See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233696548

How Influential are Corporate Credibility and

Endorser Attractiveness When Innovators
React to Advertisements for a Ne....

Article in Corporate Reputation Review · January 2004

DOI: 10.1057/palgrave.crr.1540209

CITATIONS READS

56 647

2 authors:

Barbara A. Lafferty Ronald E. Goldsmith

University of South Florida Florida State University
26 PUBLICATIONS 2,554 CITATIONS 265 PUBLICATIONS 11,425 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

International Retailing, 3rd edition for Fairchild (NYC) View project

money worlds View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ronald E. Goldsmith on 06 January 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Corporate Reputation Review
Corporate Reputation Review,
Vol. 7, No. 1, 2004, pp. 24–36
# Henry Stewart Publications,
1363–3589
Page 24
Volume 7 Number 1
How Influential are Corporate Credibility and
Endorser Attractiveness When Innovators
React to Advertisements for a New High-
Technology Product?
Barbara A. Lafferty
University of South Florida
Ronald E. Goldsmith
Florida State University
ABSTRACT
The introduction of new technological products
makes it important for marketers to understand
how innovators or first adopters respond to per-
suasion cues. In this study, corporate credibility
and endorser attractiveness were manipulated to
determine their relative influence on innovators’
attitudes toward the brand and their purchase
intentions. The degree of consumers’ innova-
tiveness for cell phones as well as their percep-
tions of the newness of the advertised product
were measured independent variables. Subjects
(n = 81) were shown an advertisement for a
fictitious new cell phone. The results showed
that consumer innovativeness and perceived pro-
duct newness were independent constructs that
had independent effects on attitude toward the
brand and purchase intent for the new product.
The results also suggested that corporate cred-
ibility was equally important to innovators and
non-innovators, and endorser attractiveness was
relatively unimportant to both in assessing a
new high-technology product. Thus, marketers
and advertisers may want to consider all four
variables when developing promotional cam-
paigns for new high-technology products.
INTRODUCTION
How consumers react to advertisements is
of perennial concern to marketing theory
and practice. The large body of research
on advertising effectiveness contains many
generalizations about the elements of per-
suasive advertising. One important com-
ponent is the reputation or image of the
sponsoring company, especially the credibil-
ity of the corporation whose product is
being advertised (Fombrun, 1996).
Another, and more widely studied aspect
of advertising is the influence of spokesper-
son or endorser credibility on advertising
effectiveness (Ohanian, 1990, 1991).
Recent studies have shown that both of
these source factors can influence consu-
mer reactions to advertised brands (Gold-
smith et al., 2000a, b; Lafferty and
Goldsmith, 1999), but little attention has
been given to examining their relative
importance or whether their impact
depends on how innovative the consumers
are who view the advertisements. Innova-
tive consumers are important to new pro-
duct success. How innovative consumers
react to advertisements for new products
may influence their evaluation of the pro-
duct and, hence, whether they will buy it
or not. Since source effects such as corpo-
rate and spokesperson credibility are key
features of many advertisements, it is
important to assess how innovative consu-

mers react to them. This topic also contri-
butes to the ongoing assessment of source
effects by introducing potential moderator
variables to the model, thereby expanding
its theoretical scope. The present study
was conceived to address these issues.
Moreover, research on credibility effects
generally has focused on advertisements for
existing products. Less attention has been
paid to credibility effects using advertise-
ments for new products or product modifi-
cations that are perceived as new. The
important difference is that with new pro-
ducts, consumers are faced with the more
demanding task of evaluating a unique or
unfamiliar market offering. The majority
of new product introductions are modifica-
tions of existing products that are perceived
to be different and distinctly better, such as
new models of cars, computers, or cell
phones (Pride and Ferrell, 2000: 272). Prior
experience, knowledge, or involvement
with the product category may influence
consumer evaluations (eg Bettman and
Sujan, 1987), leading some consumers to
evaluate new products more deeply and
thoughtfully. Thus, this study also exam-
ines the influence of perceived newness of the
product on brand attitudes and purchase
intent.
Finally, another individual difference
variable that is likely to have a differential
effect on brand evaluations and purchase
intent for new products is the degree of
consumer innovativeness. Consumer innova-
tiveness may not only influence whether
consumers adopt a new product, it may
also play a role in the perceptions of new-
ness of the product (Klink and Smith,
2001). If the product is perceived as new, it
may be placed into the ‘innovation’ cate-
gory and, thus, it will be evaluated accord-
ingly (Cestre and Darmon, 1998).
The purpose of this study is to assess
how corporate credibility and one aspect of
endorser credibility (attractiveness) affect
how innovative consumers evaluate a high-
Lafferty and Goldsmith
technology product (a cell phone) when it
is perceived to be new. The authors tested
specific hypotheses relating to corporate
credibility, endorser attractiveness, consu-
mer innovativeness, and perceived product
newness. The authors manipulated both
corporate credibility and endorser attrac-
tiveness and measured consumer innova-
tiveness and perceived product newness to
assess their influence on attitudes toward
the brand and purchase intentions. Finally,
implications, limitations, and directions for
future research are discussed.
BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESES
Corporate Credibility
The importance of corporate credibility to
marketing’s success is attracting increased
attention among academics and practi-
tioners (eg Dacin and Brown, 2002). While
corporate reputation has long been
acknowledged as an important manage-
ment concern (Brown and Dacin, 1997),
the influence of corporate credibility, a
dimension of corporate reputation, on atti-
tude formation toward advertisements and
brands has only recently been addressed.
Goldberg and Hartwick (1990) assessed
advertiser reputation and extremity of
advertising claims on advertising effective-
ness and concluded that companies with
positive reputations would be in a better
position to have their advertising claims
accepted. Applying the Attitude-Toward-
the-Ad Model (eg MacKenzie and Lutz,
1989), more recent research has found that
corporate credibility directly influences
consumer attitudes toward the brand and
purchase intentions (Goldsmith, et al.,
2000a, b; Lafferty and Goldsmith, 1999).
Thus, for a new high-technology product,
it is hypothesized that:
H1: Perceived corporate credibility is positively
related to attitude toward the brand and
purchase intentions.
Page 25
Attractiveness to Advertisements for a New High-Technology Product
Endorser Attractiveness
Two critical components that have been
strongly supported in academic research as
dimensions of endorser or spokesperson
credibility are trustworthiness and expertise
(eg Ohanian, 1990). A third dimension,
attractiveness, was proposed as another
important component of source credibility
(Chaiken, 1979; Joseph, 1982; Kahle and
Homer, 1985; Ohanian, 1990; Patzer,
1983). Advertisers have frequently chosen
endorsers based on their physical attractive-
ness intending to influence attitudes toward
the advertisement and the products (eg
Chaiken, 1979; Kahle and Homer, 1985).
Some research, however, has suggested
that source attractiveness may only enhance
product- and advertisement-based evalua-
tions if the product enhances the attractive-
ness of the user (Joseph, 1982; Kahle and
Homer, 1985). This ‘match-up’ hypothesis
suggests that the message conveyed by the
image of the endorser and the image of the
product should converge, implying a need
for congruence between the product image
and the endorser image based on attractive-
ness (Kahle and Homer, 1985; Kamins,
1990; Koernig and Page, 2002). When the
product is not related to attractiveness, it
appears that, based on the ‘match-up’
hypothesis, the impact of endorser attrac-
tiveness upon the product and advertise-
ment evaluations is minimal (Kahle and
Homer, 1985; Kamins, 1990). Products
such as sports cars, perfume, hair care pro-
ducts, or fashions are often perceived as
enhancing ones attractiveness (Kahle and
Homer, 1985; Kamins, 1990). Adult users,
however, typically do not see use of a
high-technology product, such as a cell
phone, as attractiveness-related, particularly
in the USA. Thus, for a new high-technol-
ogy product it is hypothesized that:
H2: Endorser attractiveness should have no
significant effect on attitude toward the
brand and purchase intentions.
Page 26
Consumer Innovativeness
A widely used and profitable strategy for
corporations is to introduce new products
to the marketplace in order to increase
market share, replace maturing products,
and gain first-mover advantage over com-
petitors. Therefore, marketers have been
interested in those consumers who are first
adopters since they are most likely to
enhance the diffusion of the new product
(eg Mahajan, et al., 1990; Rogers, 1995).
Research on the characteristics of innova-
tors indicate that these individuals enjoy
trying new products, rely less on group
norms, are self-confident, and tend to be
venturesome (Rogers, 1995). A study on
adopters of new IT products also found
that they tend to have a great deal of
experience with the product category
(Chau and Hui, 1998). If the innovators
perceive the advertised brand to be unique,
it is likely that they would form favorable
attitudes toward the brand and be more
inclined to try the new product than non-
innovators. Thus, given their proclivity
with respect to new products, for a new
high-technology product it is hypothesized
that:
H3: Consumer innovativeness is positively
related to attitude toward the brand and
purchase intentions.
Perceived Product Newness
The majority of new products introduced
each year not new to the world but are
often line extensions or modifications of
existing products (Pride and Ferrell, 2000:
272). Nevertheless, the perception of new-
ness may be important for attracting con-
sumers and enticing them to purchase the
product. If the advertisement does not do
an effective job of convincing consumers
that the product is unique, then innovators,
in particular, will be less willing to try it.
Thus, the perception that the product is
genuinely new should influence consumers’

attitudes toward the brand and ultimately
the likelihood that they will buy it. Thus,
for a new high-technology product the
authors hypothesize:
H4: Perceived product newness for both inno-
vators and non-innovators is positively
related to attitude toward the brand and
purchase intentions
The Interaction of Consumer
Innovativeness and Endorser
Attractiveness
Given that endorser attractiveness is unli-
kely to have an effect on attitudes toward
the brand and purchase intentions as sug-
gested by the match-up hypothesis, it is
equally unlikely to have an effect on inno-
vative consumers, particularly when a
high-technology product is involved. Inno-
vators tend to be more expert in the area
in which they are innovators (Chau and
Hui, 1998). Therefore, by nature, they are
more apt to use central processing of infor-
mation as proposed by the Elaboration
Likelihood Model (eg Petty, et al., 1983).
Thus, they will tend to rely on strong mes-
sage arguments and less on peripheral cues
such as endorsers to formulate evaluations
about the brand and whether they would
be inclined to purchase the product (Petty,
et al., 1983; Rogers, 1995). Of the three
dimensions of endorser credibility, attrac-
tiveness would be least likely to serve as a
convincing and salient cue for innovators.
Thus, for a new high-technology product
it is hypothesized that:
H5: The relationship between consumer inno-
vativeness, attitude toward the brand, and
purchase intentions is unaffected by
endorser attractiveness.
The Interaction of Consumer
Innovativeness and Corporate Credibility
Since innovators tend to be more involved
with new products and elaborate more on
Lafferty and Goldsmith
the message arguments in the advertise-
ment, it is likely that the credibility of the
company would have an influence on their
evaluations of the brand and their purchase
intentions. Recent research has indicated
that corporate credibility is more a central
processing cue and has a direct effect on
attitudes toward the brand and purchase
intentions (Goldsmith, et al., 2000a, b; Laff-
erty and Goldsmith, 1999). Innovative con-
sumers should be more influenced by the
credibility of the company than less-inno-
vative consumers, so there should be an
interaction between consumer innovative-
ness and corporate credibility. Thus, for a
new high-technology product it is
hypothesized that:
H6: The relationship between consumer inno-
vativeness, attitude toward the brand, and
purchase intentions is positively affected
by corporate credibility.
METHOD
Subjects and Design
A total of 43 female and 38 male under-
graduate students in two marketing
research classes at a large US university
participated in the experiment for extra
class credit. Their ages ranged from 20 to
38 with a mean age of 22 years. Subjects
were randomly assigned to each condition
in a 262 (high6low corporate credibility;
attractive6unattractive endorser) between-
subjects factorial design. The authors per-
formed the experiment during regular class
sessions using a graduate student who was
unaware of the intent of the study so as to
minimize the chances of experimenter bias
(Aronson and Carlsmith, 1968).
Stimuli and Procedure
The product in the advertisement was a
new cell phone. A cell phone was chosen
because it is a high-technology product, is
Page 27
Attractiveness to Advertisements for a New High-Technology Product
commonly used by the subject population
(86.4 per cent, either currently owned or
had owned them), and is not gender-speci-
fic.
Four versions of the questionnaire were
prepared. Each booklet began with a set of
general instructions stating that the study
was meant to ‘assess the reactions different
student consumers have to advertisements’.
Subjects were instructed to respond to
each page of the questionnaire and then
proceed without looking back at any pre-
vious page. The second page contained an
excerpt purportedly from a Wall Street
Journal story describing the fictitious com-
pany, Audiotech. A fictitious company
and brand were used to control for prior
learning and brand experience. To manip-
ulate corporate credibility, half of these
descriptions provided positive information
such as 70 years of experience, citations for
superior products, and investment in cut-
ting edge research. The other half of the
booklets contained similar but negative
descriptions: 10 years of experience, aver-
age research and development efforts,
financial losses, and average products. The
story excerpt was followed by a rough
magazine advertisement containing photo-
graphs of a young man and a young
woman identified as long-time cell phone
users, their testimonials for the new cell
phone, and information about the cell
phone touting it as new and revolutionary.
A short paragraph in the advertisement
explained the technological newness of the
phone and listed five advanced features:
button-free totally voice activated pro-
gramming and dialing, tri-mode multiple
access, palm powered with access to the
internet, an information port allowing
uploading and downloading of pictures,
business cards, MP3 files, standby time of
300 hours and talk time of 20 hours. Half
of the advertisements contained pictures of
two attractive people and half showed pic-
tures of two less attractive people (Shavitt,
Page 28
et al., 1994). The two attractive people
were one male and one female and judged
to be attractive by two independent
judges. The same criterion was applied to
the two unattractive endorsers. Subjects
moved through the questionnaire booklet
at their own pace, taking about 20 to 25
minutes to complete all the questions. The
questionnaire also contained a question
asking subjects to state what they thought
was the purpose of the experiment. These
responses were consistent with the cover
story. When they finished, they were
debriefed.
Independent Variables
Corporate credibility (high versus low) was
manipulated by the two Wall Street Journal
story excerpts. Source attractiveness was
manipulated by the two sets of endorser
photographs (attractive versus non-attrac-
tive). The third independent variable was
consumer innovativeness. This was measured
by asking the subjects to complete the six-
item Domain Specific Innovativeness Scale
(Goldsmith and Hofacker, 1991). Three
positively worded and three negatively
worded Likert statements (using a five-
point agree/disagree response format)
assessed how innovative a consumer was
regarding a specific product field, in this
case, cell phones (eg ‘In general, I am
among the last in my circle of friends to
purchase a new cell phone’). Common
factor analysis determined that the scale
was unidimensional, and the coefficient
alpha was adequate (0.84). The items were
summed so that higher scores represented
greater cell-phone innovativeness, which
was positively correlated (0.52) with cell-
phone use.
The fourth independent variable was
also measured. This was perceived newness
of the cell phone featured in the advertise-
ment. Three seven-point bipolar adjective
scales asked the respondents to describe
how they felt about the cell phone: ‘like all
 Lafferty and Goldsmith

Table 1: Descriptive Statistics and Zero Order Correlations of Measured Variables

Variable names Descriptive statistics

Range Mean SD Skew Kurtosis Alpha

Attitude to brand 3–21 14.1 3.7 –1.006 1.551 0.95

Purchase intent 3–21 10.7 4.7 0.419 –0.409 0.96
Innovativeness 6–28 15.4 5.2 0.128 –0.559 0.84
Perceived newness 7–21 14.9 3.5 –0.393 –0.545 0.69
Daily cell phone use 1–35 9.4 7.0 1.361 2.208 –
Corporate trust 8–24 17.0 3.4 –0.024 0.003 0.78
Corporate expertise 7–28 17.7 5.3 –0.020 –0.816 0.92
Endorser attractiveness 5–33 17.6 5.6 –0.093 0.203 0.90
Endorser honesty 7–30 20.3 4.4 –0.322 0.596 0.88
Endorser expertise 9–31 20.2 4.9 –0.047 –0.486 0.87

Variable names Correlations

AB PI INN PN Use C trust C expert EA EH EE

Attitude to brand 0.50** –0.03 0.35** 0.06 0.39** 0.35** 0.11 0.34** 0.42**
Purchase intent 0.66** 0.14 0.11 0.11 0.31** 0.26** 0.18* 0.32** 0.24**
Innovativeness 0.08 0.25* –0.13 0.39** 0.01 0.04 0.09 –0.02 0.03
Perceived newness 0.36** 0.17 –0.16 0.09 0.08 0.11 –0.09 0.16 0.25**
Corporate trust 0.59** 0.45** 0.08 0.14 –0.01 0.44** 0.04 0.43** 0.36**
Corporate expertise 0.51** 0.38** 0.05 0.17 –0.04 0.61** 0.03 0.40** 0.38**
Endorser attractiveness 0.16 0.20 0.17 –0.16 0.14 0.05 0.01 0.25** 0.16*
Endorser honesty 0.63** 0.49** 0.04 0.22 0.01 0.61** 0.52** 0.30** 0.61**
Endorser expertise 0.58** 0.35** 0.05 0.33** 0.18 0.52** 0.51** 0.22* 0.79**

Note: Pearson product moment correlations below the diagonal; Kendall’s tau b nonparametric correlations above
diagonal. *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2–tailed). **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2–tailed).

the others — unlike all the others’, ‘inno-
vative — ordinary’, ‘new — old’.
Common factor analysis showed a single
factor, and the items were summed so that
higher scores represented greater levels of
perceived product newness (alpha = 0.69).
Descriptive statistics for the consumer
innovativeness and perceived newness mea-
sures appear in Table 1.
Manipulation Checks and Confounds
The pages following the advertisement
contained the manipulation and confound
checks. First came the eight-item Corpo-
rate Credibility Scale (Newell and Gold-
smith, 2001). Four of these Likert items
measure how trustworthy the company is
perceived to be (eg ‘I trust Audiotech,
Inc.’), and four items assess how expert the
company is (eg ‘Audiotech, Inc. is skilled
at what they do’). Common factor analysis
followed by oblique rotation confirmed
the correct two-factor structure of the scale
with the factors correlated 0.62. Internal
consistency (assessed by coefficient alpha)
of the two subscales was adequate (trust-
worthiness = 0.78; expertise = 0.92).
Next came eight semantic differential

Page 29
Attractiveness to Advertisements for a New High-Technology Product
scales shown by Baker and Churchill
(1977) to describe consumer perceptions of
the advertisement. This measure was
included as a confounding check. Con-
founding checks assess whether an experi-
mental manipulation has inadvertently
changed constructs other than those
intended by the researcher (Perdue and
Summers, 1986).
The Baker and Churchill scale was fol-
lowed by Ohanian’s (1990) scale to measure
source credibility, used here to assess subject
perceptions of the endorsers in the advertise-
ment. The scale consists of 15 semantic dif-
ferential items measuring three
subconstructs: attractiveness, trustworthi-
ness (honesty), and expertise. Each five-item
subscale was factor analyzed to ensure unidi-
mensionality and internal consistency was
assessed: attractiveness = 0.90; trustworthi-
ness = 0.88; expertise = 0.87.
Dependent Variables
Two dependent variables were the focus of
the study. The first was attitude toward
the brand (AB). This construct was consid-
ered important because brand attitudes
typically precede and predict purchase and
thus are a major concern of marketing
management (Biehal, et al., 1992). The
authors measured AB by three seven-point
bipolar adjective scales: good-bad, favor-
able–unfavorable, satisfactory–unsatisfac-
tory. The second dependent variable was
intent to purchase the advertised cell phone
(PI), also an important dependent variable
in this type of research (Ohanian, 1991).
This was measured by three seven-point
bipolar adjective scales (Yi, 1990): very
likely–very unlikely, probable–improbable
and possible–impossible. Common factor
analysis showed that each scale was unidi-
mensional. Each set of items was summed
so that higher scores indicated a more posi-
tive AB or higher PI. Descriptive statistics
and internal consistency are shown in
Table 1.
Page 30
Analysis
The hypotheses were tested using a multi-
ple regression model modeled after Klink
and Smith (2001). Corporate credibility
was coded –1 = low and 1 = high.
Endorser attractiveness was coded –1 =
not attractive, 1 = attractive (Kleinbaum
and Kupper, 1978: 188). The two measured
independent variables, consumer innova-
tiveness and perceived newness, were
included as were the interaction terms
between consumer innovativeness and
endorser attractiveness as well as between
consumer innovativeness and corporate
credibility. To reduce multicollinearity
between the interaction term and its consti-
tuent terms, the continuous variables were
mean-centered (consumer innovativeness
and perceived newness) prior to the analy-
sis, as Cronbach (1987) suggests.
RESULTS
Manipulation and Confound Checks
To check the effectiveness of the corporate
credibility and endorser attractiveness
manipulations, ANOVA was used to com-
pare the subjects’ assessments of corporate
credibility (trustworthiness and expertise)
and endorser credibility (attractiveness,
trustworthiness and expertise). The results
showed the manipulations were successful.
Subjects who read the high corporate
credibility WSJ excerpt rated Audiotech
Inc. as more trustworthy (M = 18.2) than
those who read the low corporate credibility
excerpt (M = 15.8; F(1, 77) = 11.5, p=
0.001). They also rated the company as
more expert (M = 20.3 versus M = 15.1;
F(1, 77) = 25.2, p50.001). Subjects who saw
the attractive endorsers rated them as more
attractive (M = 20.3) than those who saw
the unattractive endorsers (M = 14.9;
F(1, 77) = 25.0, p<0.001). However, manip-
ulating the attractiveness of the endorsers did
not affect the subjects’ ratings of their trust-
worthiness (F(1, 75) = 0.51, p=0.477) or

expertise (F(1, 77) = 1.6, p=0.204). Thus,
when endorser attractiveness was manipu-
lated, it did not influence subject ratings of
these other two aspects of endorser credibil-
ity, so they were not confounded with
attractiveness.
As an additional confound check, the
subjects rated the advertisements using the
eight bipolar adjective pairs (interesting–
dull; unappealing–appealing; unbelievable–
believable; impressive–unimpressive; attrac-
tive–unattractive; uninformative–informa-
tive; clear–confusing; and not eye catching–
eye catching) from the Baker and Churchill
(1977) scale. The manipulations should not
have changed subject perceptions of the
advertisements along these dimensions. A
MANOVA confirmed that this was the
case. Neither the main effects nor the inter-
actions were statistically significant
(p40.05). Follow-up univariate tests did
show, however, that the high corporate
credibility group did rate the advertisement
as more ‘believable’ (M = 4.8) than the low
corporate credibility group did (M = 4.12;
F(1, 77) = 4.8, p=0.031), and this result is
consistent with the significant differences in
perceived corporate credibility shown by
the manipulation check. The only other sig-
nificant difference detected by the univari-
ate tests revealed that the high-credibility
group rated the advertisement as more
‘attractive’ (M = 4.28) than the low-cred-
ibility group did (M = 3.34; F(1, 77) = 6.1,
p=0.016), but this could easily be a random
result of no practical significance. Thus, the
manipulations were successful for the sub-
jects’ perceptions of the credibility of the
sponsoring corporation and the attractive-
ness of the endorsers in the advertisement,
but there is little evidence that other percep-
tions of the advertisement or of the endor-
sers were changed that might have
influenced the outcome of the experiment.
Finally, the ANOVAs were repeated
with innovativeness and perceived newness
as dependent variables. There were no
Lafferty and Goldsmith
statistically significant differences in their
mean scores, verifying that random assign-
ment had indeed equalized the treatment
groups on these variables (see correlations
in Table 1).
Evaluative Measures
Multiple regression was used to test the
hypotheses (cf Klink and Smith, 2001). In
the first analysis, AB served as the depen-
dent variable, which was regressed across
(1) attractive versus unattractive endorser,
(2) high versus low corporate credibility,
(3) consumer innovativeness, (4) the per-
ceived newness of the advertised cell
phone, (5) the interaction of consumer
innovativeness and endorser attractiveness,
and (6) the interaction of consumer innova-
tiveness and corporate credibility (see Table
2). In the second analysis, PI served as the
dependent variable.
The results shown in Table 2 indicate
that corporate credibility did have a statisti-
cally significant effect on AB (Brown and
Dacin, 1997). Respondents who were
exposed to the company with high cred-
ibility reported more positive evaluations
of the brand than those who were exposed
to the company with low credibility. For
PI, however, the credibility of the com-
pany did not have a significant effect. Thus
H1 was only partially supported. The
results also show that endorser attractive-
ness had no influence on either AB or PI,
thus supporting H2. It appears that when a
high-technology product such as a cell
phone is being evaluated, the attractiveness
component of endorser credibility is not a
factor, which is consistent with the match-
up hypothesis. Conversely, the degree of
consumer innovativeness did have a statisti-
cally significant effect on PI, but not on
AB. The more innovative consumers were,
the more likely they would be to buy the
product than less-innovative consumers.
However, innovativeness did not seem to
influence AB, thus only partially support-
Page 31
Attractiveness to Advertisements for a New High-Technology Product

Table 2: Regression Results

Variables Hypotheses Beta T Sig

Dependent variable = Attitude toward the brand

Corporate credibility 1 0.234 2.234 0.029
Endorser attractiveness 2 0.067 0.635 0.528
Innovativeness 3 0.114 1.057 0.294
Perceived newness 4 0.395 3.675 0.000
Innovativeness6EA 5 –0.054 –0.510 0.612
Innovativeness6CC 6 –0.000 –0.022 0.983
R2 0.208
Adjusted R2 0.132
F (df = 7, 73) 2.734 0.014
Dependent variable = Purchase intention
Corporate credibility 1 0.051 0.466 0.646
Endorser attractiveness 2 0.112 1.013 0.314
Innovativeness 3 0.275 2.447 0.017
Perceived newness 4 0.227 2.031 0.046
Innovativeness6EA 5 0.067 0.607 0.546
Innovativeness6CC 6 0.114 1.036 0.304
R2 0.144
Adjusted R2 0.061
F (df = 7, 73) 1.747 0.111

ing H3. The results also indicated that per-
ceived product newness had a significant
effect on both AB and PI, thus supporting
H4. The more unique and innovative the
product appeared to be, the more positive
the attitudes were toward that brand and
the more willing the respondents were to
purchase it. Additionally, it was hypothe-
sized that consumer innovators would not
be influenced by the attractiveness of the
endorser when evaluating a high-technol-
ogy product. The results confirmed this
assessment, thus supporting H5. Finally, H6
proposed that innovators would be more
influenced by corporate credibility when
evaluating AB and PI than non-innovators.
The results did not support H6. The inter-
action between corporate credibility and
innovativeness was not significant.
DISCUSSION
With the frequent introduction of new
technological products, how innovators or
first adopters respond to persuasion cues is
important for marketers to understand.
The results of the study show how two
cues, corporate credibility and endorser
attractiveness, as well as consumer innova-
tiveness and perceived product newness,
influence consumer AB and PI. In addition,
the study provides information on how
innovative consumers are influenced by
corporate credibility and endorser attrac-
tiveness when evaluating a high-technol-
ogy product.
While corporate credibility did posi-
tively influence AB, consistent with prior
research, this study suggests that it is not
related to PI. The lack of effect on PI again
may be due to the nature of the product
presented in the advertisement. The adver-
tisement provided strong message argu-
ments about the technological newness of
the product. When making a purchase

Page 32

decision, especially for a technological pro-
duct, the strength of the information about
the product and its features plays a critical
role (Petty et al., 1983), perhaps to a greater
extent than the credibility of the company.
Moreover, the company used in the study
was fictitious, and a limited amount of
information was provided. Since the
respondents had no prior experience with
any Audiotech products, the corporate
information may have been enough to help
form positive brand associations, but not
enough to persuade the consumer to pur-
chase the brand. That decision most likely
rests on product attributes. Finally, since
many cell phone companies give away or
sell inexpensive cell phones to customers,
consumers may like a brand such as Audio-
tech, but not be motivated to buy it in
anticipation that they would receive one
when signing with a provider.
As suggested by the match-up hypoth-
esis, endorser attractiveness does appear to
be related to the type of product that is
advertised. It appears that a high-technol-
ogy product is not attractiveness-related, at
least among an adult sample, and thus, this
dimension of endorser credibility is not cri-
tical in brand attitude formation and pur-
chase intentions for consumers. Note that
the correlations in Table 1 show both AB
and PI to be positively related to assessments
of endorser honesty and expertise, which
were not manipulated experimentally.
While corporate credibility was more
influential in brand attitude formation,
consumer innovativeness was more influen-
tial in purchase intent. The more innova-
tive the consumer, the more likely they
were to purchase the product. The strength
of the arguments in the advertisement and
the uniqueness of the cell phone likely
appealed to the innovators’ tendency to try
new products and be more venturesome.
While some research indicates that positive
AB leads to greater purchase intentions (eg
Heath and Gaeth, 1994; MacKenzie and
Lafferty and Goldsmith
Lutz, 1989), other research suggests that
AB may not mediate all purchase decisions.
Some consumers may decide what they
would buy without completely processing
all brand information (Biehal, et al., 1992).
Additionally, attitudes toward the adver-
tisement may lead directly to PI circum-
venting AB when affective responses are
evoked (Cox and Locander, 1987; Batra
and Ray, 1986). It is possible that the tech-
nological uniqueness of the product as con-
veyed in the advertisement would be
enough to motivate a purchase by an inno-
vator without much thought to the brand
itself. Without additional exploration, this
particular effect seems counterintuitive and
may just be spurious or an artifact.
Perceived product newness did make a
difference in both AB and PI. The more
innovative the product appeared to be, the
more favorably all consumers felt toward
the brand and the more likely they were to
consider purchasing it.
The interaction of consumer innovative-
ness and endorser attractiveness was not
significant, as hypothesized, confirming
that the innovative consumers seemed to
discount the appearance of the endorsers in
making their product evaluations to the
same extent as the non-innovators. This is
consistent with the main effect observed in
H2. It would seem that a high-technology
product with strong attributes negates
endorser attractiveness and supports the
match-up hypothesis. However, the inter-
action of consumer innovativeness and cor-
porate credibility also was not significant.
There was no difference in the effect of
corporate credibility on innovators and
non-innovators. While it seems likely that
innovators would process information
more centrally and evaluate corporate
credibility in forming AB and PI, it
appears that non-innovators also rely
strongly on corporate credibility as a cue.
Perhaps their lack of expertise with the
product itself makes them look to other
Page 33
Attractiveness to Advertisements for a New High-Technology Product
existing cues to formulate AB and PI. It is
conceivable that the non-innovators used
credibility because they were not moti-
vated enough to process the product’s
‘search’ attributes (ie as a peripheral cue),
whereas the innovators used credibility
because they wanted to evaluate the pro-
duct’s ‘experience’ or ‘credence’ attributes
(ie as a central cue). Thus, corporate cred-
ibility is important in consumer reactions
to a new high-technology product, but
perhaps it serves different functions for dif-
ferent types of consumers.
These findings have important implica-
tions for the field of marketing. It is
imperative that new products diffuse
quickly in order for companies to recoup
their upfront expenses in developing these
products. New technological products, in
particular, demand rapid acceptance since
changes in technology move so quickly
and companies must continually innovate
to stay competitive. Thus, the role that
innovators play in helping to diffuse the
new product quickly is one in which mar-
keters are very interested. The results from
this study suggest that when promoting a
new high-technology product, marketers
should emphasize the trustworthiness and
expertise of any endorser used in advertise-
ments and not focus on spokesperson
attractiveness. This component of endorser
credibility appears to be irrelevant when
promoting a high-technology product to
consumers in general as well as to innova-
tors in the product category.
Additionally, when developing the
advertising campaign, it is important that
the strategy for the advertisements focuses
on communicating the uniqueness and
newness of the product in order to develop
favorable attitudes toward the brand and
enhance purchase intentions. Innovators, in
particular, have the propensity to seek out
new, unique products, and the advertise-
ment must communicate this newness if
the innovators are to be convinced to try
Page 34
it. There are even some indications from
this study that innovators are more driven
by product attributes than their attitudes
toward the brand in making a purchase
decision. Finally, from a managerial per-
spective, the credibility of the company
should be maintained and publicized in
order for positive associations to be formed
with the new brand. This study lends sup-
port to other research indicating that cor-
porate credibility plays an important role
in the formation of brand attitudes. When
it comes to innovative consumers and a
high-technology product, the credibility of
the company plays just as strong a role as it
does for the non-innovators, even though
their motivations for using this cue may
differ.
Several limitations qualify the findings.
These include the specific nature of the
corporate descriptions, the product stimu-
lus, and the endorsers. The convenience
nature of the sample and its relatively small
size also limit the findings. The results
could also be limited to the specific mea-
sures used. The careful following of experi-
mental protocol and evaluation of potential
confounds, on the other hand, argue for
internal validity.
Future research on these topics should
focus on replication and systematic explora-
tion of the parameters of the experiment.
This would include use of different high-
technology products and additional product
categories, other ways to manipulate corpo-
rate credibility, and manipulation of the
other two aspects of endorser credibility,
honesty and expertise. How these advertis-
ing features differentially influence consu-
mers who themselves differ in their levels of
innovativeness are questions of great theo-
retical interest and potential value to mar-
keters and advertisers of new products.
REFERENCES
Aronson, E. and Carlsmith, J.M. (1968) ‘Experimen-
tation in social psychology’, in Gardner, L. and

Aronson, E. (eds) ‘The Handbook of Social Psy-
chology’, 2nd edn, Vol. 2, Addison-Wesley,
Reading, MA.
Baker, M.J. and Churchill, G.A. (1977) ‘The impact
of physically attractive models on advertising eva-
luations’, Journal of Marketing Research, 14,
November, 538–555.
Batra, R. and Ray, M.L. (1986) ‘Affective responses
mediating acceptance of advertising’, Journal of
Consumer Research, 13, September, 234–249.
Bettman, J. and Sujan, M. (1987) ‘Effects of framing
on evaluation of comparable and noncomparable
alternatives by expert and novice consumers’,
Journal of Consumer Research, 14, September, 141–
154.
Biehal, G., Stephens, D., and Curlo, D. (1992)
‘Attitude toward the ad and brand choice’, Journal
of Advertising, 21(3), 19–36.
Brown, T.J. and Dacin, P.A. (1997) ‘The company
and the product: Corporate associations and
consumer product responses’, Journal of Marketing,
61, January, 68–84.
Cestre, G. and Darmon, R.Y. (1998) ‘Assessing
consumer preferences in the context of new
product diffusion’, International Journal of Research
in Marketing, 15, 123–135.
Chaiken, S. (1979) ‘Communicator physical attrac-
tiveness and persuasion’, Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 37, 1387–1397.
Chau, P.U.K. and Hui, K.L. (1998) ‘Identifying
early adopters of new IT products: A case of
Windows 95’, Information and Management, 33,
May, 225–230.
Cox, D. and Locander, W. (1987) ‘Product novelty:
Does it moderate the relationship between ad atti-
tudes and brand attitudes’, Journal of Advertising,
16(3), 39–44.
Cronbach, L.J. (1987) ‘Statistical tests for moderator
variables: Flaws in analyses recently proposed’,
Psychological Bulletin, 102(3), 414–417.
Dacin, P.A. and Brown, T.J. (2002) ‘Corporate
identity and corporate associations: A framework
for future research’, Corporate Reputation Review,
5(2/3), 254–263.
Fombrun, C.J. (1996) ‘Reputation: Realizing Value
from the Corporate Image’, Harvard Business
School Press, Boston, MA.
Goldberg, M.E. and Hartwick, J. (1990) ‘The
effects of advertiser reputation and extremity of
advertising claim on advertising effectiveness’,
Journal of Consumer Research, 17, September, 172–
179.
Goldsmith, R.E. and Hofacker, C.F. (1991) ‘Measur-
ing consumer innovativeness’, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 19(3), 209–221.
Lafferty and Goldsmith
Goldsmith, R.E., Lafferty, B.A., and Newell, S.J.
(2000a) ‘The impact of corporate credibility and
celebrity credibility on consumer reaction to
advertisements and brands’, Journal of Advertising,
29(3), 43–54.
Goldsmith, R.E., Lafferty, B.A., and Newell, S.J.
(2000b) ‘The influence of corporate credibility on
consumer attitudes and purchase intent’, Corporate
Reputation Review, 3(4), 304–318.
Heath, T.B. and Gaeth, G.J. (1994) ‘Theory and
method in the study of ad and brand attitudes:
Toward a systemic model’, in Clark, E.M.,
Brock, T.C. and Stewart, D.W. (eds) ‘Attention,
Attitude, and Affect in Response to Advertising’,
Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 125–148.
Joseph, W.B. (1982) ‘The credibility of physically
attractive communicators: A review’, Journal of
Advertising, 11, July, 15–24.
Kahle, L.R. and Homer, P.M. (1985) ‘Physical
attractiveness of the celebrity endorser: A social
adaptation perspective’, Journal of Consumer
Research, 11, March, 954–961.
Kamins, M.A. (1990) ‘An investigation into the
‘‘match-up’’ hypothesis in celebrity advertising:
When beauty may be only skin deep’, Journal of
Advertising, 19(1), 4–13.
Kleinbaum, D.G. and Kupper, L.L. (1978) ‘Applied
Regression Analysis and Other Multi-
variable Methods’, Duxbury Press, North
Scituate, MA.
Klink, R.R. and Smith, D.C. (2001) ‘Threats to the
external validity of brand extension research’,
Journal of Marketing Research, 38, August, 326–335.
Koernig, S.K. and Page, A.I. (2002) ‘What if your
dentist looked like Tom Cruise? Applying the
match-up hypothesis to a service encounter’, Psy-
chology and Marketing, 19(1), 91–110.
Lafferty, B.A. and Goldsmith, R.E. (1999) ‘Corpo-
rate credibility’s role in consumers’ attitudes and
purchase intentions when a high versus a low
credibility endorser is used in the ad’, Journal of
Business Research, 44, February, 109–116.
MacKenzie, S.B. and Lutz, R.J. (1989) ‘An
empirical examination of the structural antece-
dents of attitude-toward-the-ad in an advertising
pretesting context’, Journal of Marketing, 53, April,
48–65.
Mahajan, V., Muller, E., and Bass, F. (1990) ‘New
product diffusion models in marketing: A review
and directions for research’, Journal of Marketing,
54, January, 1–26.
Newell, S.J. and Goldsmith, R.E. (2001) ‘The devel-
opment of a scale to measure perceived corporate
credibility’, Journal of Business Research, 52(3),
235–247.
Page 35
Attractiveness to Advertisements for a New High-Technology Product
Ohanian, R. (1990) ‘Construction and validation of a
scale to measure celebrity endorsers’ perceived
expertise, trustworthiness, and attractiveness’,
Journal of Advertising, 19(3), 39–52.
Ohanian, R. (1991) ‘The impact of celebrity spokes-
persons’ perceived image on consumers’ intention
to purchase’, Journal of Advertising Research, 31(1),
46–54.
Patzer, G.L. (1983) ‘Source credibility as a function
of communicator physical attractiveness’, Journal
of Business Research, 11, June, 229–241.
Perdue, B.C. and Summers, J.O. (1986) ‘Checking
the success of manipulations in marketing experi-
ments’, Journal of Marketing Research, 23,
November, 317–326.
Petty, R.E., Cacioppo, J.T., and Schumann, D.
(1983) ‘Central and peripheral routes to advertis-
Page 36
View publication stats
ing effectiveness: The moderating role of involve-
ment’, Journal of Consumer Research, 10,
September, 135–146.
Pride, W.M. and Ferrell, O.C. (2000) ‘Marketing
2000e’, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston,
MA.
Rogers, E.R. (1995) ‘Diffusion of Innovations’, 4th
edn, The Free Press, New York, NY.
Shavitt, S., Swan, S., Lowrey, T.M., and Wanke,
M. (1994) ‘The interaction of endorser
attractiveness and involvement in persuasion
depends on the goal that guides message proces-
sing’, Journal of Consumer Psychology, 3(2), 137–
162.
Yi, Y. (1990) ‘Cognitive and affective priming effects
of the context for print advertisements’, Journal of
Advertising, 19(2), 40–48.