The influence of gender on the effectiveness of probability markers in advertising

Abstract

The Influence of Gender on the Effectiveness of Probability Markers in Advertising natural processing environment. Such stimuli enable us to examine, in addition to claim persuasiveness, two more dependent variablesbrand attitude and purchase intention.The research consists of two studies in which advertisements using different types of probability markers (hedge, pledge, no probability marker) are tested with a sample of men and women. In the first study probability markers, brand familiarity, and involvement are manipulated in ads for physical products. Study 2 aims to extend the results of the first study by focusing on services, and adding the buying motivation (hedonic vs. utilitarian) dimension.Both studies were conducted in Belgium with different samples of young participants. Gender Differences in Response to Probability Markers in AdvertisingThe Selectivity Model. According to the Selectivity Model (Meyers-Levy & Sternthal 1991), women tend to process information and form judgments comprehensively, taking into account all the available cues, assigning equal importance to information relevant to themselves and to others, and exhibiting great sensitivity to detail and all relevant information. Women encode a greater number of claims than men do and process each of the claims more extensively (Darley & Smith 1995). In other words, women could be considered as more systematic (central) processors. Men most often do not use comprehensive processing of all available information when forming judgments. They instead tend to make use of heuristic (peripheral) processing, relying on a highly available, salient single cue or subset of cues.Item-Specific vs. Relational Processing theory. Some cognitive psychologists (e.g., Hunt & Einstein 1981) distinguish between relational and item-specific processing, rather than heuristic (peripheral) and systematic (central). Relational processing occurs in situations in which people receive a number of similar cues, and relies on emphasizing similarities among these cues. Since women are considered to be relationship-driven, cooperative and communal,

Let’s get personal: Which elements elicit perceived personalization in social media advertising?

“…This could mean that even more subtle personalization cues would signal personalization to women. On the other hand, due to the fact that women are more systematic processors (Bušljeta Banks et al, 2016), it is also possible that they focus more on the idiosyncratic cues to asses perceived personalization since only those cues truly differentiate them from other consumers. Men, in contrast, use an item-specific processing style and tend to rely on a single salient cue or a subset of cues (Bušljeta Banks et al, 2016).…”

“…On the other hand, due to the fact that women are more systematic processors (Bušljeta Banks et al, 2016), it is also possible that they focus more on the idiosyncratic cues to asses perceived personalization since only those cues truly differentiate them from other consumers. Men, in contrast, use an item-specific processing style and tend to rely on a single salient cue or a subset of cues (Bušljeta Banks et al, 2016). As such, we would expect men to focus more on the more salient, idiosyncratic, personalization elements to infer personalization.…”

Masculine men do not like feminine wording: The effectiveness of gendered wording in health promotion leaflets in the UK

“…Elsewhere, agentic language was found to be effective in motivating a range of climate change-related behavioural intentions [ 52 ]. Bušljeta Banks, Dens, & De Pelsmacker [ 14 ] examined how men and women respond to the use of words to describe probability markers in ads and found that men had more pronounced responses to the presented words than women. Overall, these findings suggest inconclusive and different gender responses to wording in a number of contexts.…”

“…Gender effects have been examined in a wide range of contexts including communication [ 1 – 10 ]. Past studies demonstrated that gendered content of advertisements, including wording and endorser’s gender, may often influence responses to communication among men and women in a different way [ 11 – 14 ]. Whilst the impact of communication on behaviour is disputed, policy makers, practitioners and advertisers continue using communication to raise awareness and influence behaviours.…”

Branded entertainment: Gender differences in reactions to star ratings

“…Women (men) are more likely to exhibit primacy (recency) effects when they view multiple advertisements (Brunel & Nelson, 2003). Men respond more positively to probability markers in advertising (Banks, Dens, & De Pelsmacer, 2016;Berney-Reddish & Areni, 2006;Meeds, 2004).…”