The Effects of Guilt-Appeal Intensity on Persuasive and Emotional Outcomes: The Moderating Role of Sponsor Motive |
| |
| Authors: | Monique Mitchell Turner Hongmei Shen Hua Jiang Vanessa Boudewyns David Payne |
| |
| Affiliation: | 1. Department of Prevention and Community Health, Milken Institute School of Public Health, George Washington University, Washington D.C., USA;2. School of Journalism and Media Studies, San Diego State University, San Diego, California, USA;3. S. I. Newhouse School of Public Communications, Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York, USA;4. Public Health Research Analyst, RTI International, Washington D.C., USA;5. Department of Communication, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland, USA |
| |
| Abstract: | Studies examining the persuasive effects of guilt appeals have yielded mixed results. The current study hypothesizes that source motive (profit versus not for profit) is a key moderating variable underlying these inconsistences. A controlled experiment tested the moderating role of sponsor motive on the relationship between guilt-appeal intensity and persuasiveness of the appeal and ad liking. Findings confirmed the notion that sponsor motive moderates the effects of guilt appeals: When guilt appeals are commercially oriented there is a relative failure of high-intensity guilt appeals compared to moderate-intensity guilt appeals. Moderate-intensity guilt appeals cause more-positive brand attitudes than high-intensity appeals. Yet, when guilt appeals are nonprofit, increases in intensity of guilt communicated lead to positive results. As the guilt-intensity increased, ad liking and persuasiveness increased. It appears that guilt-appeal intensity did not have an effect on brand attitudes when the message was nonprofit. |
| |
| Keywords: | Anger emotional appeals guilt guilt appeals persuasion |
|
|
