
groups find an advertisement spokesperson of their own ethnicity to be more trustworthy”
(Deshpande and Stayman 1994), “whites had less favorable attitudes towards the
advertisements when the advertisements featured black actors” (Whittler and DiMeo), “Black
adolescents overall were more likely to believe that they were the intended audience of black
culturally embedded advertisement.” (Appaih 2000) are robust cross culturally. This study
shows that ethnicity of the models featured in the advertisement affects Surinamese, more
specific Creole and Hindustani, viewers’ responses to advertisements in a similar way.
However, this study did not find evidence for the cross culturally robustness of findings
with regard to consumers’ strength of ethnic identity such as: “Strong Hispanic identifiers are
more affected by advertisements (especially those targeted on Hispanics) than weak
identifiers.”(Donthu and Cherian 1994), “Strong black identifiers have more positive
evaluations of advertisements that feature African-American in positions of dominance than
weak black identifiers.” (Corliss Green (1999), “Blacks’ differential responses to
advertisements featuring black and white models are moderated by their identification with
black culture.” (Whittler and Spira),”Black adolescents who have a strong black ethnic
identity perceive themselves more similar to and identify more strongly with black character
advertisements than black adolescents with weaker ethnic identities do.” (Appaih 2000).
Then again, the results did show in several cases of advertising responses an interaction effect
of strength of ethnic identity and cultural embeddedness (see chapter four). The presence of
these interaction effects does indicate the joint effect of the strength of ethnic identity and
cultural embeddedness on advertising responses.
57
The Influence of Consumers’ Ethnic Identity on Advertising Responses
5.4 Limitations of the Study
The fact that the experiment was conducted among employees from one company puts
constraints to generalizing the results and conclusions to the Surinamese population, specially
the results and conclusions on the salience of ethnicity as a distinctive trait. Since the subjects
of the experiment knew each other it is likely that one’s ethnicity was less salient during the
context of the experiment than in a situation the subjects do not know each other. Future
research should investigate the salience of ethnicity as a distinctive trait in a different context
and among different groups of subjects.
One explanation why the level of ethnic identity did not have a significant effect may be
due to the cultural cues used in the advertisements. The culturally embedded advertisements
may not have been strong enough to sufficiently elicit the effect of ethnic identity. Future
research should investigate how consumers evaluate more powerful ethnic-specific culturally
embedded advertisements based on their ethnic identity.
Future research should also consider conducting a study with a larger sample. Given test
statistics are dependent on sample size; studies like this one may fail to find statistically
significant results even when they exist because of a small sample size. For example, subjects
overall respond more favorable or stronger to high culturally embedded advertisement than to
low culturally embedded advertisements, but the results do not show a significant difference
in means. Also strong and weak identifiers do demonstrate difference in response, as
expected, but the group means apparently do not differ significant.
5.5 Recommendations for Effective Advertisements
The findings of this study should be of interest for practitioners in de field of marketing
and advertising because it discloses answers to questions which often arise in the process of
designing an advertisement.
Since the ethnicity of the model featured in the advertisement influences advertising
responses of the viewer in a way that one seems to have more favorable or stronger feelings
with regard to the advertisement featuring a model of similar ethnicity, one should carefully
consider the ethnicity of the model to be featured in the advertisement.
When designing an advertisement targeting a specific ethnic group, the advertisement
should feature model(s) with similar ethnicity as the target group in order to make certain that
the target group at least feels targeted. The use of ethnic specific advertising cues does not
58
The Influence of Consumers’ Ethnic Identity on Advertising Responses
significantly impact advertising responses favorably, but it is recommended to be cautious in
case of using such cues when the advertisement is not targeting a specific ethnic group,
because it might alienate people who do not relate to those cues.
If the advertisement is not designed to target a particular ethnic group the advertiser
could use a model representing a Hindustani or a Creole model - as they represent one of the
two largest groups – to ensure that at least a large part of the population feels targeted or has
favorable feelings towards the advertisement, but to ensure that the advertisements elicit
favorable response across different ethnic groups one should combine advertising cues which
will be favorably being viewed by people of different ethnic background.
5.6 Recommendations for Future Research
It should be clear that this study is only a very small part of a much more complex study
and probably raises more questions than currently have been answered. Interesting research
questions for future research which are a direct result of the findings of this study are: Which
other cues, besides the ones used in this study, will elicit (more) favorable feelings towards
the advertisement with people of different cultural background?; What is the effect of
featuring models of mixed ethnicity in advertisements?; What is the impact of using several
models with different ethnicity in an advertisement?; When do people feel alienated by an
advertisement?
Designing an advertisement is only a small part of developing an advertising campaign.
An interesting area for future research in Suriname on advertising in relation to ethnicity is
the area of media and media placement. For example, the medium in which an advertisement
is placed may have impact on viewers’ responses to the advertisement. Placing an
advertisement in a newspaper or magazine targeting particularly an ethnic group may lead to
different levels and types of ethnic identity and thus advertising effectiveness than placing the
very same advertisement in a mainstream medium targeting a broader audience (e.g. De Ware
Tijd). These effects may also occur for targeted radio, television and other media, whereby
the medium provides cues that prime or make salient ethnic identities, and the advertisements
embedded therein can reap the advantages or the disadvantages of these effects (Grier and
Brumbaugh 2002). As described in paragraph 1.2.2, there are many television stations, radio
stations and newspapers in Suriname of which many are targeting ethnically. It would be of
interest of many advertisers or other practitioners in the field of advertising to find out about
59
The Influence of Consumers’ Ethnic Identity on Advertising Responses
these effects in order to increase the effectiveness of their advertisements and advertising
campaigns.
60
The Influence of Consumers’ Ethnic Identity on Advertising Responses
LIST OF REFERENCES
Aaker, Jennifer L., Brumbaugh, Anne M., Grier, Sonya A., “Non-target Markets and Viewer
Distinctiveness: The Impact of Target Marketing on Advertising Attitudes”, Journal of
Consumer Psychology, 9, 3 (2000): 124-139.
Appiah, Osei, “Ethnic Identification on Adolescents’ Evaluations of Advertisements, Journal
of Advertising Research, (September/October), 41, 5 (2001): 7-22.
Cui, Geng, “Marketing Strategies in a Multi-ethnic Environment”, Journal of Marketing
Theory and Practice, (winter), 5, 1 (1997): 122-134.
Deshpande, Rohit, Stayman, Douglas M., “A tale of two cities: Distinctiveness theory and
advertising effectiveness”, Journal of Marketing Research, (February), 31, 1 (1994): 57-64.
Dimofte, Claudiu V., Forehand, Mark R., Deshpande, Rohit, “Ad Schema as Elicitor of
Ethnic Self-Awareness and Differential Advertising Response”, Forthcoming in Journal of
Advertising.
Donthu, Naveen, Cherian, Joseph, “Impact of Strength of Ethnic Identification on Hispanic
Shopping Behavior”, Journal of Retailing, 70, 4 (1994): 383-393.
Feick, Lawrence and Robin A. Higie, “The Effects of Preference Heterogeneity and Source
Characteristics on Ad Processing and Judgements about Endorsers”, Journal of Advertising,
XXI, 2 (1992): 9-22.
Fishman, Joshua A., ed., Handbook of Language & Ethnic Identity (New York: Oxford
University Press, 1999)
Forehand, Mark R., Deshpande, Rohit, “What We See Makes Us Who We Are: Priming
Ethnic Self-Awareness and Advertising Response”, Journal of Marketing Research,
(August), 28, 3 (2001): 336-348.
61
The Influence of Consumers’ Ethnic Identity on Advertising Responses
Green, Corliss L., “Ethnic Evaluations of Advertising: Interaction Effects of Strength of
Ethnic Identification, Media Placement, and Degree of Racial Composition”, Journal of
Advertising, (spring), 28, 1 (1999): 49-64.
Greenlee, Timothy, Oakenfull, Gillian, “All the colors of the Rainbow: The Relationship
between Gay Identity and Response to Advertising Content”, Miami University.
Grier, Sony A, Brumbaugh, Anne M., “Consumer Distinctiveness and Advertising
Persuasion”, Research Paper no. 1735, Stanford Graduate School of Business, (June), (2002).
Grier, Sonya A., Deshpande, Rohit, “Social Dimensions of Consumer Distinctiveness: The
Influence of Social Status Identity and Advertising Persuasion”, Journal of Marketing
Research, (May), 38, 2 (2001); 216-224.
Grier, Sonya A., Brumbaugh, Anne M., “Noticing Cultural Differences: Ad Meanings
Created by Target and Non-target Markets”, Journal of Advertising, (spring), 28, 1 (1999):
79-93.
Haley, Russel I., Baldinger, Allan L., “The ARF Copy Research Validity”, Advertising
Research Foundation, (2000): 114+.
Holbrook, Morris B., Batra, Rajeev, “Assessing the Role of Emotions as Mediators of
Consumer Responses to Advertising”, Journal of Consumer Research, (December), 14,
(1987): 404-420.
Holland, Jonna L., Gentry, James W., “Ethnic Consumers Reaction to Targeted Marketing: A
Theory of Intercultural Accommodation, Journal of Advertising, (spring), 28, 1 (1999): 6577.
Holland, Jonna L., Gentry, James W., “The Impact of Cultural Symbols on Advertising
Effectiveness: A Theory of Intercultural Accommodation, Advances in Consumer Research,
24 (1997): 483-489.
62
The Influence of Consumers’ Ethnic Identity on Advertising Responses
IMWO (Instituut voor Maatschappij Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek), “Consumenten
Onderzoek in de Mediasector”, Anton de Kom Universiteit van Suriname, 2002.
Kelman, Herbert C., “Process of Opinion Change”, Public Opinion Quarterly, (spring), 25,
(1961): 58-78.
Koslow, Scott, Prem N. Shamdasani, Ellen E. Touchstone, “Exploring Language Effects in
Ethnic Advertising: A Sociolinguistic Perspective”, Journal of Consumer Research, (March),
20, (1994):575-585.
MacKenzie, Scott B., and Richard J. Lutz, “An Empirical Examination of the Structural
Antecedents of Attitude Toward the Ad in an Advertising Pretesting Context”, Journal of
Marketing, (April), 53, (1989): 48-65.
McGuire, William J. and Claire V. McGuire, Pamela Child and Terry Fujioko, “Salience of
ethnicity in the spontaneous self-concept as a function of one’s ethnic distinctiveness in the
social environment”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 5 (1978): 511-520.
Phinney, Jean S., “Ethic Identity in Adolescents and Adults Review of Research”,
Psychological Bulletin, (November), 108, 3, (1990): 499-514
Rossiter, John R., Eagleson, Geoff, “Conclusions from the ARF’s Copy Research Validity
Project”, Journal of Advertising, 34, 3 (1994):19+
Saylor, Elizabeth S., Aries, Elizabeth, “Ethnic Identity and Change in Social Context”,
Journal of Social Psychology, 139, 5 (1999): 549-566.
Smith, Elsie J., “Ethnic Identity Development: Toward the development of a Theory within
the Context of Majority/Minority Status”, Journal of Counseling & Development,
(September/October), 70, (1991): 181-188.
Stayman, Douglas M., Deshpande, Rohit, “Situational Ethnicity and Consumer Behavior”,
Journal of Consumer Research, (December), 16, (1989): 361-371.
63
The Influence of Consumers’ Ethnic Identity on Advertising Responses
Trimble, Joseph E., Dickson, Ryan, “Ethnic Identity”, in C.B. Fisher & Lerner, R.M. (Eds.; in
press), Applied developmental science: An encyclopedia of research, and programs.
Thousand Oaks: Sage
Wooten, David B., Galvin, Tiffany, “A Preliminary Examination of the Effects of ContextInduced Felt Ethnicity on Advertising Effectiveness”, Advances in Consumer Research, 20
(1993): 253-256.
Whitler, Tommy E., “The Effects of Actors’ Race in Commercial Advertising: Review and
Extension”, Journal of Advertising, 20, 1 (1991): 54-60
Whittler, Tommy E., Spira, Joan Scattone, “Model’s Race: A Peripheral Cue in Advertising
Messages?”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, 12, 4 (2002): 291-301
Whittler, Tommy E., DiMeo, Joan, “Viewers’ Ractions to Racial Cues in Advertising
Stimuli”, Journal of Advertising Research, 31, (1991): 37-46.
Yip, Tiffany and Andrew J. Fuligni, “Daily Variation in Ethnic Identity, Ethnic Behaviors,
and Psychological Well-Being among American Adolescents of Chinese Descent”, Child
Development, (September/October), 73, 5 (2002): 1557-1572
Youn-Kyung, Kim, “The Effects of Ethnicity and Product on Purchase Decision Making”,
Journal of Advertising Research, (March/April), 41, 2 (2001): 39-48.
http://www.calstatela.edu/academic/psych/ftp/meim.doc (Feb, 2005)
http://www2.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/pa765/anova.htm (June 17, 2005)
http://psych.rice.edu/online_stat/chapter12/anova_designs.html (June 15, 2005)
64
APPENDIX 1
ADVERTISEMENTS
I
Figure 1. Advertisement XH1
II
Figure 2. Advertisement XH2
III
Figure 3. Advertisement XH3
IV
Figure 4. Advertisement CK1
V
Figure 5. Advertisement CK2
VI
Figure 6. Advertisement CK3
VII
APPENDIX 2
QUESTIONNAIRE
VIII
Paramaribo, June 2005
Dear Participant,
The purpose of this survey is to obtain your opinion on six proposed advertisements in order
for the advertising agency to improve the look, the style and content of those advertisements.
You have received 2 advertisements and 1 questionnaire. Please follow the instructions for
carefully and answer the questions subsequently. It is important that you answer all questions.
No answer is right or wrong. We do appreciate your honest opinion. Your answers are
anonymous and will be treated as confidential.
Good Luck!!
Ellen der Kinderen
IX
SEGMENT A.
Please tell us about your self in your own words?
X
SEGMENT B.
Look at the first advertisement and answer the questions B1, B2, B3 and B4
B1.
Please indicate for each line your opinion by placing a tick in the appropriate box
EXAMPLE:
The food is
good
The food is
bad
X
1.
The ad
is good
The ad
is bad
2.
I react
favorable
toward the ad
I react
unfavorable
toward the ad
3.
I like the ad
I dislike the ad
4.
I believe the
ad is effective
I believe the ad
is not effective
5.
I find the ad
interesting
I find the ad is
not interesting
6.
The ad is
attractive to me
7.
The ad is
unattractive to me
The ad is
persuasive
The ad is not
persuasive
Score B1:
XI
B2.
Please indicate for each statement the extent of your agreement or disagreement by placing a
tick in the appropiate column.
EXAMPLE:
I disagree
completely
I disagree
completely
I disagree
somewhat
I disagree
I disagree
somewhat
I neither agree
or disagree
I disagree
I neither agree
or disagree
3.
I agree
somewhat
2.
I agree
somewhat
I feel the advertisement was intended
for people like me
I do not believe I was in the target
market the company created the
advertisement for
The advertiser made that
advertisement to appeal people like
me
I agree
1.
X
I agree
completely
I believe that everybody liked the
food
I agree
I agree
completely
1.
Score B2:
XII
B3.
Please indicate for each line your opinion by placing a tick in the appropriate box
1.
The model
seems a warm
person
2.
I like the model
The model
seems a cold
person
I do not like the
model
3.
The model is
sincere
The model is
not sincere
4.
The model
seems friendly
The model seems
unfriendly
5.
The model looks
trustworthy
6.
I believe the
model
The model looks
not trustworthy
I do not
believe the
model
Score B3:
B4.
Please indicate for each statement the extent of your agreement or disagreement by placing a
tick in the appropiate column.
I disagree
completely
I disagree
I disagree
somewhat
I neither agree
or disagree
I agree
somewhat
I agree
I agree
completely
1.
A person whom I want to be like
2.
My type of person
3.
A person who speaks for a group of
which I am a member
Score B4:
XIII
Look at the second advertisement (advertisement
B5, B6, B7 and B8
) and answer the questions
B5.
Please indicate for each line your opinion by placing a tick in the appropriate box
1.
The ad
is good
The ad
is bad
2.
I react
favorable
toward the ad
I react
unfavorable
toward the ad
3.
I like the ad
I dislike the ad
4.
I believe the
ad is effective
I believe the ad
is not effective
5.
I find the ad
interesting
I find the ad is
not interesting
6.
The ad is
attractive to me
The ad is
unattractive to me
The ad is
persuasive
7.
The ad is not
persuasive
Score B5:
B6.
Please indicate for each statement the extent of your agreement or disagreement by placing a
tick in the appropiate column.
I disagree
completely
I disagree
I disagree
somewhat
I neither agree
or disagree
6.
I agree
somewhat
5.
I agree
I agree
completely
4.
I feel the advertisement was intended
for people like me
I do not believe I was in the target
market the company created the
advertisement for
The advertiser made that
advertisement to appeal people like
me
Score B6:
XIV
B7.
Please indicate for each line your opinion by placing a tick in the appropriate box
1.
The model
seems a warm
person
2.
I like the model
The model
seems a cold
person
I do not like the
model
3.
The model is
sincere
The model is
not sincere
4.
The model
seems friendly
The model seems
unfriendly
5.
The model looks
trustworthy
6.
I believe the
model
The model looks
not trustworthy
I do not
believe the
model
Score B7:
B8.
Please indicate for each statement the extent of your agreement or disagreement by placing a
tick in the appropiate column.
I disagree
completely
I disagree
I disagree
somewhat
I neither agree
or disagree
I agree
somewhat
I agree
I agree
completely
4.
A person whom I want to be like
5.
My type of person
6.
A person who speaks for a group of
which I am a member
Score B8:
XV
SEGMENT C.
Please tell us what you are NOT?
XVI
SEGMENT D.
In this country, people come from many different cultures and there are many different words
to describe the different backgrounds or ethnic groups that people come from. Some
examples of the names of the ethnic groups are Hindustani, Creole, Javanese, Maroons,
Chinese, Amerindian, and Caucasian.
These questions are about your ethnicity or ethnic group and how you feel about it or react to
it.
D1.
Please fill in: In terms of ethnic group, I consider myself to be___________________
D2.
Please indicate for each statement the extent of your agreement or disagreement by placing a
tick in the appropiate column.
4.
I have spent time trying to find out more about my ethnic
group, such as its history, traditions, and customs.
I am active in organizations or social groups that include
mostly members of my ethnic group.
I have a clear sense of my ethnic background and what it
means for me.
I think a lot about how my life will be affected by my ethnic
group membership.
5.
I am happy that I am a member of the group I belong to.
6.
I have a strong sense of belonging to my own ethnic group.
7.
I understand pretty well what my ethnic membership means to
me.
In order to learn more about my ethnic background, I have
often talked to other people about my ethnic group.
8.
9.
I disagree
strongly
3.
I disagree
2.
I agree
I agree
strongly
1.
I have a lot of pride in my ethnic group.
10. I participate in cultural practices of my own group, such as
special food, music or customs.
11. I feel a strong attachment towards my own ethnic group.
12. I feel good about my cultural or ethnic background.
Score D2:
XVII
D3.
1. My ethnicity is:
1. Hindustani
2. Creole
3. Javanese
4. Maroon
5. Amerindian
6. Chinese
7. Caucasian
8. Other:
2 My father’s ethnicity is (use number above) : _____
3. My mother’s ethnicity is (use number above): _____
SEGMENT E.
1. Please indicate your age by placing a tick in the appropriate box.
1. 15-19 years
2. 20-29 years
3. 30-39 years
4. 40-49 years
5. > 49 years
2. Please indicate your level of education by placing a tick in the appropriate box.
1. < 500 SRD
2. 500-1.000 SRD
3. 1000 – 1.500 SRD
4. 1.500 – 2.000 SRD
5. > 2.000 SRD
3. Please indicate your (gross) income by placing a tick in the appropriate box.
1. L.O
2. MULO/LTS
3. NATIN/IMEO
4. HAVO/VWO
5. HBO/ADEK
XVIII
SEGMENT F.
Please tell us in your own words the purpose of this survey?
XIX
APPENDIX 3
CREOLE GROUP
ANOVA AND MULTI COMPARISONS
XX
Univariate Analysis of Variance
Between-Subjects Factors
N
Cultural
Embeddedness
Level of Ethnic
Identification (S/W)
ck1
ck2
ck3
xh1
xh2
xh3
s
w
16
17
16
13
19
17
50
48
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Dependent Variable: Attitude towards the Advertisement
Source
Corrected Model
Intercept
Embeddedness
Strength
Embeddedness *
Strength
Error
Total
Corrected Total
Type III Sum
of Squares
55.758a
2424.532
50.063
3.296
df
11
1
5
1
Mean Square
5.069
2424.532
10.013
3.296
F
4.004
1915.324
7.910
2.604
Sig.
.000
.000
.000
.110
1.665
5
.333
.263
.932
108.864
2633.357
164.622
86
98
97
1.266
a. R Squared = .339 (Adjusted R Squared = .254)
a
Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variances
Dependent Variable: Attitude towards the Advertisement
F
1.295
df1
df2
11
86
Sig.
.241
Tests the null hypothesis that the error variance of
the dependent variable is equal across groups.
a. Design:
Intercept+Embeddedness+Strength+
Embeddedness * Strength
XXI
Multiple Comparisons
Dependent Variable: Attitude towards the Advertisement
Tukey HSD
(I) Cultural
Embeddedness
ck1
ck2
ck3
xh1
xh2
xh3
Tamhane
ck1
ck2
ck3
xh1
xh2
xh3
(J) Cultural
Embeddedness
ck2
ck3
xh1
xh2
xh3
ck1
ck3
xh1
xh2
xh3
ck1
ck2
xh1
xh2
xh3
ck1
ck2
ck3
xh2
xh3
ck1
ck2
ck3
xh1
xh3
ck1
ck2
ck3
xh1
xh2
ck2
ck3
xh1
xh2
xh3
ck1
ck3
xh1
xh2
xh3
ck1
ck2
xh1
xh2
xh3
ck1
ck2
ck3
xh2
xh3
ck1
ck2
ck3
xh1
xh3
ck1
ck2
ck3
xh1
xh2
Mean
Difference
(I-J)
.0389
-.2613
1.0688
1.7450*
.4531
-.0389
-.3002
1.0299
1.7061*
.4141
.2613
.3002
1.3300*
2.0063*
.7143
-1.0688
-1.0299
-1.3300*
.6762
-.6157
-1.7450*
-1.7061*
-2.0063*
-.6762
-1.2920*
-.4531
-.4141
-.7143
.6157
1.2920*
.0389
-.2613
1.0688
1.7450*
.4531
-.0389
-.3002
1.0299
1.7061*
.4141
.2613
.3002
1.3300
2.0063*
.7143
-1.0688
-1.0299
-1.3300
.6762
-.6157
-1.7450*
-1.7061*
-2.0063*
-.6762
-1.2920*
-.4531
-.4141
-.7143
.6157
1.2920*
Std. Error
.39189
.39778
.42011
.38176
.39189
.39189
.39189
.41453
.37561
.38591
.39778
.39189
.42011
.38176
.39189
.42011
.41453
.42011
.40497
.41453
.38176
.37561
.38176
.40497
.37561
.39189
.38591
.39189
.41453
.37561
.35466
.31653
.47160
.32702
.35116
.35466
.36327
.50416
.37245
.39381
.31653
.36327
.47811
.33634
.35986
.47160
.50416
.47811
.48512
.50171
.32702
.37245
.33634
.48512
.36912
.35116
.39381
.35986
.50171
.36912
Based on observed means.
*. The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.
XXII
Sig.
1.000
.986
.123
.000
.856
1.000
.972
.140
.000
.891
.986
.972
.025
.000
.457
.123
.140
.025
.555
.674
.000
.000
.000
.555
.011
.856
.891
.457
.674
.011
1.000
1.000
.421
.000
.969
1.000
1.000
.560
.001
.995
1.000
1.000
.164
.000
.580
.421
.560
.164
.948
.981
.000
.001
.000
.948
.020
.969
.995
.580
.981
.020
95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound
Upper Bound
-1.1034
1.1813
-1.4208
.8983
-.1558
2.2934
.6322
2.8579
-.6893
1.5954
-1.1813
1.1034
-1.4425
.8422
-.1785
2.2382
.6112
2.8010
-.7108
1.5390
-.8983
1.4208
-.8422
1.4425
.1054
2.5546
.8935
3.1191
-.4280
1.8567
-2.2934
.1558
-2.2382
.1785
-2.5546
-.1054
-.5042
1.8567
-1.8241
.5926
-2.8579
-.6322
-2.8010
-.6112
-3.1191
-.8935
-1.8567
.5042
-2.3869
-.1971
-1.5954
.6893
-1.5390
.7108
-1.8567
.4280
-.5926
1.8241
.1971
2.3869
-1.0901
1.1680
-1.2680
.7455
-.5171
2.6547
.7132
2.7769
-.6643
1.5704
-1.1680
1.0901
-1.4545
.8542
-.6252
2.6849
.5303
2.8819
-.8314
1.6597
-.7455
1.2680
-.8542
1.4545
-.2687
2.9288
.9450
3.0675
-.4288
1.8574
-2.6547
.5171
-2.6849
.6252
-2.9288
.2687
-.9340
2.2865
-2.2650
1.0335
-2.7769
-.7132
-2.8819
-.5303
-3.0675
-.9450
-2.2865
.9340
-2.4567
-.1272
-1.5704
.6643
-1.6597
.8314
-1.8574
.4288
-1.0335
2.2650
.1272
2.4567
Univariate Analysis of Variance
Between-Subjects Factors
N
Cultural
Embeddedness
Level of Ethnic
Identification (S/W)
ck1
ck2
ck3
xh1
xh2
xh3
s
w
16
17
16
13
19
17
50
48
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Dependent Variable: Attitude towards the Model
Source
Corrected Model
Intercept
Embeddedness
Strength
Embeddedness *
Strength
Error
Total
Corrected Total
Type III Sum
of Squares
28.978a
2741.830
23.003
.070
df
11
1
5
1
Mean Square
2.634
2741.830
4.601
.070
F
2.508
2609.810
4.379
.067
Sig.
.009
.000
.001
.797
4.796
5
.959
.913
.477
90.350
2919.521
119.329
86
98
97
1.051
a. R Squared = .243 (Adjusted R Squared = .146)
a
Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variances
Dependent Variable: Attitude towards the Model
F
2.654
df1
df2
11
86
Sig.
.006
Tests the null hypothesis that the error variance of
the dependent variable is equal across groups.
a. Design:
Intercept+Embeddedness+Strength+
Embeddedness * Strength
XXIII
Multiple Comparisons
Dependent Variable: Attitude towards the Model
Tukey HSD
(I) Cultural
Embeddedness
ck1
ck2
ck3
xh1
xh2
xh3
Tamhane
ck1
ck2
ck3
xh1
xh2
xh3
(J) Cultural
Embeddedness
ck2
ck3
xh1
xh2
xh3
ck1
ck3
xh1
xh2
xh3
ck1
ck2
xh1
xh2
xh3
ck1
ck2
ck3
xh2
xh3
ck1
ck2
ck3
xh1
xh3
ck1
ck2
ck3
xh1
xh2
ck2
ck3
xh1
xh2
xh3
ck1
ck3
xh1
xh2
xh3
ck1
ck2
xh1
xh2
xh3
ck1
ck2
ck3
xh2
xh3
ck1
ck2
ck3
xh1
xh3
ck1
ck2
ck3
xh1
xh2
Mean
Difference
(I-J)
-.7331
-.2263
.3706
.7375
.4269
.7331
.5068
1.1037*
1.4706*
1.1600*
.2263
-.5068
.5968
.9638
.6532
-.3706
-1.1037*
-.5968
.3669
.0563
-.7375
-1.4706*
-.9638
-.3669
-.3106
-.4269
-1.1600*
-.6532
-.0563
.3106
-.7331
-.2263
.3706
.7375
.4269
.7331
.5068
1.1037*
1.4706*
1.1600*
.2263
-.5068
.5968
.9638
.6532
-.3706
-1.1037*
-.5968
.3669
.0563
-.7375
-1.4706*
-.9638
-.3669
-.3106
-.4269
-1.1600*
-.6532
-.0563
.3106
Std. Error
.35702
.36239
.38272
.34779
.35702
.35702
.35702
.37764
.34219
.35157
.36239
.35702
.38272
.34779
.35702
.38272
.37764
.38272
.36893
.37764
.34779
.34219
.34779
.36893
.34219
.35702
.35157
.35702
.37764
.34219
.27711
.33373
.37394
.36313
.39075
.27711
.26705
.31586
.30298
.33559
.33373
.26705
.36654
.35551
.38368
.37394
.31586
.36654
.39349
.41912
.36313
.30298
.35551
.39349
.40950
.39075
.33559
.38368
.41912
.40950
Based on observed means.
*. The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.
XXIV
Sig.
.322
.989
.927
.287
.838
.322
.715
.049
.001
.017
.989
.715
.627
.072
.453
.927
.049
.627
.918
1.000
.287
.001
.072
.918
.944
.838
.017
.453
1.000
.944
.194
1.000
.998
.540
.993
.194
.661
.040
.001
.033
1.000
.661
.843
.148
.792
.998
.040
.843
.999
1.000
.540
.001
.148
.999
1.000
.993
.033
.792
1.000
1.000
95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound
Upper Bound
-1.7738
.3076
-1.2826
.8301
-.7450
1.4862
-.2763
1.7513
-.6138
1.4676
-.3076
1.7738
-.5339
1.5475
.0029
2.2045
.4731
2.4681
.1352
2.1848
-.8301
1.2826
-1.5475
.5339
-.5188
1.7124
-.0500
1.9775
-.3875
1.6939
-1.4862
.7450
-2.2045
-.0029
-1.7124
.5188
-.7085
1.4423
-1.0445
1.1571
-1.7513
.2763
-2.4681
-.4731
-1.9775
.0500
-1.4423
.7085
-1.3081
.6869
-1.4676
.6138
-2.1848
-.1352
-1.6939
.3875
-1.1571
1.0445
-.6869
1.3081
-1.6345
.1683
-1.2876
.8351
-.8386
1.5797
-.4082
1.8832
-.8163
1.6701
-.1683
1.6345
-.3590
1.3726
.0335
2.1738
.4955
2.4457
.0590
2.2610
-.8351
1.2876
-1.3726
.3590
-.5917
1.7853
-.1583
2.0858
-.5696
1.8760
-1.5797
.8386
-2.1738
-.0335
-1.7853
.5917
-.8913
1.6251
-1.2850
1.3977
-1.8832
.4082
-2.4457
-.4955
-2.0858
.1583
-1.6251
.8913
-1.6029
.9817
-1.6701
.8163
-2.2610
-.0590
-1.8760
.5696
-1.3977
1.2850
-.9817
1.6029
Univariate Analysis of Variance
Between-Subjects Factors
N
Cultural
Embeddedness
Level of Ethnic
Identification (S/W)
ck1
ck2
ck3
xh1
xh2
xh3
s
w
16
17
15
12
19
17
48
48
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Dependent Variable: Identification with the Model
Source
Corrected Model
Intercept
Embeddedness
Strength
Embeddedness *
Strength
Error
Total
Corrected Total
Type III Sum
of Squares
93.083a
1459.900
79.412
.333
df
11
1
5
1
Mean Square
8.462
1459.900
15.882
.333
F
6.023
1039.048
11.304
.237
Sig.
.000
.000
.000
.628
15.051
5
3.010
2.142
.068
118.023
1757.523
211.106
84
96
95
1.405
a. R Squared = .441 (Adjusted R Squared = .368)
a
Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variances
Dependent Variable: Identification with the Model
F
1.100
df1
df2
11
84
Sig.
.371
Tests the null hypothesis that the error variance of
the dependent variable is equal across groups.
a. Design:
Intercept+Embeddedness+Strength+
Embeddedness * Strength
XXV
Multiple Comparisons
Dependent Variable: Identification with the Model
Tukey HSD
(I) Cultural
Embeddedness
ck1
ck2
ck3
xh1
xh2
xh3
Tamhane
ck1
ck2
ck3
xh1
xh2
xh3
(J) Cultural
Embeddedness
ck2
ck3
xh1
xh2
xh3
ck1
ck3
xh1
xh2
xh3
ck1
ck2
xh1
xh2
xh3
ck1
ck2
ck3
xh2
xh3
ck1
ck2
ck3
xh1
xh3
ck1
ck2
ck3
xh1
xh2
ck2
ck3
xh1
xh2
xh3
ck1
ck3
xh1
xh2
xh3
ck1
ck2
xh1
xh2
xh3
ck1
ck2
ck3
xh2
xh3
ck1
ck2
ck3
xh1
xh3
ck1
ck2
ck3
xh1
xh2
Mean
Difference
(I-J)
-.8743
-.3145
1.4983*
1.5054*
.6928
.8743
.5598
2.3726*
2.3797*
1.5671*
.3145
-.5598
1.8128*
1.8199*
1.0073
-1.4983*
-2.3726*
-1.8128*
.0071
-.8055
-1.5054*
-2.3797*
-1.8199*
-.0071
-.8126
-.6928
-1.5671*
-1.0073
.8055
.8126
-.8743
-.3145
1.4983
1.5054*
.6928
.8743
.5598
2.3726*
2.3797*
1.5671*
.3145
-.5598
1.8128*
1.8199*
1.0073
-1.4983
-2.3726*
-1.8128*
.0071
-.8055
-1.5054*
-2.3797*
-1.8199*
-.0071
-.8126
-.6928
-1.5671*
-1.0073
.8055
.8126
Std. Error
.41287
.42601
.45266
.40220
.41287
.41287
.41990
.44692
.39573
.40657
.42601
.41990
.45908
.40941
.41990
.45266
.44692
.45908
.43708
.44692
.40220
.39573
.40941
.43708
.39573
.41287
.40657
.41990
.44692
.39573
.42220
.41992
.48508
.43469
.42282
.42220
.40111
.46889
.41654
.40414
.41992
.40111
.46683
.41423
.40175
.48508
.46889
.46683
.48016
.46944
.43469
.41654
.41423
.48016
.41717
.42282
.40414
.40175
.46944
.41717
Based on observed means.
*. The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.
XXVI
Sig.
.288
.977
.017
.004
.550
.288
.766
.000
.000
.003
.977
.766
.002
.000
.168
.017
.000
.002
1.000
.470
.004
.000
.000
1.000
.322
.550
.003
.168
.470
.322
.514
1.000
.074
.022
.830
.514
.942
.001
.000
.007
1.000
.942
.012
.002
.237
.074
.001
.012
1.000
.794
.022
.000
.002
1.000
.603
.830
.007
.237
.794
.603
95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound
Upper Bound
-2.0784
.3299
-1.5570
.9280
.1781
2.8185
.3324
2.6784
-.5114
1.8970
-.3299
2.0784
-.6649
1.7844
1.0691
3.6761
1.2255
3.5338
.3813
2.7528
-.9280
1.5570
-1.7844
.6649
.4739
3.1518
.6258
3.0140
-.2174
2.2320
-2.8185
-.1781
-3.6761
-1.0691
-3.1518
-.4739
-1.2677
1.2818
-2.1090
.4979
-2.6784
-.3324
-3.5338
-1.2255
-3.0140
-.6258
-1.2818
1.2677
-1.9668
.3415
-1.8970
.5114
-2.7528
-.3813
-2.2320
.2174
-.4979
2.1090
-.3415
1.9668
-2.2146
.4660
-1.6541
1.0251
-.0820
3.0787
.1325
2.8783
-.6494
2.0350
-.4660
2.2146
-.7159
1.8354
.8376
3.9076
1.0684
3.6909
.2889
2.8452
-1.0251
1.6541
-1.8354
.7159
.2783
3.3474
.5095
3.1303
-.2704
2.2850
-3.0787
.0820
-3.9076
-.8376
-3.3474
-.2783
-1.5527
1.5668
-2.3419
.7308
-2.8783
-.1325
-3.6909
-1.0684
-3.1303
-.5095
-1.5668
1.5527
-2.1258
.5006
-2.0350
.6494
-2.8452
-.2889
-2.2850
.2704
-.7308
2.3419
-.5006
2.1258
Univariate Analysis of Variance
Between-Subjects Factors
N
Cultural
Embeddedness
Level of Ethnic
Identification (S/W)
ck1
ck2
ck3
xh1
xh2
xh3
s
w
16
17
16
13
19
17
50
48
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Dependent Variable: Targetedness
Source
Corrected Model
Intercept
Embeddedness
Strength
Embeddedness *
Strength
Error
Total
Corrected Total
Type III Sum
of Squares
114.011a
1737.295
94.262
3.040
df
11
1
5
1
Mean Square
10.365
1737.295
18.852
3.040
F
6.637
1112.416
12.071
1.946
Sig.
.000
.000
.000
.167
18.140
5
3.628
2.323
.050
134.309
2040.785
248.320
86
98
97
1.562
a. R Squared = .459 (Adjusted R Squared = .390)
a
Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variances
Dependent Variable: Targetedness
F
1.265
df1
df2
11
86
Sig.
.258
Tests the null hypothesis that the error variance of
the dependent variable is equal across groups.
a. Design:
Intercept+Embeddedness+Strength+
Embeddedness * Strength
XXVII
Multiple Comparisons
Dependent Variable: Targetedness
Tukey HSD
(I) Cultural
Embeddedness
ck1
ck2
ck3
xh1
xh2
xh3
Tamhane
ck1
ck2
ck3
xh1
xh2
xh3
(J) Cultural
Embeddedness
ck2
ck3
xh1
xh2
xh3
ck1
ck3
xh1
xh2
xh3
ck1
ck2
xh1
xh2
xh3
ck1
ck2
ck3
xh2
xh3
ck1
ck2
ck3
xh1
xh3
ck1
ck2
ck3
xh1
xh2
ck2
ck3
xh1
xh2
xh3
ck1
ck3
xh1
xh2
xh3
ck1
ck2
xh1
xh2
xh3
ck1
ck2
ck3
xh2
xh3
ck1
ck2
ck3
xh1
xh3
ck1
ck2
ck3
xh1
xh2
Mean
Difference
(I-J)
-.2300
-.0719
2.1275*
2.0096*
.5977
.2300
.1581
2.3575*
2.2395*
.8276
.0719
-.1581
2.1994*
2.0814*
.6696
-2.1275*
-2.3575*
-2.1994*
-.1180
-1.5299*
-2.0096*
-2.2395*
-2.0814*
.1180
-1.4119*
-.5977
-.8276
-.6696
1.5299*
1.4119*
-.2300
-.0719
2.1275*
2.0096*
.5977
.2300
.1581
2.3575*
2.2395*
.8276
.0719
-.1581
2.1994*
2.0814*
.6696
-2.1275*
-2.3575*
-2.1994*
-.1180
-1.5299*
-2.0096*
-2.2395*
-2.0814*
.1180
-1.4119
-.5977
-.8276
-.6696
1.5299*
1.4119
Std. Error
.43529
.44183
.46663
.42403
.43529
.43529
.43529
.46043
.41721
.42864
.44183
.43529
.46663
.42403
.43529
.46663
.46043
.46663
.44981
.46043
.42403
.41721
.42403
.44981
.41721
.43529
.42864
.43529
.46043
.41721
.44935
.36700
.38619
.42815
.41796
.44935
.46302
.47837
.51285
.50437
.36700
.46302
.40201
.44247
.43262
.38619
.47837
.40201
.45851
.44901
.42815
.51285
.44247
.45851
.48558
.41796
.50437
.43262
.44901
.48558
Based on observed means.
*. The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.
XXVIII
Sig.
.995
1.000
.000
.000
.743
.995
.999
.000
.000
.391
1.000
.999
.000
.000
.641
.000
.000
.000
1.000
.016
.000
.000
.000
1.000
.013
.743
.391
.641
.016
.013
1.000
1.000
.000
.001
.931
1.000
1.000
.001
.002
.828
1.000
1.000
.000
.001
.881
.000
.001
.000
1.000
.030
.001
.002
.001
1.000
.091
.931
.828
.881
.030
.091
95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound
Upper Bound
-1.4988
1.0389
-1.3598
1.2161
.7673
3.4878
.7735
3.2456
-.6712
1.8665
-1.0389
1.4988
-1.1108
1.4269
1.0154
3.6997
1.0234
3.4557
-.4218
2.0771
-1.2161
1.3598
-1.4269
1.1108
.8392
3.5596
.8454
3.3175
-.5993
1.9384
-3.4878
-.7673
-3.6997
-1.0154
-3.5596
-.8392
-1.4292
1.1932
-2.8720
-.1877
-3.2456
-.7735
-3.4557
-1.0234
-3.3175
-.8454
-1.1932
1.4292
-2.6280
-.1957
-1.8665
.6712
-2.0771
.4218
-1.9384
.5993
.1877
2.8720
.1957
2.6280
-1.6704
1.2104
-1.2396
1.0959
.8777
3.3774
.6525
3.3666
-.7355
1.9309
-1.2104
1.6704
-1.3197
1.6359
.8261
3.8889
.6231
3.8560
-.7690
2.4243
-1.0959
1.2396
-1.6359
1.3197
.9040
3.4949
.6827
3.4802
-.7059
2.0451
-3.3774
-.8777
-3.8889
-.8261
-3.4949
-.9040
-1.5760
1.3401
-2.9663
-.0934
-3.3666
-.6525
-3.8560
-.6231
-3.4802
-.6827
-1.3401
1.5760
-2.9405
.1167
-1.9309
.7355
-2.4243
.7690
-2.0451
.7059
.0934
2.9663
-.1167
2.9405
APPENDIX 4
HINDUSTANI GROUP
ANOVA AND MULTI COMPARISONS
XXIX
Univariate Analysis of Variance
Between-Subjects Factors
N
Cultural
Embeddedness
Strength of Ethnic
Identification
ck1
ck2
ck3
xh1
xh2
xh3
s
w
15
17
15
19
11
17
50
44
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Dependent Variable: Attitude towards the Advertisement
Source
Corrected Model
Intercept
Embeddedness
Strength
Embeddedness *
Strength
Error
Total
Corrected Total
Type III Sum
of Squares
35.153a
2345.022
18.637
1.569
df
11
1
5
1
Mean Square
3.196
2345.022
3.727
1.569
F
4.194
3077.277
4.891
2.059
Sig.
.000
.000
.001
.155
15.568
5
3.114
4.086
.002
62.488
2509.949
97.641
82
94
93
.762
a. R Squared = .360 (Adjusted R Squared = .274)
a
Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variances
Dependent Variable: Attitude towards the Advertisement
F
2.036
df1
df2
11
82
Sig.
.035
Tests the null hypothesis that the error variance of
the dependent variable is equal across groups.
a. Design:
Intercept+Embeddedness+Strength+
Embeddedness * Strength
XXX
Multiple Comparisons
Dependent Variable: Attitude towards the Advertisement
Tukey HSD
(I) Cultural
Embeddedness
ck1
ck2
ck3
xh1
xh2
xh3
Tamhane
ck1
ck2
ck3
xh1
xh2
xh3
(J) Cultural
Embeddedness
ck2
ck3
xh1
xh2
xh3
ck1
ck3
xh1
xh2
xh3
ck1
ck2
xh1
xh2
xh3
ck1
ck2
ck3
xh2
xh3
ck1
ck2
ck3
xh1
xh3
ck1
ck2
ck3
xh1
xh2
ck2
ck3
xh1
xh2
xh3
ck1
ck3
xh1
xh2
xh3
ck1
ck2
xh1
xh2
xh3
ck1
ck2
ck3
xh2
xh3
ck1
ck2
ck3
xh1
xh3
ck1
ck2
ck3
xh1
xh2
Mean
Difference
(I-J)
-.1391
-1.0013*
-.7231
-1.0011
-1.1038*
.1391
-.8623
-.5840
-.8620
-.9647*
1.0013*
.8623
.2783
.0002
-.1024
.7231
.5840
-.2783
-.2780
-.3807
1.0011
.8620
-.0002
.2780
-.1027
1.1038*
.9647*
.1024
.3807
.1027
-.1391
-1.0013*
-.7231
-1.0011
-1.1038*
.1391
-.8623
-.5840
-.8620
-.9647
1.0013*
.8623
.2783
.0002
-.1024
.7231
.5840
-.2783
-.2780
-.3807
1.0011
.8620
-.0002
.2780
-.1027
1.1038*
.9647
.1024
.3807
.1027
Std. Error
.30924
.31876
.30151
.34653
.30924
.30924
.30924
.29143
.33779
.29942
.31876
.30924
.30151
.34653
.30924
.30151
.29143
.30151
.33073
.29143
.34653
.33779
.34653
.33073
.33779
.30924
.29942
.30924
.29143
.33779
.27250
.29807
.32215
.34337
.31362
.27250
.30789
.33126
.35193
.32297
.29807
.30789
.35260
.37208
.34482
.32215
.33126
.35260
.39164
.36584
.34337
.35193
.37208
.39164
.38465
.31362
.32297
.34482
.36584
.38465
Based on observed means.
*. The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.
XXXI
Sig.
.998
.027
.169
.054
.008
.998
.070
.349
.121
.022
.027
.070
.940
1.000
.999
.169
.349
.940
.959
.781
.054
.121
1.000
.959
1.000
.008
.022
.999
.781
1.000
1.000
.035
.388
.131
.022
1.000
.127
.746
.307
.080
.035
.127
1.000
1.000
1.000
.388
.746
1.000
1.000
.996
.131
.307
1.000
1.000
1.000
.022
.080
1.000
.996
1.000
95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound Upper Bound
-1.0415
.7634
-1.9315
-.0711
-1.6029
.1568
-2.0123
.0101
-2.0062
-.2013
-.7634
1.0415
-1.7647
.0401
-1.4345
.2665
-1.8478
.1237
-1.8385
-.0909
.0711
1.9315
-.0401
1.7647
-.6016
1.1582
-1.0110
1.0115
-1.0049
.8000
-.1568
1.6029
-.2665
1.4345
-1.1582
.6016
-1.2432
.6871
-1.2312
.4697
-.0101
2.0123
-.1237
1.8478
-1.0115
1.0110
-.6871
1.2432
-1.0884
.8831
.2013
2.0062
.0909
1.8385
-.8000
1.0049
-.4697
1.2312
-.8831
1.0884
-1.0055
.7274
-1.9596
-.0431
-1.7458
.2997
-2.1609
.1587
-2.1058
-.1017
-.7274
1.0055
-1.8453
.1208
-1.6303
.4623
-2.0376
.3135
-1.9905
.0611
.0431
1.9596
-.1208
1.8453
-.8369
1.3934
-1.2279
1.2283
-1.1988
.9939
-.2997
1.7458
-.4623
1.6303
-1.3934
.8369
-1.5490
.9929
-1.5324
.7710
-.1587
2.1609
-.3135
2.0376
-1.2283
1.2279
-.9929
1.5490
-1.3592
1.1539
.1017
2.1058
-.0611
1.9905
-.9939
1.1988
-.7710
1.5324
-1.1539
1.3592
Univariate Analysis of Variance
Between-Subjects Factors
N
Cultural
Embeddedness
Strength of Ethnic
Identification
ck1
ck2
ck3
xh1
xh2
xh3
s
w
15
17
15
19
11
17
50
44
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Dependent Variable: Attitude towards the Model
Source
Corrected Model
Intercept
Embeddedness
Strength
Embeddedness *
Strength
Error
Total
Corrected Total
Type III Sum
of Squares
21.713a
2427.826
14.171
.026
df
11
1
5
1
Mean Square
1.974
2427.826
2.834
.026
F
2.979
3664.011
4.277
.039
Sig.
.002
.000
.002
.844
8.556
5
1.711
2.582
.032
54.334
2577.616
76.048
82
94
93
.663
a. R Squared = .286 (Adjusted R Squared = .190)
a
Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variances
Dependent Variable: Attitude towards the Model
F
3.777
df1
df2
11
82
Sig.
.000
Tests the null hypothesis that the error variance of
the dependent variable is equal across groups.
a. Design:
Intercept+Embeddedness+Strength+
Embeddedness * Strength
XXXII
Multiple Comparisons
Dependent Variable: Attitude towards the Model
Tukey HSD
(I) Cultural
Embeddedness
ck1
ck2
ck3
xh1
xh2
xh3
Tamhane
ck1
ck2
ck3
xh1
xh2
xh3
(J) Cultural
Embeddedness
ck2
ck3
xh1
xh2
xh3
ck1
ck3
xh1
xh2
xh3
ck1
ck2
xh1
xh2
xh3
ck1
ck2
ck3
xh2
xh3
ck1
ck2
ck3
xh1
xh3
ck1
ck2
ck3
xh1
xh2
ck2
ck3
xh1
xh2
xh3
ck1
ck3
xh1
xh2
xh3
ck1
ck2
xh1
xh2
xh3
ck1
ck2
ck3
xh2
xh3
ck1
ck2
ck3
xh1
xh3
ck1
ck2
ck3
xh1
xh2
Mean
Difference
(I-J)
.0184
-.6520
-.8233*
-.8561
-.7451
-.0184
-.6704
-.8418*
-.8745
-.7635
.6520
.6704
-.1713
-.2041
-.0931
.8233*
.8418*
.1713
-.0327
.0782
.8561
.8745
.2041
.0327
.1110
.7451
.7635
.0931
-.0782
-.1110
.0184
-.6520
-.8233
-.8561
-.7451
-.0184
-.6704
-.8418
-.8745
-.7635
.6520
.6704
-.1713
-.2041
-.0931
.8233
.8418
.1713
-.0327
.0782
.8561
.8745
.2041
.0327
.1110
.7451
.7635
.0931
-.0782
-.1110
Std. Error
.28836
.29723
.28116
.32313
.28836
.28836
.28836
.27176
.31498
.27920
.29723
.28836
.28116
.32313
.28836
.28116
.27176
.28116
.30840
.27176
.32313
.31498
.32313
.30840
.31498
.28836
.27920
.28836
.27176
.31498
.30413
.24408
.29657
.29111
.28070
.30413
.28414
.33033
.32544
.31616
.24408
.28414
.27604
.27017
.25891
.29657
.33033
.27604
.31839
.30890
.29111
.32544
.27017
.31839
.30366
.28070
.31616
.25891
.30890
.30366
Based on observed means.
*. The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.
XXXIII
Sig.
1.000
.252
.049
.097
.113
1.000
.196
.031
.072
.079
.252
.196
.990
.988
1.000
.049
.031
.990
1.000
1.000
.097
.072
.988
1.000
.999
.113
.079
1.000
1.000
.999
1.000
.174
.129
.109
.173
1.000
.325
.210
.173
.281
.174
.325
1.000
1.000
1.000
.129
.210
1.000
1.000
1.000
.109
.173
1.000
1.000
1.000
.173
.281
1.000
1.000
1.000
95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound Upper Bound
-.8231
.8599
-1.5194
.2154
-1.6438
-.0029
-1.7990
.0869
-1.5866
.0964
-.8599
.8231
-1.5119
.1711
-1.6348
-.0487
-1.7937
.0447
-1.5783
.0512
-.2154
1.5194
-.1711
1.5119
-.9918
.6491
-1.1470
.7389
-.9346
.7484
.0029
1.6438
.0487
1.6348
-.6491
.9918
-.9327
.8673
-.7148
.8713
-.0869
1.7990
-.0447
1.7937
-.7389
1.1470
-.8673
.9327
-.8082
1.0301
-.0964
1.5866
-.0512
1.5783
-.7484
.9346
-.8713
.7148
-1.0301
.8082
-.9507
.9876
-1.4356
.1316
-1.7616
.1149
-1.8130
.1009
-1.6377
.1475
-.9876
.9507
-1.5829
.2421
-1.8824
.1989
-1.9257
.1767
-1.7649
.2379
-.1316
1.4356
-.2421
1.5829
-1.0487
.7060
-1.1080
.6998
-.9197
.7335
-.1149
1.7616
-.1989
1.8824
-.7060
1.0487
-1.0579
.9924
-.8943
1.0507
-.1009
1.8130
-.1767
1.9257
-.6998
1.1080
-.9924
1.0579
-.8764
1.0983
-.1475
1.6377
-.2379
1.7649
-.7335
.9197
-1.0507
.8943
-1.0983
.8764
Univariate Analysis of Variance
Between-Subjects Factors
N
Cultural
Embeddedness
Strength of Ethnic
Identification
ck1
ck2
ck3
xh1
xh2
xh3
s
w
15
17
15
19
11
17
50
44
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Dependent Variable: Identification with the Model
Source
Corrected Model
Intercept
Embeddedness
Strength
Embeddedness *
Strength
Error
Total
Corrected Total
Type III Sum
of Squares
52.813a
1867.681
36.123
1.980
df
11
1
5
1
Mean Square
4.801
1867.681
7.225
1.980
F
4.167
1621.016
6.270
1.719
Sig.
.000
.000
.000
.194
16.497
5
3.299
2.864
.020
94.478
2043.867
147.291
82
94
93
1.152
a. R Squared = .359 (Adjusted R Squared = .273)
a
Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variances
Dependent Variable: Identification with the Model
F
6.820
df1
df2
11
82
Sig.
.000
Tests the null hypothesis that the error variance of
the dependent variable is equal across groups.
a. Design:
Intercept+Embeddedness+Strength+
Embeddedness * Strength
XXXIV
Multiple Comparisons
Dependent Variable: Identification with the Model
Tukey HSD
(I) Cultural
Embeddedness
ck1
ck2
ck3
xh1
xh2
xh3
Tamhane
ck1
ck2
ck3
xh1
xh2
xh3
(J) Cultural
Embeddedness
ck2
ck3
xh1
xh2
xh3
ck1
ck3
xh1
xh2
xh3
ck1
ck2
xh1
xh2
xh3
ck1
ck2
ck3
xh2
xh3
ck1
ck2
ck3
xh1
xh3
ck1
ck2
ck3
xh1
xh2
ck2
ck3
xh1
xh2
xh3
ck1
ck3
xh1
xh2
xh3
ck1
ck2
xh1
xh2
xh3
ck1
ck2
ck3
xh2
xh3
ck1
ck2
ck3
xh1
xh3
ck1
ck2
ck3
xh1
xh2
Mean
Difference
(I-J)
-.6306
-.2867
-1.0111
-1.7444*
-1.5418*
.6306
.3440
-.3805
-1.1138
-.9112
.2867
-.3440
-.7245
-1.4578*
-1.2551*
1.0111
.3805
.7245
-.7333
-.5307
1.7444*
1.1138
1.4578*
.7333
.2026
1.5418*
.9112
1.2551*
.5307
-.2026
-.6306
-.2867
-1.0111*
-1.7444*
-1.5418*
.6306
.3440
-.3805
-1.1138*
-.9112
.2867
-.3440
-.7245
-1.4578
-1.2551
1.0111*
.3805
.7245
-.7333
-.5307
1.7444*
1.1138*
1.4578
.7333
.2026
1.5418*
.9112
1.2551
.5307
-.2026
Std. Error
.38024
.39195
.37074
.42609
.38024
.38024
.38024
.35835
.41535
.36817
.39195
.38024
.37074
.42609
.38024
.37074
.35835
.37074
.40667
.35835
.42609
.41535
.42609
.40667
.41535
.38024
.36817
.38024
.35835
.41535
.25554
.50765
.21203
.27111
.36657
.25554
.53476
.27060
.31901
.40329
.50765
.53476
.51539
.54237
.59586
.21203
.27060
.51539
.28535
.37722
.27111
.31901
.54237
.28535
.41333
.36657
.40329
.59586
.37722
.41333
Based on observed means.
*. The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.
XXXV
Sig.
.563
.977
.081
.001
.002
.563
.944
.895
.090
.144
.977
.944
.378
.012
.017
.081
.895
.378
.469
.677
.001
.090
.012
.469
.996
.002
.144
.017
.677
.996
.266
1.000
.001
.000
.006
.266
1.000
.939
.028
.387
1.000
1.000
.947
.194
.500
.001
.939
.947
.245
.942
.000
.028
.194
.245
1.000
.006
.387
.500
.942
1.000
95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound Upper Bound
-1.7403
.4790
-1.4304
.8571
-2.0930
.0708
-2.9878
-.5010
-2.6514
-.4322
-.4790
1.7403
-.7657
1.4536
-1.4262
.6652
-2.3259
.0983
-1.9856
.1632
-.8571
1.4304
-1.4536
.7657
-1.8064
.3574
-2.7012
-.2143
-2.3648
-.1455
-.0708
2.0930
-.6652
1.4262
-.3574
1.8064
-1.9201
.4535
-1.5764
.5151
.5010
2.9878
-.0983
2.3259
.2143
2.7012
-.4535
1.9201
-1.0095
1.4147
.4322
2.6514
-.1632
1.9856
.1455
2.3648
-.5151
1.5764
-1.4147
1.0095
-1.4525
.1913
-2.0266
1.4533
-1.6818
-.3404
-2.6701
-.8187
-2.7519
-.3317
-.1913
1.4525
-1.4393
2.1272
-1.2396
.4786
-2.1521
-.0755
-2.2052
.3828
-1.4533
2.0266
-2.1272
1.4393
-2.4747
1.0258
-3.2620
.3465
-3.1779
.6676
.3404
1.6818
-.4786
1.2396
-1.0258
2.4747
-1.6844
.2178
-1.7615
.7001
.8187
2.6701
.0755
2.1521
-.3465
3.2620
-.2178
1.6844
-1.1312
1.5365
.3317
2.7519
-.3828
2.2052
-.6676
3.1779
-.7001
1.7615
-1.5365
1.1312
Univariate Analysis of Variance
Between-Subjects Factors
N
Cultural
Embeddedness
Strength of Ethnic
Identification
ck1
ck2
ck3
xh1
xh2
xh3
s
w
15
17
15
19
11
17
50
44
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Dependent Variable: Targetedness
Source
Corrected Model
Intercept
Embeddedness
Strength
Embeddedness *
Strength
Error
Total
Corrected Total
Type III Sum
of Squares
84.308a
1983.097
66.071
.295
df
11
1
5
1
Mean Square
7.664
1983.097
13.214
.295
F
10.127
2620.410
17.461
.390
Sig.
.000
.000
.000
.534
19.022
5
3.804
5.027
.000
62.057
2145.630
146.365
82
94
93
.757
a. R Squared = .576 (Adjusted R Squared = .519)
a
Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variances
Dependent Variable: Targetedness
F
.995
df1
df2
11
82
Sig.
.458
Tests the null hypothesis that the error variance of
the dependent variable is equal across groups.
a. Design:
Intercept+Embeddedness+Strength+
Embeddedness * Strength
XXXVI
Multiple Comparisons
Dependent Variable: Targetedness
Tukey HSD
(I) Cultural
Embeddedness
ck1
ck2
ck3
xh1
xh2
xh3
Tamhane
ck1
ck2
ck3
xh1
xh2
xh3
(J) Cultural
Embeddedness
ck2
ck3
xh1
xh2
xh3
ck1
ck3
xh1
xh2
xh3
ck1
ck2
xh1
xh2
xh3
ck1
ck2
ck3
xh2
xh3
ck1
ck2
ck3
xh1
xh3
ck1
ck2
ck3
xh1
xh2
ck2
ck3
xh1
xh2
xh3
ck1
ck3
xh1
xh2
xh3
ck1
ck2
xh1
xh2
xh3
ck1
ck2
ck3
xh2
xh3
ck1
ck2
ck3
xh1
xh3
ck1
ck2
ck3
xh1
xh2
Mean
Difference
(I-J)
-.2300
-.0719
2.1275*
2.0096*
.5977
.2300
.1581
2.3575*
2.2395*
.8276
.0719
-.1581
2.1994*
2.0814*
.6696
-2.1275*
-2.3575*
-2.1994*
-.1180
-1.5299*
-2.0096*
-2.2395*
-2.0814*
.1180
-1.4119*
-.5977
-.8276
-.6696
1.5299*
1.4119*
-.2300
-.0719
2.1275*
2.0096*
.5977
.2300
.1581
2.3575*
2.2395*
.8276
.0719
-.1581
2.1994*
2.0814*
.6696
-2.1275*
-2.3575*
-2.1994*
-.1180
-1.5299*
-2.0096*
-2.2395*
-2.0814*
.1180
-1.4119
-.5977
-.8276
-.6696
1.5299*
1.4119
Based on observed means.
*. The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.
XXXVII
Std. Error
.43529
.44183
.46663
.42403
.43529
.43529
.43529
.46043
.41721
.42864
.44183
.43529
.46663
.42403
.43529
.46663
.46043
.46663
.44981
.46043
.42403
.41721
.42403
.44981
.41721
.43529
.42864
.43529
.46043
.41721
.44935
.36700
.38619
.42815
.41796
.44935
.46302
.47837
.51285
.50437
.36700
.46302
.40201
.44247
.43262
.38619
.47837
.40201
.45851
.44901
.42815
.51285
.44247
.45851
.48558
.41796
.50437
.43262
.44901
.48558
Sig.
.995
1.000
.000
.000
.743
.995
.999
.000
.000
.391
1.000
.999
.000
.000
.641
.000
.000
.000
1.000
.016
.000
.000
.000
1.000
.013
.743
.391
.641
.016
.013
1.000
1.000
.000
.001
.931
1.000
1.000
.001
.002
.828
1.000
1.000
.000
.001
.881
.000
.001
.000
1.000
.030
.001
.002
.001
1.000
.091
.931
.828
.881
.030
.091
95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound
Upper Bound
-1.4988
1.0389
-1.3598
1.2161
.7673
3.4878
.7735
3.2456
-.6712
1.8665
-1.0389
1.4988
-1.1108
1.4269
1.0154
3.6997
1.0234
3.4557
-.4218
2.0771
-1.2161
1.3598
-1.4269
1.1108
.8392
3.5596
.8454
3.3175
-.5993
1.9384
-3.4878
-.7673
-3.6997
-1.0154
-3.5596
-.8392
-1.4292
1.1932
-2.8720
-.1877
-3.2456
-.7735
-3.4557
-1.0234
-3.3175
-.8454
-1.1932
1.4292
-2.6280
-.1957
-1.8665
.6712
-2.0771
.4218
-1.9384
.5993
.1877
2.8720
.1957
2.6280
-1.6704
1.2104
-1.2396
1.0959
.8777
3.3774
.6525
3.3666
-.7355
1.9309
-1.2104
1.6704
-1.3197
1.6359
.8261
3.8889
.6231
3.8560
-.7690
2.4243
-1.0959
1.2396
-1.6359
1.3197
.9040
3.4949
.6827
3.4802
-.7059
2.0451
-3.3774
-.8777
-3.8889
-.8261
-3.4949
-.9040
-1.5760
1.3401
-2.9663
-.0934
-3.3666
-.6525
-3.8560
-.6231
-3.4802
-.6827
-1.3401
1.5760
-2.9405
.1167
-1.9309
.7355
-2.4243
.7690
-2.0451
.7059
.0934
2.9663
-.1167
2.9405