Another Scholarly Critique I accidently Did

Marcus Parisian
Prof. Ishida
Mass Comm
October 4, 2007

Scholarly Article Critique
Research topic and researcher- Multiple Sources in Advertising Appeals: When Product Endorsers Are Paid by the Advertising Sponsor, by David J. Moore, John C. Mowen, and Richard Reardon, in Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 22:2 (Summer 1994), pp.234-243. Retrieved from Communication and Media Complete, on October 1, 2007.

Rationale of the study- The study was done for two reasons: 1:“to investigate the joint effects of single versus multiple sources” (P. 235). 2: The endorser affects of “payment versus non payment” (p.235). Then there are 4 subsections that combine the rationales for this study.
H1a: Higher positive thoughts with four sources rather than one when the endorser is not paid.
H1b: Positive thoughts are lower with four sources rather than one when the endorser is paid.
H2a: Attitude is more positive when endorsers are not paid when 4 sources present the message rather than one.
H2b: Attitude is less positive when endorsers are not paid when 4 sources present the message rather than one.

Literature Review-
• Source credibility is a main factor in persuasion (p. 234)
• Shimp (1976) showed 40% of ads used an endorser (p. 234).
• 64% of younger consumers think that endorsers only endorse for the money (p. 234).
• More sources appearing in the same ad tends to stimulate high levels of motivation to process the message (p. 235).
• When a single source is delivered in a message, the processing of that ad may be reduced because the target may think they have already heard what is about to be said (p. 235).
• Ads with “person-on-the-street” endorsers may still have negatively influences if they are perceived to have been paid by the sponsor (p. 235).
• If the product had any relation to “financial compensation” by the ad sponsor, tendencies were to feel negative towards the message (p.235).
• When doubt is upheld through the endorser, believability and trustworthiness is turned negative afflictions with the product (p.235).
• Trustworthiness by an endorser in a message can affect attitude toward message source, the brand, and the product itself (p. 235).

The research method used was a variety of ways. It was content analysis of the ads to go along with experimental sessions when students were given to evaluate print advertisements. For evaluations, there was a 3-minute thought-listing procedure for attitudes (237).
The way the research was conducted was 82 undergraduates were given 10 ads from “popular national magazines and local newspapers” which were related to a variety of products. Each ad was given a statement about the company sponsoring the ad. The end of the booklet of ads announced the intro of multivitamin tablets, VITAMAX. This was picked for the “scientific knowledge” and “wide range of consumers” (p.236). The students were asked to explain their attitude towards using and rank it on an ordinal scale of good, favorable, and beneficial. Then a 7-point scale was used for the attitude toward the brand from very unfavorable/very favorable.
The research finding was almost as predicted. First, students were asked to see if they could see a difference in a paid spokesperson and it was greater awareness of the paid source. The students agreed that when a paid spokesperson appears to not be genuine about the true benefits of the product in first person, they disbelieve in the product. For the positive and negative thoughts of a spokesperson, the difference in sources made a difference. One source for positive thoughts in unpaid spokespersons made it more credible, while vise versa for the paid. In the negative thoughts of paid versus unpaid, the paid had more negative thoughts for more sources, and the paid had less negative thoughts for more sources. (237-238). In conclusion, the attitude toward the brand “received the most favorable ratings when the message presented by unpaid sources.” The attitude toward the product was favorable toward using the product when the source was perceived as unpaid. Then for the attitude toward the source showed “subjects exposed to unpaid multiple sources expressed more favorable attitudes than those exposed to unpaid single sources” (p. 240).
In my opinion, the research done for this study withheld all my beliefs in what may happen. Some of the things the researchers did well were break down the study for the subjects to comprehend the ads. Before the VITAMAX ads were evaluated, subjects were actually given an ad for jewelry and test out the system so it was fair. The simplicity of the study was also done well, comparing only two amounts of sources (one vs. four). Then, for the rating of each ad kept it simple, using a rational and ordinal way to keep judgments simple. The simple things that they did made it easy to read the steps and how they went about getting their results.
Some of the negative things that the researchers had done were get away from that simplicity at times. For procedures, they went further out of their normal realm and got a little complicated on what they were doing and why they did it. It made me come up with more questions about the significance of the procedure. However, the results explained a good portion of the reasons why, but were very brief. In all, the research was very well done, and related to my thoughts with endorsements and media today.