Headless: The Role of Gender and Self‐Referencing in Consumer Response to Cropped Pictures of Decorative Models

Abstract

Product pictures with “headless” decorative models, whose heads have been cropped out of the pictures, are often used in online retailing. This article reports findings from three experiments comparing attitudes for clothing displayed in pictures with cropped and uncropped male and female models, focusing on the moderating effects of consumer and model gender and the mediating effects of product self‐referencing. Results indicate that the effects on product attitudes are moderated by the gender of both models and consumers and mediated by self‐referencing. Pictures with uncropped male models result in more positive product attitudes, irrespective of consumer gender. For product pictures with female models, male consumer attitudes are also more positive for products displayed with uncropped models. In fact, attitudes are only more positive for clothing shown with cropped, “headless” models when both models and consumers are female. Implications of the findings for research and practitioners are discussed.

Can you imagine yourself wearing this product? Embodied mental simulation and attractiveness in e-commerce product pictures

“…Berg (2015) observed that consumers' attitudes were more positive for products worn by human models with a face (vs. without a face). On the other hand, Lindström et al (2016) did not find a significant difference between mannequins with vs. without a face on online purchase intention.…”

“…Berg, 2015;Di et al, 2014) reported the effects of product attractiveness on consumers' behavior, so this study also investigated the role of attractiveness in the relationship among the variables mentioned earlier. The pictures evaluated are the most common ones used in e-commerce (Berg, 2015;Di et al, 2014;Yoo and Kim, 2012): flat (only the product is pictured, without other elements), mannequin (the product is pictured on a body form without a human model), human model without a face and human model with a face. Previous studies have not compared these four types of product pictures.…”

Toward holistic frontline employee management: An investigation of the interplay of positive emotion displays and dress color

“…We hypothesize an interaction effect of emotion displays and dress color on customer tipping and employee warmth as extant research suggests that customers perceive frontline employees holistically (Aviezer et al, 2012; Berg, 2015). We argue that dress color influences the effects of positive emotion displays on marketing outcomes and that this interaction effect can be explained by fit.…”

“…Extant research widely neglects possible interdependencies and, by extension, the possible effects that aesthetic displays may have on the effectiveness of positive emotion displays. We question this separate consideration of both displays in research and practice as the perception of human beings is holistic (Aviezer et al, 2012; Berg, 2015) and emotion displays are not processed in isolation (for a review, see Matsumoto & Sung Hwang 2010). For example, Aviezer et al (2012) show that faces and bodies are processed as one unit and that a congruent body facilitates the interpretation of facial expressions, and Freeman et al (2011) show that perceived facial ethnicity is affected by signals from clothing.…”

Consumer reactions to nudity in print advertising: Comparing same‐gender and opposite‐gender effects

“…This limitation contrasts starkly with sociological research showing that attitudes toward both sexuality and gratuitous stimuli are significantly influenced by gender, leading to noticeably different reactions (Conley, 2011; Greer & Buss, 1994; Kozak et al, 2009). Advertising literature, across the board, also provides robust empirical evidence of consumer–model gender effects in various marketing communication contexts (Berg, 2015; Eisend, 2010; Trivedi & Teichert, 2019). It has been shown that females respond differently than males to advertisements, resulting in different levels of advertising effectiveness (Moore, 2007; Teichert et al, 2018).…”