Take Your Pick: Kate Moss or the Girl Next Door? · advertisements (i.e., “Dove’s campaign for Real Beauty”). Little is known, however, about the effects of “nonidealized”

DOI: 10.2501/JAR-52-1-015-030 March 2012 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH 15

INTRODUCTIONMarketing literature is replete with evidence of the

positive effects of using attractive communicators

and models on opinion change, product evalua-

tion, and brand perception and recall (Baker and

Churchill, 1977; Joseph, 1982). It has been demon-

strated that physically attractive communicators

are more liked than plain or unattractive commu-

nicators. By extension, if a person has a positive

attitude toward a communicator, she or he will

evaluate that communicator’s message in positive

terms (Joseph, 1982).

The use of attractive communicators to increase

advertising effectiveness seems to be appropriate.

It appears, however, that many marketers have

decided to apply this idea at its extreme. Often,

models in advertising represent highly idealized

images of physical attractiveness.

This is especially true when considering the

models’ body-mass index given increasing obe-

sity in Western societies (Chandon and Wansink,

2007). In a March 2010 issue, the Guardian asked,

“Why Are Models Still So Thin?” Some run-

way models presenting Riccardo Tisci, Dolce &

Gabbana—and others representing Prada’s Miu

Miu autumn/winter ready-to-wear collection—

looked skeletal. Yet, models are a mirror for many

young women and, most agree, should project an

image of beauty and health rather than offer the

perception of encouraging eating disorders.

Moreover, it recently seems that not all marketers

have agreed that such idealized images of physical

attractiveness are the best way to increase adver-

tising effectiveness. In 2004, Unilever was widely

praised after the launch of their Dove campaign

(Jeffers, 2005). The novel concept was to feature

actual women—not models—in Dove’s firming

cream advertisements under the themeline “Real

Women Have Curves.”

The idea of using “nonidealized” images of

physical attractiveness came from a global

report commissioned by Dove and conducted

Take Your Pick:

Kate Moss or the Girl Next Door?The Effectiveness of Cosmetics Advertising

MICHAEL ANTIOCOEMLYOn Business school,

[email protected]

DIRK SMEESTERSRotterdam school of

Management, the netherlands

[email protected]

ALINE LE BOEDECFinaref, [email protected]

In the last several years, marketers have started to use “nonidealized” models in

advertisements (i.e., “Dove’s campaign for Real Beauty”). Little is known, however,

about the effects of “nonidealized” advertising on consumers and whether this type of

advertising—when compared to idealized advertising—is truly beneficial for the branded

products promoted in these ads. Based on a sample of 347 French women exposed to

either idealized or “nonidealized” models, the authors established that the way these

advertising models have an effect on brand responses—specifically, the attitude toward

(and the purchase intention of) a brand—operates through a dual-process model.

When a viewer had a high sense of self-esteem, it was crucial that both processes be

understood simultaneously: the effect of the portrayed model’s body image on the brand

responses can be suppressed by the model-evaluation process. The authors also note that

consumers’ ages influenced the self-evaluative process following a quadratic function.

Their place of residence (i.e., urban versus rural) influenced the self- and model-evaluation

processes.

16 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH March 2012

TAkE YOUR PICk: kATE MOSS OR ThE GIRl NExT DOOR?

by StrategyOne entitled “The Real Truth

About Beauty.” Some 3,200 women from

10 different countries were surveyed;

results showed that only 2 percent of

women described themselves as “beauti-

ful,” and more than 68 percent of women

strongly agreed that “the media and

advertising set an unrealistic standard

of beauty that most women can’t ever

achieve” (StrategyOne, 2004).

To offset the unrealistically thin,

unhealthy archetypal images associated

with modeling, Dove decided to focus on

promoting real, natural beauty (Media

Awareness Network, 2004). Driven by

much of the same awareness, in 2005 Rev-

lon Inc. and J. C. Penney began adding

fuller-figured women and older actresses

into their fifties to their cast of youthful,

thinner models.

Some high-end marketers—notably,

Charles Revson, the founder of Revlon—

believed that too much realism actually

could compromise their brands. And,

for some, the positive results of the Dove

campaign may merely have been the con-

sequence of its provocative nature.

In fact, certain levels of provocation

in advertising may be a valid strategy

to attract potential consumers (Vézina

and Paul, 1997). In the present paper,

the authors seek to deepen further the

understanding of the effects of Dove-like

campaigns by examining to what extent

exposure to nonidealized—as compared

to idealized—models in advertisements

affect consumers’ attitude and purchase

intention of products promoted in these

ads.

The authors’ research was executed in

the context of cosmetics ads. They con-

tend that two types of processes may play

a crucial role in the effects of exposure to

idealized (i.e., overly thin) as compared

to nonidealized (i.e., heavier) advertising

models on brand evaluations and pur-

chase intentions:

• a self-evaluation process (evaluation of

the self in terms of self-esteem) and

• a model-evaluation process (the trust-

worthiness of the model).

Both processes can be affected by the type

of models featured in the advertisements

and are key factors driving the viewers’

brand attitudes and purchase intentions

(Zinkhan and Hong, 1991; Deshpandé and

Stayman, 1994). Previous research demon-

strated that consumers’ self-esteem—via a

process of social comparison—can shift in

function of exposure to models in adver-

tising (Mussweiler, 2003; Richins, 1991;

Smeesters and Mandel, 2006; Smeesters,

Mussweiler, and Mandel, 2010).

At this point, however, it has not been

demonstrated whether self-esteem also

can play an important role in studying the

effects of idealized versus nonidealized

advertising on responses to brands. Next

to a personal-evaluation process, consum-

ers also might engage a judgment process

of the model. For instance, can the way a

model is portrayed (idealized or nonide-

alized) affect the trustworthiness of the

source? This is unknown at this point.

Hence, the authors have examined the

possible mediating role of trustworthiness

on the effect on brand responses of ideal-

ized versus nonidealized advertising.

The present research examined what

effect the different idealized and non-

idealized images in advertisements had

on advertising effectiveness. To do so,

the authors have measured respondents’

brand responses. Importantly, the authors

have examined the underlying role of self-

esteem and trustworthiness in displaying

these results. To that end, they investigated

the reactions of an effective sample of 347

French women after exposure to two cos-

metics advertisements—one displaying

nonidealized images of physical attrac-

tiveness and the other more-traditional

idealized images.

HYPOTHESES DEVELOPMENTBody Images, Self-Esteem, and Model TrustworthinessWhen exposed to advertising models

(more specifically, body images), consum-

ers might engage in two simultaneous

processes.

For one, they might begin a model-

evaluation process in which they judge the

trustworthiness of the model. A primary

factor in an advertisement’s effectiveness

is the trustworthiness of the source. And,

in fact, consumers have strong intentions

to judge the trustworthiness of advertis-

ing sources (Priester and Petty, 2003). This

might be a conscious process, as consum-

ers probably are aware that they are judg-

ing the trustworthiness of a model.

At the same time, however, it can be

expected that consumers who view an

advertisement also engage in a self-

evaluation process. And, in those cases,

comparing oneself with a model in an

advertisement might affect a woman’s

self-esteem. Past research has shown that

advertising models do function as strong

comparison standards for females, who

tend to compare themselves with these

models in a fairly automatic fashion (Rich-

ins, 1991; Mussweiler, 2003; Smeesters and

Mandel, 2006; Smeesters et al., 2010).

Social comparison is a central feature

of human social life, as people have a

natural drive to evaluate their own attrib-

utes by comparing themselves to others

(Festinger, 1954). Research has shown that

this kind of automatic social comparison

also takes place when people are exposed

to persons portrayed in advertisements—

more specifically, when female consumers

compare themselves with female models

(Bower, 2001; Bower and Landreth, 2001;

Richins, 1991; Smeesters and Mandel,

2006; Smeesters et al., 2010).

Comparing oneself to a model can affect

one’s self-esteem. In the marketing and

advertising literature, self-esteem appears

March 2012 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH 17


as a recurrent and important individual

factor (Hong and Zinkhan, 1995; Lee and

Shrum, 2007; Zinkhan and Hong, 1991)

because it is one of the strongest psycho-

logical needs (Durgee, 1986). The effects

of female models on self-esteem occur

mainly for women, as they generally are

more concerned than men are about their

own appearance (beauty, body image)—

a consideration that some evolutionary

psychologists argue is due to competi-

tion with other females for male attention

(Ward and Voracek, 2004).

Researchers repeatedly have shown that

women who view the “ideal” thin images

in the lab experience lower self-esteem

and higher body dissatisfaction than do

women who view neutral images (see

Grabe, Ward, and Hyde, 2008 for an exten-

sive overview and meta-analysis). These

findings have been replicated for women

exposed to thin ideal women in print ads,

television commercials, and music videos

(Bower, 2001; Bower and Landreth, 2001;

Halliwell and Dittmar, 2004; Hargreaves

and Tiggemann, 2004; Pollay, 1986;

Richins, 1991; Tiggemann and Slater,

2003). Positive assimilation effects of thin

models on females’ self-esteem are rarely

published (Grabe et al., 2008; but see

Smeesters and Mandel, 2006).

If idealized images of models reduce

self-esteem, the natural question is: Does

the use of nonidealized images increase

self-esteem? One piece of recent research

demonstrated that using nonidealized

images of physical attractiveness in adver-

tisements could have a positive impact

on viewers’ self-esteem (Smeesters and

Mandel, 2006). Particularly, participants

with an average body-mass index reported

higher self-esteem after viewing adver-

tisements that featured extremely heavy

models—a confidence resulting from

feelings of dissimilarity with the models

that actually caused them to feel thin (see

Smeesters et al., 2010).

Nonetheless, exposure to extremely thin

models often caused lower self-esteem,

again due to a feeling of dissimilarity

with the thin models that caused them to

feel heavy. This recent research, however,

used very different models (i.e., different

people) in the different comparison condi-

tions. A cleaner way to look at comparison

processes is to use models who are close

to identical to the women featured in the

advertisement and then manipulate ide-

alization levels based on weight, a promi-

nent physical attribute of importance in

Western societies (Chandon and Wansink,

2007).

Under these conditions, confounding

factors such as differences in facial expres-

sions, hair style and color, age, clothing

style, and so on are better controlled. Fur-

ther, Smeesters and Mandel’s research

used advertisements with respect to cloth-

ing, which is a product that is very much

related to the weight of the model. This

might have induced very strong compari-

son tendencies with respect to the weight-

dimension. It is, therefore, important to

test their hypothesis using advertisements

in which the product is not weight-related,

such as cosmetics.

One of the aims of the current research

is to demonstrate that exposure to non-

idealized advertising, in fact, can increase

women’s self-esteem (as opposed to expo-

sure to idealized advertising). In addi-

tion, the authors have examined to what

extent the articulated differences in self-

esteem were related to such factors as age,

socio-professional category, and place of

residence.

Given that previous research in adver-

tising demonstrated that the advertised

product can have an influence on the

viewer’s perception of the advertisement

and its content (Brown and Stayman,

1992), the authors first seek to confirm

the following hypothesis for cosmetics

ads:

H1: Self-esteem will be significantly

higher after exposure to a non-

idealized model compared to an

idealized model.

In addition to comparing one’s self-image

to a model in the ad, consumers also might

engage in another—often simultaneous—

process in which they simply evaluate

the model in the advertisement. The goal

of advertising is to present information

to consumers, which is often reached by

presenting favorably evaluated models in

an ad to also induce more favorable atti-

tudes toward the advertised product. One

of the main factors in the effectiveness of

an advertisement is the trustworthiness

of various sources of information in an

advertisement, even including the fea-

tured model.

In 2003, J. R. Priester and R. E. Petty,

writing in the Journal of Consumer Psy-

chology (“The Influence of Spokesperson

Trustworthiness on Message Elabora-

tion, Attitudes Strength and Advertising

Effectiveness”), observed, “A trustwor-

thy endorser is one whom consumers

believe to be honest and sincere, whereas

an untrustworthy endorser is one about

whom consumers feel skepticism and

suspicion” (2003, p. 408). More precisely:

a source can be perceived as trustworthy

based on verbal cues demonstrating the

expertise, credibility, and even friend-

liness of a source and nonverbal cues

such as physical attributes that are con-

gruent to those of the viewer or the buyer

(Wood, Boles, Johnston, and Bellenger,

2008).

Higher trustworthiness, attained by

nonverbal cues in print ads, generally has

positive effects on the attitude toward an

advertised product (Priester and Petty,

2003). Not quite so clear is whether ideal-

ized or nonidealized advertising has the

strongest effects on the trustworthy attrib-

utes of the model.



There is evidence to suggest that the

more similar to the individual the model is,

the more the individual will self-reference

(i.e., process information in an advertise-

ment) by relating it to some aspect of one-

self (Kwai-Choi, Fernandez, and Martin,

2002). Prior literature also suggested that

when individuals perceive similarities

between themselves and a model in an

advertisement (i.e., self-reference), they

tend to perceive the model as trustworthy

(Deshpandé and Stayman, 1994).

Nonidealized models, in fact, are a bet-

ter representation of the real world (Food

Standards Agency, 2004) and, therefore, it

can be expected that consumers will self-

reference more in case of nonidealized

images compared to idealized images.

Hence, when an individual perceives

some similarity between her- or himself

and another person, she or he may per-

ceive that other person as more trustwor-

thy (cf. Deshpandé and Stayman, 1994;

O’Keefe, 1990). In the current study, the

authors examined to what extent differ-

ences in trustworthiness are related to

socio-demographic factors such as age,

profession, and place of residence.

H2: Model trustworthiness will be

significantly higher in the case

of exposure to a nonidealized

model compared to an idealized

model.

Self-Esteem and Brand ResponsesThe authors posit that the impact of self-

esteem on the advertising effectiveness

of cosmetics needs to be nuanced in a

comparison of advertisements that use

idealized and nonidealized images. More

specifically, in addition to the understand-

ing that self-esteem may be affected by a

model’s image, the current study poses

that self-esteem also might act as a mod-

erator of the effect of model image on the

attitude toward the brand.

In other words: exposure to an ideal

model may (on average) lead to lower

self-esteem compared to exposure to a

nonideal model; the degree to which par-

ticipants actually reflect lower (versus

higher) levels of self-esteem might moder-

ate the impact of model image on the atti-

tude toward the brand.

This typically might occur in case of

variables related to the self (such as self-

esteem, anxiety, and emotional stability)

because the scores on these variables show

meaningful variability among individuals

(Preacher, Rucker, and Hayes, 2007). For

instance, previous research has found that

public situations led to higher anxiety in

individuals compared to private situations

(Lambert et al., 2003). Anxiety, however,

also moderated the effect of public versus

private situations on perceived control in

these situations, with the result that even

though high-anxiety individuals reported

lower control in public situations com-

pared to private situations, low-anxiety

individuals reported no difference.

Alternatively, consumers might have

preexisting levels—some higher than oth-

ers—of self-esteem. Exposure to idealized

models may shift consumers’ preexisting

levels of self-esteem down, whereas expo-

sure to nonidealized models may shift all

consumers’ preexisting levels up. In either

case, a consumer’s self-esteem still can

function as a moderator of the impact of

advertising models on the responses to the

advertised brand.

Earlier research demonstrated that,

when individuals face negative feelings

toward themselves, they often experience

these negative feelings toward objects

related to themselves (Bower, 2001; Gaw-

ronski, Bodenhausen, and Becker, 2007;

Lundstrom et al., 1999). In 2007, one study

found that participants in the experiment(s)

showed implicit positivity or negativ-

ity toward objects (color print pictures)

when their implicit self-evaluation was

respectively positive or negative (Gaw-

ronski et al., 2007). A comparable find-

ing should result when a low self-esteem

consumer is exposed to a source (an ideal-

ized model) that may lower her or his self-

esteem even more. In such instances, these

consumers should report more negative

attitudes to the brand when exposed to an

idealized model compared to a nonideal-

ized model.

The authors expect that consumers with

a high level of self-esteem will be less nega-

tively affected in their attitudes toward the

brand when exposed to idealized models.

High self-esteem consumers have more

positive feelings about themselves. Even

if their self-esteem is temporarily lowered

due to exposure to idealized advertising,

their relatively higher level of self-esteem

may buffer them against negative feelings

(Mandel and Smeesters, 2008).

High self-esteem individuals even may

implicitly engage in self-affirmation as

a way to enhance self-integrity and pro-

tect themselves against such ego threats.

Therefore, exposure to idealized images

might work, even inspiring high self-

esteem consumers to further bolster their

self-esteem (Lockwood and Kunda, 1997).

They, therefore, may have a more positive

brand attitude when exposed to an ideal-

ized model compared to the nonidealized

model.

H3: The authors expect self-esteem to

moderate the relationship between

model image and responses to the

brand (i.e., attitude toward the brand,

purchase intention of the brand), such

that

– for consumers with a low self-

esteem, brand responses should be

lower after exposure to idealized

models than after exposure to non-

idealized models and,

– for consumers with a high self-

esteem, brand responses should be



higher after exposure to idealized

models than after exposure to non-

idealized models.

Model Trustworthiness and Brand ResponsesOne of the determinants of an effective

advertisement is the source of the mes-

sage, including the model who endorses

the product (Kwai-Choi et al., 2002;

Solomon, 2007). There is evidence to sug-

gest that the more similar to the individ-

ual the model is, the more the individual

will self-reference and, hence, the model

should be perceived as more trustworthy.

For thoroughness, we should note that, in

addition to self-referencing mechanisms

activated by models unknown to the

viewers, model trustworthiness also can

be achieved by displaying familiar models

to the viewers (e.g., a celebrity, a sports-

woman) (Priester and Petty, 2003).

The authors expect that trustworthiness

will have a direct link with the attitude

toward (and the purchase intention of)

the brand (i.e., brand responses) but that it

will not moderate the effect of body image

on the attitude toward (and the purchase

intention of) the brand.

Previous research has indicated that

individuals generate more positive atti-

tudes toward advertised brands that are

endorsed by a trustworthy source (Priester

and Petty, 2003). Therefore, the more view-

ers trust a model (independent of whether

the model is or is not idealized), the more

positive their attitudes and purchase

intentions should be.

There are two reasons for positing the

absence of a moderating effect of trustwor-

thiness between body images and adver-

tising effectiveness:

• To process the model’s body image,

recipients do not need to engage in

complex information elaboration (Smith

and Shaffer, 1995), which has been

demonstrated to interact with model

trustworthiness on the resulting attitude

strengths (Priester and Petty, 2003).

• In contrast to self-esteem, trustworthi-

ness is not an intrapersonal variable

but rather an interpersonal factor (i.e.,

evaluation of the model) that varies

less among participants (Lambert et al.,

2003). Trustworthiness de facto should

solely play a mediating role between

the exposure to the models and the

responses to the advertised brand (See

Figure 1).

H4a: The higher the model trustwor-

thiness, the higher the brand

responses will be.

H4b: Trustworthiness will mediate

the effect of exposure to ideal-

ized versus nonidealized mod-

els on brand responses.

METHODParticipantsThe current study focused essentially on

female subjects between the ages of 18

and 65. Existing literature had endorsed

the ideas that women are

• more prone to react to advertising

images and

• more vulnerable to those images than

men are (Baird and Grieve, 2006).

In total, 347 Caucasian French women par-

ticipated in this study and were randomly

assigned to either the idealized model

condition or the nonidealized model con-

dition. The sample is diverse in terms of

age, socio-professional category, or place

of residence (urban or rural zone). The

majority of the respondents (41.8 per-

cent) were women between the ages of

18 and 24. Participants younger than 18

accounted for 16.7 percent of the sample,

and those between 25 and 34 represented

22.2 percent of the sample. The segments

of women whose ages ranged from 35 to

44 and 45 to 65 accounted for, respectively,

8.6 percent and 10.7 percent of the sample.

Participants were selected by posting

invitations on Web-site forums that asked

volunteers to fill out a questionnaire and

+

+

+

+

––

NonidealizedBody Image

Attitude Towardthe Brand

ModelTrustworthiness

Self-Esteem

PurchaseIntention

Figure 1 Effects of self-Esteem and Model Trustworthiness on the Effectiveness of cosmetics Advertising.



linked participants to the online survey

page. Rather than randomly distributing

surveys to potential female consumers

of beauty products, the invitations were

posted on women-magazine forums such

as

• www.marie-claire.fr

• www.topsanté.fr

• www.versionfemina.fr

• www.prima.fr

• www.famili.fr

• www.glamourparis.com

• www.20ans.fr

The study also included such Web-site

forums as

• www.aufeminin.com

• www.femmesplus.fr

• www.plurielles.fr

• www.absolufeminin.fr

• www.pourtouteslesbeautes.fr

• www.pulpeclub.com

• www.lycosfemmes.fr

• www.fluctuat.net

• www.ado.fr.

The motivation for posting the invita-

tions on women-magazine and Web-site

forums was to target female consumers

who had, a priori, a higher probability of

being exposed to such print ads. Although

such parameters made data collection

more difficult, the authors believed it

was important to narrow the range of

the female respondents. No significant

differences regarding the age (Z = –1.18;

p = 0.24), socio-professional category

(Z = –1.47; p = 0.14), or the place of resi-

dence (Z = –0.40; p = 0.69) were observed

between participants in the two model

conditions.

ProcedureParticipants on the online question-

naire were exposed to a body-cream

advertisement with an idealized or non-

idealized model.

The survey team explained to the par-

ticipants that the goal of the research was

to gather impressions of an advertisement.

The participants simply were asked to

observe the advertisement, then respond

to the questionnaire.

In their preview, the researchers insisted

that there was no “right” or “wrong”

answer and that all answers would remain

anonymous.

The idealized image was created by

cutting and pasting a photograph from

Vogue/UK January 1998 magazine. This

photograph was chosen, first of all,

because Vogue is known to picture ideal-

ized images of physical attractiveness.

Furthermore, the photograph presented

two very thin (body-mass Index < 19),

attractive models. Moreover, the models

were wearing underwear, which is realis-

tic for cosmetics advertisements.

The nonidealized advertising that was

contained was created by photograph-

ing two normal women, reproducing

the Vogue photograph.1 The nonprofes-

sional models were selected for the color

of their hair and their “normal” body size

(19 < body-mass index < 25; Smeesters and

Mandel, 2006). Using this photograph,

the authors created a second advertise-

ment for the same body-cream brand (See

Appendix 1).

A pre-test carried out with 179 respond-

ents who randomly rated the weight

of the idealized (M = 3.08; SD = 0.99)

or the nonidealized image (M = 4.86;

SD = 1.13) on a 7-point scale with end-

points “very thin” (1) and “very heavy”

(7) confirmed that the research team

1 For legal reasons related to the right to one’s own image, the authors could not manipulate the weight of the Vogue models and had to ask nonprofessional models with the same hair color and (approximately) the same height to strike as precisely as possible the pose taken by the Vogue models.

successfully had manipulated the body

image (F(1, 178) = 123.96; p < 0.001).

The questionnaire took participants

approximately 10 minutes to complete

and was accessible for a period of 3 weeks.

Respondents first were asked to rate their

perceived current level of beauty using a

single-item measure.

The authors later verified the sampling

distribution and observed that female con-

sumers fully satisfied with their beauty

were underrepresented (28 respondents

of 347). This fully represents reality (Strat-

egyOne, 2004) and conferred face validity

to the study.

After the exposure to one of the two

model ads, participants had to complete

several multi-item measurement scales,

including a self-esteem scale (Martin and

Gentry, 1997) and a trustworthiness scale

(Ohanian, 1990):

• Self-esteem was measured using a

5-point scale, with endpoints of “not at

all” (1) and “very much so” (5).

• Trustworthiness was measured using a

5-point scale with endpoints dishonest/

honest, unreliable/reliable, not depend-

able/dependable, and not trustworthy/

trustworthy.

Participants then were asked to complete

measures related to the attitude toward

the brand (Leclerc, Schmitt, and Dube,

1994) and the purchase intention of the

brand (Bruner, Hensel, and James, 2005).

The latter two scales were scored on a

5-point scale, with endpoints such as “dis-

like/like,” “bad/good,” or “disapprove/

approve” for the attitude toward the brand

and “totally disagree” (1) and “totally

agree” (5) for the purchase intention.

The specific items are presented in

Appendix 2. All scales in this study were

translated professionally into French and

then back-translated into English (Brislin,

1980).



RESULTSFrom the original sample of 347 French

women, 176 effectively viewed the ideal-

ized advertisement, and 171 effectively

viewed the nonidealized advertisement.

PLS-Graph Version 3.0 (Chin, 2001) was

used to assess the psychometric proper-

ties of the measures (Chin, 1998; Hulland,

1999). To do so, the research team tested

a measurement model without structural

paths in PLS-Graph Version 3.0 (Chin,

2001), which is analogous to confirmatory

factor analysis in covariance-based SEM.

The authors found that two indicators

for self-esteem did not display standard-

ized loading exceeding 0.50. Measures

were purified to reach convergent valid-

ity (Tenenhaus, Vinzi, Chatelin, and

Lauro, 2005). Further, they assessed reli-

ability with composite reliability and

average variance extracted (AVE; Chin,

1998). Composite scale reliability ranged

between 0.823 and 0.962, well in excess

of the cutoff value of 0.70 suggested by

Nunally and Bernstein (1994). The AVE

ranged between 0.542 and 0.895 and thus

exceeded the 0.50 cutoff value proposed

by Fornell and Larcker (1981; Appendix 3).

Finally, the authors assessed discrimi-

nant validity by examining whether each

construct shared more variance with its

measures than with other constructs in the

model (Barclay, Higgins, and Thompson,

1995; Chin, 1998). Therefore, the square

root of the AVE should exceed the con-

struct intercorrelations in the model. This

was the case.

Because the data were collected using

survey questionnaires, the current study

verified for common method variance

(CMV) because (1) the measures for the

dependent and independent measures

were obtained from the same person at

the same point in time, and (2) “experi-

mental studies that can demonstrate that

the relationships observed between the

variables of interests are significant after

controlling for method biases provide

more compelling evidence than those who

do not” (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, and

Podsakoff 2003, p. 899).

The authors also posited that the small-

est correlation with a theoretically unre-

lated variable was a judicious estimate of

common method variance (Lindell and

Brandt, 2000; Lindell and Whitney, 2001).

Then, for all bi-variate correlations, the

effect of the smallest correlation (rs) needed

to be partialed out to remove the effect of

CMV. The survey questionnaire, how-

ever, did not contain such a theoretically

unrelated construct. The authors, there-

fore, took a slightly different approach by

selecting the smallest correlation among

our theoretical variables (Lindell and

Whitney, 2001; See Tables 1 and 2). This is

the correlation between “model trustwor-

thiness” and ‘”self-esteem” (|rs| = 0.062)

for the nonidealized questionnaire and the

correlation between the “attitude toward

the brand” and “self-esteem” (|rs| = 0.13)

for the idealized one.

From the application of that procedure,

the research team concluded that, for all

existing significant effects at the 0.05 level,

the corresponding bivariate correlation

coefficients remained statistically signifi-

cant at p < 0.05 after adjusting for CMV;

except for the correlation between self-

esteem and model trustworthiness in the

idealized context, which became nonsig-

nificant similarly to the nonidealized con-

text. It, therefore, is possible to conclude

that the effects due to CMV are negligible

in the current study.

Body Images and Self-EsteemH1, which stated that self-esteem will be

significantly higher after exposure to a

nonidealized model (M = 3.15; SD = 0.84)

compared to an idealized model (M = 2.93;

SD = 0.85), was confirmed (F(1, 345) = 4.92;

p < 0.05).

TABLE 1correlations for the nonidealized Advertisement

Self-esteemModel Trustworthiness

Attitude toward the Brand

self-esteem

Model Trustworthiness 0.062

Attitude toward the Brand –0.212*** 0.368***

Purchase Intention –0.282*** 0.331*** 0.574***

***p < 0.001

TABLE 2correlations for the Idealized Advertisement

Self-esteemModel Trustworthiness

Attitude toward the Brand

self-esteem

Model Trustworthiness 0.157**

Attitude toward the Brand 0.130* 0.276***

Purchase Intention 0.232* 0.383*** 0.477***

***p < 0.001; **p < 0.05; *p < 0.10



To refine the results, the current study

also verified that H1 was supported despite

the respondent’s perception of their cur-

rent level of beauty. For consumers who

tended to have higher self-esteem, self-

esteem was significantly higher after expo-

sure to a nonidealized model compared

to an idealized model (F(1, 172) = 3.67;

p < 0.05). For consumers who tended to

have lower self-esteem, self-esteem also

was significantly higher after exposure to

a nonidealized model compared to an ide-

alized model (F(1, 171) = 4.06; p < 0.05).

Further, the authors established whether

age, socio-professional category, and place

of residence (urban versus rural) could

explain consumers’ levels of self-esteem,

which can yield useful results for seg-

mentation strategies. It appeared that the

relationship between age and the level of

self-esteem followed a quadratic function

(F(2, 344) = 9.468; p < 0.001; self-esteem

= C + 0.547 age – 0.09 age²). The func-

tion’s maximum was in the age category

between 35 and 44.

The authors also found an effect of the

place of residence: The closer one lives to

an urban area, the higher the self-esteem

(β = 0.214; t(344) = 4.05; p < 0.001). No

effect for socio-professional category was

found (F(2, 344) = 1.658; p > 0.19).

Body Images and Model TrustworthinessIt was postulated in H2 that after view-

ing an advertisement for cosmetics, model

trustworthiness would be significantly

higher in the case of exposure to a nonide-

alized model (M = 3.61; SD = 0.97) com-

pared to an idealized model (M = 2.72;

SD = 0.94). This hypothesis was confirmed

(F(1, 345) = 75.60; p < 0.05).

Similar to what the authors did for self-

esteem, they also established whether age,

socio-professional category, and place of

residence influenced model trustworthi-

ness. They found no significant effect of

age (β = –0.027; t(344) = –0.504; p = 0.614)

or socio-professional category on self-

esteem (F(2, 344) = 1.99; p = 0.138). They

did find, however, an effect for place of

residence: The closer one lived to an urban

area, the lower the model trustworthiness

(β = –0.127; t(344) = 2.37; p < 0.05). Regard-

ing this interesting effect, the authors note

that significant differences in model trust-

worthiness between the rural (M = 2.97;

SD = 0.97) and urban areas (M = 2.64;

SD = 0.92) appeared in the case of an ide-

alized image (F(1, 174) = 4.125; p < 0.05)

but not in the case of a nonidealized one

(F(1, 170) = 1.905; p > 0.10).

Consistent with previous findings,

model trustworthiness for the nonideal-

ized image in an urban area (M = 3.55;

SD = 0.98) was significantly higher than

trustworthiness for the idealized image

(M = 2.64; SD = 0.92) in the same area.

Self-Esteem and Brand ResponsesH3 postulated a moderating effect of self-

esteem between the body image and (1)

attitude toward the brand and (2) the pur-

chase intention such that

• for consumers with a low self-esteem,

brand responses would be lower after

exposure to idealized models than after

exposure to nonidealized models and,

• for consumers with a high self-esteem,

brand responses would be higher after

exposure to idealized models than after

exposure to nonidealized models.

As expected, the current study revealed

a significant body image × self-esteem

interaction on the attitude toward the

brand (β = –0.179; t(346) = 3.27; p < 0.001)

and the purchase intention (β = –0.189;

t(346) = 4.02; p < 0.001). Decomposition of

the interaction at one standard deviation

above and below the mean for self-esteem

(Aiken and West, 1991) revealed that, in

the case of low self-esteem, the attitude

toward the brand was significantly lower

after exposure to idealized models than

after exposure to nonidealized models

(β = –0.206; t(346) = –2.71; p < 0.05).

The same relationship was valid

for the purchase intention (β = –0.409;

t(346) = –5.54; p < 0.001). As posited in H3b,

for consumers with a high self-esteem, the

attitude toward the brand and its purchase

intention was higher after exposure to ide-

alized models than after exposure to non-

idealized models, respectively (β = 0.318;

t(346) = 3.28; p < 0.001) and (β = 0.382;

t(346) = 4.06; p < 0.001; See Figure 2).

Model Trustworthiness and Brand Responses: Moderation and Suppression EffectsThe current study found no significant

moderating effect of model trustworthi-

ness between the body image displayed in

the advertisement and the attitude toward

the brand (β = 0.08; t(346) = 1.07; p = 0.28).

The research team also observed that

trustworthiness did not moderate the rela-

tionship between body image and the pur-

chase intention (β = –0.02; t(346) = –0.330;

p = 0.74). It found support for H4a,

which hypothesized a positive relation-

ship between model trustworthiness and

the attitude toward the brand (β = 0.294;

t(346) = 3.66; p < 0.001) and the purchase

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

IdealizedImage

Nonidealized Image

Low Self-EsteemHigh Self-Esteem

Purc

hase

Inte

ntio

n

Figure 2 Effects of Body Image and self-Esteem on Purchase Intention.



intention (β = 0.257; t(346) = 3.69; p < 0.001)

independently from the body image of the

model portrayed in the advertisement.

The authors then examined whether

model trustworthiness fully mediates the

effect of exposure to advertising images

on the attitude toward the brand and the

purchase intention.

In a first step, the research team did not

find, overall, that the relationship between

body image and the attitude toward

the brand was significant (β = –0.025;

t(346) = –0.470; p = 0.64). This meant that,

normally, they could not further test for

mediation in case of the attitude toward

the brand (Baron and Kenny, 1986). Given

that the authors previously had estab-

lished that self-esteem moderates the

relationship between body image and the

attitude toward the brand, however, they

continued by carrying out the mediation

test including the findings on the mod-

eration effect of self-esteem (e.g., Morin,

Dubé, Chebat, 2007).

In a second step, they found evidence

for a significant relationship between the

independent variable (body image) and

the mediator (trustworthiness) (β = –0.424;

t(346) = 8.69; p < 0.001): The more idealized

the model was, the lower model trustwor-

thiness. Introducing the effect of model

trustworthiness on the attitude toward the

brand (β = 0.356; t(346) = 6.359; p < 0.001)

did not cause body image × self-esteem to

become nonsignificant (β = 0.271; t(346)

= 3.175; p < 0.05). In other words, model

trustworthiness did not fully mediate the

relationship between the body image and

the attitude toward the brand when one

takes into account the moderating effects

of the viewer’s self-esteem (R²: 0.184).

One must then conclude that there is,

under specific circumstances, a suppres-

sion effect (Kenny, Kashy, and Bolger,

1998). When the model was idealized and

the viewer’s self-esteem was high, the posi-

tive effect of this interaction on the attitude

toward the brand was suppressed by the

negative influence of an idealized body

image on the trustworthiness of the model.

Also, when the body image was nonideal-

ized and the viewers’ self-esteem was high,

the negative effect of this interaction on the

attitude toward the brand was suppressed

by the positive influence of a nonidealized

image on the trustworthiness of the model.

For the high self-esteem viewers only

(median split), an idealized body image

had a negative influence on trustworthi-

ness (β = –0.398; t(171) = –5.516; p < 0.001),

whereas body image (β = 0.241; t(170) =

3.176; p < 0.05) and model trustworthi-

ness (β = 0.442; t(170) = 5.826; p < 0.001)

both had positive effects on the attitude

toward the brand. Overall, the direct and

indirect effects of body image on the atti-

tude toward the brand for high self-esteem

viewers were equal to 0.241 and –0.176,

respectively (R²: 0.199).

Further, the authors demonstrated the

significant effect of body image on the pur-

chase intention (β = –0.186; t(346) = –3.53;

p < 0.001): Idealized body images led to

lower purchase intention compared to

nonidealized body images. When regress-

ing the independent variable and the

mediator simultaneously on purchase

intention, the authors found a significant

relationship between model trustworthi-

ness and purchase intention (β = 0.384;

t(345) = 7.03; p < 0.001), whereas the rela-

tionship between body image and pur-

chase intention became nonsignificant

(β = 0.023; t(345) = 0.429; p > 0.05). The

authors also performed a Sobel (1982)

mediation test, which confirmed the

full mediation of model trustworthiness

between body image and the purchase

intention (z = 3.15; p < 0.05).

In sum, H4b was supported only par-

tially, as model trustworthiness fully

mediated only the relationship between

body image and purchase intention.

The authors, however, did observe a

suppression effect of model trustworthi-

ness on the relationship between body

image and the attitude toward the brand

when the viewer’s self-esteem was high.

Excluding the overall neutral effect of

body image on the attitude toward the

brand under high self-esteem circum-

stances, the authors showed that lower

perceptions of trustworthiness means that

idealized body images led to lower pur-

chase intentions compared to nonideal-

ized images.

GENERAL DISCUSSIONAdvertisers frequently use models in mar-

keting communications. In general, they

select attractive thin models who represent

a certain kind of the beauty ideal, reason-

ing that such imagery would positively

influence consumers to buy the brand

endorsed by the ideal model.

Earlier research, however, has shown

that exposure to such “ideal” images actu-

ally may have negative effects on the self-

evaluation of consumers. For instance,

some studies have demonstrated that

exposure to attractive faces in advertise-

ments has led consumers to evaluate

themselves more negatively (Richins,

1991; Smeesters and Mandel, 2006).

Recently, marketers have shown some

interest in employing more real—non-

idealized—models in advertisements.

Little is known, however, about the effects

of such models—both on self-evaluation

and product evaluations and on the pro-

cesses that play a role during exposure to

such models. It, therefore, is important to

make a comparison between idealized and

nonidealized models and examine their

potentially different effects on the adver-

tising effectiveness of advertised brands.

In the current study, female consum-

ers were exposed to either thin or heav-

ier models. The findings indicated that

the way advertising models have had an

effect on the purchase intention of (and the



attitude toward) a brand operates through

a dual-process model.

The first process by which advertis-

ing models affect responses to brands is

through a self-evaluation route. By com-

paring oneself to models, consumers’ self-

esteem may shift.

In general, exposure to nonidealized

models leads to higher self-esteem com-

pared to exposure to idealized models.

The data in the current study, however,

indicated that self-esteem also moderated

the effect of advertising models on the

responses to the advertised brand. More

specifically, participants with a lower

self-esteem reported a more negative atti-

tude and a lower purchase intention of

the brand after exposure to an idealized

model compared to a nonidealized model.

Conversely, participants with a higher

self-esteem reported a more positive atti-

tude and a higher purchase intention of

the brand after exposure to an idealized

model compared to a nonidealized model.

These results indicated that self-esteem

can vary in function of the advertising

models but that inter-individual variations

in self-esteem largely could affect how

consumers evaluate brands supported by

an idealized or nonidealized model.

Consumers with an overall higher level

of self-esteem reacted more positively to a

brand when it was endorsed by an ideal-

ized model, whereas consumers with an

overall lower level of self-esteem reacted

more negatively in a comparable situation.

Practically, this means that companies

must try to measure their target consum-

ers’ level of self-esteem before making

advertising decisions. Companies could

request that this crucial information be

added to survey questionnaires for con-

sumer market research.

Given that the current study found con-

sumers between 35 and 44 years old dis-

played the highest levels of self-esteem,

the authors recommend advertisers not

utilize a nonidealized model in their

appeals to this target group—especially if

this target group also lives in urban areas,

where self-esteem is relatively higher.

A second crucial process by which

advertising models affected responses to

brands was through a model-evaluation

route. It appeared that nonidealized mod-

els were judged to be more trustworthy

than idealized models. Further, trustwor-

thiness mediated the effect of the adver-

tising models on the purchase intention

of the advertised brand and the attitude

toward the brand considering the modera-

tion effect of self-esteem.

Hence, compared to idealized models,

nonidealized models led to higher pur-

chase intentions (and attitudes toward

the brand under the condition of low self-

esteem) due to higher perceived trustwor-

thiness of the model.

The current study demonstrated that

the closer one lives to an urban area, the

lower model trustworthiness becomes in

the case of an idealized image. Advertisers

carefully must study the balance between

using an idealized model for the suppres-

sion effects between the self-evaluation

and the model-evaluation processes.

Finally, this paper demonstrated that

multiple processes play a role during

exposure to advertising models. In other

words, the relevant findings regarding

the self-evaluative process can be signifi-

cantly linked to advertising effectiveness

only when the model-evaluation process

is considered.

Of course, the question remains whether,

under the relevant high self-esteem condi-

tion, these processes always will suppress

one another to enable researchers to con-

clude with full certainty that idealized

images are best avoided on advertising

campaigns.

Indeed, if the effects of body image ×

self-esteem under a high self-esteem con-

dition is significantly stronger than the

negative effect of an idealized body image

on trustworthiness, it could be that ideal-

ized images are not detrimental to adver-

tising effectiveness.

In fact, it is possible that one of these two

processes dominates the other, depend-

ing on situational or personal circum-

stances. For instance, if one is planning

to purchase a product like the one that is

advertised, model trustworthiness may

have a stronger effect than social compari-

son. Further, earlier research had demon-

strated that some individuals are more

likely to compare themselves with others

than other individuals. For example, one

study demonstrated that social compari-

son effects were stronger for individuals

whose self-concept was activated or who

were more uncertain (Stapel and Koomen,

2001).

It, therefore, could be demonstrated

that, for individuals whose self-concept

is activated (i.e., who are more focused

on themselves) or who are more uncer-

tain about themselves, the self-evaluation

process will dominate, whereas individu-

als whose self is not activated or who are

more certain about themselves will be

more likely to experience a dominating

model-evaluation process. Future research

should examine specific situational and

personal moderators that determine

when the self-evaluation and the model-

evaluation route will dominate.

It also should be noted that companies

should analyze carefully whether their

target consumers would like the nonide-

alized models in their advertisements.

This is not always the case. One piece of

research found that, although all partici-

pants in the studies agreed that there is

an unattainable thin norm in society and

applauded the use of nonidealized mod-

els, not all of the subjects liked the mod-

els used in Dove’s campaign (Gustafson,

Hanley, and Popovich, 2008). More spe-

cifically, the participants in that study said



that they did not like the women shown

in underwear and in unflattering poses. In

addition, participants also found the mes-

sage that Dove conveyed to be contradic-

tory by suggesting that plus-sized women

were attractive but that they still need

firming cream.

Although there are many positive effects

of using nonidealized models in advertise-

ments, it is important that the way these

models are presented does not offend con-

sumers and that the conveyed message is

believable.

LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCHThe results of the current study have

important implications for marketers. In

general, it seems that nonidealized models

lead to higher purchase intentions com-

pared to idealized models, due to higher

perceived trustworthiness and positive

shifts in self-esteem. Only participants

with on average higher levels of self-

esteem have a higher purchase intention

in case of idealized models. These findings

would suggest that it might be more suc-

cessful to use nonidealized models over

idealized models.

Some limitations, however, should be

considered regarding the theoretical and

managerial contributions of the current

findings:

• First, the current sample includes only

French women, who may not react to

advertising in the same way as women

in other countries or from other cultures

(Lundstrom, White, and Chopoorian,

1999).

• The models portrayed in the advertis-

ing and respondents were Caucasian,

which may affect some conclusions

given that the perceptions and reac-

tions to advertising images may vary

between ethnic groups. A similar study

with non-Caucasian women exposed to

different advertisements with thin or

full-figured models from different eth-

nicities remains an avenue for future

research.

Indeed, cultural diversity is growing

fast in most industrialized countries.

The use of ethnic minorities in advertis-

ing has already been studied in other

countries such as the United States,

New Zealand, and the United Kingdom,

where ethnicity was revealed to have a

significant impact on consumption pat-

terns, shopping orientation, responses

to promotion, purchase decisions,

media usage, and brand loyalty among

ethnic consumers (Briley, Shrum, and

Wyer, 2007; Kwai-Choi, Fernandez and

Martin, 2002). However, none of these

studies established how visible minori-

ties and the Caucasian majority could

react differently to an exposure to thin or

full-figured models in advertisements.

• The authors also must note that the dif-

ferent levels of uncertainty avoidance

and individualism in different coun-

tries (Hofstede, 2001) may lead to a

suppression effect with slightly altered

intensities.

Uncertainty avoidance may make

the model-evaluation route dominant

whereas individualism may make the

self-evaluation route dominant. In

France, levels of individualism and

uncertainty avoidance practically

are identical (Hofstede, 2001). In the

United Kingdom and the United States,

individualism is very high whereas

uncertainty avoidance is lower. This

could mean that the effects of self-

esteem may outweigh the effects of

model trustworthiness in the suppres-

sion mechanism.

• The use of nonidealized images may be

very detrimental for high self-esteem

consumers between 35 and 44 years

old living in urban areas such as Lon-

don, Paris, New York, or Chicago. This

remains an avenue for future research

given that we did not establish cultural

differences in this paper.

• The authors studied the effects of non-

idealized images of physical attractive-

ness using a body cream advertisement.

Body creams are mass beauty products,

and the findings of the current study

may not hold true for other categories

of products such as luxury beauty prod-

ucts or vacations (Kwortnik and Ross,

2007) and/or other types of products

featuring female models in their adver-

tising campaigns.

• As Charles Revson, the founder of Rev-

lon, once said, “In the factory, we make

cosmetics; in the drugstore, we sell

hope.” In other words, the level of con-

sumer involvement with the purchase

(Assael, 1995) and the salience and

amount of differences between brands/

products may lead to the dominance

of the self-evaluation or the model-

evaluation route. This remains to be

tackled by future research.

• Finally, similar research could be car-

ried out with male consumers given

that the men’s personal-care market

should exceed $33.2 billion by 2015

(Global Industry Analysts, 2010).

Given the growing numbers of “met-

rosexual” men in industrialized econo-

mies (Flocker, 2003), advertisers should

establish whether this important group

of consumers who spend time and

money shopping for their appearance

are sensitive to the body-mass index of

male models in advertising.

Female and male consumers exhibit

significantly different attitudes toward

brands and purchase intentions (Orth

and Holancova, 2004). Also, men



belonging to different subcultures of

consumption (e.g., sexual orientation;

Kates, 2002) could affect the relative

dominance of the self-evaluation and

the model-evaluation routes.

To conclude, given that often female

consumers buy beauty products for

their male partner, the authors acknowl-

edge that studying the responses of

female consumers toward idealized ver-

sus nonidealized images of male mod-

els constitutes an interesting avenue for

future research.

michaeL antioco is an associate professor of marketing

at EMLYOn Business school, France, where he

teaches courses on marketing management and

the marketing of luxury products. His main research

interests are new product development, the

management of consumer feedback information, and

advertising. His work is being published in the Journal

of the Academy of Marketing Science, the Journal

of Product Innovation Management, the Journal

of Business Ethics, and the European Journal of

Marketing, among other journals.

DiRk SmeeSteRS is at the Rotterdam school of

Management, Erasmus University, the netherlands,

where he teaches courses on marketing management

and experimental methods. He received his BA, MA,

and PhD in psychology from the katholieke Universiteit

Leuven, Belgium. His research on unconscious

influences on human perception and behavior, the

psychology of money, social comparison, and mortality

salience has been published in the leading academic

marketing and psychology journals, such as the Journal

of Consumer Research, the Journal of Marketing

Research, and the Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology.

aLine Le BoeDec studied political science, economics

and marketing at sciences Po strasbourg, France, and

worked at IEsEG school of Management in Lille/Paris

as a marketing lecturer. Her research interests include

advertising, retailing, and sensorial marketing. she now

works at credit Agricole consumer Finance as a senior

product manager for major French retailers.

AcknOWLEDGMEnT

The authors are very thankful to Ms. Anne-

Sophie Mourgere for her valuable help in carry-

ing out this research project.

REFEREncEs

aiKEn, L. s., and s. g. WEst. Multiple Regres-

sion: Testing and Interpreting Interactions. New-

bury Park, CA: Sage, 1991.

assaEL, H. Consumer Behavior and Marketing

Action. Cincinnati, OH: South Western College

Publishing, 1995.

BaiRd, a. L., and F. g. gRiEvE. “Exposure

to Male Models in Advertisements Leads to

a Decrease in Men’s Body Satisfaction.”

North American Journal Psychology 8, 1 (2006):

115–121.

BaKER, m. J., and g. a. CHuRCHiLL JR. “The

Impact of Physically Attractive Models on

Advertising Evaluations.” Journal of Marketing

Research 14, 4 (1977): 538–555.

BaRCLay, d., C. Higgins, and R. tHompson.

“The Partial Least Squares Approach to Causal

Modeling: Personal Computer Adoption and

Use as Illustration.” Technology Studies 2, 2

(1995): 285–309.

BaRon, R. m., and d. a. KEnny. “The

Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in

Social Psychological Research: Conceptual,

Strategic, and Statistical Considerations.” Jour-

nal of Personality and Social Psychology 51, 6

(1986): 1173–1182.

BoWER, a. B. “Highly Attractive Models in

Advertising and the Women who Loathe Them:

The Implications of Negative Affect for Spokes-

person Effectiveness.” Journal of Advertising 30,

3 (2001): 51–63.

BoWER, a. B., and s. LandREtH. “Is Beauty

Best? Highly versus Normally Attractive Mod-

els in Advertising.” Journal of Advertising 30, 1

(2001): 1–12.

BRiLEy, d. a., L. J. sHRum, and R. s. WyER

JR. “Subjective Impressions of Minority Group

Representation in the Media: A Comparison of

Majority and Minority Viewers’ Judgments and

Underlying Processes.” Journal of Consumer Psy-

chology 17, 1 (2007): 36–48.

BRisLin, R. W. “Translation and Content Anal-

ysis of Oral and Written Materials.” In Handbook

of Cross-Cultural Psychology, H. C. Trandis and

J. W. Berry, eds. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon,

1980.

BRoWn, s. p., and d. m. stayman. “Anteced-

ents and Consequences of Attitude Toward

the Ad: A Meta-Analysis.” Journal of Consumer

Research 19, 1 (1992): 34–51.

BRunER, g. C., p. J. HEnsEL, and K. E. JamEs.

Marketing Scales Handbook: A Compilation of

Multi-Item Measures for Consumer Behavior and

Advertising, 1998–2001. Chicago, IL: American

Marketing Association, 2005.

CHandon, p., and B. WansinK. “Is Obesity

Caused by Calorie Underestimation? A Psycho-

physical Model of Fast-Food Meal Size Estima-

tion.” Journal of Marketing Research 44, 1 (2007):

84–99.

CHin, W. W. “The Partial Least Squares

Approach to Structural Equation Modeling.”

In Modern Business Research Methods, G. A.

Marcoulides, ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates, 1998.

CHin, W. W. PLS-Graph User’s Guide Version 3.0.

Houston, TX: C.T. Bauer College of Business,

University of Houston, 2001.

dEsHpandé, R., and d. m. stayman. “A

Tale of Two Cities: Distinctiveness Theory and



Advertising Effectiveness.” Journal of Marketing

Research 31, 1 (1994): 57–64.

duRgEE, J. F. “Richer Findings from Qualita-

tive Research.” Journal of Advertising Research 6,

4 (1986): 36–44.

FEstingER, L. “A Theory of Social Comparison

Process.” Human Relations 7, 2 (1954): 117–140.

FLoCKER, m. Metrosexual Guide to Style: A Hand-

book for the Modern Man. USA: Perseus Publish-

ing, 2003.

Food standaRds agEnCy. (2004). “Obesity

Rates Worldwide.” Retrieved from URL

http://www.food.gov.uk/healthiereating/

advertisingtochildren/promotion/issues/

obesityratesworldwide/

FoRnELL, C., and d. LaRCKER. “Evaluating

Structural Equation Models with Unobservable

Variables and Measurement Error.” Journal of

Marketing Research 18, 1 (1981): 39–50.

gaWRonsKi, B., g. v. BodEnHausEn, and a.

p. BECKER. “I Like It Because I Like Myself:

Associative Self-Anchoring and Post-Decisional

Change of Implicit Attitudes.” Journal of Experi-

mental Social Psychology 43, (2007): 221–232.

gLoBaL industRy anaLysts, inC. (2010).

“Men’s Grooming Products, April.”

gRaBE, s. L., WaRd, m., and HydE, J. s. “The

Role of the Media in Body Image Concerns

among Women: A Meta-Analysis of Experimen-

tal and Correlational Studies.” Psychological Bul-

letin 134, 3 (2008): 460–476.

gustaFson, R., HanLEy, m., and popoviCH,

m. “Women’s Perceptions of Female Body

Shapes and Celebrity Models: The Dove Firm-

ing Cream Advertising Revisited.” Proceed-

ings of the American Academy of Advertising

Conference, San Mateo, CA, March, 2008.

HaLLiWEL, E., and H. dittmaR. “Does Size

Matter? The Impact of Model’s Body Size on

Women’s Body Focused Anxiety and Advertis-

ing Effectiveness.” Journal of Social and Clinical

Psychology 23, 1 (2004): 104–122.

HaRgREavEs, d., and m. tiggEmann. “Idealized

Media Images and Adolescent Body Image:

Comparing Boys and Girls.” Body Image 1, 4

(2004): 351–361.

HoFstEdE, g. Culture’s Consequences, Compar-

ing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organiza-

tions across Nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage,

2001.

HoLBRooK, m. B., and R. BatRa. “Assessing

the Role of Emotions as Mediators of Consumer

Responses to Advertising.” Journal of Consumer

Research 14, 3 (1987): 404–420.

Hong, J. W., and g. m. ZinKHan. “Self Con-

cept and Advertising Effectiveness: The Influ-

ence of Congruency, Conspicuousness, and

Response Mode.” Psychology and Marketing 12,

1 (1995): 38–77.

HuLLand, J. “Use of Partial Least Squares (PLS)

in Strategic Management Research: A Review

of Four Recent Studies.” Strategic Management

Journal 20, 2 (1999): 195–204.

JEFFERs, m. “Behind Dove’s Real Beauty.”

Adweek 46, 35 (2005): 34–35.

JosEpH, W. B. “The Credibility of Physically

Attractive Communicators: A Review.” Journal

of Advertising 11, 3 (1982): 15–24.

KatEs, s. “The Protean Quality of Subcultural

Consumption: An Ethnographic Account of

Gay Consumers.” Journal of Consumer Research

29, 3 (2002): 383–399.

KEnny, d. a., d. a. KasHy, and n. BoLgER.

“Data Analysis in Social Psychology.” In The

Handbook of Social Psychology, 4th ed., Daniel T.

Gilbert, Susan T. Fiske, and Gardner Lindzey,

eds. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill, 1998.

KWai-CHoi LEE, C., n. FERnandEZ, and B.

maRtin. ”Using Self-Referencing to Explain

the Effectiveness of Ethnic Minority Models in

Advertising.” International Journal of Advertising

21, 3 (2002): 367–379.

KWoRtniK, R. J., and W. t. Ross. “The Role of

Positive Emotions in Experiential Decisions.”

International Journal of Research in Marketing 24,

4 (2007): 324–335.

LamBERt, a. J., L. L. JaCoBy, L. m. sCHaFFER, K.

B. paynE, a. L. CHastEEn, and s. R. KHan. “Ste-

reotypes as Dominant Responses: On the ‘Social

Facilitation’ of Prejudice in Anticipated Public

Contexts.” Journal of Personality and Social Psy-

chology 84 (2003): 277–295.

LECLERC, F., B. sCHmitt, and L. duBé. “For-

eign Branding and its Effects on Product Per-

ceptions and Attitudes.” Journal of Marketing

Research 31, 3 (1994): 263–270.

LEE, J., and L. J. sHRum. “Mortality Salience

and Extrinsic Goal Orientation: The Moderating

Effects of Self-Esteem and Materialistic Values.”

Latin American Advances in Consumer Research 2

(2007): 228–229.

LindELL, m. K., and C. J. BRandt. “Climate

Quality and Climate Consensus as Mediators of

the Relationship between Organizational Ante-

cedents and Outcomes.” Journal of Applied Psy-

chology 85 (2000): 331–348.

LindELL, m. K., and d. J. WHitnEy. “Account-

ing for Common Method Variance in Cross-

Sectional Research Designs.” Journal of Applied

Psychology 86 (2001): 114–121.

LoCKWood, p., and Z. Kunda. “Superstars and

Me: Predicting the Impact of Role Models on the

Self.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

73 (1997): 93–103.



LundstRom, W. J., d. s. WHitE, and J. a.

CHopooRian. “Attitudes of Contemporary

European Women toward Sex Role Portrayal,

Company Image and Purchase Intention: The

French versus U.S. Experience.” Journal of Mar-

keting Management 15, 6 (1999): 485–493.

mandEL, n., and d. smEEstERs. “The Sweet

Escape: Effects of Mortality Salience on Con-

sumption Quantities for High and Low Self-

esteem Consumers.” Journal of Consumer

Research 35, 2 (2008): 309–323.

maRtin, m., and J. W. gEntRy. “Stuck in the

Model Trap: The Effects of Beautiful Models in

Advertisements on Female Pre-adolescents and

Adolescents.” Journal of Advertising 26, 2 (1997):

19–32.

mEdia aWaREnEss nEtWoRK. (2004). “Dove’s

Campaign for Real Beauty.” Media Awareness

Network [URL] Retrieved from http://www.

media-awareness.ca.

moRin, s., L. duBé, v J.-C. CHéBat. “The Role

of Pleasant Music in Servicescapes: A Test of

the Dual Model of Environmental Perception.”

Journal of Retailing 83, 1 (2007): 115–130.

mussWEiLER, t. “Comparison Processes in

Social Judgment: Mechanisms and Conse-

quences.” Psychological Review 110, 3 (2003):

472–489.

nunnaLLy, J. C., and i. H. BERnstEin. Psycho-

metric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1994.

oHanian, R. “Construction and Validation of

a Scale to Measure Celebrity Endorsers’ Per-

ceived Expertise, Trustworthiness, and Attrac-

tiveness.” Journal of Advertising 19, 3 (1990):

39–52.

o’KEEFE, d. Persuasion Theory and Research.

Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1994.

oRtH, u. R., and d. HoLanCova. “Men’s and

Women’s Responses to Sex Roles Portrayals

in Advertisements.” International Journal of

Research in Marketing 21, 1 (2004): 77–88.

podsaKoFF, p. m., s. B. maCKEnZiE, J.-y. LEE,

and n. podsaKoFF. “Common Method Biases in

Behavioural Research: A Critical Review of the

Literature and Recommended Remedies.” Jour-

nal of Applied Psychology 88, 5 (2003): 879–903.

poLLay, R. W. “The Distorted Mirror: Reflec-

tions on the Unintended Consequences of Adver-

tising.” Journal of Marketing 50, 2 (1986): 18–36.

pREaCHER, K. J., d. d. RuCKER, and a. F.

HayEs. “Addressing Moderated Mediation

Hypotheses: Theory, Methods, and Prescrip-

tions.” Multivariate Behavioral Research 42, 1

(2007): 185–227.

pRiEstER, J. R., and R. E. pEtty. “The Influence

of Spokesperson Trustworthiness on Message

Elaboration, Attitudes Strength and Advertis-

ing Effectiveness.” Journal of Consumer Psychol-

ogy 13, 4 (2003): 408–421.

RiCHins, m. L. “Social Comparison and the

Idealized Images of Advertising.” Journal of

Consumer Research 18, 1 (1991): 71–83.

smEEstERs, d., and n. mandEL. “Positive and

Negative Media Effects on the Self.” Journal of

Consumer Research 32, 4 (2006): 576–582.

smEEstERs, d., t. mussWEiLER, and n.

mandEL. “The Effects of Thin and Heavy

Media Images on Overweight and Underweight

Consumers: Social Comparison Processes and

Behavioral Implications.” Journal of Consumer

Research 36, 6 (2010): 930–949.

smitH, s. m., and d. R. sCHaFFER. “Speed of

Speech and Persuasion—Evidence for Multiple

Effects.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulle-

tin, 21 (1995): 1051–1060.

soBEL, m. E. “Asymptotic Intervals for Indi-

rect Effects in Structural Equations Models.”

In Sociological Methodology, S. Leinhart, ed. San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1982.

soLomon, m. Consumer Behavior: Buying, Hav-

ing, and Being, 7th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ:

Prentice Hall, 2007.

stapEL, d. a., and a. tEssER. “Self-activation

Increases Social Comparison.” Journal of Person-

ality and Social Psychology 81, 4 (2001): 742–750.

stRatEgyonE. (2004). “The Real Truth About

Beauty: A Global Report.” URL: http://www.

strategyone.com/documents/dove_white_

paper_final.pdf

tEnEnHaus, m., v. E. vinZi, y.-m. CHatELin,

and C. LauRo. “PLS Path Modeling.” Compu-

tational Statistics and Data Analysis 48, 1 (2005):

159–205.

tiggEmann, m., and a. sLatER. “Thin Ideals

in Music Television: A Source of Social Com-

parison and Body Dissatisfaction.” International

Journal of Eating Disorders 35 (1) (2003): 48–58.

véZina, R., and o. pauL. “Provocation in

Advertising: A Conceptualization and an

Empirical Assessment.” International Journal of

Research in Marketing 14, 2 (1997): 177–192.

WaRd, J., and m. voRaCEK. “Evolutionary and

Social Cognitive Explanations of Sex Differ-

ences in Romantic Jealousy.” Australian Journal

of Psychology 56, 3 (2004): 165–171.

Wood, J. a., J. s. BoLEs, W. JoHnston, and d.

BELLEngER. “Buyer’s Trust of the Salesperson:

An Item-Level Meta-Analysis.” Journal of Per-

sonal Selling and Sales Management 28, 3 (2008):

263–283.

ZinKHan, g. m., and J. W. Hong. “Self Con-

cept and Advertising Effectiveness: A Concep-

tual Model of Congruency, Conspicuousness,

and Response Mode.” Advances in Consumer

Research 18, 1 (1991): 348–354.



APPENDIX 1nonidealized image versus idealized image

APPENDIX 2Measurement scales

Scale Items

Self-esteem (Martin and Gentry, JA, 1997)

1. I feel satisfied with the way my body looks right now

2. I feel that others respect and admire me*

3. I am dissatisfied with my weight (–)

4. I feel good about myself

5. I am pleased with my appearance right now

6. I feel unattractive (–)*

Model Trustworthiness (Ohanian, JA, 1990)

1. Dishonest/Honest

2. Unreliable/Reliable

3. not dependable/Dependable

4. not trustworthy/Trustworthy

Attitude toward the Ad (Holbrook and Batra, JCR, 1987)

1. I dislike the advertisement/I like the advertisement

2. I react unfavorably to the advertisement/I react favorably to the advertisement

3. I feel negative toward the advertisement/I feel positive toward the advertisement

4. The advertisement is bad/The advertisement is good

Attitude toward the Brand (Leclerc, schmitt and Dube, JMR, 1994)

1. This is a bad brand/This is a good brand

2. I dislike the brand/I like the brand

3. I feel negative toward the brand/I feel positive toward the brand

4. The brand is awful/The brand is nice

5. The brand is unpleasant/The brand is pleasant

6. The brand is unattractive/The brand is attractive

7. I disapprove of the brand/I approve of the brand

Purchase Intention (Bruner, Hensel and James, 2005)

1. I am eager to check out the product because of this advertisement

2. I intend to buy this product

3. I plan on buying this product

* This item was dropped during measurement purificationNote: The full-faced nonidealized model has been purposefully hidden to respect her anonymity.

APPENDICES



APPENDIX 3standard loadings, composite reliability, and average variance extracted for idealized and nonidealized images of beauty

Construct Items Type

Standard Loadings Idealized

Standard Loadings Nonidealized

Composite Reliability

Average Variance Extracted

self-esteem 12*3456*

Reflective 0.60—0.790.820.80—

0.61—0.810.840.64—

I: 0.860NI: 0.823

I: 0.607NI: 0.542

Model Trustworthiness 1234

Reflective 0.770.800.820.81

0.820.730.900.82

I: 0.881NI: 0.917

I: 0.598NI: 0.917

Attitude toward the Ad 1234

Reflective 0.890.920.930.79

0.870.920.880.90

I: 0.937NI: 0.942

I: 0.790NI: 0.803

Attitude toward the Brand 1234567

Reflective 0.870.880.890.800.840.810.88

0.860.860.870.870.880.820.88

I: 0.950NI: 0.955

I: 0.733NI: 0.753

Purchase Intention 123

Reflective 0.900.950.96

0.920.960.94

I: 0.956NI: 0.962

I: 0.880NI: 0.895

* This item was dropped during measurement purificationI: Idealized; NI: Nonidealized

Copyright of Journal of Advertising Research is the property of Warc LTD and its content may not be copied or

emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.

However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Documents

Take Your Pick: Kate Moss or the Girl Next Door? · advertisements (i.e., “Dove’s campaign for Real Beauty”). Little is known, however, about the effects of “nonidealized”