Green Advertising Effectiveness

8/13/2019 Green Advertising Effectiveness

1/25

http://crc.sagepub.com/ Journal of Cr eative Com munications

http://crc.sagepub.com/content/3/3/231The online version of this article can be foun d at:

DOI: 10.1177/097325861000300301

2008 3: 231Journal of Creative Communications Marissa Jimnez and Kenneth C.C. YangHow Guilt Level Affects Green Advertising Effectiveness?

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Mudra Institute of Communications, Ahmedabad

can be found at:Journal of Creative Communications Additional services and information for

http://crc.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://crc.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://crc.sagepub.com/content/3/3/231.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This? - May 5, 2010Ver sion of R ecord>>

at University of Bucharest on February 8, 2013crc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://crc.sagepub.com/http://crc.sagepub.com/http://crc.sagepub.com/content/3/3/231http://crc.sagepub.com/content/3/3/231http://www.sagepublications.com/http://www.sagepublications.com/http://www.mica-india.net/http://crc.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://crc.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://crc.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://crc.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://crc.sagepub.com/content/3/3/231.refs.htmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://crc.sagepub.com/content/3/3/231.full.pdfhttp://crc.sagepub.com/http://crc.sagepub.com/content/3/3/231.full.pdfhttp://crc.sagepub.com/http://crc.sagepub.com/http://crc.sagepub.com/http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://crc.sagepub.com/content/3/3/231.full.pdfhttp://crc.sagepub.com/content/3/3/231.refs.htmlhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://crc.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://crc.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://www.mica-india.net/http://www.sagepublications.com/http://crc.sagepub.com/content/3/3/231http://crc.sagepub.com/


2/25

Journal of Creative Communications 3:3 (2008): 231254

SAGE PUBLICATIONS Los Angeles London New Delhi SingaporeDOI: 10.1177/097325861000300301

ARTICLES

How Guilt Level Affects Green Advertising Effectiveness?

MARISSA JIMNEZ AND KENNETH C.C. YANG

The study employed a between-subject post-test only experimental design to examine whether guilt appeallevels affected green advertising effectiveness measured by consumers attitude towards the advertisementand the brand. Furthermore, guilt-aroused feelings were examined for their effects.

The study was conducted among 121 students in a large public university in the southwest of theUnited States (US). Empirical results supported the effects of guilt appeal on green advertising effectiveness.Participants were found to have more favourable attitudes towards the green advertisement and advertisedbrand when exposed to a low guilt advertisement than to a high guilt advertisement. Among three guilt-induced feelings, angryirritated emotion and self-conscious emotion were found to moderate consumersattitudes towards the green advertisement and the advertised brand .

Keywords: green advertising, advertising effectiveness, experiment, guilt appeal, guilt-aroused feelings

INTRODUCTION

The United States (US) comprises only 5 per cent of the worlds population, but has consumedabout ve times more than an average Mexican, 10 times as much as an average Chinese and30 times more than the average person in India (Motavalli 2004). William Frey, a demographer

at the Brookings Institution, criticized that [i]ts not the population, its the consumptionthat can do us in (The Associated Press 2006: 2). These alarming facts are one of the drivingforces that motivate socially responsible researchers to look for green advertising strategiesto inuence green consumption and behaviours in response to the worsening environment.

http://crc.sagepub.com/http://crc.sagepub.com/http://crc.sagepub.com/


3/25

232 Marissa Jimnez and Kenneth C.C. Yang


Particularly, advertisers within any corporation should play an active role in promoting sus-tainable development and societal goals because they have the resources and the skills to shape

public opinions (Zinkhan & Carlson 1995).Consumer behaviour researchers have suggested that it does not only take the willingness

to get involved to change behavioural patterns (Blackwell et al. 2001), it also requires thatconsumers needs and preferences for ecologically friendly products must be met in terms ofthe availability and affordability (Bhate 2001). More importantly, advertisers need to com-municate with clarity the green products environmental benets, product performanceand other attributes (Wong et al. 1996). As a result, green advertising should play a criticalrole in making consumers aware of the consequences of their consumption behaviour. Forconsumers to consider ecologically friendly products, it requires that all three forces, that is,consumer, corporations and government integrate their communication efforts to accomplishthis effectively. It is also vital to understand how green advertising strategies can be integratedto communicate environmental issues, promote consumer involvement, promote sustainabledevelopment and raise consumers environmental concerns.

Green Advertising

Green advertising is dened as the promotional messages that may appeal to the needs anddesires of environmentally-concerned consumers (Zinkhan & Carlson 1995: 1). Banerjeeet al. (1995: 22) further dened green advertising as any advertising that meets at least the fol-

lowing criteria: explicitly or implicitly addresses the relationship between a product/serviceand the biophysical environment; promotes a green lifestyle with or without highlighting aproduct/service; and/or presents a corporate image of environmental responsibility.

Green advertising is as an important social marketing instrument to promote environmen-tally friendly products, welfare, safety, risk minimization and the avoidance of dissatisfaction(Peattie & Peattie 2003) and has been in combination with other marketing strategies, whichseek to encourage cooperation to full social goals (Wiener & Doescher 1991). Fox andKotler (1980) suggested that, like other social advertising, green advertising campaigns needto promote social causes through advertising appeals that communicate cost reductions toconsumers in exchange for engagement in pro-socialenvironmental behaviours or at least,the intention to act pro-environmentally.

Since the 1970s, green advertising has been studied extensively to help develop effectiveenvironmental communication strategies targeting green consumers (Stafford et al. 1996).Some of these studies examined green advertising strategies for environmental manufacturingprocesses, green products and environmental consumption (Carlson et al. 1993; Olney 1991).



4/25


How Guilt Level Affects Green Advertising Effectiveness? 233

Furthermore, marketing scholars have also studied environmental concerns to identifygreen message content (Ellen et al. 1991; Stafford et al. 1996). Their studies have analyzed

how marketers communicate environmental benets of products through general productclaims (Morris et al. 1995). Recent studies further examined consumer resistance to greenadvertisements messages because of believability and credibility concerns (DSouza andTaghian 2005).

A recurrent theme in green advertising research has been what advertising appeals canmake green advertising more effective (Banerjee et al. 1995; Krn et al. 2001; Wagner &Hansen 2002). These studies mostly employed content analysis methodology to examine vari-ous green advertising appeals (Iyer & Banerjee 1993; Stafford et al. 1996). For example, Iyerand Bannerjee (1993) created a typology of six green appeals with each one containing sub-categories, including the emotional, nancial, euphoria, management, social responsibility andcomparative green appeals. Similarly, Stafford et al. (1996) used seven green issues as advertisingappeals: concern for waste, concern for wildlife, concern for the biosphere, concern for popularissues, concern for health, energy awareness and concern for environmental technology.

Although content analysis studies of green advertisements have provided a thorough de-scriptive study in how green advertisements have been created (Stafford et al. 1996), thesestudies lack a causal assessment of which advertising appeals will be most effective in changingconsumer green behaviour. To address the lack of experimental study in green advertisingresearch, this study used an experimental method to better assess consumers responses togreen advertisements as measured by their attitudes towards green advertisements and towardsadvertised green brands.

LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT

Advertising practitioners have used various types of advertising appeals to help form andchange attitudes to persuade consumers to buy (Edell & Burke 1987). One of the emotionalappeals found to be very useful to feeling arousal in advertising has been guilt (Bozinoff andGhingold 1983). Guilt appeals have been found to become more and more accepted as apersuasive technique (Burnett & Lunsford 1994; Mitchell et al. 2001). Guilt appeals also focuson the aspect of consumer behaviour that addresses a past or future violation of a norm oras failing to care for other people (Huhmann & Brotherton 1997).

Lascu (1991) dened guilt as an internal emotional response involving penitence, remorse,self-blame and self-punishment experienced after violating or contemplating to violate aninternalized standard. Kugler and Jones (1992) dened guilt as a ones own acknowledgement



5/25



of having violated a personal standard. A sense of guilt was found to urge consumers to makesome kind of retribution for the violation of a standard (Ghingold 1981). In past advertising

research, guilt was often treated as a motivational medium and emotional appeal (Coulter &Pinto 1995). Bozinoff and Ghingold (1983) argued that guilt is similar to other negativeemotions (for example, fear), but separate from these emotions because it has demonstratedthat it can arouse guilt independently of other emotions in order to change message-specicattitudes (attitudes concerning the advertisement). In addition, empirical evidence supportsthat advertisements can be designed to arouse guilt using an emotional appeal in a predictablemanner (Bozinoff & Ghingold 1983; Ghingold 1981; Huhmann & Brotherton 1997). Recentguilt appeal research continues to explore the interaction of guilt with other consumer negative(such as shame or sadness) (Mitchell et al. 2001; Planalp et al. 2000) or positive feelings (suchas happiness) (Planalp et al. 2000).

Burnett and Lunsford (1994) and Huhmann and Brotherton (1997) have speculated whethernegative emotional advertising appeals (such as guilt appeals) may inuence consumers atti-tudes and purchase intentions or purchase itself. Bozinoff and Ghingold (1983), Coulter andPinto (1995) and Pinto and Priest (1991) have found that there were signicant relationshipsbetween the level of guilt on consumers attitudes. Coulter and Pinto (1995) found a signicanteffect of guilt levels on consumers attitudes towards the adverisement (henceforth, Aad) andbrand (henceforth, Ab). Bozinoff and Ghingold (1983) also found that the level of guilt ap-peals inuenced Aad.

Coulter and Pinto (1995) further contended that there was an inverse relationship betweenthe level of guilt, Aad and Ab. They argued that Aad and Ab were more favourable as the in-tensity of the guilt appeal decreased. Additionally, support for these was provided by Pinto andPriest (1991), who suggested that as the intensity of the guilt appeal increased, Aad becamemore negative. Coulter and Pinto (1995) speculated consumers resistance played a key rolein explaining the inverse relationship. They argued that when consumers believed that a mes-sage was trying to force a response, they would feel intimidated and respond unfavourably dueto their perceived deprivation of freedom (Coulter & Pinto 1995). They added that intenseguilt appeals might be perceived as an attack to ones self or own behaviour and therefore,evaluate the advertisement very negatively (Coulter & Pinto 1995). Moreover, past studiesexamining the relationship between Aad and Ab in marketing literature have shown that Aad

is a signicant predictor of Ab held after being exposed to the advertisement (Lutz et al. 1983).Multiple studies have additionally conrmed that Aad has a direct effect on Ab under a varietyof conditions (Batra & Ray 1986; Edell & Burke 1987; Lutz et al. 1983).

On the basis of the negative effects of guilt appeal levels on consumers Aad and Ab, thefollowing hypotheses were proposed:



6/25



Hypothesis 1: Consumers attitudes towards the green advertisement (Aad) werenegatively inuenced by the guilt level in the green advertisement.

Hypothesis 2: Consumers attitudes towards the advertised brand (Ab) were negativelyinuenced in the green advertisement.

The Mediating Role of Guilt-Induced Feelings and Green Advertising Effectiveness

Recent literature on guilt appeals in advertising has explored aroused feelings as a result ofexposure to guilt appeals in advertising (Bozinoff & Ghingold 1983; Coulter & Pinto 1995;Delaney 2007; Mitchell et al. 2001; Pinto & Priest 1991). Types of guilt-induced feelings arelikely to mediate the relationships between guilt levels and green advertising effectiveness.

Past researchers have found that guilt appeals can activate, amplify or attenuate guilt andother emotions in varying degrees by advertisements (Bozinoff & Ghingold 1983; Coulter andPinto 1995; Delaney 2007; Lascu 1991; Mitchell et al. 2001; Pinto & Priest 1991). Lascu (1991)contended that negative emotions such as guilt arouse anxiety to a certain degree. For instance,Coulter and Pinto (1995) found that the high level of guilt appeal induced anger and the lowguilt appeal induced happiness. Moreover, they also found that a high level of guilt appealsinduced signicantly more negative emotions than either the moderate or low levels of guiltappeals. Bozinoff and Ghingold (1983) concluded that guilt appeals induced other emotionssuch as blame and regret. Pinto and Priest (1991) demonstrated evidence to support that guiltappeals aroused guilt, anger and happy emotions in varying degrees by the advertisement.

Advertising researchers continued to argue that aroused emotions after being exposed toan advertisement affect consumers attitudes and behaviours (Bozinoff & Ghingold 1983;Burnett & Lunsford 1994; Coulter & Pinto 1995; Delaney 2007; Ghingold 1981). In a simi-lar manner, Yi (1990) argued that induced feelings inuenced attitude formation of the ad-vertisement. Therefore, an aroused emotion after consumers were exposed to guilt appealgreen advertising can affect consumers Aad and Ab (Bozinoff & Ghingold 1983; Burnett &Lunsford 1994; Coulter & Pinto 1995). Coulter and Pinto (1995) concluded that the higherthe guilt-aroused feelings (for example, angryirritated emotions), the more negative Aad andAb consumers would develop. Bozinoff and Ghingold (1983) found similar results concluding

that the relationship between guilt arousal appeals and message-specic attitudes was mediatedby regret and blame. The higher the appeal was, the higher their feelings for blame and regretwere. Englis (1990) concurred that when exposed to an intense guilt appeal in an advertisement,consumers would experience higher levels of anger, other negative emotions and lower levelsof positive emotions.



7/25



The given discussion has demonstrated the relationship between guilt-induced feelings andadvertising effectiveness. Because guilt-induced feelings were formed after consumers were

exposed to green advertisements using guilt appeals, we argued that the mediating role ofguilt-induced feelings should be examined to better assess the effects of guilt appeal levels ongreen advertising effectiveness. Thus, the following two research hypotheses were proposed:

Research Hypothesis 3: Consumers guilt-induced negative feelings after exposure toguilt appeal in the green advertisements negatively inuenceconsumers Aad.

Research Hypothesis 4: Consumers guilt-induced negative feelings after exposure tothe green advertisements negatively inuence consumers Ab.

METHODOLOGY

Selection of Experimental Design

A post-test only between-subject experiment was conducted in order to establish causalrelationships between guilt appeal levels and participants Aad and Ab. The post-test onlyexperiment was chosen because it applied the highest degree of control, which enhanced itsinternal validity, and thus, its conclusions were accurate to this particular sample (Frey et al.2000). In order to establish the highest degree of control for internal validity, this experiment

manipulated the level of guilt appeals and the participants were randomly assigned to thetreatment to create at least two equivalent conditions as it was required to be considered afull and true experimental design (Patten 2005).

In addition, by using the post-test only between-subject design, participants were testedafter exposure to only one type of advertisement (containing either level of guilt appeal), andeach group was compared to assess their post-test attitudes towards the advertisement and thebrand (Frey et al. 2000). Frey et al. (2000) added that this was a very powerful design becauseit not only took care of potential selection threat (by using random assignment), but it didnot risk the sensitization threat. The sensitization threat might occur when participants takea pre-test that inuences the results of a subsequent post-test (Pyrczak 2003). This meansthat participants might become familiarized with the completed pre-test and their resultscores might improve signicantly on the post-test (Pyrczak 2003). This type of experimentwas also much easier to execute because participants were exposed only once to one type ofadvertisement and not multiple times to the different advertisements as the within-groupdesign would do (Frey et al. 2000).



8/25



Sampling Method and Sample Characteristics

The study used a convenient sampling method to recruit 140 students in a large metropolitansouthwestern university in the US to take part in the study. The convenience sampling methodhas the advantages of participants availability and willingness to volunteer, especially whenoffered some kind of reward (Frey et al. 2000; Pyrczak 2003). For that reason, the majority ofthe students were offered extra credit points by their professors for their participation in thestudy. Obermiller (1995) supported the use of convenience sampling if the research addressedtheoretical hypotheses or questions about the effects of different advertising appeals on othervariables, as it was the case of this study. He further added that convenience sampling wasappropriate when there was no intention to generalize to a bigger population (Obermiller1995).

It is important to note that from those 140 students participating in this experimentalstudy, some of them were removed from later data analysis on the basis of their responses toscreening questions to avoid the threat to internal validity due to participants prior brandknowledge. Some participants were removed when their responses were validated for apparenterrors. Consequently, the nal sample was composed of 121 students.

Table 1 gives the sample demographics. Slightly more than half of the students were males(50.4 per cent), while the other half was females (49.6 per cent). Regarding their age difference,the majority of the respondents were between the ages of 2024 years (67.8 per cent). Interms of their political ideology, almost half of the respondents considered themselves liberals(49.6 per cent). A very high number of these students were born in the US (n = 98), whichconstituted 81 per cent of the sample. In addition, the majority of the students ethnical back-ground was Latino-American, which represented 69.4 per cent of the participants. Finally, lessthan half of the students (43 per cent) reported to have a yearly income of below USD10,000.The rest of the students varied in terms of their income level (see Table 1).

Development of Experimental Stimuli

A pool of green advertisements from E-Magazine, an environmental magazine, was reviewedand selected for this study. This magazine was chosen because it targeted environmentally

concerned consumers (as stated in its website) and all of its advertisements promote envir-onmental causes or products. Magazine advertisements were chosen because of three mainreasons: they reached a national audience; they had verbal and visual components that mightcreate guilt; and they usually had an extended copy in which a variety of appeals, includingguilt appeals, may appear (Huhmann & Bertherton 1997).



9/25



In order to select the test advertisements, two procedures were conducted. The rst procedurewas undertaken by a panel of two independent coders (that is, a communication professor anda marketing professional). They analyzed the guilt advertisements the principal investigatorhad selected containing different levels of guilt appeals. There were 34 advertisements foundto have these characteristics from the issues September/October 2003 to January/February2007. The judges were provided with the written operational denition of guilt to code these34 advertisements.

The operational denition of guilt appeals was based on an attempt to obtain post-exposureemotional reactions (Unger & Stearns 1983). A low level of guilt appeal was operationalized

Table 1Demographic Profiles of the Sample

Personal Characteristics Cases PercentageGender Male 61 50.4

Female 60 49.6Age 1819 years old 10 8.3

2024 years old 82 67.82529 years old 21 17.43034 years old 3 2.53539 years old 2 1.74044 years old 1 0.845 and above 2 1.7

Political Ideology Conservative 26 22.2

Liberal 58 49.6Other 33 28.2Nationality US Citizen 98 81.0

Mexican Citizen 17 14.0Dual Citizenship 5 4.1Other 1 0.8

Ethnicity Caucasian/White 24 19.8Latino-American 84 69.4African-American 2 1.7Asian-American 1 0.8Other 10 8.3

Income Below US$10,000 49 43.0

US$10,001US$20,000 33 28.9US$20,001US$30,000 14 12.3US$30,001US$40,000 4 3.5US$40,001US$50,000 4 3.5US$50,001 and above 10 8.8

http://crc.sagepub.com/http://crc.sagepub.com/http://crc.sagepub.com/http://crc.sagepub.com/


10/25



as inhibiting the elicitation of felt guilt due to consumers lack of attention to the message(McGuire 1969) and evoking happyamused emotions formed by laughter, happiness, smile

and amusement (Coulter & Pinto 1995). A high level of guilt appeal was operationalizedas inhibiting the elicitation of felt guilt because of consumers rejection to the emotionaltension the message produces (McGuire 1969) evoking angerirritating emotions composedof irritated, annoyed and angry emotions (Coulter & Pinto 1995).

To avoid participants prior brand preference and brand liking, a ctitious brand name,Nature Generation, was created for the environmental cleaning product in the tested adver-tisements. Cleaning products were chosen because they are low cost and consumer non-durable products that students were likely to purchase. Research suggested that the productprice led to an increase in consumer involvement level (Schuhwerk & Lefkoff-Hagius 1995).In addition, it was important to select a product category that students were familiar withand was relevant to their daily life. This was based on the rationale that most college studentswould do their own laundry regardless of whether they lived in dorms, in their apartmentsor with their parents.

Two test advertisements, varying in levels of guilt appeals, were developed for this studyusing Photoshop software. The low guilt appeal advertisement was slightly modied to havean appealing visual image other than the products themselves as they appeared on the originaladvertisement. This image portrayed a drawn colourful house showing its interior, a familyliving there and its surroundings. It included trees, animals, mountains and streets. Most im-portantly, the picture contained the houses water system initiating from the water released

from the inside of the house, particularly the washer. This visual image was chosen because itreected the consequences of consumers actions. In addition, the slogan was modied stating:The conscious environmental actions start in your home with Nature Generation. This sloganaimed at eliciting readers elaboration about their actions in regards to the activities done athome. The copy of the advertisement promoted the cleaning products as chemical-free andfully biodegradable. The advertisement also added suggestions and statements of action thatprovided more evidence to support the environmental advantages of the advertised brand.

The high guilt appeal advertisement had the same visual image, but different statementsof action and suggestions compared to the low guilt appeal advertisement. However, theadvertisements copy was developed more aggressively to hold consumers responsible fortheir actions. The slogan utilized was the same. The objective of the high guilt appeal was toarouse guilt-related feelings for using other commercial products that do not help them orthe environment, but rather hurt animals and may lead to serious illnesses in themselves andtheir loved ones.



11/25



Manipulation Check

Pre-testing of the test advertisements was conducted to ensure the intended manipulation,while the manipulation check procedure was done to assess whether the guilt appeal level (lowand high) was successfully manipulated in the actual study. This was to determine that theparticipants evaluated these stimuli as intended and to ensure that the treatment was reliableand valid (Frey et al. 2000). On the basis of the operationalization of guilt, four items wereused to assess the manipulation check. These four items were modied from Coulter and Pinto(1995) and Plutchik (1980), including the following adjectives: after reading the advertisement,I feel blameworthy, annoyed, angry and upset. The scales used for the manipulation checkhad a Cronbachs alpha coefcient of 0.78.

One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) procedure was run to examine if the manipulation

of guilt levels in the test advertisements was successful. All variables selected for manipulationcheck demonstrated a signicant group difference between low and high guilt appeals. De-scriptive statistics between high versus low guilt appeal groups also showed that there was anumerical tendency showing that the low guilt appeal repeatedly had a lower score than thehigh guilt appeal in the four statements. The low guilt appeal was perceived as less blameworthy(M = 2.52, SD = 0.98), less annoying (M = 2.15, SD = 0.88), less anger provoking (M = 1.97,SD = 0.93) and less upsetting (M = 2.00, SD = 0.86) as compared to the high guilt appeal,which was perceived as more blameworthy (M = 2.95, SD = 1.06), more annoying (M = 2.53,SD = 1.01), more anger provoking (M = 2.45, SD = 1.08) and more upsetting (M = 2.41,

SD = 1.09).

Instrument Development, Construct Validity and Reliability

The study was taken from a large-scale study and only measures related to this study objectivesand questions are reported here. A booklet questionnaire was developed to measure participantsAad, Ab, guilt appeal levels, guilt-induced feelings and demographics.

Three 5-point semantic differential items ranging from 1 (lowest rating) to 5 (highestrating) were used to measure attitude towards the ad (Aad) (that is, unpleasantpleasant,unconvincingconvincing, unappealingappealing, badgood, harmfulbenecial, worthlessvaluable) (Wells 1964). A factor analysis procedure with principal component analysis andvarimax rotation was conducted to examine the construct validity of Aad. The factor analysisindicated that all three items of the attitude towards the advertisement measure loaded heavily(with factor loading from 0.77 to 0.87) on the factor with a Cronbachs alpha coefcientof 0.77.



12/25



Similarly, three 5-point semantic differential scales were developed to measure participantsattitude towards the brand (Ab) (Bruner et al. 1992). A similar factor analysis procedure with

principal component analysis and varimax rotation was conducted to examine construct valid-ity of Ab. All three items loaded heavily (with factor loadings from 0.80 to 0.88) on the brandattitude factor. The extracted factor also had a high Cronbachs alpha coefcient of 0.80.

Seventeen items measured guilt-induced feelings and guilt appeals and were derivedfrom Coulter and Pinto (1995) and Plutchik (1980). These statements used 5-point Likertscales with 1 representing strongly disagree and 5 representing strongly agree. To assess themultidimensionality of the guilt and guilt-aroused feeling scale, a similar factor analysis pro-cedure with principal component analysis and varimax rotation was conducted. Four factorswere extracted with Eigen values ranging from 5.55, 2.31, 2.26 to 1.17. Five items loaded heavily(with factor loading from 0.50 to 0.82) on the rst factor. These items were formed by thefollowing adjectives: angry, annoyed, upset, irritated and uneasy. On the basis of variables,Factor 1 was named, AngryIrritated Emotions Factor. Four items: ashamed, irresponsible,conscience-stricken and bad loaded most heavily (with factor loadings from 0.67 to 0.82) onthe second factor. The factor was categorized as AshamedBad Emotions Factor. The thirdextracted factor included four items: like smiling, happy, like laughing and amused, and wasnamed HappyAmused Emotions Factor. Three remaining items loaded most heavily (withfactor loadings from 0.60 to 0.76) on the fourth factor, covering accountable, blameworthyand guilty. The factor was labelled as Self-Conscious Emotions Factor (refer to Table 2).Cronbachs alpha coefcients were run for scale reliability. All four factors had high alphacoefcients: AngryIrritated Emotions ( = 0.86), AshamedBad Emotions ( = 0.84),HappyAmused Emotions ( = 0.73) and Self-Conscious Emotions ( = 0.71).

Participants demographic information, previous brand familiarity and participantsknowledge of studys objectives were also measured.

FINDINGS

The Effects of Guilt Appeal Level on Green Advertising Effectiveness

Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) procedure was used to assess the effects of guiltappeal levels on consumers Aad and Ab that measured green advertising effectiveness. Cronk(2004) discussed that one of the prerequisites in order to run MANOVA was to determine ifthe dependent variables were conceptually correlated with each other. Therefore, in order todetermine the strength of the linear relationship between Aad and Ab, correlation procedurewas performed. The results indicated that the relationship between Aad and Ab had a moderate



13/25



positive correlation (r = 0.68, p = 0.00 < 0.01). Overall, the Pearson correlation suggested thatthe two dependent variables were correlated to each other. Therefore, MANOVA procedurewas appropriate.

One-way MANOVA was executed to examine main effects of level of guilt (low or high guiltappeal) on Aad and Ab. Statistically signicant effects were found (Wilks Lambda, F = 3.12,p 0.05) (see Table 3). This meant that Aad and Ab were signicantly inuenced by level ofguilt in the test green advertisements.

Because the MANOVA analysis reported the model had signicant effects, a follow-upunivariate ANOVA procedure was conducted. It is important to note that univariate ANOVAis a very powerful analysis because it assesses the effects of the independent variable(s) and theeffect of the interaction (Cronk 2004). The ANOVA results indicated that the Aad and Ab weresignicantly inuenced by level of guilt in the ad (see Table 4). Participants attitude towardsthe green advertisement (Aad) (F = 4.44, p < 0.05) were affected by level of guilt appeal in thead. The same signicant main effects were for participants attitude towards the brand (Ab)(F = 5.87, p < 0.05). Overall, level of guilt (experimental condition) inuenced consumersAad and the Ab. Both Hypotheses 1 and 2 were supported by the empirical data.

Table 5 suggests that respondents had more positive Aad with a low guilt appeal (M = 3.42,SD = 0.80) than those with a high guilt appeal (M = 3.10, SD = 0.87). In terms of Ab, the

Table 2Guilt and Guilt-Aroused Feeling Measures (Principal Component Analysis with Varimax Rotation)

Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4After reading the ad, I feel angry. 0.82After reading the ad, I feel annoyed. 0.81After reading the ad, I feel irritated. 0.77After reading the ad, I feel upset. 0.74After reading the ad, I feel uneasy. 0.50After reading the ad, I feel good.After reading the ad, I feel ashamed. 0.82After reading the ad, I feel irresponsible. 0.82After reading the ad, I feel conscience-stricken. 0.77After reading the ad, I feel bad. 0.67After reading the ad, I feel like smiling. 0.79After reading the ad, I feel happy. 0.74After reading the ad, I feel like laughing. 0.69After reading the ad, I feel amused. 0.60After reading the ad, I feel accountable. 0.76After reading the ad, I feel blameworthy. 0.71After reading the ad, I feel guilty. 0.60



14/25



Table 3Manova Test for Level of Guilt

Effect Value F Hypothesis df p-valuePartial Eta

Squared Observed

Power

Intercept Pillais Trace 0.96 1474.92 2.00 0.00 0.96 1.00Wilks Lambda 0.04 1474.92 2.00 0.00 0.96 1.00Hotellings Trace 24.99 1474.92 2.00 0.00 0.96 1.00Roys Largest Root 24.99 1474.92 2.00 0.00 0.96 1.00

Experiment Pillais Trace 0.05 3.12 2.00 0.05 0.05 0.59Wilkis Lambda 0.95 3.12 2.00 0.05 0.05 0.59Hotellings Trace 0.05 3.12 2.00 0.05 0.05 0.59Roys Lartest Root 0.05 3.12 2.00 0.05 0.05 0.59

Note: p < 0.05;p < 0.01;p < 0.001.

Table 4Univariate Anova for Level of Guilt and Aad and Ab

SourceDependent

Variable

Type IIISum ofSquares Df

MeanSquare F p-value

PartialEta

Squared Observed

Power

Corrected Model Aad 3.09 1 3.09 4.44 0.04 0.04 0.55Ab 3.48 1 3.48 5.87 0.02 0.05 0.67

Intercept Aad 1286.40 1 1286.40 1849.73 0.00 0.94 1.00Ab 1709.17 1 1709.17 2885.42 0.00 0.96 1.00

Experiment Aad 3.09 1 3.09 4.44 0.04 0.04 0.55Ab 3.48 1 3.48 5.87 0.02 0.05 0.67

Error Aad 82.76 119 0.70Ab 70.49 119

Total Aad 1379.67 121Ab 1792.44 121

Note: p < 0.05;p < 0.01;p < 0.001.

tendency seemed to be the same. Respondents had more positive Ab that employed a lowguilt appeal (M = 3.93, SD = 0.72) than for the one utilizing a high guilt appeal (M = 3.59,SD = 0.82) (see Table 5).

The Mediating Effects of Guilt-Induced Feelings on Green Advertising Effectiveness

Guilt-induced feelings were used as covariates because the model selected for this studyattempted to examine whether guilt-induced feelings had any mediating effects on the inter-actions between level of guilt (experimental condition), Aad and Ab. Using guilt-induced



15/25



feelings as covariates helped determine the signicance of the effects that existed among theseinteractions. To test the meditating effects of guilt-induced feelings, multivariate analysis ofcovariance (MANCOVA) was performed. According to Frey et al. (2000), the MANCOVA isan extension of analysis of covariance that examines differences among groups on multipleand related dependent variables. This multivariate difference analysis statistically controls forthe effects of potentially confounding covariates (Mertler and Vannatta 2002).

In this study, the covariate factors were three guilt-induced feelings: AngryIrritated Emo-tions, AshamedBad Emotions and Self-Conscious Emotions. HappyAmused Emotions wasnot considered in the analysis because this factor was composed of positive feelings as opposedto the rest of the other three factors which were composed of negative feelings. Therefore,HappyAmused Emotions factor was removed from the analysis.

Table 6 shows that the AngryIrritated Emotions factor had signicant main effects (WilksLambda, F = 8.15, p < 0.001) as well as the Self-Conscious Emotions factor, which displayedstatistically signicant main effects (Wilks Lambda, F = 11.41, p < 0.001) on respondents Aadand Ab. On the other hand, the AshamedBad Emotions factor indicated to have no signicanteffects (Wilks Lambda, F = 0.07, p > 0.05). In addition, guilt appeal level in the green adscontinued to display main effects (Wilks Lambda, F = 3.20, p < 0.001) (see Table 6).

Since the MANCOVA procedure reported the model had signicant main effects, uni-variate ANOVA was conducted to assess the inuence of the guilt level. Table 7 indicates thatsignicant effects existed between AngryIrritated Emotions and Aad (F = 15.98, p < 0.001)and Ab (F = 8.46, p < 0.01). The same instance occurred between the Self-Conscious Emo-tions and Aad (F = 20.74, p < 0.001) and Ab (F = 15.24, p < 0.001). The results also concurredthat the level of guilt factor (experimental condition) had also main effects on Aad and Ab aspreviously found. Overall, guilt-induced feelings, particularly AngryIrritated Emotions factorand SelfConscious Emotions factor, inuenced respondents Aad and Ab (see Table 7).

Table 5Descriptive Statistics for Level of Guilt on Aad and Ab

Experiment Condition Mean Std. Deviation N Respondents attitude towards the testedadvertisements Low Guilt Appeal 3.42 0.80 63

High Guilt Appeal 3.10 0.87 58Total 3.27 0.85 121

Respondents attitude towards the tested brand Low Guilt Appeal 3.93 0.72 63High Guilt Appeal 3.59 0.82 58Total 3.77 0.76 121



16/25

T a

b l e 6

M A N C O V A T e s t

f o r

t h e

T h r e e

G u i

l t - I n d u c e d

F e e l

i n g s

F a c t o r s a s

C o v a r i a t e s

E f f e c t

V a l u e

F

H y p o t

h e s i s d f

p - v a

l u e

P a r t i a l E t a

S q u a r e

d

O

b s e r v e

d

P o w e r

I n t e r c e p t

P i l l a i s T r a c e

0 . 5 3

6 5 . 3

8

2 . 0 0

0 . 0 0

0 . 5 3

1 . 0 0

W i l k s L a m

b d a

0 . 4 7

6 5 . 3

8

2 . 0 0

0 . 0 0

0 . 5 3

1 . 0 0

H o t e l

l i n g s T r a c e

1 . 1 4

6 5 . 3

8

2 . 0 0

0 . 0 0

0 . 5 3

1 . 0 0

R o y s L a r g e s t R o o t

1 . 1 4

6 5 . 3

8

2 . 0 0

0 . 0 0

0 . 5 3

1 . 0 0

A n g r y I r r i t a t e d E m o t i o n s F a c t o r


0 . 1 2

8 . 1 5

2 . 0 0

0 . 0 0

0 . 1 2

0 . 9 6

W i l k s L a m

b d a

0 . 8 8

8 . 1 5

2 . 0 0

0 . 0 0

0 . 1 2

0 . 9 6

H o t e l

l i n g s T r a c e

0 . 1 4

8 . 1 5

2 . 0 0

0 . 0 0

0 . 1 2

0 . 9 6


0 . 1 4

8 . 1 5

2 . 0 0

0 . 0 0

0 . 1 2

0 . 9 6

A s h a m e d B a d E m o t i o n s F a c t o r


0 . 0 0

0 . 0 7

2 . 0 0

0 . 9 4

0 . 0 0

0 . 0 6

W i l k s L a m

b d a

1 . 0 0

0 . 0 7

2 . 0 0

0 . 9 4

0 . 0 0

0 . 0 6

H o t e l

l i n g s T r a c e

0 . 0 0

0 . 0 7

2 . 0 0

0 . 9 4

0 . 0 0

0 . 0 6


0 . 0 0

0 . 0 7

2 . 0 0

0 . 9 4

0 . 0 0

0 . 0 6

S e l f - C o n s c i o u s E m o t i o n s F a c t o r


0 . 1 7

1 1 . 4

1

2 . 0 0

0 . 0 0

0 . 1 7

0 . 9 9

W i l k s L a m

b d a

0 . 8 3

1 1 . 4

1

2 . 0 0

0 . 0 0

0 . 1 7

0 . 9 9

H o t e l

l i n g s T r a c e

0 . 2 0

1 1 . 4

1

2 . 0 0

0 . 0 0

0 . 1 7

0 . 9 9


0 . 2 0

1 1 . 4

1

2 . 0 0

0 . 0 0

0 . 1 7

0 . 9 9

E x p e r i m e n t


0 . 0 5

3 . 2 0

2 . 0 0

0 . 0 4

0 . 0 5

0 . 6 0

W i l k s L a m

b d a

0 . 9 5

3 . 2 0

2 . 0 0

0 . 0 4

0 . 0 5

0 . 6 0

H o t e l

l i n g s T r a c e

0 . 0 6

3 . 2 0

2 . 0 0

0 . 0 4

0 . 0 5

0 . 6 0


0 . 0 6

3 . 2 0

2 . 0 0

0 . 0 4

0 . 0 5

0 . 6 0

N o t e : p

< 0 . 0

5 ; p

< 0 . 0

1 ; p

< 0 . 0

0 1 .



17/25

T a

b l e 7

U n i v a r i a t e

A N O V A f o r T h r e e

G u i

l t - I n d u c e d

F e e l

i n g s

F a c t o r s a n

d A a d a n

d A b

S o u r c e

D e p e n

d e n t

V a r i a

b l e

T y p e I I I S u m

o f S q u a r e s

d f

M e a n

S q u a r e

F

p - v a

l u e

P a r t i a l E t a

S q u a r e

d

O b s e r v e

d

P o w e r

C o r r e c t e d M o d e l

A a d

2 2 . 9

0

4

5 . 7 2

1 0 . 5

5

0 . 0 0

0 . 2 7

1 . 0 0

A b

1 5 . 4

9

4

3 . 8 7

7 . 6

8

0 . 0 0

0 . 2 1

1 . 0 0

I n t e r c e p t

A a d

4 3 . 0

3

1

4 3 . 0

3

7 9 . 2

8

0 . 0 0

7 9 . 2

8

1 . 0 0

A b

6 2 . 2

3

1

6 2 . 2

3

1 2 3 . 4

5

0 . 0 0

0 . 5 2

1 . 0 0

A n g r y I r r i t a t e d E m o t i o n s F a c t o r

A a d

8 . 6 7

1

8 . 6 7

1 5 . 9

8

0 . 0 0

0 . 1 2

0 . 9 8

A b

4 . 2 7

1

4 . 2 7

8 . 4

6

0 . 0 0

0 . 0 7

0 . 8 2

A s h a m e d B a d E m o t i o n s F a c t o r

A a d

0 . 0 7

1

0 . 0 7

0 . 1

2

0 . 7 3

0 . 0 0

0 . 0 6

A b

0 . 0 1

1

0 . 0 1

0 . 0

1

0 . 9 2

0 . 0 0

0 . 0 5

S e l f - C o n s c i o u s E m o t i o n s F a c t o r

A a d

1 1 . 2

5

1

1 1 . 2

5

2 0 . 7

4

0 . 0 0

0 . 1 5

1 . 0 0

A b

7 . 6 8

1

7 . 6 8

1 5 . 2

4

0 . 0 0

0 . 1 2

0 . 9 7

E x p e r i m e n t

A a d

2 . 2 6

1

2 . 2 6

4 . 1

6

0 . 0 4 *

0 . 0 4

0 . 5 3

A b

2 . 9 7

1

2 . 9 7

5 . 8

8

0 . 0 2 *

0 . 0 4

0 . 5 3

E r r o r

A a d

6 2 . 9

5

1 1 6

0 . 5 4

A b

5 8 . 4

8

1 1 6

0 . 5 0

T o t a l

A a d

1 3 7 9 . 6

7

1 2 1

A b

1 7 9 2 . 4

4

N o t e : p

< 0 . 0

5 ; p

< 0 . 0

1 ; p

< 0 . 0

0 1 .



18/25



DISCUSSIONS

The Influence of Guilt Appeals on Green Advertising EffectivenessThe importance of guilt appeals in inuencing consumers responses to the green advertisementshave been supported by past advertising studies (Bozinoff & Ghingold 1983; Coulter & Pinto1995; Pinto & Priest 1991). Coulter and Pinto (1995) contended that the level of the guiltappeal might inuence attitudes and behavioural intentions. Their results provided evidenceto support that consumers attitudes were more favourable when exposed to low and moderateguilt appeals. These results were similar to the ones found in this study because the ndingssupported that the effect of the guilt appeals signicantly affected Aad and Ab. An inverserelationship between the guilt level and the consumers attitudes (towards the advertisement

and the brand) has been found in this study.Coulter and Pinto (1995) also suggested that the higher the level of the guilt appeal, the

higher the possibility of a negative reaction indicating the inuence of guilt appeals on con-sumers attitudes. The empirical data supported that the level of guilt appeals signicantly andinversely affected consumers Aad. In fact, the higher the guilt appeal, the lower the consumersAad. This was supported by participants favourable evaluation of the advertisements con-taining low guilt appeals and unfavourable evaluation of the advertisements displaying a highguilt appeal. Similarly, Pinto and Priest (1991) found an inverse relationship between theparticipants Aad and the level of guilt appeal. Their ndings suggested that Aad was morefavourable as the intensity of the guilt appeal decreased. As previously discussed, high guiltappeals in advertisements were often negatively evaluated because they might be perceivedas an attack of ones self or own behaviour (Coulter & Pinto 1995). They argued that as con-sumers believed that the message in a regular advertisement was trying to force a response,they tended to respond unfavourably due to their perceived deprivation of freedom. Empiricaldata from the experiment supported such an inverse relationship between guilt appeal leveland Aad.

Past studies have found Aad predicted Ab (Batra & Ray 1986; MacKenzie & Lutz 1989).A linear regression analysis found that Aad signicantly predicted Ab ( = 0.63, t = 10.21,p < 0.001). Therefore, it is not surprising that the results obtained for Aad are similar to thoseof Ab. In particular, the higher the guilt appeal, the less favourable the evaluation of the brandadvertised, just as was the case of Aad. As demonstrated by this studys results, guilt appealsinuence Aad and Ab in the same manner.

Results from this research suggest that the type of guilt appeal signicantly inuencedAb. The exploratory study seemed to suggest that attitudes towards the brand were morefavourable as the level of the guilt appeal decreased, as noted by participants preference for



19/25



the brand that employed a low guilt appeal as opposed to the high guilt appeal. As mentionedearlier, other scholars found (for example, Coulter & Pinto 1995; Englis 1990; Pinto & Priest

1991) similar results in terms of the inverse relationship between guilt appeal and Ab; that is,the higher the guilt appeal, the lower the respondents attitude towards the advertised brand.The literature and this studys ndings suggested that in the context of green advertising, theuse of low guilt appeals seemed to be more effective for green brands than those appeals thataggressively attack the respondents for not being environmentally conscious.

These ndings provided evidence to support that the guilt appeal levels in the advertisementinuenced consumers Aad and Ab. The empirical ndings demonstrated that the high guiltappeals were less preferred than those appeals that portrayed less guilt arguments. Theseresults implied that guilt appeals can be designed to create favourable attitudinal evaluations(Bozinoff & Ghingold 1983; Coulter & Pinto 1995). The rationale follows the fact that guiltappeals that caused lower levels of guilt feelings and more anger feelings turned out to beless effective in communicating with their audiences as opposed to the guilt appeals designedto make consumers environmentally conscious by arousing higher levels of guilt and lessangryirritating emotions. However, careful analysis requires that guilt be distinguishedfrom other negative emotions that might not have the same effects on attitudes (Huhmann &Brotherton 1997). That is, guilt appeals demonstrated to be independent of other negativeemotional appeals such as fear appeals, which when designed in a similar way as the guiltappeals, might actually generate favourable evaluations among consumers. Therefore, the ap-plicability of these ndings only corresponds to guilt appeals and not other similar negative

emotional appeals.

The Mediating Effects of Guilt-Induced Feelings on Green Advertising Effectiveness

The empirical ndings only found that angryirritated emotions and self-conscious emotionsaffected signicantly participants Aad, while ashamedbad emotions did not. In this study,Aad was more favourable when feelings elicited by the advertisement evoked more self-conscious emotions than angryirritating emotions and vice versa. Empirical ndings fromthe experiment showed that guilt-induced feelings mediated the effects of the guilt appealsand respondents Aad. Respondents Aad seemed to favour the advertisements containingless guilt statements that induced less angryirritating emotions and more self-consciousemotions. Conversely, those advertisements portraying more guilt statements that inducedmore angryirritating emotions and less self-conscious emotions were less accepted. In otherwords, results demonstrated that respondents Aad was more favourable when exposed to a



20/25


21/25



to feel angryirritated and self-conscious to some degree, which allowed them to form theirAad and Ab.

These ndings once again concurred with the fact that guilt appeals can be designedto induce different emotions (Bozinoff & Ghingold 1983). The low guilt appeal inducedmore self-conscious than angryirritating emotions. The high guilt appeal aroused moreangryirritating emotions and less conscious emotions. This was not surprising because guiltwas dened as a negative emotion that has been found to trigger both positive and negativeemotions (Bozinoff & Ghingold 1983).

The differences between self-conscious emotions and angerirritating emotions providethe rationale to elaborate why participants had more favourable advertisement attitudes andthe brand attitudes towards the appeal that induced less angerirritating emotions and moreguilt-induced self-conscious emotions than its counterpart. The differences between the twoemotions start with their own denitions. Self-conscious emotions are more complex cognitiveemotions and angryirritating emotions are more basic emotions (Tracy & Robins 2004). Inaddition, the elicitation of the self-conscious emotions requires the ability to evaluate oneself,the reection of oneself and ones own representation in the world in order to determine anydiscrepancies among these (Tracy & Robins 2004). On the contrary, angryirritating emo-tions are an impulsive reaction, an automatic and immediate aroused emotion that does notengage in self-evaluations (Tracy & Robins 2004), that is, only self-conscious emotions leadto self-evaluations and might generate basic emotions. In this manner, it could be argued thatangryirritating emotions are irrational (more impulsive) and self-conscious emotions aremore rational in their processes.

CONCLUSION

Theoretical Contributions

This study contributed to our understanding of guilt appeals in affecting consumers attitudestowards the green advertisement and advertised brand. The results suggested that guilt appealsdid inuence Aad and Ab. Respondents preferred the low guilt appeal over the high guilt appealin the green advertisement. These ndings provide some preliminary understandingtheunderstanding mechanism in employing guilt appeal in green advertising to inuence attitudessuch as Aad and Ab.

Another important nding demonstrated the power of guilt-induced feelings in under-standing its mediating effect on green advertising effectiveness. In particular, the results ad-vanced our knowledge about the role of guilt-induced emotions by showing the relevance of



22/25



negative appeals in determining advertising effectiveness. Guilt-induced feelings, particularlyself-conscious emotions and angerirritating emotions, also provided support to determine

their mediating effects on Aad and Ab. An important marketing implication is that guilt-induced feelings by a guilt appeal may raise consumers environmental consciousness to someextent. This raises the question of which other negative appeals may be effective in arousingconsumers environmental consciousness, which, in the end, can help develop more successfuland effective green advertising campaigns.

The theoretical implications of guilt appeals and guilt-induced feelings are that bothcontribute signicantly to inuence Aad and Ab. However, guilt-induced feelings of angryirritating and self-conscious emotions provided an insightful justication for participantspreferring the advertisements that contained low guilt appeals than the high guilt appeals.Therefore, guilt appeals may be designed to be a successful inducer of positive evaluationsas well as more positive than negative guilt-induced feelings if appropriately managed.

Limitations of the Study

One limitation was that the test advertisements used in this study to elicit consumers guilt andguilt-induced feelings relied on textual information (such as slogans and product description).Coulter and Pinto (1995) and Huhmann and Brotherton (1997) argued that both componentsof an advertisement may create guilt in the viewer. Future study can explore the inuenceof textual and graphic messages in the elicitation of guilt and guilt-induced feelings among

respondents to better assess their relative effectiveness in green advertising. Similarly, guiltappeals were operationalized as either high or low guilt level in this study. Future study caninclude moderate guilt level to assess its inuence on Aad and Ab as well as guilt-inducedfeelings (Coulter & Pinto 1995).

The use of college students as participants in this experimental study took into considerationnot only convenience and time factors, but also the fact that the student population is animportant market segment for green marketers because of their tendency to accept environ-mental causes. Although college student sample is not representative of the overall population,understanding students responses to green advertisements is important because of their rolein affecting other people around them to become more environment conscious. Nevertheless,generalization from this study should be limited to student population only. Future study thatexplores other segments in the US should help marketers to better understand whether andhow different populations respond to guilt appeals in green advertising.

Finally, because the decision to purchase green products involves other marketing com-munication variables, variables such as consumer involvement, prior green purchase behaviour



23/25



and environmental attitudes should be examined to study whether these factors can affect theeffectiveness of green advertising.

Marissa Jimnez , Care Health Plan, Public Relations Specialist, Los Angeles, California. E-mail:[email protected] Kenneth C.C. Yang (corresponding author) is Associate Professor of Advertising, Department ofCommunication, The University of Texas at El Paso, 500 W. University Avenue, El Paso, TX 79968-0566.E-mail: [email protected]

REFERENCES

Banerjee, S., C.S. Gulas & E. Iyer. (1995). Shades of green: A multidimensional analysis of environmentaladvertising. Journal of Advertising , 24(2), 2131.

Batra, R. & M.L. Ray. (1986). Affective responses mediating acceptance of advertising. Journal of ConsumerResearch, 13(2), 23449.

Bhate, S. (2001). One world, one environment, one vision: Are we close to achieving this? An exploratorystudy of consumer environmental behavior across three countries. Journal of Consumer Behavior , 2(2),16985.

Blackwell, R.D., P.W. Miniard & J.F. Engel. (2001). Consumer behavior . Orlando, FL: Harcourt CollegePublishers.

Bozinoff, L. & M. Ghingold. (1983). Evaluating guilt arousing marketing communications. Journal of BusinessResearch, 11(2), 24355.

Bruner, G.C., P.J. Hensel & K.E. James. (1992). Marketing scales handbook: A compilation of multi-item meas-ures. Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association.

Burnett, M.S. & D.A. Lunsford. (1994). Conceptualizing guilt in the consumers decision-making process. Journal of Consumer Marketing , 11(3), 3343.

Carlson, L.C., S.A. Grove & N. Kangun. (1993). A content analysis of environmental advertising claims:A matrix method approach. Journal of Advertising , 22(3), 2739.

Coulter, R.H. & M.B. Pinto. (1995). Guilt appeals in advertising: What are their effects? Journal of AppliedPsychology , 80(5), 697705.

Cronk, B.C. (2004). How to use SPSS: A step-by-step guide to analysis and interpretation (3rd edition). Glendale,CA: Pyrczak Publishing.

Delaney, J. (2007). Guilt appeals in advertising: A new model. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the

NCA 93rd Annual Convention, Chicago, IL, 15 November, Retrieved December 20, 2008 from http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p191723_index.html

DSouza, C. & M. Taghian. (2005). Green advertising effects on attitude and choice of advertising themes. Asia and Pacic Journal of Marketing and Logistic , 17(3), 5166.

Edell, J.A. & M.C. Burke. (1987). The power of feelings in understanding advertising effects. Journal ofConsumer Research, 14(3), 42133.



24/25



Ellen, P.S., J.L. Wiener & C. Cobb-Walgren. (1991). The role of perceived consumer effectiveness in motivat-ing environmentally conscious behavior. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing , 10(6), 10217.

Englis, B.G. (1990). Consumer emotional reactions to television advertising and their effects on message recall.In S.J. Agres, J.A. Edell & T.M. Dubisky (eds), Emotion is advertising: Theoretical and practical applications (pp. 23153). New York: Quorum Books.

Fox, K.F. & P. Kotler. (1980). The marketing of social causes: The rst 10 years. Journal of Marketing , 44(4), 10217.

Frey, L.R., C.H. Botan & G.L. Kreps. (2000). Investigating communication: An introduction to research methods (2nd edition). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Ghingold, M. (1981). Guilt arousing marketing communications: An unexplored variable. Advances in Con-sumer Research, 8(1), 44248.

Huhmann, B.A. & T.P. Brotherton. (1997). A content analysis of guilt appeals in popular magazine adver-tisements. The Journal of Advertising , 26(2), 3545.

Iyer, E. & B. Banerjee. (1993). Anatomy of green advertising. Advances in Consumer Research, 20, 494501.Krn , J., H. Juslin, V. Ahonen & E. Hansen. (2001). Greenwash or a true reexion of marketing strategies?

Green Management International , 33 (January), 5970.Kugler, K. & W.H. Jones. (1992). On conceptualizing and assessing guilt. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology , 62(2), 31827.Lascu, D.-N. (1991). Consumer guilt: Examining the potential of a new marketing construct. Advances in

Consumer Research, 18(1), 29095.Lutz, R.J., S.B. MacKenzie & G.E. Belch. (1983). Attitude toward the ad as a mediator of advertising effect-

iveness: Determinants and consequences. In R.P. Bagozzi & A.M. Tybout (Eds), Advances in ConsumerResearch, Vol. 3 (pp. 53241). Ann Arbor, MI: Association of Consumer Research.

MacKenzie, S.B. & R.J. Lutz. (1989). An empirical examination of the structural antecedents of attitudetoward the ad in an advertising pretesting context. Journal of Marketing , 53(1), 4865.

McGuire, W.J. (1969). The nature of attitudes and attitude change. In G. Lindzey & E. Aroson (eds), The handbook of social psychology , 2nd ed., vol. 3 (pp. 136314). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Mertler, C.A. & Vannatta, R.A. (2002). Advanced and multivariate statistical methods: Practical applicationand interpretation. Los Angeles: Pyrczak.

Mitchell, M.M., K.M. Brown, M. Morris-Villagran & P.D. Villagran. (2001). The effects of anger, sadnessand happiness on persuasive message processing: A test of the negative state relief model. Communica-tion Mnographs , 68(4), 34759.

Morris, L.A., M. Hastak & M.B. Mazis. (1995). Consumer comprehension of environmental advertising andlabeling claims. The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 29(2), 32850.

Motavalli, J. (2004). The number game. E-Magazine, 1(January/February), 2733.Obermiller, C. (1995). The baby is sick/the baby is well: A test of environmental communication appeals.

Journal of Advertising , 24(2), 5570.Olney, T.J. (1991). The commercialization of the environment. In R. Holman (ed.), Proceedings of the 1991

conference of the american academy of advertising (pp. 17477). New York: DArcy Masius Benton andBowles.

Patten, M.L. (2005). Understanding research methods: An overview of the essentials (5th edition). Glendale,CA: Pyrczak Publishing.



25/25



Peattie, S. & K. Peattie. (2003). Ready to y solo? Reducing social marketings dependence on commercialmarketing Theory. Marketing Theory , 3(3), 36585.

Pinto, M.B. & S. Priest. (1991). Guilt appeals in advertising: An exploratory study. Psychological Reports, 69,37585.

Planalp, S., S. Hafen & A.D. Adkins. (2000). Messages of shame and guilt. Communication Yearbook, 23,165.

Plutchik, R. (1980). Emotion: A psychoevolutionary synthesis. New York: Harper and Row.Pyrczak, F. (2003). Making sense of statistics. A conceptual overview (3rd edition). Los Angeles, CA: Pyrczak

Publishing.Schuhwerk, M.E. & R. Lefkoff-Hagius. (1995). Green or non-green? Does type of appeal matter when ad-

vertising a green product? Journal of Advertising , 24(2), 4554.Stafford, M.R., T.F. Stafford & J. Chowdhury. (1996). Predispositions toward green issues: The potential

efcacy of advertising appeals. Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising , 18(1), 6779.The Associated Press. (2006). U.S. population consumers its way to 300 million (Publication no. BC-300

Million Milestone). Retrieved 14 November 2006.Tracy, J.L. & R.W. Robins. (2004). Putting the self into self-conscious emotions: A theoretical model.

Psychological Inquiry , 15(2), 10325.Unger, L.S. & J.M. Stearns. (1983). The use of fear and guilt messages in television advertising: Issues and

evidence. In P.E. Murphy & G.R. Laczniak (Eds), American marketing association educators proceedings (pp. 1620). Chicago: American Marketing Association.

Wagner, E.R. & E.N. Hansen. (2002). Methodology for evaluating green advertising of forest products in theUnited States: A content analysis. Forest Products Journal , 52(4), 1723.

Wells, W.D. (1964). EQ, Son of EQ and the reaction prole. Journal of Marketing , 28(4), 4552.Wiener, J.L. & T.A. Doescher. (1991). A framework for promoting cooperation. Journal of Marketing ,

55(92), 3847.

Wong, V., W. Turner & P. Stoneman. (1996). Marketing strategies and market prospects for environmentally-friendly consumer products. British Journal of Management , 7(3), 26381.Yi, Y. (1990). Cognitive and affective priming effects of the context for print advertisements. Journal of Adver-

tising , 19(2), 4049.Zinkhan, G.M. & L. Carlson. (1995). Green advertising and reluctant consumer. Journal of Advertising ,

24(2), 16.

Documents

Green Advertising Effectiveness