Archives

  • 2018-07
  • 2018-10
  • 2018-11
  • 2019-04
  • 2019-05
  • 2019-06
  • 2019-07
  • 2019-08
  • 2019-09
  • 2019-10
  • 2019-11
  • 2019-12
  • 2020-01
  • 2020-02
  • 2020-03
  • 2020-04
  • 2020-05
  • 2020-06
  • 2020-07
  • 2020-08
  • 2020-09
  • 2020-10
  • 2020-11
  • 2020-12
  • 2021-01
  • 2021-02
  • 2021-03
  • 2021-04
  • 2021-05
  • 2021-06
  • 2021-07
  • 2021-08
  • 2021-09
  • 2021-10
  • 2021-11
  • 2021-12
  • 2022-01
  • 2022-02
  • 2022-03
  • 2022-04
  • 2022-05
  • 2022-06
  • 2022-07
  • 2022-08
  • 2022-09
  • 2022-10
  • 2022-11
  • 2022-12
  • 2023-01
  • 2023-02
  • 2023-03
  • 2023-04
  • 2023-05
  • 2023-06
  • 2023-07
  • 2023-08
  • 2023-09
  • 2023-10
  • 2023-11
  • 2023-12
  • 2024-01
  • 2024-02
  • 2024-03
  • 2024-04
  • 2024-05

    • Thus when these two factors spokesperson gender and

    2018-11-05

    Thus, when these two factors, spokesperson gender and pitch, are considered together, the effect is expected to be multiplied; that is, a low-pitched male voice is expected to be the most effective combination in achieving a positive response. Furthermore, we propose this hypothesis: Individual differences influence consumers’ thinking, decisions and behavior and a key fundamental difference among individuals is gender (Stafford & Stafford, 2001). Research has suggested that men and women have different information processing styles (e.g., Darley & Smith, 1995; Meyers-Levy & Maheswaran, 1991), which generally translate into differences in the processing of promotional information (Darley & Smith, 1995; Meyers-Levy, 1989). Therefore, it sr9009 is important to examine whether the effectiveness of the advertising depends on the gender of the individual. Meyers-Levy (1989) studies the gender differences in the interpretation of advertising, and she posits that men and women select different cues from the environment and interpret them in dissimilar ways. Rodero et al. (2012) indicate that women score the voices, in terms of voice effectiveness and adequacy, with higher averages than men. In addition, Carsky and Zuckerman (1991), in their study on three nongender products, showed that women assigned higher ratings to all aspects of the ads. Therefore, we formulate the following hypothesis: Furthermore, Carsky and Zuckerman (1991) no differences in the believability, persuasiveness, likelihood of use/purchase, or attitude toward the ad was associated with interaction between the gender of the endorser and the gender of the respondent. Similarly, Rodero et al. (2010) do not confirm higher advertising effectiveness of male voices in terms of attention and recall based on listener gender. However, in a later study (Rodero et al., 2012) they indicate that there are differences in assessment between voices according to gender. These authors also show that men value the female voice more highly, while women give higher scores to the male voice. Here, the significant difference occurs because the degree to which women rate the male voice as more effective is much greater than the degree to which men rate the female voice. Despite the controversy in the results, we propose the following hypothesis:
    Materials and methods
    Results A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted to test the hypotheses. The dependent variables were the different measures of effectiveness: unaided recall, attitude toward the ad, attitude toward the brand and donation intention. The independent variables were spokesperson gender, spokesperson pitch and listener gender. Using Wilks’ Lambda criterion (Λ), three of the five effects tested provided significant multivariate statistics at 10 percent. The combined dependent variables resulted in significant main effects for spokesperson gender (F=2.168, p=0.071, partial η2=0.009), spokesperson pitch (F=2.198, p=0.067, partial η2=0.009) and listener gender (F=1.998, p=0.093, partial η2=0.008). However, the two two-way interactions were not statistically significant: spokesperson gender by pitch (F=1.259, p=0.284, partial η2=0.005), and spokesperson gender by listener gender (F=0.808, p=0.520, partial η2=0.003). In terms of the effect of spokesperson gender, the results show (Tables 3 and 4) significant differences in (1) attitude toward the ad (F=6.585, p=0.010), where the spots with female voices generate a more positive attitude (M=3.227 versus M=3.083), and (2) intention to donate (F=3.499, p=0.062), where spots with female voices generate a greater intentionality (M=3.390 versus M=3.232). These results lead us to reject H1, as spokesperson gender affects advertising on an affective and conative level, female voices being the ones Paranemic joint generate a more positive attitude toward the ad and generate more donation intention. Contrary to the results on spokesperson gender, spokesperson pitch only affects cognitive effectiveness (F=6.276, p=0.012), since spots recorded with a low-pitched voice were the most recalled (M=0.959 versus M=0.774). Thus, we accept H2 only on a cognitive level, even though in the other measures of effectiveness spots with low-pitched voices were also assigned higher ratings.