European Journal of MarketingFactors predicting the effectiveness of celebrity endorsement advertisementsDavid H. Silvera Benedikte Austad

Article information:To cite this document:David H. Silvera Benedikte Austad, (2004),"Factors predicting the effectiveness of celebrity endorsementadvertisements", European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 38 Iss 11/12 pp. 1509 - 1526Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090560410560218

Downloaded on: 22 April 2015, At: 03:35 (PT)References: this document contains references to 41 other documents.To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.comThe fulltext of this document has been downloaded 32478 times since 2006*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:Kathleen A. Farrell, Gordon V. Karels, Kenneth W. Montfort, Christine A. McClatchey, (2000),"Celebrityperformance and endorsement value: the case of Tiger Woods", Managerial Finance, Vol. 26 Iss 7 pp. 1-15http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03074350010766756Kara Chan, Yu Leung Ng, Edwin K. Luk, (2013),"Impact of celebrity endorsement in advertisingon brand image among Chinese adolescents", Young Consumers, Vol. 14 Iss 2 pp. 167-179 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17473611311325564Brian D. Till, Michael Busler, (1998),"Matching products with endorsers: attractiveness versus expertise",Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 15 Iss 6 pp. 576-586 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/07363769810241445

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 320152 []

For AuthorsIf you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald forAuthors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelinesare available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The companymanages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well asproviding an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.

Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committeeon Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archivepreservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

RA

B A

CA

DE

MY

FO

R S

CIE

NC

E, T

EC

HN

OL

OG

Y &

MA

RIT

IME

TR

AN

SPO

RT

At 0

3:35

22

Apr

il 20

15 (

PT)

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090560410560218

Factors predicting theeffectiveness of celebrity

endorsement advertisementsDavid H. Silvera and Benedikte Austad

University of Troms, Troms, Norway

Keywords Product endorsement, Advertising, Social attitudes

Abstract This research examines whether consumers infer that celebrity endorsers like theproducts they endorse, and presents a model using these inferences and other characteristics of theendorser to predict attitudes toward the endorsed product. Participants in two experimentsexamined written endorsement advertisements and were asked to infer the extent to which theendorser truly liked the advertised product and to rate the endorsers attractiveness, similarity tothemselves, and knowledge of the product. Attitudes toward the advertisement, the endorser andthe product were also measured. The resulting model indicated that product attitudes werepredicted by inferences about the endorsers liking for the product and by attitudes toward theendorser.

IntroductionA recent estimate indicates that approximately 25 percent of American commercialsuse celebrity endorsers (Shimp, 2000). In support of this practice, research indicatesthat celebrity endorsements can result in more favorable advertisement ratings andproduct evaluations (Dean and Biswas, 2001) and can have a substantial positiveimpact on financial returns for the companies that use them (Erdogan, 2001). Onepossible explanation for the effectiveness of celebrity endorsers is that consumers tendto believe that major stars are motivated by genuine affection for the product ratherthan by endorsement fees (Atkin and Block, 1983). Freiden (1984) concluded thatcelebrities are particularly effective endorsers because they are viewed as highlytrustworthy, believable, persuasive, and likeable. Although these results unequivocallysupport the use of celebrity endorsers, other research suggests that celebrityendorsements might vary in effectiveness depending on other factors like the fitbetween the celebrity and the advertised product (Till and Shimp, 1998). The objectivesof the present research were to examine factors that influence celebrity endorsementeffectiveness and to develop a model predicting the effectiveness of celebrityendorsements.

Attribution theory and endorsement effectivenessAlthough past research documents a general tendency for consumers to believe in thepurity of the motives of celebrity endorsers, it is likely that this tendency variessubstantially both across consumers and across endorsers. For example, Tripp et al.

The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister www.emeraldinsight.com/0309-0566.htm

We thank Doug Krull and Bas Verplanken for their comments on an earlier version of thismanuscript. This research was partly supported by the Norwegian Research Council, and wethank them for their assistance.

Celebrityendorsement

advertisements

1509

Received February 2003Revised September 2003

European Journal of MarketingVol. 38 No. 11/12, 2004

pp. 1509-1526q Emerald Group Publishing Limited

0309-0566DOI 10.1108/03090560410560218

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

RA

B A

CA

DE

MY

FO

R S

CIE

NC

E, T

EC

HN

OL

OG

Y &

MA

RIT

IME

TR

AN

SPO

RT

At 0

3:35

22

Apr

il 20

15 (

PT)

www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregisterwww.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister

(1994) showed that celebrities who endorse several products are viewed as less credibleendorsers than those who endorse only a single product. Louie and Obermiller (2002)also demonstrated that celebrities who are blamed for negative events (e.g. accidents)can have detrimental effects on the products they endorse. In short, the effectiveness ofa celebrity endorser is dynamic, dependent on the celebrity, the product, and perhapseven societal conditions at the time and place where the advertisement is shown. Assuch, it could be fruitful to abandon the use of traditional measures of the celebrityendorsers trustworthiness or credibility in general (e.g. Freiden, 1984; Ohanian, 1991)in favor of directly measuring the degree to which individuals evaluate the celebrity asliking the endorsed product after viewing the advertisement. Such evaluations fitunder a class of judgment that has been referred to as correspondent inferences(Gilbert and Malone, 1995). Correspondent inferences more generally refer to anyjudgment in which observers use an individuals behavior (e.g. an endorser saying thatshe loves Cheerios cereal) to infer congruent dispositions in that individual(e.g. inferring that the endorser actually does love Cheerios cereal). We propose thatcorrespondent inferences are a direct measure of a celebritys credibility in the specificcontext of the advertisement, and thus should predict consumers attitudes toward theadvertised product.

H1. Correspondent inferences will be positively associated with attitudes towardthe advertised product.

Another interesting question in this context is whether consumers will tend to makecorrespondent inferences about celebrity endorsers. Early social psychological work inattribution theory (e.g. Kelley, 1971) suggests not a large endorsement fee should beviewed as a strong incentive toward endorsement behavior, and thus observers shoulddoubt that endorsements reflect true liking for the product on the part of the endorser.However, research indicating that celebrities are especially credible and trustworthyendorsers (e.g. Freiden, 1984) suggests that consumers might believe celebrities likethe product regardless of endorsement fees. Furthermore, research examining aphenomenon called correspondence bias suggests that observers are biased such thatthey tend to attribute behavior to personal characteristics of the individual performingthat behavior (e.g. liking for the product) even when situational factors(e.g. endorsement fees) are sufficient to fully explain the behavior (Gilbert andMalone, 1995; Gilbert and Jones, 1986).

To our knowledge, the only empirical investigation of correspondence bias relatedto celebrity endorsement advertisements demonstrated correspondence bias when theadvertisement included several arguments for the product and used the celebritysname repeatedly, but failed to demonstrate correspondence bias in a more typicaladvertisement that included only a picture and a single presentation of the celebritysname (Cronley et al., 1999). The results of this study are also difficult to interpretbecause the study used the midpoint of the rating scale as a comparison value ratherthan incorporating a more appropriate comparison value such as how the averageperson views the product.

Advertising in NorwayIn addition to the very limited quantity of research related to correspondence bias andthe endorsement process, it should also be noted that this research and most of the

EJM38,11/12

1510

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

RA

B A

CA

DE

MY

FO

R S

CIE

NC

E, T

EC

HN

OL

OG

Y &

MA

RIT

IME

TR

AN

SPO

RT

At 0

3:35

22

Apr

il 20

15 (

PT)

research investigating correspondence bias in other contexts has been conducted in theUnited States. Considering that the present research was conducted in Norway, it ispotentially relevant to examine cultural differences between Americans andNorwegians that might influence the effectiveness of endorsement advertisements.One important difference is that the celebrity system is primarily an American culturalenterprise. As such, it is possible that Americans identify especially strongly withcelebrities and are thus more willing to accept and internalize endorsement messages(McCracken, 1989). In contrast, Norwegian cultural norms are antagonistic toward thecelebrity system; celebrities might earn a certain amount of grudging respect for theiraccomplishments, but they are also regarded with a certain amount of suspicion anddistrust because of the appearance that they view themselves as better or moreimportant than the common man (Avant and Knutsen, 1993).

Another factor that could influence the receptiveness of Norwegians to endorsementadvertisements is that Norway has a less commercial culture than the United States.This non-commercial orientation is evidenced not only by Norways social welfaresystem (as opposed to the more market-driven system in the United States), but also bythe tendency of Norwegian advertisers to express relatively strong concern for moralaspects of advertising (Brinkmann, 1995) as compared to advertising effectiveness, aswell as Norwegian advertisers tendency to make arbitrary decisions based on ad hocprocedures rather than empirically grounded rational processes (Helgesen, 1992). Thegeneral lack of commercialism in Norway could have mixed effects on receptiveness toendorsement advertisements it could produce a general distrust toward commercialmessages, but it could also result in more nave consumers who are less conscious ofthe size of endorsement fees and their importance in determining productendorsements.

Although these considerations suggest that Norwegians might be skeptical towardcelebrity endorsers and thus might not exhibit correspondence bias in the context ofendorsement advertisements, correspondence bias is an extremely robust phenomenonthat has been reliably demonstrated in a variety of Western cultures including Norway(Silvera et al., 2000; see also Gilbert and Malone, 1995 for a review). Based on thisprevious research, it was predicted that Norwegian participants would also showcorrespondence bias in the context of celebrity endorsements.

H2. Observers will view the product endorser as liking the product better than theaverage person likes the product, even when the endorser receives asubstantial endorsement fee.

Celebrity attributes that influence endorsement effectivenessPrevious research examining the effectiveness of celebrity endorsements has focusedprimarily on personal attributes of the celebrity that enhance his or her persuasiveness(see Erdogan, 1999, for a review). For example, a number of researchers have usedmodels in which source credibility, typically viewed as a function of trustworthinessand expertise, is the primary factor determining how influential the endorser will be(Ohanian, 1991; Lafferty and Goldsmith, 1999; Lafferty et al., 2002). Trustworthinessrefers to the general believability of the endorser, and is thus broader but conceptuallysimilar to correspondent inferences about the endorser. Expertise refers to the productknowledge of the endorser and thus to the validity of his or her claims regarding the

Celebrityendorsement

advertisements

1511

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

RA

B A

CA

DE

MY

FO

R S

CIE

NC

E, T

EC

HN

OL

OG

Y &

MA

RIT

IME

TR

AN

SPO

RT

At 0

3:35

22

Apr

il 20

15 (

PT)

product, and is believed to be a factor that increases persuasiveness above and beyondthe effects of trustworthiness.

H3. Perceived product knowledge of the endorser will be positively associatedwith attitudes toward the advertised product.

Other researchers have emphasized the importance of source attractiveness indetermining liking for the endorser and thereby increasing endorsement effectiveness(e.g. Friedman and Friedman, 1979). To the extent that attractiveness is an importantdeterminant of endorsement effectiveness, research based on the matchup hypothesis(Kahle and Homer, 1985; see also Till and Busler, 1998, for a discussion of the matchuphypothesis in relation to endorser expertise) suggests that its importance is limited bythe degree to which attractiveness fits well with the advertised product (e.g. Kamins,1990). Thus, for example, physical attractiveness might be useful when sellingcosmetics but not when selling computers. Furthermore, although sourceattractiveness research has focused primarily on physical attractiveness,attractiveness can also be viewed more generally as a positive attitude toward theendorser. Such positive attitudes might result from admiration or perceived similarity(McGuire, 1985), although effective advertising is more likely to rely on the admirationcomponent because the influential power of celebrities is closely connected to theirstatus as role models (Raven et al., 1998).

H4. Positive attitudes toward the endorser will be associated with positiveattitudes toward the advertised product.

H5. Admiration and elements of physical attractiveness associated with theproduct will be associated with positive attitudes toward the endorser, andwill contribute to predicting attitudes toward the advertised product.

H6. Perceived similarity and elements of physical attractiveness that areunrelated to the product will be associated with positive attitudes toward theendorser, but will not contribute to predicting attitudes toward the product.

Experiment 1: research methodologyParticipantsThe participants were 66 students (41 females, 25 males) at the University of Tromswho participated on a voluntary basis. The mean age of the participants was 24.59years (SD 1:91 years).

MaterialsBaseline measure. Prior to examining any of the other experimental materials,participants were asked to indicate what they believed people in general think aboutthe Omega watch brand on a scale from 1 not good at all to 7 very good.

Endorsement advertisement. Participants were given a black-and-white copy of aprinted advertisement in which Cindy Crawford endorsed the luxury, diamond-setwatch Constellation Carre from Omega. The advertisement had a close-up picture ofCindy Crawford with the watch in front of her. Cindy Crawfords choice was printedabove the picture, and My choice was written in cursive next to the Omega logo at thebottom of the advertisement.

EJM38,11/12

1512

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

RA

B A

CA

DE

MY

FO

R S

CIE

NC

E, T

EC

HN

OL

OG

Y &

MA

RIT

IME

TR

AN

SPO

RT

At 0

3:35

22

Apr

il 20

15 (

PT)

Evaluation questionnaire. The evaluation questionnaire included measures ofcorrespondent inferences, attitude toward the advertisement, attitude toward theproduct, and attitude toward the celebrity endorser. Correspondent inferences weremeasured with three items asking participants to indicate their level of belief thatCindy Crawford:

(1) likes the Omega brand;

(2) frequently uses the Omega brand; and

(3) views the Omega brand as a good product.

Each of these items was answered on a seven-point scale ranging from 1 Not atall likely to 7 Extremely likely. The correspondent inference items showedsatisfactory internal reliability (a 0:83).

All attitude items used semantic differential scales with a value of one associatedwith the more negative word and a value of seven associated with the more positiveword. Attitude toward the advertisement was measured using the itemspleasant/unpleasant, likeable/not likeable, interesting/uninteresting, and good/bad;attitude toward the product was measured using the items desirable/not desirable,pleasant/unpleasant, likeable/not likeable, and good/bad; attitude toward the endorserwas measured using the items interesting/uninteresting, pleasant/unpleasant,likeable/not likeable, and good/bad. Each of the three attitude measures showedsatisfactory internal reliability (attitude toward advertisement: a 0:85; attitudetoward product: a 0:82; attitude toward endorser: a 0:87).

Participants were also asked to rate how much they admired Cindy Crawford aswell as Cindy Crawfords physical attractiveness, sense of style (attractivenessrelevant to the product domain), similarity to the participant, and knowledge of theproduct domain. All of these ratings were made on seven-point scales where 1indicated low values (e.g. not at all attractive) and 7 indicated high values (e.g. veryattractive).

ProcedureSmall groups of participants received an experimental pack that was completed in thepresence of the experimenter and returned immediately upon completion. The first partof the experimental pack contained a brief description of the study followed by thebaseline measure. After completing the baseline measure, participants were asked toread a set of instructions that contained the experimental manipulation. Participantswere randomly assigned either to the unpaid condition, in which they were told thatCindy Crawford endorsed Omega watches on a voluntary basis without receiving anypayment, or the paid condition, in which they were told that Cindy Crawford waspaid 50 million Norwegian kroner (approximately US$6 million) for endorsing Omegawatches. This amount was described as Cindy Crawfords standard endorsement fee.

After reading the instructions, participants viewed the endorsement advertisementand completed the evaluation questionnaire.

AnalysesIn addition to preliminary correlational analyses, the primary results will be presentedusing a structural equations model developed in Amos 4.0 (Arbuckle and Wothke,1999). In addition to the chi-square measure of absolute fit, the comparative fit index

Celebrityendorsement

advertisements

1513

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

RA

B A

CA

DE

MY

FO

R S

CIE

NC

E, T

EC

HN

OL

OG

Y &

MA

RIT

IME

TR

AN

SPO

RT

At 0

3:35

22

Apr

il 20

15 (

PT)

(CFI) and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA; Browne and Cudek,1993) were used as measures of relative model fit. Even for models with poor absolutefit, recent research suggests that CFI values of 0.95 or higher (Hu and Bentler, 1999)and RMSEA values of 0.08 or lower indicate reasonably good overall model fit (Browneand Cudek, 1993).

ResultsPreliminary analysesGender was originally included as a covariate in all analyses, and was not significantlyassociated with any of the primary variables in the study. Thus, gender was notincluded in the analyses reported below and will not be discussed further.

Pearson correlations between the variables in Experiment 1 are shown in Table I.These correlations are consistent with all hypotheses except H3 perceived productknowledge of the endorser was not significantly correlated with attitudes toward theadvertised product.

Model predicting attitude toward the endorsed productA theoretical model was first developed based on the hypotheses that attitudes towardthe product were predicted by attitudes toward the endorser, perceived productknowledge of the endorser, and correspondent inferences about the endorser; and thatattitudes toward the endorser were predicted by admiration of the endorser, theendorsers sense of style, perceived similarity to the endorser, and physicalattractiveness of the endorser. This theoretical model had both poor absolute fit(x 2 (21, N 66 85:04, p , 0:001) and poor relative fit (CFI 0:94,RMSEA 0:22). In the next step, perceived similarity and physical attractivenesswere removed from the model in accordance with the prediction that they would notcontribute to predicting attitude toward the product (H6). Although this revised modelstill had poor absolute fit (x 2 (10, N 66 25:09, p , 0:01) and somewhat poorrelative fit (CFI 0:98, RMSEA 0:15), it was a significant improvement over theoriginal model (x2change11 59:85; p , 0:001), supporting H6.

This model was then refined to improve goodness of fit by making two furthermodifications:

(1) sense of style predicted correspondent inferences in addition to attitude towardthe endorser; and

(2) product knowledge predicted correspondent inferences instead of attitudetoward the product.

This final model (see Figure 1) had good absolute fit (x 2 (9,N 66 11:14, p . 0:25)and relative fit (CFI 1:00, RMSEA 0:06), and explained 27.01 percent of thevariance in attitude toward the advertised product. All paths shown in Figure 1 aresignificant at p , 0:05. The association between correspondent inferences and attitudetoward the product supports H1, and the paths from admiration and sense of stylethrough attitude toward the endorser to attitude toward the product support H4 andH5. H3 is also partly supported by the model; although there is no direct path betweenproduct knowledge and attitude toward the product, these two variables are indirectlyconnected via correspondent inferences.

EJM38,11/12

1514

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

RA

B A

CA

DE

MY

FO

R S

CIE

NC

E, T

EC

HN

OL

OG

Y &

MA

RIT

IME

TR

AN

SPO

RT

At 0

3:35

22

Apr

il 20

15 (

PT)

Attitude:

endorser

Correspondent

inferences

Attitude:

advertisement

Attitude:

product

Admiration

Physical

attractiveness

Sim

ilarity

Sense

ofstyle

Product

know

ledge

Att:endorser

Corrinfs

0.18

Att:ad

0.69***

0.30*

Att:product

0.36**

0.50***

0.34**

Admiration

0.52***

0.09

0.31*

0.27*

Attractiveness

0.35**

0.05

0.34**

0.22

0.46***

Sim

ilarity

0.34**

0.28*

0.19

0.17

0.41**

0.57***

Style

0.59***

0.40**

0.45***

0.45***

0.30*

0.15

0.33**

Know

ledge

20.08

0.21

0.03

20.03

20.02

20.22

0.05

20.03

Notes:Fullvariablenam

esaregiven

inthefirstrow,whilethefirstcolumnshow

sabbreviatednam

esforthesamevariables;*p

,0:05;**p,

0:01;

***p

,0:001(two-tailed)

Table I.Correlation table for

Experiment 1

Celebrityendorsement

advertisements

1515

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

RA

B A

CA

DE

MY

FO

R S

CIE

NC

E, T

EC

HN

OL

OG

Y &

MA

RIT

IME

TR

AN

SPO

RT

At 0

3:35

22

Apr

il 20

15 (

PT)

Correspondence biasTo determine whether participants showed correspondence bias in their ratings of theendorser, a 2 2 mixed design ANOVA was used, with target (baseline versusendorser) as a within-subjects variable and experimental condition (paid or unpaidendorser) as a between-subjects variable. Correspondence bias would be indicated ifthe paid endorser was viewed as liking the endorsed product better than people ingeneral (i.e. the baseline value). This analysis failed to support H2: in fact, a significantmain effect for target indicated reversed correspondence bias, such that the endorser(M 3:58, SD 1:16) was viewed as liking the product significantly less than theaverage person (M 4:94, SD 0:97; F1; 63 91:38, p , 0:001). Neither the maineffect for experimental condition nor the interaction between target and experimentalcondition was significant (F , 1). t-Tests showed that people in general were viewedas liking the product better than the endorser in both the paid F1; 32 66:26,p , 0:001) and unpaid conditions F1; 31 34:26, p , :0001).

DiscussionExperiment 1 provided a model predicting participants attitudes toward an endorsedproduct from their attitudes toward the endorser and their attributions about theendorsers liking for the product. In addition, Experiment 1 demonstrated a reversal ofthe normally robust correspondence bias phenomenon (Gilbert and Malone, 1995) - onaverage, participants believed that the endorser liked the product less than a typicalperson would like the product. Although these findings have potentially importanttheoretical and applied implications, it is possible that they are an artifact of thespecific stimuli used in Experiment 1. The finding of anti-correspondence biasparticularly needs replication considering that it contradicts a large existing literatureon attributional biases.

Figure 1.Model predicting attitudetoward the advertisedproduct in Experiment 1

EJM38,11/12

1516

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

RA

B A

CA

DE

MY

FO

R S

CIE

NC

E, T

EC

HN

OL

OG

Y &

MA

RIT

IME

TR

AN

SPO

RT

At 0

3:35

22

Apr

il 20

15 (

PT)

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showImage?doi=10.1108/03090560410560218&iName=master.img-001.jpg&w=203&h=214

To address this concern, Experiment 2 was performed to replicate the findings fromExperiment 1 using a different product and a different endorser. In addition, a controlgroup was added to provide baseline ratings for the average persons attitude towardthe product, thus protecting against the possibility that demand characteristicsinfluenced the results in the within-subjects design used in Experiment 1.

Experiment 2: research methodologyParticipantsThe participants were 66 students (39 females, 25 males, 2 not reported) who wererecruited at a higher education conference in Oslo, Norway and participated on avoluntary basis. The mean age of participants was 24.28 years (SD 7:75 years).

MaterialsEndorsement advertisement. Participants were given a black-and-white copy of aprinted advertisement in which Pierce Brosnan endorsed Goodlife cologne fromDavidoff. The advertisement consisted of a picture of a Goodlife cologne bottle on theleft and a close-up picture of Pierce Brosnan on the right. The words Davidoff andGoodlife were written on the ad at the bottom of Pierce Brosnans picture.

Evaluation questionnaire. The evaluation questionnaire included measures ofcorrespondent inferences, attitude toward the advertisement, attitude toward theproduct, and attitude toward the celebrity endorser. Correspondent inferences weremeasured with three items asking participants to indicate their level of belief thatPierce Brosnan:

(1) likes Goodlife cologne;

(2) frequently uses Goodlife cologne; and

(3) views Goodlife cologne as a good product.

Each of these items was answered on an 11-point scale ranging from 0 Not at alllikely to 10 Extremely likely. The correspondent inference items showedsatisfactory internal reliability (a 0:82).

All attitude items used semantic differential scales with a value of one associatedwith the more negative word and a value of seven associated with the more positiveword. Attitude toward the advertisement was measured using the itemspleasant/unpleasant, likeable/not likeable, interesting/uninteresting, and good/bad;attitude toward the product was measured using the items desirable/not desirable,pleasant/unpleasant, likeable/not likeable, and good/bad; attitude toward the endorserwas measured using the items interesting/uninteresting, pleasant/unpleasant,likeable/not likeable, and good/bad. Each of the three attitude measures showedsatisfactory internal reliability (attitude toward advertisement: a 0:87; attitudetoward product: a 0:91; attitude toward endorser: a 0:86).

Participants were also asked to rate Pierce Brosnans knowledge of the productdomain, similarity to themselves, and physical attractiveness. All of these ratings weremade on seven-point scales where 1 indicated low values (e.g. not at all attractive)and 7 indicated high values (e.g. very attractive).

Celebrityendorsement

advertisements

1517

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

RA

B A

CA

DE

MY

FO

R S

CIE

NC

E, T

EC

HN

OL

OG

Y &

MA

RIT

IME

TR

AN

SPO

RT

At 0

3:35

22

Apr

il 20

15 (

PT)

ProcedureSmall groups of participants received an experimental pack that was completed in thepresence of the experimenter and returned immediately upon completion. Afterreading a brief description of the study, participants were asked to read a set ofinstructions that contained the experimental manipulation. Participants wererandomly assigned to either the unpaid condition, in which they were told thatPierce Brosnan endorsed Goodlife cologne on a voluntary basis without receiving anypayment, the paid condition, in which they were told that Pierce Brosnan received hisnormal endorsement fee for endorsing Goodlife cologne, or the control condition.

Participants in the control condition received a modified version of the experimentalpacket which included the following:

(1) a picture of a bottle of Goodlife cologne (without Pierce Brosnan);

(2) three questions asking how much the typical person likes Goodlife cologne thatmatched the questions used to measure correspondent inferences about PierceBrosnan in the experimental conditions; and

(3) the same four questions measuring the participants attitude toward the productthat were used in the experimental conditions.

Control participants ratings of the typical persons liking for Goodlife cologne servedthe same function as the baseline measure in Experiment 1.

ResultsPreliminary analysesGender was originally included as a covariate in all analyses, and was not significantlyassociated with any of the primary variables in the study. Thus, gender was notincluded in the analyses reported below and will not be discussed further.

Pearson correlations between the variables in Experiment 2 are shown in Table II.These correlations are consistent with the results of Experiment 1 except thatperceived similarity of the endorser was not significantly correlated with attitudestoward the endorser.

Model predicting attitude toward the endorsed productA preliminary model that was conceptually similar to the final model in Experiment 1was used to predict attitudes toward the endorsed product in Experiment 2. In thismodel, correspondent inferences and attitudes toward the endorser were the only directpredictors of attitudes toward the product; in addition, perceived product knowledgeand physical attractiveness of the endorser predicted correspondent inferences andphysical attractiveness predicted attitude toward the endorser. Consistent with theresults of Experiment 1, this model had satisfactory absolute fit (x 2 (5,N 66 6:54,p . 0:25) and good relative fit (CFI 1:00, RMSEA 0:07). However, several of thepath weights were non-significant, and the correlational data suggested that attitudestoward the advertisement should be included in the model. These modifications weremade to the preliminary model, resulting in a final model that had good absolute fitx25; N 66 6:02, p . 0:30) and relative fit (CFI 1:00, RMSEA 0:06), as wellas explaining 51.84 percent of the variance in attitudes toward the endorsed product.In addition to fitting slightly better than the original model, all of the paths in thismodel (shown in Figure 2) were statistically significant (p , 0:05).

EJM38,11/12

1518

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

RA

B A

CA

DE

MY

FO

R S

CIE

NC

E, T

EC

HN

OL

OG

Y &

MA

RIT

IME

TR

AN

SPO

RT

At 0

3:35

22

Apr

il 20

15 (

PT)

Attitude:

endorser

Correspondent

inferences

Attitude:

advertisement

Attitude:

product

Sim

ilarity

Physical

attractiveness

Product

know

ledge

Att:endorser

Corrinfs

0.40**

Att:ad

0.57***

0.39*

Att:product

0.42**

0.32*

0.68***

Sim

ilarity

0.15

0.33*

0.32*

0.39**

Attractiveness

0.61***

0.28

0.54***

0.39**

0.11

Know

ledge

20.05

0.07

0.17

0.18

0.27

0.02

Notes:Fullvariablenam

esaregiven

inthefirstrow,whilethefirstcolumnshow

sabbreviatednam

esforthesamevariables;*p

,0:05;**p,

0:01;

***p

,0:001(two-tailed)

Table II.Correlation table for

Experiment 2

Celebrityendorsement

advertisements

1519

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

RA

B A

CA

DE

MY

FO

R S

CIE

NC

E, T

EC

HN

OL

OG

Y &

MA

RIT

IME

TR

AN

SPO

RT

At 0

3:35

22

Apr

il 20

15 (

PT)

Correspondence biasAs in Experiment 1, correspondence bias would be indicated if the paid endorser wasviewed as liking the endorsed product better than the average person. Correspondentinferences were first examined in a 1 3 (experimental condition: baseline, paid, orunpaid) between-subjects ANOVA. This analysis showed a significant main effect forcondition, F2; 64 4:50, p , 0:05, such that the average person was viewed as likingthe product the most (M 5:19, SD 1:44), followed by the endorser in the unpaidcondition (M 4:54, SD 2:06) and the paid condition (M 3:53, SD 1:77),respectively. A t-test confirmed that the average person was viewed as liking theproduct better than the endorser in the paid condition (F1; 39 10:66, p , 0:01),indicating a reversal of correspondence bias as in Experiment 1. Unlike Experiment 1,however, there was no difference in correspondent inferences between the controlcondition and the unpaid condition, F1; 41 1:37, NS.

General discussionThe primary outcomes from the present experiments were the models predictingattitude toward the endorsed product. Although there were differences between thesemodels, both showed the importance of positive attitudes toward the endorser andcorrespondent inferences about the endorser in predicting attitudes toward theproduct. An interesting theoretical result from these studies was the lack ofcorrespondence bias in participants inferences about the endorser: in fact, both

Figure 2.Model predicting attitudetoward the advertisedproduct in Experiment 2

EJM38,11/12

1520

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

RA

B A

CA

DE

MY

FO

R S

CIE

NC

E, T

EC

HN

OL

OG

Y &

MA

RIT

IME

TR

AN

SPO

RT

At 0

3:35

22

Apr

il 20

15 (

PT)

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showImage?doi=10.1108/03090560410560218&iName=master.img-002.jpg&w=203&h=259

experiments showed a reversal of correspondence bias, as participants viewed theendorser as liking the product less than people in general.

Why do endorsement advertisements work?The most interesting applied issue addressed by the present study is the question ofwhy endorsement advertisements are effective. A variety of possible mechanismsexist, including the possibility that positive feelings about the endorser can betransferred to the product after consumers are exposed to multiple product-endorserpairings, as well as the possibility that exposure to the endorser outside the context ofthe advertisement might give free advertising by bringing the endorsers connectionto the product to consumers minds. The central focus of the present research, however,was on endorsement effects on product evaluations at the time the advertisement isviewed. The resulting models indicated that attitude toward the endorser wasassociated with attitude toward the product, a finding that is consistent with previouswork based on source attractiveness models of persuasion. The more novelcontribution of these models was the finding that correspondent inferences about theendorser (i.e., increased beliefs that the endorser truly likes the advertised product)resulted in a more favorable attitude toward the endorsed product. This findingindicates that the substantial social psychological literature on attribution and theprocesses by which individuals arrive at correspondent or non-correspondentinferences (see Gilbert and Malone, 1995, for a review) is relevant to determining theeffectiveness of endorsement advertisements, and thus creates numerous promisingpossibilities for future research.

Another interesting point about the model from Experiment 1 is that the influence ofcorrespondent inferences on product attitudes was substantially stronger than theinfluence of attitude toward the endorser. Furthermore, correspondent inferences werebased on the endorsers sense of style and on her perceived knowledge of the productdomain, but not on general ratings of attractiveness, likeability, or similarity of theendorser. To the extent that sense of style can be viewed as the element ofattractiveness that is most relevant to the domain of watches, it appears thatparticipants in Experiment 1 were fairly rational in the sense that they relied heavilyon valid cues and largely ignored superficial or irrelevant variables in forming theirattitudes toward the product.

This result is in stark contrast to previous research showing a predominance ofsuperficial, peripheral processing of commercials using celebrities (e.g. Mehta, 1994).It is also somewhat contradictory with the results from Experiment 2, wherecorrespondent inferences contributed to attitudes toward the product, but variablesthat require relatively little cognitive processing (e.g. physical attractiveness of theendorser and attitude toward the endorser) played a more prominent role in predictingattitudes toward the product. This contrast is worthy of further scientific exploration to what extent are the differences in results due to characteristics of the endorser(e.g. some endorsers might automatically be trusted and their messages acceptedwithout question), characteristics of the product (e.g. perhaps because watches arerelatively expensive, watch purchases are evaluated more carefully than purchases ofproducts like cologne), characteristics of the medium (e.g. print ads are evaluated morecarefully than television ads), or perhaps characteristics of the consumer(e.g. Norwegians think more carefully about advertisements than Americans)?

Celebrityendorsement

advertisements

1521

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

RA

B A

CA

DE

MY

FO

R S

CIE

NC

E, T

EC

HN

OL

OG

Y &

MA

RIT

IME

TR

AN

SPO

RT

At 0

3:35

22

Apr

il 20

15 (

PT)

Anti-correspondence biasPerhaps the most unusual finding in the present experiments was that participants notonly avoided correspondence bias, but they also showed a reversal of this pattern, asort of anti-correspondence bias. Specifically, participants in both experimentsbelieved that the endorsers liked the product less than most people when the endorserhad received a standard fee for appearing in the advertisement, and in Experiment 1this occurred even when the endorsement was done without a fee. It might be temptingto interpret this result as indicating that correspondent inferences play no role in theeffectiveness of endorsement advertisements; however, the observed positiveassociations between correspondent inferences and attitude toward the brand inboth experiments are not consistent with this interpretation. Instead, it appears thatparticipants were generally cynical toward the endorsers motives and thatparticipants attitudes toward the brand improved to the extent that theadvertisement overcame this cynicism and convinced them the endorser had at leastsome degree of liking for the product.

Beyond the practical implications, however, the anti-correspondence bias finding isa scientific oddity: hundreds of studies over the last 40 years have examinedcorrespondence bias, and to our knowledge none of these studies have shown asignificant reversal of correspondence bias. There are several possible explanations forthis surprising result. One possibility is that simply appearing in an advertisementmight not be a sufficiently strong behavior to induce correspondent inferences aboutthe endorser (cf. Cronley et al., 1999). In other words, building strong connectionsbetween the endorser and the product might be necessary to induce consumers to makecorrespondent inferences. To the extent that correspondent inferences about theendorser are strongly associated with attitudes toward the product, advertisers wouldbe well advised to take this possibility into account.

It is also possible that the anti-correspondence bias observed in the present study isrelated to the endorsers. Although Cindy Crawford and Pierce Brosnan areworld-famous celebrities, it remains likely that they get more media exposure in theUS than in Norway. Consequently, they might be more familiar figures to Americansthan to Norwegians, which could in turn increase their believability in the context ofendorsement advertisements (e.g. Kardes, 1999). Another possibility is based on Kahleand Homers (1985) match-up hypothesis. Neither watches nor cologne areprototypically associated with physical attractiveness. Although cologne is certainlyassociated with attractiveness, it appeals to a different sensory dimension (i.e. olfactoryrather than visual) than classic physical attractiveness. Similarly, watches can beviewed as fashion accessories, but it is likely that some people also view them astechnical equipment and still others view them as status symbols. These productsmight thus represent a poorer fit with endorsers chosen for their physicalattractiveness than beauty products, health-related products, or designer clothing.

A final possible explanation for the observed anti-correspondence bias could bebased on the cultural characteristics of the present sample. It has been argued, forexample, that Hollywood, the star system, and celebrity endorsement are allprofoundly cultural enterprises and that Americans fascination with celebritiesreflects their involvement in the meaning transfer system that celebrities accomplish(McCracken, 1989). With this in mind, it seems reasonable to suggest that Americansare particularly interested in celebrities, and this could make them more willing to

EJM38,11/12

1522

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

RA

B A

CA

DE

MY

FO

R S

CIE

NC

E, T

EC

HN

OL

OG

Y &

MA

RIT

IME

TR

AN

SPO

RT

At 0

3:35

22

Apr

il 20

15 (

PT)

accept celebrity endorsements at face value than Norwegians. In fact, Norwegiansmight be particularly untrusting of celebrities due to Norwegian cultural norms basedon Janteloven (The Law of Jante; Sandemose, 1933). Essentially, Janteloven statesthat one should never try to be more, try to be different, or consider oneself as morevaluable than others. Janteloven has been shown to influence the behavior andperceptions of Norwegians in a variety of contexts (Avant and Knutsen, 1993), and itmight also lead Norwegians to be more suspicious and untrusting toward celebritiesbased purely on the fact that they are celebrities and therefore stand out from thecrowd. Increased suspicion could result in a tendency to actively entertain and evaluatethe possibility that the endorser is motivated by something other than genuine likingfor the product (Fein, 1996), and thus result in non-correspondent inferences about theendorser (Fein et al., 1990).

Limitations and future researchThe primary limitations of the present research relate to generalizability, bothregarding the participant population and the stimulus materials. In particular, futureresearch should attempt to explain the apparent cultural differences between theUnited States and Norway. The preceding discussion of cultural issues suggestsskepticism toward advertising as a possible mediating variable for these culturaldifferences, but this should be investigated empirically. Perhaps the most seriouspotential problem with the present research involves the use of research participantswho were primarily students. There is substantial evidence that student samples canlimit external validity and thereby limit generalizability of results (Lynch, 1982;McGrath and Brinberg, 1983), although validity issues are more problematic whenexamining mean differences in variables (e.g. attitudes toward rap music are likely tobe much different among 19-year-old students than among the general adultpopulation) than when examining relationships between variables (Burnett and Dunne,1986; Ferber, 1977; Sears, 1986). With this in mind, the mean differences incorrespondent inferences (anti-correspondence bias) in the present research should beregarded with particular caution. Although no research has yet examinedcorrespondent inferences about endorsements in non-student samples, this concernis somewhat moderated by the fact that research examining correspondent inferencesacross the adult lifespan in non-advertising contexts (Miller, 1984) has obtained similarresults to those typically observed in research using student samples (Gilbert andMalone, 1995). Another relevant consideration is that Norwegian university studentsare older than those in many other countries (the mean age of participants in thepresent studies was over 24 years) and are often re-entering the education system afterhaving spent some time as normal consumers. Nevertheless, it would certainly bedesirable to replicate the present findings using a more representative adult sample.

Another potential generalizability issue stems from the stimuli used in the presentexperiments. First, the models predicting attitudes toward the product differedsomewhat between the two experiments. In particular, it appeared that correspondentinferences and rational information processing played a stronger role in predictingattitudes toward the product in Experiment 1 than in Experiment 2. This is perhapsnot surprising, given the relative expense of the two products (i.e. consumers mightthink more carefully about more expensive purchases), but it does call attention to thefact that there is unlikely to be a single model that predicts consumer attitudes toward

Celebrityendorsement

advertisements

1523

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

RA

B A

CA

DE

MY

FO

R S

CIE

NC

E, T

EC

HN

OL

OG

Y &

MA

RIT

IME

TR

AN

SPO

RT

At 0

3:35

22

Apr

il 20

15 (

PT)

endorsed products in all situations. However, despite the fact that the presentexperiments used different product categories and different endorsers, the predictorvariables in the two models were quite similar overall. This suggests that, althoughmodels predicting endorsement effectiveness might vary with advertising context,there is also likely to be substantial commonality across contexts, and the importanceof correspondent inferences about the endorser might well be one of thesecommonalities.

A second generalizability issue relates to a variable that showed relatively littlepredictive power in the present experiments the endorsers perceived knowledgeabout the product. Although this appears to contradict previous research on sourcecredibility models in which perceived expertise plays a prominent role in endorsereffectiveness (e.g. Ohanian, 1991), we are inclined to believe that this non-result is aconsequence of the advertisements used in the present research. Neither of the presentexperiments used an expert endorsement where part of the endorsers role is to helpthe consumer understand the product class and why the endorsed product is superiorto competitor products. It is quite possible that the effectiveness of expertendorsements depends on a substantially different set of variables than celebrity(non-expert) endorsements, and as such the modeling of expert endorsementeffectiveness is an issue that should be addressed in future research.

ConclusionThe high costs associated with product advertising make it imperative that advertisingmessages effectively increase consumers interest in the product. With that in mind,studies that examine characteristics of advertisements that make them effective areespecially valuable. The present experiments represent a first step in identifying whatmakes endorsement advertisements effective based on work in attribution theorywithin social psychology. The results suggest that endorsement advertisingeffectiveness can be strongly influenced by consumers inferences concerningwhether the endorser truly likes the product. Advertisers, on the other hand, oftenappear to be satisfied with merely creating an association between a popular endorserand their product with the hope that the endorsers positive image will somehow ruboff on the product. The present research suggests that advertisers should put moreeffort not only into choosing endorsers who are well matched with products, but alsointo making strong arguments and believable explanations for why endorsers truly dolike the products they endorse.

References

Arbuckle, J.L. and Wothke, W. (1999), Amos 4.0 User Guide, SmallWaters Corporation, Chicago,IL.

Atkin, C. and Block, M. (1983), Effectiveness of celebrity endorsers, Journal of AdvertisingResearch, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 57-61.

Avant, G.R. and Knutsen, K.P. (1993), Understanding cultural differences: Janteloven and socialconformity in Norway, Et Cetera.: A Review of General Semantics, Vol. 50 No. 4,pp. 449-60.

Brinkmann, J. (1995), Moral conflicts among Norwegian advertising professionals: a summaryof pilot data, International Marketing Review, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 50-64.

EJM38,11/12

1524

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

RA

B A

CA

DE

MY

FO

R S

CIE

NC

E, T

EC

HN

OL

OG

Y &

MA

RIT

IME

TR

AN

SPO

RT

At 0

3:35

22

Apr

il 20

15 (

PT)

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?isi=A1983QF00800008http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?isi=A1983QF00800008http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F02651339510097739

Browne, M.W. and Cudek, R. (1993), Alternative ways of assessing model fit, in Bollen, K.A.and Long, S.J. (Eds), Testing Structural Equation Models, Sage Publications, NewburyPark, CA, pp. 132-62.

Burnett, J.J. and Dunne, P.M. (1986), An appraisal of the use of student subjects in marketingresearch, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 329-43.

Cronley, M.L., Kardes, F.R., Goddard, P. and Houghton, D.C. (1999), Endorsing products formoney: the role of correspondence bias in celebrity advertising, Advances in ConsumerResearch, Vol. 26, pp. 627-31.

Dean, D.H. and Biswas, A. (2001), Third-party organization endorsement of products: anadvertising cue affecting consumer prepurchase evaluation of goods and services, Journalof Advertising, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 41-57.

Erdogan, B.Z. (1999), Celebrity endorsement: a literature review, Journal of MarketingManagement, Vol. 15, pp. 291-324.

Erdogan, B.Z. (2001), Selecting celebrity endorsers: the practitioners perspective, Journal ofAdvertising Research, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 39-48.

Fein, S., Hilton, J.L. and Miller, D.T. (1990), Suspicion of ulterior motivation and thecorrespondence bias, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 58 No. 5,pp. 753-64.

Fein, S. (1996), Effects of suspicion on attributional thinking and the correspondence bias,Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 70 No. 6, pp. 1164-84.

Ferber, R. (1977), Research by convenience, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 4, pp. 57-8.

Freiden, J.B. (1984), Advertising spokesperson effects: an examination of endorser type andgender on two audiences, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 33-41.

Friedman, H.H. and Friedman, L. (1979), Endorsers effectiveness by product type, Journal ofAdvertising Research, Vol. 19 No. 5, pp. 63-71.

Gilbert, D.T. and Jones, E.E. (1986), Perceiver-induced constraint: interpretations ofself-generated reality, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 50 No. 2,pp. 269-80.

Gilbert, D.T. and Malone, P.S. (1995), The correspondence bias, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 117No. 1, pp. 21-38.

Helgesen, T. (1992), The rationality of advertising decisions: conceptual issues, Journal ofAdvertising Research, Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 22-31.

Hu, L.T. and Bentler, P.M. (1999), Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:conventional criteria versus new alternatives, Structural Equation Modeling, Vol. 6 No. 1,pp. 1-55.

Kahle, L.R. and Homer, P.M. (1985), Physical attractiveness of the celebrity endorser: a socialadaptation perspective, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 954-61.

Kamins, M.A. (1990), An investigation into the match-up hypothesis in celebrity advertising:when beauty may only be skin deep, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 4-13.

Kardes, F.R. (1999), Consumer Behavior. Managerial Decision Making, Addison-Wesley,Reading, MA.

Kelley, H.H. (1971), Attribution in social interaction, in Jones, E.E., Kanouse, D.E., Kelley, H.H.,Nisbett, R.E., Valins, S. and Weiner, B. (Eds), Attribution: Perceiving the Causes ofBehavior, General Learning Press, Morristown, NJ, pp. 1-26.

Celebrityendorsement

advertisements

1525

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

RA

B A

CA

DE

MY

FO

R S

CIE

NC

E, T

EC

HN

OL

OG

Y &

MA

RIT

IME

TR

AN

SPO

RT

At 0

3:35

22

Apr

il 20

15 (

PT)

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F00913367.1990.10673175&isi=A1990CV89500002http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1037%2F0022-3514.58.5.753&isi=A1990DE49600001http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?isi=A1992KF07000004http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?isi=A1992KF07000004http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1362%2F026725799784870379http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1086%2F208679&isi=A1977DL14300007http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1362%2F026725799784870379http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?isi=A1979HS38700006http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?isi=A1979HS38700006http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1086%2F209029&isi=A1985AFN5200009http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2F0148-2963%2886%2990024-X&isi=A1986D927000008http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?isi=000170604100006http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?isi=000170604100006http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1037%2F0033-2909.117.1.21&isi=A1995QC13500002http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F00913367.2001.10673650&isi=000173591700003http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F00913367.2001.10673650&isi=000173591700003http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1037%2F0022-3514.70.6.1164&isi=A1996UQ67300005http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F10705519909540118&isi=000208063500001http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?isi=A1984TR99400008http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1037%2F0022-3514.50.2.269&isi=A1986C109000005

Lafferty, B.A. and Goldsmith, R.E. (1999), Corporate credibilitys role in consumers attitudesand purchase intentions when a high versus a low credibility endorser is used in the ad,Journal of Business Research, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 109-16.

Lafferty, B.A., Goldsmith, R.E. and Newell, S.J. (2002), The dual credibility model: the influenceof corporate and endorser credibility on attitudes and purchase intentions, Journal ofMarketing Theory & Practice, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 1-12.

Louie, T.A. and Obermiller, C. (2002), Consumer response to a firms endorser (dis)associationdecisions, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 41-52.

Lynch, J.G. (1982), On the external validity of experiments in consumer research, Journal ofConsumer Research, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 225-39.

McCracken, G. (1989), Who is the celebrity endorser? Cultural foundations of the endorsementprocess, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 310-21.

McGuire, W.J. (1985), Attitudes and attitude change, in Lindzey, G. and Aronson, E. (Eds),Handbook of Social Psychology, Random House, New York, NY, pp. 233-346.

McGrath, J.E. and Brinberg, D. (1983), External validity and the research process: a comment onthe Calder/Lynch dialogue, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 115-24.

Mehta, A. (1994), How advertising response modeling (arm) can increase ad effectiveness,Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 62-74.

Miller, J.G. (1984), Culture and the development of everyday social explanation, Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, Vol. 46 No. 5, pp. 961-78.

Ohanian, R. (1991), The impact of celebrity spokespersons perceived image on consumersintention to purchase, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 46-52.

Raven, B.H., Schwarzwald, J. and Koslowsky, M. (1998), Conceptualizing and measuring apower/interaction model of interpersonal influence, Journal of Applied Social Psychology,Vol. 28, pp. 307-32.

Sandemose, A. (1933), En Flyktning Krysser Sitt Spor, Tiden Norsk Forlag, Oslo.

Sears, D.O. (1986), College sophomores in the laboratory: influences of a narrow data base onsocial psychologys view of human nature, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,Vol. 51 No. 3, pp. 515-30.

Shimp, T.A. (2000), Advertising Promotion: Supplemental Aspects of Integrated MarketingCommunications, 5th ed., Dryden Press, Fort Worth, TX.

Silvera, D.H., Moe, S.K. and Iversen, P. (2000), The association between implicit theories ofpersonality and the attributional process, Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, Vol. 41,pp. 107-11.

Till, B.D. and Busler, M. (1998), Matching products with endorsers: attractiveness versusexpertise, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 576-86.

Till, B.D. and Shimp, T.A. (1998), Endorsers in advertising: the case of negative celebrityinformation, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 67-82.

Tripp, C., Jensen, T.D. and Carlson, L. (1994), The effects of multiple product endorsements bycelebrities on consumers attitudes and intentions, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 20No. 4, pp. 535-47.

EJM38,11/12

1526

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

RA

B A

CA

DE

MY

FO

R S

CIE

NC

E, T

EC

HN

OL

OG

Y &

MA

RIT

IME

TR

AN

SPO

RT

At 0

3:35

22

Apr

il 20

15 (

PT)

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1111%2F1467-9450.00178&isi=000087642500004http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1086%2F209217&isi=A1989CN82800005http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?isi=A1991FE93600006http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F00913367.1998.10673543&isi=000075233200005http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1086%2F208951&isi=A1983QX74800011http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1086%2F208919&isi=A1982PT04000001http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1086%2F208919&isi=A1982PT04000001http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1037%2F0022-3514.46.5.961&isi=A1984SS03600001http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1037%2F0022-3514.46.5.961&isi=A1984SS03600001http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F07363769810241445http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1111%2Fj.1559-1816.1998.tb01708.x&isi=000073540700002http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2FS0148-2963%2898%2900002-2&isi=000077751200004http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1037%2F0022-3514.51.3.515&isi=A1986D847600004http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F00913367.2002.10673684http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1086%2F209368&isi=A1994NA77500003http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?isi=A1994NZ59600009

This article has been cited by:

1. Sommer Kapitan, David H. Silvera. 2015. From digital media influencers to celebrity endorsers:attributions drive endorser effectiveness. Marketing Letters . [CrossRef]

2. Chris Hackley, Rungpaka Amy Hackley. 2015. Marketing and the cultural production of celebrity in theera of media convergence. Journal of Marketing Management 31, 461-477. [CrossRef]

3. Jehn-Yih Wong, Tzu-Ching Lai. 2015. Celebrity Attachment and Behavioral Intentions: The MediatingRole of Place Attachment. International Journal of Tourism Research 17:10.1002/jtr.v17.2, 161-170.[CrossRef]

4. Jasmina Ilicic, Stacey Baxter, Alicia Kulczynski. 2015. Names versus faces: examining spokesperson-basedcongruency effects in advertising. European Journal of Marketing 49:1/2, 62-81. [Abstract] [Full Text][PDF]

5. Renaud Lunardo, Olivier Gergaud, Florine Livat. 2015. Celebrities as human brands: an investigationof the effects of personality and time on celebrities appeal. Journal of Marketing Management 1-28.[CrossRef]

6. Nam-Hyun Um, Wei-Na Lee. 2015. Korean Advertising Practitioners Perspectives on CelebrityEndorsement. Journal of Promotion Management 21, 33-54. [CrossRef]

7. Todd Pezzuti, Dante Pirouz, Cornelia Pechmann. 2015. The effects of advertising models for age-restricted products and self-concept discrepancy on advertising outcomes among young adolescents.Journal of Consumer Psychology . [CrossRef]

8. Hayley L. Cocker, Emma N. Banister, Maria G. Piacentini. 2015. Producing and consuming celebrityidentity myths: unpacking the classed identities of Cheryl Cole and Katie Price. Journal of MarketingManagement 31:5-6, 502. [CrossRef]

9. Walter Wymer, Tanya Drollinger. 2014. Charity Appeals Using Celebrity Endorsers: Celebrity AttributesMost Predictive of Audience Donation Intentions. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary andNonprofit Organizations . [CrossRef]

10. Anubhav A. Mishra, Abhinav Mishra. 2014. National vs. Local Celebrity Endorsement and Politics.International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society 27, 409-425. [CrossRef]

11. Reto Felix, Adilson Borges. 2014. Celebrity endorser attractiveness, visual attention, and implications forad attitudes and brand evaluations: A replication and extension. Journal of Brand Management . [CrossRef]

12. Enny Das, Rolien Duiven, Jolien Arendsen, Ivar Vermeulen. 2014. Exploring Killer Ads: ATerror Management Account of Death in Advertisements. Psychology & Marketing 31:10.1002/mar.2014.31.issue-10, 828-842. [CrossRef]

13. Eugenia Tzoumaka, Rodoula H. Tsiotsou, George Siomkos. 2014. Delineating the role of endorser'sperceived qualities and consumer characteristics on celebrity endorsement effectiveness. Journal ofMarketing Communications 1-20. [CrossRef]

14. Salman Yousaf. 2014. Promotion mix management: A consumer focused Islamic perspective. Journal ofMarketing Communications 1-17. [CrossRef]

15. Jason P. Doyle, Robin D. Pentecost, Daniel C. Funk. 2014. The effect of familiarity on associated sponsorand event brand attitudes following negative celebrity endorser publicity. Sport Management Review 17,310-323. [CrossRef]

16. Helen McCormick, Jo Cartwright, Patsy Perry, Liz Barnes, Samantha Lynch, Gemma Ball. 2014. Fashionretailing past, present and future. Textile Progress 46, 227-321. [CrossRef]

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

RA

B A

CA

DE

MY

FO

R S

CIE

NC

E, T

EC

HN

OL

OG

Y &

MA

RIT

IME

TR

AN

SPO

RT

At 0

3:35

22

Apr

il 20

15 (

PT)

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11002-015-9363-0http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2014.1000940http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jtr.1974http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/EJM-10-2013-0579http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/EJM-10-2013-0579http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/EJM-10-2013-0579http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2015.1008548http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10496491.2014.946210http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2015.01.009http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2015.1011196http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11266-014-9546-yhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10767-014-9174-yhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1057/bm.2014.24http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mar.20737http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13527266.2014.894931http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13527266.2014.888575http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2013.10.003http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00405167.2014.973247

17. Ashley Arsena, David H. Silvera, Mario Pandelaere. 2014. Brand trait transference: When celebrityendorsers acquire brand personality traits. Journal of Business Research 67, 1537-1543. [CrossRef]

18. L. Popova, T. B. Neilands, P. M. Ling. 2014. Testing messages to reduce smokers' openness to usingnovel smokeless tobacco products. Tobacco Control 23, 313-321. [CrossRef]

19. Debasis Pradhan, Israel Duraipandian, Dhruv Sethi. 2014. Celebrity endorsement: How celebritybranduser personality congruence affects brand attitude and purchase intention. Journal of MarketingCommunications 1-18. [CrossRef]

20. Franois Anthony Carrillat, Alain dAstous. 2014. Power imbalance issues in athlete sponsorship versusendorsement in the context of a scandal. European Journal of Marketing 48:5/6, 1070-1091. [Abstract][Full Text] [PDF]

21. Mazzini Muda, Rosidah Musa, Rozita Naina Mohamed, Halimahton Borhan. 2014. CelebrityEntrepreneur Endorsement and Advertising Effectiveness. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 130,11-20. [CrossRef]

22. Sean P. Kelly, Gareth G. Morgan, Tracey M. Coule. 2014. Celebrity altruism: the good, the bad and theugly in relationships with fundraising charities. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary SectorMarketing 19:10.1002/nvsm.v19.2, 57-75. [CrossRef]

23. Weng Marc Lim. 2014. Sense of virtual community and perceived critical mass in online group buying.Journal of Strategic Marketing 22, 268-283. [CrossRef]

24. Wei-Na Lee, Nam-Hyun UmCelebrity Endorsement and International Advertising 353-374. [CrossRef]25. Lianxi Zhou, Paul Whitla. 2013. How negative celebrity publicity influences consumer attitudes: The

mediating role of moral reputation. Journal of Business Research 66, 1013-1020. [CrossRef]26. Nam-Hyun Um. 2013. The Role of Culture in Creative Execution in Celebrity Endorsement: The Cross-

Cultural Study. Journal of Global Marketing 26, 155-172. [CrossRef]27. Nam-Hyun Um. 2013. Effects of Negative Brand Information: Measuring Impact of Celebrity

Identification and Brand Commitment. Journal of Global Marketing 26, 68-79. [CrossRef]28. Christine M. Kowalczyk, Marla B. Royne. 2013. The Moderating Role of Celebrity Worship on

Attitudes Toward Celebrity Brand Extensions. The Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice 21, 211-220.[CrossRef]

29. Subhadip Roy, Varsha Jain, Pragati Rana. 2013. The moderating role of consumer personality and sourcecredibility in celebrity endorsements. Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration 5:1, 72-88. [Abstract][Full Text] [PDF]

30. Kim Dekker, Eva A. van Reijmersdal. 2013. Disclosing Celebrity Endorsement in a Television Programto Mitigate Persuasion: How Disclosure Type and Celebrity Credibility Interact. Journal of PromotionManagement 19, 224-240. [CrossRef]

31. Abhishek Dwivedi, Lester W. Johnson. 2012. Trustcommitment as a mediator of the celebrity endorserbrand equity relationship in a service context. Australasian Marketing Journal (AMJ) . [CrossRef]

32. Des Thwaites, Ben Lowe, Lien L. Monkhouse, Bradley R. Barnes. 2012. The Impact of NegativePublicity on Celebrity Ad Endorsements. Psychology & Marketing 29:10.1002/mar.2012.29.issue-9,663-673. [CrossRef]

33. Beatriz Casais, Joo F. Proena. 2012. Inhibitions and Implications Associated With CelebrityParticipation in Health-Related Social Marketing: An Exploratory Research Focused on HIV Preventionin Portugal. Health Marketing Quarterly 29, 206-222. [CrossRef]

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

RA

B A

CA

DE

MY

FO

R S

CIE

NC

E, T

EC

HN

OL

OG

Y &

MA

RIT

IME

TR

AN

SPO

RT

At 0

3:35

22

Apr

il 20

15 (

PT)

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.01.011http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2012-050723http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13527266.2014.914561http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/EJM-11-2011-0688http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/EJM-11-2011-0688http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/EJM-11-2011-0688http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.04.002http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/nvsm.1487http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0965254X.2013.876068http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781118378465.ch18http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.12.025http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08911762.2013.804613http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08911762.2013.804614http://dx.doi.org/10.2753/MTP1069-6679210206http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17574321311304549http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/17574321311304549http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/17574321311304549http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10496491.2013.769473http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ausmj.2012.10.001http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mar.20552http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07359683.2012.705642

34. Amy B. Becker. 2012. Engaging celebrity? Measuring the impact of issue-advocacy messages on situationalinvolvement, complacency and apathy. Celebrity Studies 3, 213-231. [CrossRef]

35. Yung-Ming Li, Yi-Lin Lee, Nine-Jun Lien. 2012. Online Social Advertising via Influential Endorsers.International Journal of Electronic Commerce 16, 119-154. [CrossRef]

36. Yoshifumi Bizen. 2012. Toward an Understanding of Athlete Endorsement. Japanese Journal of SportManagement 4, 17-29. [CrossRef]

37. Wann-Yih Wu, Cho Thwe Linn, Chen-Su Fu, Badri Munir Sukoco. 2012. The Role of Endorsers,Framing, and Rewards on the Effectiveness of Dietary Supplement Advertisements. Journal of HealthCommunication 17, 54-75. [CrossRef]

38. Vincent P. Magnini. 2011. The implications of companysponsored messages disguised as wordofmouth.Journal of Services Marketing 25:4, 243-251. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

39. Amanda Spry, Ravi Pappu, T. Bettina Cornwell. 2011. Celebrity endorsement, brand credibility and brandequity. European Journal of Marketing 45:6, 882-909. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

40. Fei Yi GAO, Shanshan BAI, Kan SHI. 2011. The Effects of Transformational Leadership in ChineseFamily Business How Should Family Business Lead Their Family Employees?. International Journal ofTrade, Economics and Finance 218-224. [CrossRef]

41. Jiuh-Biing Sheu. 2010. A hybrid dynamic forecast model for analyzing celebrity endorsement effects onconsumer attitudes. Mathematical and Computer Modelling 52, 1554-1569. [CrossRef]

42. Hong-Xia ZHANG, Xue-Nan LIU. 2010. How Deeply Involved Should Celebrities Be in Advertising?.Acta Psychologica Sinica 42, 587-598. [CrossRef]

43. Kathy Hamilton, Paul Hewer. 2010. Tribal mattering spaces: Social-networking sites, celebrity affiliations,and tribal innovations. Journal of Marketing Management 26, 271-289. [CrossRef]

44. Pankaj Priya, Rajat Kanti Baisya, Seema Sharma. 2010. Television advertisements and children's buyingbehaviour. Marketing Intelligence & Planning 28:2, 151-169. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

45. Angela Carroll. 2009. Brand communications in fashion categories using celebrity endorsement. Journalof Brand Management 17, 146-158. [CrossRef]

46. Karen E. Lear, Rodney C. Runyan, William H. Whitaker. 2009. Sports celebrity endorsements in retailproducts advertising. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management 37:4, 308-321. [Abstract][Full Text] [PDF]

47. Erik J. Hunter, J. Henri Burgers, Per DavidssonCelebrity capital as a strategic asset: Implications for newventure strategies 137-160. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]

48. Petra Glover. 2009. Celebrity Endorsement in Tourism Advertising: Effects on Destination Image. Journalof Hospitality and Tourism Management 16, 16-23. [CrossRef]

49. Aaron Smith, Brian Graetz, Hans Westerbeek. 2008. Sport sponsorship, team support and purchaseintentions. Journal of Marketing Communications 14, 387-404. [CrossRef]

50. Nathan Klaus, Ainsworth Anthony Bailey. 2008. Celebrity Endorsements: An Examination of Genderand Consumers Attitudes. American Journal of Business 23:2, 53-62. [Abstract] [PDF]

51. Erica Weintraub Austin, Rebecca Van de Vord, Bruce E. Pinkleton, Evan Epstein. 2008. CelebrityEndorsements and Their Potential to Motivate Young Voters. Mass Communication and Society 11,420-436. [CrossRef]

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

RA

B A

CA

DE

MY

FO

R S

CIE

NC

E, T

EC

HN

OL

OG

Y &

MA

RIT

IME

TR

AN

SPO

RT

At 0

3:35

22

Apr

il 20

15 (

PT)

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19392397.2012.679462http://dx.doi.org/10.2753/JEC1086-4415160305http://dx.doi.org/10.5225/jjsm.2012-002http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2011.585689http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/08876041111143078http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/08876041111143078http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/08876041111143078http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090561111119958http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/03090561111119958http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/03090561111119958http://dx.doi.org/10.7763/IJTEF.2011.V2.106http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mcm.2010.06.020http://dx.doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2010.00587http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02672571003679894http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02634501011029664http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/02634501011029664http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/02634501011029664http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/bm.2008.42http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09590550910948547http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/09590550910948547http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/09590550910948547http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/S1074-7540(2009)0000011007http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/S1074-7540%282009%290000011007http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdf/10.1108/S1074-7540%282009%290000011007http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/S1074-7540%282009%290000011007http://dx.doi.org/10.1375/jhtm.16.1.16http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13527260701852557http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/19355181200800010http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/19355181200800010http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15205430701866600

52. Jennifer Christie Siemens, Scott Smith, Dan Fisher, Thomas D Jensen. 2008. Product expertise versusprofessional expertise: Congruency between an endorser's chosen profession and the endorsed product.Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing 16, 159-168. [CrossRef]

53. Brian M. Hughes. 2008. How should clinical psychologists approach complementary and alternativemedicine? Empirical, epistemological, and ethical considerations. Clinical Psychology Review 28, 657-675.[CrossRef]

54. John A. Bower, Nicola Mateer. 2008. The white stuff?. Nutrition & Food Science 38:2, 164-174.[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

55. B. Zafer Erdogan, Tanya Drollinger. 2008. Death and Disgrace Insurance for Celebrity Endorsers: ALuxury or Necessity?. Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising 30, 71-77. [CrossRef]

56. Matthew Thomson. 2006. Human Brands: Investigating Antecedents to Consumers' Strong Attachmentsto Celebrities. Journal of Marketing 70, 104-119. [CrossRef]

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

RA

B A

CA

DE

MY

FO

R S

CIE

NC

E, T

EC

HN

OL

OG

Y &

MA

RIT

IME

TR

AN

SPO

RT

At 0

3:35

22

Apr

il 20

15 (

PT)

http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/jt.2008.8http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2007.09.005http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00346650810863046http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/00346650810863046http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/00346650810863046http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10641734.2008.10505239http://dx.doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.70.3.104