The Effects of Online Advertis

THE EFFECTS OF ONLINE ADVERTISING ON CONSUMER AGGRESSION
Dissertation presented to the Faculty of the
Alliant School of Management
Alliant International University
San Diego
In Partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Business Administration
by
Christopher A Lobus, M.S.
2014
Approved by:
Ute Jamrozy, Ph.D., Chairperson
Rachna Kumar, Ph.D.
Wendy Chung, Ph.D.
Martin Cary, Ph.D.

UMI Number: 3668513
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
UMI 3668513
Published by ProQuest LLC (2014). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
Running Head: THE EFFECTS OF ONLINE ADVERTISING ON CONSUMER AGGRESSION ii
© Christopher A. Lobus
THE EFFECTS OF ONLINE ADVERTISING ON CONSUMER AGGRESSION iii
Abstract
Marketers continue to understand that over-exposing consumers to advertisements enhances
brand and product recall, but this situation also agitates consumers. Advertisements purposefully
serve as distracting agents that disrupt consumer focus and create freedom-threatening situations.
According to the theory of psychological reactance, this causes people to do anything possible
(even if it is violent) to restore that lost freedom; hence, the likelihood for an aggressive
consumer response to an advertisement. Furthermore, while marketing exists in all countries, the
United States and United Kingdom are two of the world’s richest countries. Firms in these
societies advertise with some of the largest advertising budgets in the world, exposing their
citizens to the highest online advertising levels possible. This study focused on: (1) how
intrusive online advertisements are perceived, (2) how much reactance online ads arouse, (3) if
online advertising locations and levels of animation contribute to greater levels of reactance
arousal, and (4) if heightened states of reactance lead to aggressive consumers. These effects
were measured amongst British and American consumers. It was found that country of origin
best explains results for perceptions of ad intrusiveness. US participants experienced this to
greater levels than UK subjects; however, UK subjects began the study with already higher
perceptions that ads are intrusive. Fully animated ads on the right side of the page were
perceived as the most intrusive. Similar results were achieved for reactance arousal. US and UK
subjects both became highly reactant with US subjects experiencing it more, but UK subjects
began in already higher reactant states. It was unclear which treatment combination achieved
this, however. Age was also evaluated as a covariate, revealing that older US consumers
perceive online ads to be more intrusive and more highly reactant to them than younger shoppers
from the UK. While not clear on which advertising treatment combinations best explain it, the
THE EFFECTS OF ONLINE ADVERTISING ON CONSUMER AGGRESSION iv
analysis revealed that increases in intrusive levels increase reactance arousal and, as reactance
arousal increases, so does the desire to respond aggressively to the advertised brand or product as
a consumer.
THE EFFECTS OF ONLINE ADVERTISING ON CONSUMER AGGRESSION v
Acknowledgements
This dissertation could not have been completed without the support and encouragement of
many friends, family, colleagues, and my dissertation committee. Regarding the support of my
committee members, I am most grateful that never gave up on me and challenged me
appropriately throughout my doctoral transformation process, which was essentially this
dissertation. Because they served their positions on my committee well and up to the most
serious of academic standards, I am a better academician for it, feeling fully confident in the
reliability, validity, and robustness of my study. Dr. Cary offered a unique perspective from the
field of psychology, providing me with the right amount of multi-disciplinary insight needed to
appropriately contribute to behavioral knowledge. Dr. Kumar and Dr. Chung both helped me see
how my study fits into Marketing’s bigger picture, enlightening me to elements I had not
previously considered multiple times throughout the time it took me to complete it. They also
both supported my approach and provided critical guidance when it was greatly needed. Dr.
Jamroy’s unique ability to trigger self-learning among—the most important quality of teaching,
in my opinion—could not have been more apparent with me during this study. This study and
writing this dissertation was a transformative process for me and Dr. Jamrozy instigated like any
high-quality teacher should. She challenged me appropriately so that I can conduct myself in the
field of Marketing independently with authority. I cannot thank her enough.
Amongst colleagues, I owe thanks to many. Dr. Matthew Wheeler, Dr. San Bolkan, Dr. Gor
Sarkisyan, and Dr. Aaron Wester, who are all doctors in other fields besides Marketing, provided
me with key mentorship at different times throughout my writing of this dissertation. Dr.
Wheeler inspired me to even begin. Without seeing him graduate, I would likely not have
thought such a feat was possibly by my doing. He offered critical encouragement and
THE EFFECTS OF ONLINE ADVERTISING ON CONSUMER AGGRESSION vi
confidence building in order for me to even begin the program. Dr. Bolkan helped me
understand the key concepts I used early on and enlightened me on necessary aspects when I
conceived my theoretical framework. Dr. Sarkisyan challenged my approach and procedures as
well as provided me with insight into the process to help me understand what to expect. Dr.
Wester greatly helped at the end by offering an outside perspective and helping to clarify my
perspective on the results of my study.
Also during my study, Dr. BangXiu Zhao and Richard Gardner (MA) spent many hours with
me ensuring that I took the correct statistical approach and built my survey appropriately.
Without their help I would have been lost and it would have taken me twice as long to find my
way. They were crucial to the success of my study. BangXiu spent an especially lengthy
amount of time with me, helping me understand the statistical context in which I was referencing
as well as pointing me to appropriate sources for me to cite and from which to learn. She also
helped me learn how to learn on my own in the statistical realm, which (again) makes me that
much stronger and confident.
Last, but not certainly least, I have many friends and family to thank. My parents and
extended family always inquired enthusiastically about my study and greatly helped me think
through parts of it. My friends at home, work, and in my immediately surroundings here in San
Diego as well as those from previous residences and experiences continuously expressed their
sincere support and encouragement. Most notably, however, was my wife, Alison Lobus.
Throughout this entire doctoral program and the writing of my dissertation, she has been an
intellectual sounding board as well as my chief supporter and encourager to get through it. This
program was an extreme transition into a new life for me and she was just as much of a part of it
as I was with the amount of time it took away from us and for the period in which it felt like it
THE EFFECTS OF ONLINE ADVERTISING ON CONSUMER AGGRESSION vii
was putting our lives on hold. I can’t think of anyone else who could possibly be so patient with
me other than her. For a while, I unfortunately put something before her love and I regret that
this had to be done. But, it is over and to thank her for her patience and understanding is vastly
understated and does not truly capture my sentiment and gratuity. My appreciation for her
always, but especially during this time in our lives, is so much greater. While we will always
love each other with all of our hearts, getting through this program and study and finally
completing the transition to a new academic level has made us even stronger as a couple. I know
that I am meant to spend the rest of my life with her, but her perseverance throughout this
dissertation showed me that in such a brighter light than I was ever able to see it before. Alison,
while I cannot say it enough, I still will to begin to express my love and appreciation for you: I
love you and thank you for all that you have done for me to help me complete this dissertation.
THE EFFECTS OF ONLINE ADVERTISING ON CONSUMER AGGRESSION viii
Table of Contents
Abstract iii
Acknowledgements v
List of Tables xiii
List of Figures xiii
CHAPTER I. Introdction 1
Current State of Advertising 3
An Increasing Use of Digital Advertising 5
Marketing Reform and the Ethics of Advertising 7
Ethics of Using Sex and Violence in Ads 9
Models for Marketing Reform 10
Theory of Psychological Reactance 13
Reactance and Consumer Behavior 14
Advertising as a Possible Cause of Psychological Reactance 15
Information Processing and Overload 15
Reactance with Online Advertisements 17
Purpose of this Study 19
Scope of the Study 23
Manipulations 23
Objectives of the Study 24
Research Questions and Hypotheses 24
Definition of Terms 26
Aggression 26
THE EFFECTS OF ONLINE ADVERTISING ON CONSUMER AGGRESSION ix
Aggressive Consumers 27
Psychological Reactance 27
Online Advertisements 27
Online Consumers 27
Chapter I Summary 28
CHAPTER II. Literature Review 29
Chapter Introduction 29
Exploring Aggression 30
Basic Aggression: Insights from Animals 30
Human Aggression: Cultural Insights 31
Consumer Aggression toward Advertising 34
Increases in Exposures to Violence Leads to More Violence 37
How Aggressive Responses to Advertising Result in Consumer Reactance 38
The Boomerang Effect 40
In-store Experiences 42
Negative and Positive Word-of-Mouth Communication 43
Anti-Brand and -Product 46
Effects of Personality, Mood, Attitude, and Feelings on Advertising Aggression 47
Personality 47
Attitude and Mood 51
Feelings and Emotions 56
Qualities of Online Advertisements that lead to Aggression 59
Frequency of online Advertising 61

THE EFFECTS OF ONLINE ADVERTISING ON CONSUMER AGGRESSION x
Duration and Timing of online Advertising 62
Advertising Location 65
Advertisement Animation Levels 68
Chapter II Summary 74
CHAPTER III. Methodology 75
Research Design 75
Experimental Stimulus 78
Subjects 82
Sampling Procedures 85
Instrument 95
Data Analysis 96
Chapter III Summary 101
CHAPTER IV. Research Findings 102
Samples 102
Profile of the Respondents 103
Treatment Groups 104
Exploratory Factor Analysis 106
Data Screening and Manipulation Checks 106
Descriptive Statistics 110
Reliability and validity 112
Assumptions 112
Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) 116
Descriptive Statistics for Perceived Ad Intrusiveness 116

THE EFFECTS OF ONLINE ADVERTISING ON CONSUMER AGGRESSION xi
Descriptive Statistics for Reactance Arousal 116
Descriptive Statistics for Desire for Consumer Aggression 119
Multivariate Effects 119
Univariate Effects for Perceived Ad Intrusiveness 122
Univariate Effects for Reactance Arousal 126
Univariate Effects for Desire for Consumer Aggression 130
Correlation Analysis of the Dependent Variables 133
Post-Hoc Analysis 136
Additional Findings 137
Chapter IV Summary 140
CHAPTER V. Findings, Contributions, Limitations, and Future Research 143
Discussion of Findings and Conclusions 143
Contributions of This Research 149
Limitations and Future Research 153
References 157
APPENDIX A. Screenshots and Sequence of the Study 177
Introduction Page 178
Demographic Page 179
Pre-Test Page 180
Treatment Page 181
Post-Test Page 185
Incentive Page 186
Exit Page 187

THE EFFECTS OF ONLINE ADVERTISING ON CONSUMER AGGRESSION xii
APPENDIX B. Pre- and Post-Test Questionnaires 188
APPENDIX C. Treatment Groups 195

THE EFFECTS OF ONLINE ADVERTISING ON CONSUMER AGGRESSION xiii
List of Tables
Table 1. Treatment Groups 77
Table 2. Treatment Combinations 82
Table 3. US and UK Participant Recruitment Websites 83
Table 4. Measurement Items and Scales Used in the Pre- and Post-Test Questionnaire 95
Table 5. Re-Distribution of Measurement Questions after Rotation 109
Table 6. Item Mean Scores for Pre- and Post-Test Responses 111
Table 7. Descriptive Statistics for Perceived Ad Intrusiveness 116
Table 8. Descriptive Statistics for Reactance Arousal 118
Table 9. Descriptive Statistics for Desire for Consumer Aggression 120
Table 10. Multivariate Results for Between Groups Effects 121
Table 11. Multivariate Results Before and After Treatments Combined with Country 122
Table 12. Between Groups Effects on Perceived Ad Intrusiveness 122
Table 13. Repeated Measures Effects on Perceived Ad Intrusiveness 123
Table 14. Between Groups Effects on Reactance Arousal 128
Table 15. Repeated Measures Effects on Reactance Arousal 128
Table 16. Repeated Measures Effects on Desire for Consumer Aggression 131
Table 17. Paired-Samples t Test of the Before and After Results for Dependent Variables 133
Table 18. Correlation Results for Post-Treatment Dependent Variables 135
Table 19. Multivariate Results of Between Groups Effects for Covariates 138
Table 20. Multivariate Results of Repeated Measures Effects for Covariates 138
Table 21. Between Groups Effects of Age 139
Table 22. Repeated Measures Effects of Age 139

THE EFFECTS OF ONLINE ADVERTISING ON CONSUMER AGGRESSION xiv
Table 23. Summary of Hypothesis Testing 140
Table C1. Number of Usable Samples by Treatment Group 196

THE EFFECTS OF ONLINE ADVERTISING ON CONSUMER AGGRESSION xv
List of Figures
Figure 1. Theoretical Framework. ................................................................................................22
Figure 2. Conceptual Model. ........................................................................................................73
Figure 3. Ad Location. ..................................................................................................................80
Figure 4. Ad Animation Levels. ...................................................................................................81
Figure 5. Advertisement Used to Recruit Participants..................................................................84
Figure 6. Number of Respondents by Age for US Subjects. ......................................................103
Figure 7. Number of Respondents by Age for UK Subjects.......................................................104
Figure 8. Number of Respondents per Treatment Group. ..........................................................106
Figure 9. Perceived Ad Intrusiveness by Country. .....................................................................124
Figure 10. Perceived Ad Intrusiveness due to Level of the Ad’s Animation. ............................125
Figure 11. Reactance Arousal by Country. .................................................................................130
Figure A1. Screenshot of the Introduction Page. ........................................................................179
Figure A2. Screenshot of the Demographic Page. ......................................................................179
Figure A3. Screenshot of the Pre-Test Page. ..............................................................................180
Figure A4. Screenshot of the Treatment Page without Any Treatments Applied. .....................181
Figure A5. Ad Treatment: Top of the Page. ...............................................................................182
Figure A6. Ad Treatment: Left Side of the Page. .......................................................................183
Figure A7. Ad Treatment: Middle of the Page. ..........................................................................183
Figure A8. Ad Treatment: Right side of the Page. .....................................................................184
Figure A9. Ad Treatment: Bottom of the Page. ..........................................................................184
Figure A10. Screenshot of the Post-Test Page............................................................................185
Figure A11. Screenshot of the Incentive Page. ...........................................................................186

THE EFFECTS OF ONLINE ADVERTISING ON CONSUMER AGGRESSION xvi
Figure A12. Screenshot of the Exit Page. ...................................................................................187

THE EFFECTS OF ONLINE ADVERTISING ON CONSUMER AGGRESSION 1
CHAPTER I
Introduction
Advertising is all around us. Rayport (2013) writes that “in this media saturated world,
advertising strategies built on persuading through interruption, repetition, and brute ubiquity are
increasingly ineffective” (p. 78). Common marketing industry beliefs are that the effects of
advertising are long-term (Clarke, 1976; Lodish et al., 1995) and there is extensive literature to
support the effectiveness of carry-over benefits and increased learning through repetition
(Sawyer & Ward, 1979). Thus, advertising’s ubiquity is carried out by design and fueled
through the tens of billions of dollars marketers spend on advertising throughout the world every
year. Furthermore, advertising’s reach and repetition is ever-expanding through advances in
technology. Fearful of marketing’s impact, many scholars continue to study the discipline in
order to better understand consumer behavior and seek out appropriate methods for regulation
and reform.
Marketers often launch manipulative campaigns on purpose: not because they appease
consumers, but because they continue to drive sales and increase revenue. Quandt (1956)
conducted an experimental study, finding that consumers do not purchase products according to
the features in which they find critical to their needs; rather, some consumers decide to purchase
products based on features in which they previously found as irrelevant. The behavioral
phenomena that are central to these conclusions are supported by the decision-making research
of Zajonc (1980) many years later, who explored how humans process their inputs
subconsciously and their effects on automatic recognition, concluding that such behind-the-
scenes variables are major drivers of human decision making. For marketing, the implications
from these two studies is that if annoying ads somehow standout and trigger an automatic
cognition process, then they may affect a consumer’s behavior. To add even more validity, this
line of thought is aligned with Fritz’s (1979) conclusions that annoying ads are effective because
of their high memory recall.
In addition to proliferating annoying ads on purpose, many marketers push hard-sell tactics
through their advertising as well, leaving consumers less than pleased. Campbell (1995) finds
that when ads are manipulative, consumers are not persuaded by them as much as when they are
not found to be manipulative. This research is supported by previous studies on hard-sell
campaigns. Saegert (1987) studied various types of coercion in advertising, showing that
subliminal advertising, for instance, is not effective since it only leads to annoying consumers.
Also, Singhapakdi and Vitell (1990) uncover that Machiavellian motivations influence many
ethical decisions processes of marketing managers when they attempt to sell more of their
company’s products and services through advertising. By these studies, it is understood that
such hard-sell tactics and coercion methods lead to consumer aversion of advertising.
Uncovering the aspects of advertising that lead to advertising avoidance is explained through
many seminal studies that identify consumer reactions to them. Raymond and Greyser (1968),
Aaker and Bruzzone (1985), and Wang et al. (2002) showcase how consumers perceive
advertisements to be irritating and annoying, which leads to increases in their levels of
frustration. Similar to this, Edwards, Li, and Lee (2002) found that consumers view
advertisements as intrusive, which also adds to increases in levels of consumer frustration. It is
also known from Speck and Elliot (1997) that consumers outright avoid advertisements when
frustration levels are high. So, understanding the psychology of frustrating advertisements is
necessary for this study.

Through his research, Aronson (2008) finds that “frustration is most pronounced when the
goal is becoming palpable and drawing within reach, when expectations are high, and when the
goal is blocked unjustifiably” (p. 273). Therefore, it is necessary to further investigate the
psychological phenomena that address blocking one’s goals. Jack Brehm’s (1966) theory of
psychological reactance continues to be the only one that accounts for a person’s autonomy. He
explains that reactance is aroused when someone’s freedom is blocked or the threat of that
freedom is taken away. Several authors have since applied this knowledge to advertising and
agree that reactance is seen when the consumer is frustrated by an advertisement (Clee &
Wicklund, 1980; Edwards, Li, and Lee, 2002; Li & Meeds, 2005, Li & Meeds, 2007) or some
aspect of the advertisement (Dillard & Shen, 2005; Miller et al., 2007).
Current State of Advertising
Marketers have a long history of pushing advertisements to consumers in various ways
throughout the world. For the past several hundred years, businesses have paid for advertising
(versus achieving it through simple forms of word-of-mouth) to sell and market their brands and
products. Beginning with the first print ads in London newspapers in the seventeenth century
(Advertising, Encyclopedia Britannica, 2010), however, the placement of advertisements began
their expansion into creative new places. Also, countries like the United Kingdom and France
started the development of their deep advertising history. Now, all nations throughout the world
advertise in every place, format, and location imaginable with the countries home to the world’s
most wealthy businesses dominating global advertising expenditures. The distribution of global
advertising spending for 2013 was dominated by countries in North America (35.6%), Asia-
Pacific (27.9%), and Western Europe (21%) with all other regions accounting for a
comparatively small remaining amount (Statist, 2014). Within these wealthy groups, the United
States is another country who displays a strong history and culture of advertising. From the rise
of hundreds of successful agencies on New York’s Madison Avenue in the mid-twentieth
century to internet advertising pioneers like America Online (AOL, Encyclopedia Britannica,
2010; corp.aol.com, 2014) in the 1990s and Google in the 2000s, marketers in the US continue to
pave future advertising paths that the world continues to follow.
As it stands today, marketers spend billions of dollars a year on advertising throughout the
world. According to Nielson, global advertising expenditures increased by 3.2 % in 2012 to
$557 billion (Nielson, 2013). In the US alone, marketers spent more than half of that amount at
roughly $300 billion—the top 100 firms of which accounted for nearly a third of that at $104.5
billion (Ad Age, 2013). In Europe, overall advertising expenditures decreased by 6% (Nielson,
2013) last year, but the UK actually increased the amount of money it spends on advertising by
2.3 % to over £17,176 billion (which is approximately US $26 billion according to global
currency exchange rates at the time of this writing). Furthermore, the pace of advertising
spending in these two countries is not expected to slow down. Both the US and the UK are
forecasted to increase their advertising expenditures over the coming years. According to the
analysis of several industry review groups (Nielson, 2013; Ad Age, 2013), both the US and UK
are on track to increase their year-over-year advertising spending amounts by at least 3%.
With such a long history of advertising and the rapid expansion of the Internet,
advertisements are now seen in many formats and places. They are separated into “traditional”
and “non-traditional” categories. Traditional placements are areas where consumers already
expect to see advertisements, such as a commercial on TV or a printed advertisement in a
newspaper. However, marketers now creatively place advertisements on cars, in the air with
colored smoke, and on the jerseys of professional athletes, offering up new and unique
advertisement placements in order to further reach their consumer base (Solomon, Consumer
Behavior, 2009). Combined with evidence that more exposure to advertising helps get their
brands and products noticed (Clarke, 1976; Lodish et al., 1995; Sawyer & Ward, 1979),
marketers continue to deliver advertisements in frequent, disruptive, and invasive manners,
creating a situation where pervasive advertising exists throughout society.
Finally, whether it is in a traditional or non-traditional location, online advertisements are
increasing contributors to this situation of pervasive advertising. While the digital space remains
to be only a small portion of total advertising expenditures by marketing firms all over the world,
year-over-year comparisons of marketing spending by category reveals that digital is emerging
as the fastest growing advertising investment space. By 2015, analysts predict the percentage of
overall advertising spending to be a quarter of total marketing budgets (Economist, 2013). This
is rationalized by the following logic:
Advertisers like them because they can be aimed more precisely at a target audience
(with a particular demographic profile and browsing history) than, say, television or radio
ads. They also get a better idea of whether anyone is actually looking at the ads they are
paying for (Economist, 2013).
Overall, as seen from their large budgets, marketers push advertisements to consumers in
various ways, contributing to pervasive advertising situations.
An Increasing Use of Digital Advertising. While television advertising continues to remain
the lion’s share of total world-wide advertising expenditures at over 60% in 2013, advertisers
around the world increased the amount of money they spent on Internet advertising by 9.9 % to
1.9% of global advertising expenditures in 2012 (Nielsen, 2013). Furthermore, nearly 22% of
global ad spending is now on digital advertising mediums (such as the Internet, TV, and mobile
devices) and such expenditures are expected to increase to 27% by 2017 (Vranica & Bender,
2013).
Internet advertising expenses continue to grow throughout the world, achieving nearly
double-digit increases year-over-year in the United States and Europe (Nielsen, 2013; Ad Age,
2013). In the US, digital marketing expenditures for 2013 exceeded analysts’ expectations
(Nielsen, 2013; Vranica & Steward, 2013) by nearly $10 billion, reaching over $43 billion total
(Sebastian, 2014; Johnson, 2014). In the UK, the amount of Pound-Sterling spent on digital
marketing rose by nearly 16% to over £6 billion (AA/Warc, 2013; eMarketer, 2013), which is
nearly $10 billion (according to global currency exchange rates at the time of this writing).
Whereas earlier marketing was confined to only billboards, magazines, newspapers, radio,
and television, the Internet now offers marketers an increasingly higher number of platforms and
digital capabilities in which to reach their consumers. The Internet is more than one more
medium—it is customizable, dynamic, interactive, and growing. Since the beginning of Web 2.0
where the Internet became even more interactive, marketers have ever increasingly unique
opportunities to reach their clientele. Parise, Guinan, and Weinberg (2008) define Web 2.0 as
“the set of tools that allow people to build social and business connections, share information and
collaborate on projects online…[which] includes blogs, wikis, social-networking sites and other
online communities, and virtual worlds” (WSJ online). According to these authors, marketers
are largely behind the power curve and lend evidence to the growing need to reform the
discipline, especially in this new Internet age where digital advertising is on the rise.
Digital advertising potential is still largely untapped and the opportunity is ever increasing.
US adult consumers will spend more time this year on digital media than they do on TV (WSJ
online). As TV viewing time in the US remains flat at 4 hours and 31 minutes in 2013 and 4
hours and 38 minutes in 2012, consumption of digital media surpassed these numbers for the first
time in 2013 to 5 hours and 9 minutes.
Addressing growing digital advertising trends are emerging in marketing academia. Parise
(2008) specifically cautions marketing managers to understand the search goals of their
consumers and carefully select effective search engines in which to target their campaigns.
When this is not achieved, they find that consumers are easily frustrated with online
advertisements because they view them as irrelevant and a waste of their time. Consumer search
goals are more obtainable on digital platforms and more studies like this one need to be
conducted to advance marketing knowledge in the ever changing digital arena.
Marketing Reform and the Ethics of Advertising
Many scholars do not feel that intentionally annoying consumers in order to increase sales is
useful or helpful to society. They advocate for marketing reform. Hyman, Tansey, and Clark
(1994), for instance, call on academics to “develop theoretically and psychometrically sound
scales for measuring the public’s attitude about the ethicality of some advertising practices” (p.
14).
In our current paradigm of expansive opportunities and endless virtual touch points,
advertising is a unique sociological tool with inherent psychological risks (LaTour & Zahra,
1989; Zinkhan, 1994). Ducoffe (1995) contends that the marketing ethics will be upheld if the
advertisement’s value is apparent and delivered in a meaningful way, such as through
entertainment, to consumers. He writes,
Were a consumer benefit measure like advertising value accepted as part of a general
theory of how advertising changes attitudes, promoting its use in the design and
evaluation of campaigns could help the profession defend itself against criticism that it is
primarily about manipulative communication strategies limited to servicing the needs of
organizations (p. 14).
Since Ducoffe (1995) wrote that, marketers, through societies such as the American Marketing
Association (AMA), continue to strive for industry-wide ethical best practices, but many scholars
are still working hard to reform the discipline. Values of “respect” and “citizenship” as well as
norms like “do not harm” and “embrace ethical values” (AMA, 2011) are credos encouraged by
the AMA that protect consumers and society from damage.
Marketers have an obligation, by these values, to act responsibly and not purposely harm or
annoy the consumer. One such instance of adherence to these principles is when companies
collectively discontinued their use of subliminal advertising in the 1950s. In addition to a
defensive public reaction, Saegert (1987) proves that such tactics are only effective in extreme
circumstances when consumer thought is exactly aligned to the subliminally advertised
message’s content—a rare enough case that makes the effort far from fruitful. However, Saegert
also admits that marketers will use whatever means will make them money (p. 119).
Despite proclaiming to adhere to ethical standards, the opportunity to maliciously influence
consumers is still available and in greater capacity than ever before. Additionally, the reach of
marketing promotions is widening with advances in technology, allowing marketers to enjoy an
even greater impact on, and reach throughout, society. Not only do advertisements reside on all
consumable mediums, they stretch into applications and appear on top of programming,
distracting consumers and interrupting their focus, which leads to specific consumer reactions
that can be measured. When these reactions are negative, aggressive and violent occurrences are
possible, which presents an ethical dilemma on society: if it is discovered that people are angered
by advertisements and advertisements are encouraged to be shown even more frequently through
existing market research on their positive effects of brand recall, then marketers are directly
contributing to a more aggressive society.
Still seeing the need to reform marketing as a discipline, but also appeal to the business of
marketing, Rayport (2013) advises advertisers to:
Think less about what advertising says to its targets and more about what it does for
them. Rather than conceive ad campaigns with a beginning, a middle, and an end that
hammer home a point, they must think about advertising—as well as the offerings it
promotes—as a sustained and rewarding presence in consumers’ lives (p. 78).
Goldsmith and Lafferty (2000) also found that advertising should be reevaluated and improved
since marketers generally fall short of connecting their online advertising to other channels in a
cross-platform study they conducted. A study by Dahlen and Lange (2005) also concluded that
marketers often miss the mark with their advertisements and need to reevaluate their strategies to
maintain or improve purchase intention.
Ethics of Using Sex and Violence in Ads. In addition to poor marketing execution,
advertisements can be very powerful and could inflict great harm on society. To garner more
attention and gain the competitive edge, businesses are still quick to deploy edgy material—such
as sex and violence—on purpose. This comes even after Bushman and Bonacci (2002) found
over 10 years ago that sex and violence do not actually sell anything. To the contrary, they find,
sex and violence impair the memory of consumers in retaining messages after seeing graphic and
sexual content. To explain this, they write that “people pay attention to sex and violence, thus
reducing the amount of attention they can direct toward other stimuli” (p. 561).
In a later study, Bushman (2005) not only reaffirms that sex and violence on TV hinder
consumers processing of commercials, but also defines the negative impacts they have on society
as a hole, stating that “televised violence increases societal violence” (p. 706). This finding
advances the work of Zillmann and Weaver (1999), who earlier found that too much exposure to
media violence increases hostile behavior and that this is not good for society. “It appears that
media violence plants concepts of hostility that can be activated by any ill feelings and can foster
mean-spiritedness toward the person’s social environment at large” (p. 160). Marketers,
therefore, should be obligated to carefully review their messaging in order to prevent
unnecessarily inciting or instigating hostile behavior from their consumer base.
Models for Marketing Reform
Many studies show that businesses do not benefit from advertisements that are not well
received by consumers (Greyser 1973, Hustad & Pessemier 1973, Lundstrom & Lamont 1976,
Aaker & Bruzzone, 1985, Stayman & Aaker, 1988, Longman, 1997), but Singhapakdi and Vitell
(1990) find that they enjoy high return when using manipulative marketing practices. So, there
is little incentive for marketing managers to follow a tactic other than annoying, disruptive, and
invasive advertising if it serves their ultimate sales needs. Much to Hyman, Tansey, and Clark’s
(1994) advice, scholars continue to question whether or not consumers are, in turn, positively or
negatively affected from an ethical standpoint (Zinkhan, 1994; Hyman, Tansey, and Clark,
1994). Pollay (1986), for instance, writes that reputable scholars from the fields of humanities
and social sciences who deeply examined the moral effects of advertising on society regard it as
“intrusive and environmental and its effects as inescapable and profound” as well as “reinforcing
materialism, cynicism, irrationality, selfishness, anxiety, social competitiveness, sexual
preoccupation, powerlessness, and/or a loss of self-respect” (p. 896). Others (LaTour & Zahra,
1989; Kohn & Smart, 1984) re-state the persuasive power of advertising and caution marketers
to exercise restraint with their advertising so as not to intentionally distribute harmful
consequences on society.
Other scholars linked marketing ethics with ideology. Treise et al. (1994) found that the
standpoint of consumers is based on their relative attachment to advertising situations versus
their overall beliefs about them. They examined the ethical reactions of consumers faced with
controversial advertising to children, campaigns that unfairly target poor minorities, marketing
that encourages women as homemaker roles, fear appeals to teenagers, and how sexuality in
advertising encourages teenage fornication. Their overall results show that “consumers believe
advertising often violates broad ethical norms” (p. 59), but their ethical ideology ultimately
determines how they judge advertisers.
Studying the need for marketing reform is hardly a new practice in academia, but the need to
continue to do so could not be more apparent with the current scenario of information overload
through marketers’ use of frequent, disruptive, and invasive advertising. A compelling reason to
keep the subject of marketing reform at the forefront of academic focus is marketing’s
continuous expansion through technology. As digital breakthroughs occur, marketers continue
to be offered more platforms and formats in which to publish their advertisements, ubiquitously
replicating and transferring their all too frequent, disruptive, and annoying advertising methods.
Laczniak (1983) points out the long history of studying resolutions to unethical marketing
practices and offers improvements through his proposed framework of providing “marketing
managers with a philosophical mnemonic which serves to remind them of their ethical
responsibilities” (p. 16). Many other authors propose frameworks for evaluating marketing
ethics. Before him, Kotler, Gregor and Rogers (1977) introduced managers to a valuable
marketing audit process. Their findings “include detecting unclear or inappropriate marketing
objectives, inappropriate strategies, inappropriate levels of marketing expenditures, needed
improvements in organization, and needed improvements in systems for marketing information,
planning, and control” (p. 596). While their model seems like a panacea for eliminating corrupt
marketing practices, the need for more study on how to best reform the discipline persists since
Kotler, Gregor, and Rogers’ conclusions are taken too literally. Therefore, Hunt and Vitell
(1986) attempt to extend the traditional guidance of marketing ethics by offering a model that
guides rather than prescribes. They base it off of two widely accepted theoretical foundations to
moral philosophy—deontological and teleological theories. Ultimately, their model helps
marketing managers analyze and resolve ethical marketing conflicts in the “intrafirm setting,
where managers are interested in helping their personnel to identify, analyze, and (hopefully)
resolve their ethical problems” (p 15).
Whether this knowledge accurately advanced effective advertising sentiment to consumers
since those authors wrote their studies is evidently doubtful. Through their collection of
marketing reform articles, Seth and Sisodia (2006) offer that there are still many opportunities
and areas in which to reform marketing. On the oversaturated nature of US-based advertising,
for instance, Johansson (2006) writes that “when summed across all competitors in a product
category and across all markets, the clutter and noise is annoying to most people and an
embarrassment to the marketing profession” (p. 38).
Next, Wind (2006) challenges the mental models of marketing and elucidates the point that
“there have been dramatic changes in the environment that require us to rethink our approaches
to marketing” (p. 96). He demonstrates how 30 second television commercials, for instance, are
hardly viewed anymore (based on a survey of consumers who have the ability to fast forward
them via their DVR-enabled cable boxes) and points out that word of mouth through social
media for some of these segments are now more effective forms of advertising (p. 93).
Smith (2006) blames the marketing model as the reason for resistant consumers. He writes:
Indeed, more often than not, bad marketing is nothing but standard marketing practice
carried to an extreme. Arrogant spammers and telemarketers employ the customary
practices of interruption and intrusiveness. The only difference is that they are more
aggressive in putting these principles into action (p. 17).
To the points these authors address, there will always be marketing managers who are an
embarrassment to the profession and break ethical rules. While Laczniak (1993) is hopeful that
alternative paradigms, cross-cultural evaluations, investigations into ethical gaps, and a better
informed advocacy (p. 94) are on the horizon for marketers in their efforts to further develop the
practice, the need to reform marketing (especially since advertising) is still a much needed
endeavor for both academics and practitioners to pursue.
To further the study of marketing reform, this paper seeks to measure the effects of
advertising on consumer aggression. However, to better understand aggression in marketplace
exchanges, the exact situation of the consumer and his encounters with advertising is necessary
to review. To do so, the theory of psychological reactance is applied in this examination.
Theory of Psychological Reactance
Brehm (1966) first introduced the concept of psychological reactance as the “motivational
state directed toward the reestablishment of [a] threatened or eliminated freedom” (p. 15). He
outlines the four main components of reactance theory as 1) freedom, 2) threat to freedom, 3)
reactance, and 4) restoration of freedom. An individual must feel concrete freedom and then
realize that it is lost in order to experience reactance.

Brehm (1989) states that that “people become motivationally aroused by a threat to or
elimination of behavioral freedom” and that “impels the individual to restore the particular
freedom that was threatened or taken away” (p. 72). Therefore, freedom and the threat of losing
that freedom is the central element of reactance theory.
Several studies show the importance of freedom as it pertains to reactance. Many authors
conducted studies that show the tendency for people to gravitate towards the messaging of the
very thing that is under threat of denial (Brehm et al., 1966; Hammock & Brehm, 1966, Worchel,
Andreoli, & Archer, 1976). From these studies, it may be concluded that a “choice alternative
which is eliminated by another person will tend to become more attractive, and a choice
alternative forced by another person will tend to become less attractive” (p. 553, Hammock &
Brehm, 1966). Scholars have also found that the theory of reactance applies when the original
source is under suspicion or has reason to cause skepticism (Kohn & Barnes, 1977).
Reactance and Consumer Behavior. Reactance is seen in consumer behavior. Brehm
(1966) says that his theory may be applied to nearly every situation in which a consumer’s
freedom is threatened. In an example by Brehm (1989) where the consumer’s freedom to choose
a certain brand of a particular product type (in this case it is soda) is threatened he outlines the
consumer’s response as it relates to reactance theory. He writes:
First, the greater the number of products or services from which to choose, the more
reluctant the consumer should be to select any given one. Second, the greater the number
of products or services from which to choose, the greater will be the consumer’s
resistance to high pressure tactics to make a particular selection (p. 74).
When consumers are faced with a loss of freedom, their reaction to do anything in order to
restore it is heightened. In these situations, consumers feel they must reassert their freedom.
This also means that products that were not previously desired (but ones that become hard to
obtain) become increasingly interesting to consumers when their freedom to choose them
becomes threatened. Thus, the consumer’s freedom is the crucial aspect of reactance theory.
It does not matter if the object or product is highly desired; rather, the level of freedom to
choose to purchase it or not is what matters (Brehm, 1966). Clee and Wicklund (1980) write that
freedom “acts as a mediator of reactance effects in a manner similar to presence versus absence
of freedom: the more important the freedom, the more reactance is generated due to personal or
impersonal threats” (p. 391). Their review of reactance theory applies primarily to consumer
behavior. They review several areas of consumerism where reactance may be generated:
promotional influence, product unavailability, pricing, political behavior, environmental
protection, altruism and helping behaviors, reference groups, and self-imposed threats to
freedom. They find that reactance leads to engaging in the threatened behavior (p. 401) and that
it manifests itself as “aggression or hostility directed toward the source of the threat” (p. 402).
The above-mentioned point is particularly relevant to the purpose of this paper, but the next
step must be taken to understand how this theory applies to consumers exposed to frequent,
disruptive and invasive advertising in the marketplace in order to understand the relationship
between advertising and reactance.
Advertising as a Possible Cause of Psychological Reactance
Information Processing and Overload. Many scholars find evidence of reactance when too
much information is forced upon them. Johnson and Russo (1984) point out that the overload
effects of advertising negatively impact the ability of consumers to choose between product
types. This is consistent with other studies (Clee &Wicklund, 1980) and draws from Brehm’s
(1966) theory of reactance. Similar to this, Ha and McCann (2008) found that consumers react
by avoiding advertising—an attributable behavior to reactance—when it is perceived as too
cluttered in online media. Finally, Gourville and Soman (2005) and Markman and Loewenstein
(2010) also attribute over-choice to consumer reactance.
While this supports the notion that advertising overload leads to reactance, Rains and Turner
(2007) find that the magnitude of the request in a message is the most significant variable that
contributes to reactance. To their point, Stol, Baecke, and Kenning (2008) show that attractive
packaging does, in fact, make a difference because it increases influence on consumers. “The
external appearance of a product at the point of sale can influence the decision-making process
of the consumer to a high degree” (p. 355), they write. Therefore, the need to force more
impactful information onto consumers is a constant objective in advertising, but has the potential
to incite reactance.
Indeed, the messaging in advertisements is very important to a consumer’s freedom, which
impacts their expression of reactance. Johnson and Russo (1984), in fact, prove that
advertisements lead to information overload for consumers and that this impacts their ability to
choose between products and learn new information. Ostensibly, this result is reactance because
their freedom of choice is under threat.
As previously mentioned, influential scripts also impact consumer choice by limiting their
freedom to only certain communications. More recent scholars fine-tune this knowledge through
their study of cognitive processing of reactance in order to affect persuasive messaging. Dillard
and Shen (2005) tested reactance on four different models of reactance processes. Rains and
Turner (2007) later expand upon their study to find the best fitting cognitive model in which to
predict reactance processes. They conclude that the magnitude of the request in messaging is the
variable that has the most significant impact on reactance. Finally, Miller et al. (2007) applied
reactance theory to the lexical aspects of the messages, finding that controlling language has the
most significant impact on reactance.
Reactance with Online Advertisements. As this paper aims to offer uniqueness by
focusing on online advertising, these concepts of reactance are explored in the virtual setting. At
the height of the Internet’s boom in popularity in the 1990s when online advertising was just
beginning, Ducoffe (1996) found that people were not annoyed by online advertising. Because
they offered greater entertainment value when viewed online, the consumers he studied had high
overall opinions of web-based advertisements. In a later study, however, Peterman et al. (1999)
found that acceptance of online advertising is low, if a consumer has had a previously poor
online experience. In these situations, disdain for online advertisements are high because
consumers have an overall negative attitude toward online advertising.
As online experiences improved, Novak, Hoffman, and Yung (2000) showed that consumers
are more likely to embrace online advertisements on sites that contain the right balance of
challenge, information, and entertainment. The marketing effectiveness seen on these sites are
very high. They write that “the ‘interactivity metrics’ of duration time and browsing depth [that]
measure marketing effectiveness on advertising sponsored websites will be highly positively
correlated with compelling online customer experience” (p. 40).
Similar to an offline, traditional commerce situation, positive online consumer experiences
are attributable to higher consumer engagement and less reactance. By the end of the 1990s,
Goldsmith and Lafferty (2002) found that Internet ads were liked less than all other channels
measured (which were television, magazines, and newspapers) with the exception of radio being
the least liked of them all. But, consumer recall of brands and products from online ads were
high and ranked second, only behind TV advertisements. This indicates that online
advertisements are valuable to marketers even if they increase consumer reactance.
As was the case with Peterman et al. (1999), Goldsmith and Lafferty (2002) found that
consumers who already like the website will have a positive response to Internet advertising and
caution marketers to keep consumer sentiment in mind based off of the results of their study.
“More care and attention should be devoted to creating Internet advertising to give it the qualities
that make it more likable” (p. 325), they write. Cho, Lee, and Tharp (2001) agree. They found
that banner ads contributed to higher opinions and more positive attitudes of Internet banner
advertising. With this, they correlate banner ads to increased purchase behavior. They write:
Unexpectedly, however it was found that the banner ad presented in the format of the
highest forced exposure also yielded the most desirable advertising effects (i.e.: favorable
attitude toward the banner ad, favorable attitude toward the brand, and high purchase
intention) (p. 53).
Even though banner ads were forced upon their subjects (e.g.: consumers), they favored the
advertisement and brand and, thus, were much more likely to purchase the product.
Later studies of Internet advertising do not find as much support from consumers and find
areas where reactance is high. Li and Meeds (2005) find that consumers avoid online
advertisements, for instance. Pop-up ads, in particular, they find, annoy consumers. This
indicates that consumers ignore a large portion of online advertisements altogether as well as
demonstrates one way in which consumer reactance is manifested in an online environment.
“The occurrence of pop-up ads is believed to interrupt consumers’ cognitive processes and,
therefore, should be perceived as an intrusion in individuals’ goals” (p. 44), they write. With
pop-up advertisements, the consumer’s field of view is restricted and their freedom to pursue
their objectives is threatened, so they seek to regain that lost freedom by avoiding the
advertisement.
Goal impediments by online advertisements represent a clear opportunity for consumer
reactance. Ho and Cheon (2004) agree that perceived goal impediments are the most significant
reason to avoid Internet advertisements. Their study also supports the notion that consumers are
now conditioned to pop-up ads and easily close the window to avoid them without even seeing or
engaging with the advertisement.
From that study, it appears that Internet advertising only serves to pester and annoy
consumers. A later study by Li and Meeds (2005) more clearly attributes online advertising to
reactance. They used Brehm’s (1966) theory of reactance to test consumer responses to pop-up
and interstitial web advertisements, finding that these types of Internet advertisements lead to
immediate reactance situations. This is because the immediate response of consumers to Internet
advertising is negative and they automatically seek to close the pop-up or interstitial in order to
restore their freedom. “The overall perception of ad intrusiveness” they write, “could be
considered high, which suggests Internet users tend to have a negative feeling toward [the ad]”
(p. 206).
Purpose of this Study
This study extended the findings of Li and Meeds (2005) (as well as others who studied
reactance and online advertising (Li, Edwards, & Lee, 2002)) to investigate how online
advertisements arouse psychological reactance as well as how that leads to aggressive consumer
reactions to them. Specifically, it aimed to undercover the link between reactance and
aggression. Similar to the studies just mentioned, this one was also based on the theory of
psychological reactance; however, where these authors leave off, this study sought to determine
whether or not online advertisements caused people to act out aggressively to them in commerce
situations. It explored this consumer tendency in both the United States and United Kingdom.
By their purpose and nature of delivery, advertisements are meant to distract consumers and
steal their focus, contributing to their loss of freedom to control a situation. When consumers
experience such losses or threats to their freedom, it is understood that they will “raise hell”
(Brehm, 1971, p. 73) in order to restore that freedom because of the theory of psychological
reactance. As seen through the work of many scholars (Richins, 1983; Richins & Verhage,
1987; Harris & Reynolds, 2003 & 2004; Harris & Dumas, 2009), hell-raising consumers are
aggressive and assertive, which is only enhanced through other variables like the consumer’s
feelings, attitude, mood, and personality.
As the literature shows, marketing managers understand that over-exposing consumers to
their advertisements enhances the consumer’s memory recall for their brands and products, so
they will likely continue displaying them as frequently as possible. Also, as new forms and
mediums are realized, they will continue to expand their reach, generating even more ad wear-
out on society. With respect to online advertisements, budgets for digital marketing campaigns
are growing, insuring that the impact of online advertisements on society will grow and be
realized at greater intensities going forward. While marketing exists in all countries, some
countries have been doing it far longer (hence, providing deep-seated roots for the practice
within the culture) as well as clearly spend more money on it than others, which results in greater
exposures to advertisements. All of these trends added together create a pervasive state of online
advertising to which a given society is constantly exposed. As discussed earlier in this chapter,
the US and UK are two of the world’s richest countries with long histories of high advertising
expenditures and home to the lion’s share of the world’s marketing firms. Hence, consumers in
these two societies are exposed to pervasive advertising situations. As many marketing scholars
already believe that more reform should be applied to the discipline (Hyman, Ransey, & Clark,
1994; Ducoffe, 1995; Goldsmith & Lafferty, 2000; Pollay, 1986), the digital environment allows
for advertising manipulation opportunities never before realized due to expanding technological
capabilities. This environment is also still largely unexplored as far as the impact on consumer
aggression is concerned. Therefore, this study attempted to reveal inadvertent societal
consequences that are achieved through current pervasive online marketing practices in two of
the most marketing-intensive cultures in the world by closing the gap between reactance arousal
and a consumer’s willingness and desire to respond aggressively to an advertised brand or
product. This concept is visually depicted in Figure 1 and serves as the theoretical framework
for this study.

Word-of- Internet Murals, Mobile,

Newspapers, Mouth, Pop-ups, Magnets, T-
Magazines, Radio, Business Interstitials, Shirts, Aerial,
Billboards, TV Cards, Social Media, Guerilla, buzz
Signs Stationary, Video, Blogs, agents, Flyers,
Brochures Banners Vehicular, etc…
Traditional Advertising Non-Traditional Advertising
Frequent, disruptive, and invasive advertising over several mediums & platforms
Pervasive state of advertising (both online & offline) in society
Exposure to pervasive online Advertisements
US UK
Knowledge and Consumers Consumers
proof that higher
exposures to
advertising leads to
higher recall &
Reactance Arousal
awareness of them
Consumer Aggression
Figure 1. Theoretical Framework. From top to bottom, the theory of this study is shown
pictorially in this figure. Advertisements and their placements build upon each other to achieve a
pervasive state, which contributes to the perception that they are intrusive and finally leads to
reactance arousal and the desire for consumer aggression against the advertised brand and/or
product.
Scope of the Study
This study evaluated how online advertisements contribute to reactance arousal as well as a
consumer’s willingness and desire to act aggressively in commerce situations. It investigated
these situations in two cultures: the United States and the United Kingdom. First, the general
state of advertising is reviewed and understood as overly pervasive and distracting. Then,
current schools of thought on how to reform marketing through less intrusive advertising are
explored, finding unsolved ethical dilemmas associated with ads increasing consumer feelings of
annoyance and offense. After understanding this need to reform marketing by altering the
effects of advertising on society, this study reviewed the theory of psychological reactance as a
means to better understand what the consumer experiences. It explored how reactance is aroused
and reviews how aggression is seen in the marketplace. The ways in which advertisements (in
particular, online ones), cause this are then reviewed. The very aspects of online advertisements,
themselves, are then examined to form hypotheses about their contributions to reactance arousal
and eventually aggressive consumer responses.
Manipulations
The manipulations in this research design were two levels of cultural background (the US
and UK), five levels of advertisement location (the top of the screen, the bottom of the screen,
middle of the screen, left side of the screen, and right side of the screen), and three levels of
animation (no ad animation, some ad animation, and total/full ad animation). Aggressive
consumer reactance arousal was based on respondents’ motivation to directly attack the
advertised brand and product because of a heightened state of reactance. When manipulating the
ad’s location and level of animation, consumers viewing advertisements that are fully animated
and located in the middle of the screen were expected to respond with the most reactance and
willingness to be aggressive. Participants from the US and UK were given varying stimuli with
a total of 15 ad locations and five animation levels. These manipulations are further described in
Chapter III.
Objectives of the Study
The objectives of this study are as follows:
1. To determine how intrusive online advertisements are perceived by British and American
consumers.
2. To determine how much reactance online advertisements arouse among British and
American consumers.
3. To determine if online advertising locations and levels of animation contribute to greater
levels of reactance arousal among British and American consumers.
4. To determine if heightened states of reactance lead to aggressive consumer outcomes
through attacks in the online marketplace.
Research Questions and Hypotheses
This research attempts to answer the major question of whether or not online advertisements
frustrate consumers to the point where they feel compelled to act out aggressively in the
marketplace. The following research questions (RQ) and associated hypotheses (H) were
formulated to investigate this.
RQ1: Do online advertisements lead to heightened states of perceived ad intrusiveness (PAI),
reactance arousal (RA), and desire to respond to the advertised brand or product aggressively
(DCA) as a consumer?
• H1a: There is a difference in perceived ad intrusiveness (PAI) scores before and after the
treatment
• H1b: There is a difference in reactance arousal (RA) scores before and after the treatment
• H1c: There is a difference in desire for consumer aggression (DCA) scores before and
after the treatment
RQ2: Does culture affect levels of perceived ad intrusiveness (PAI), reactance arousal (RA), and
desire to respond as an aggressive consumer (DCA) when exposed to online advertisements?
• H2a: Culture (Cu) has a significant effect on the difference in perceived ad intrusiveness
(PAI) scores before and after the treatment
• H2b: Culture (Cu) has a significant effect on the difference in reactance arousal (RA)
scores before and after the treatment
• H2c: Culture (Cu) has a significant effect on the difference in desire for consumer
aggression (DCA) scores before and after the treatment
RQ3: Does the amount of ad animation (Aa) affect levels of perceived ad intrusiveness (PAI),
reactance arousal (RA), and desire to respond as an aggressive consumer (DCA) when exposed to
online advertisements?
• H3a: The amount of ad animation (Aa) has a significant effect on the difference in
perceived ad intrusiveness (PAI) scores before and after the treatment
• H3b: The amount of ad animation (Aa) has a significant effect on the difference in
reactance arousal (RA) scores before and after the treatment
• H3c: The amount of ad animation (Aa) has a significant effect on the difference in desire
for consumer aggression (DCA) scores before and after the treatment
RQ4: Does the ad location (Al) affect levels of perceived ad intrusiveness (PAI), reactance
arousal (RA), and desire to respond as an aggressive consumer (DCA) when exposed to online
advertisements?
• H4a: Ad location (Al) has a significant effect on the difference in perceived ad
intrusiveness (PAI) scores before and after the treatment
• H4b: Ad location (Al) has a significant effect on the difference in reactance arousal (RA)
• H4c: Ad location (Al) has a significant effect on the difference in desire for consumer
RQ5: Do consumers experience heightened states of reactance arousal (RA) when ads are
perceived as intrusive (PAI)?
• H5: There is a correlation between post-treatment levels of perceived ad intrusiveness
(PAI) and post-treatment levels of reactance arousal (RA)
RQ6: Do consumers desire to respond to the advertised brand or product aggressively (DCA) in
the marketplace when ads arouse reactance (RA)?
• H6: There is a correlation between post-treatment levels of reactance arousal (RA) levels
and post-treatment levels of desire for consumer aggression (DCA)
Definition of Terms
The following conceptual and operational definitions of research are provided to explain how
terms are used in this study.
Aggression. Aggression is defined as hostile or violent behavior. While it is trigged by
many variables, scholars—such as Gilmore (1990); Cohen and Nisbett (1994); De Mooij (2003);
Richins and Verhage (1987); Rojas-Mendez, Davies, and Madran (2009); Chan et al. (2007);
and, Akram et al. (2011)— provide strong evidence for exploring its cultural influences, which is
the primary focus of this psychological trait in this study. Aggression is measured using Richins’
Aggression scale (1983), but updated to fit the variables of this study. This scale is scored on a 5
point Likert scale with response categories ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree.
Aggressive Consumers. Aggressive consumers are people who exhibit deviant and
malfeasant behavior in commerce situations, no matter the medium or location of the
marketplace (Harris & Reynolds, 2003 & 2004; Harris & Dumas, 2009; Groth & Grandey,
2012). These types of consumers are people who act out against commerce in a way that
negatively impacts business. Examples of this include boycotting products and services or
spreading negative word-of-mouth to social networks.
Psychological Reactance. Psychological Reactance is the “motivational state directed
toward the reestablishment of [a] threatened or eliminated freedom” (Brehm, 1996, p. 15).
Brehm (1989) states that that “people become motivationally aroused by a threat to or
elimination of behavioral freedom” and that “impels the individual to restore the particular
freedom that was threatened or taken away” (p. 72). Freedom and the perceived loss of (or threat
of loss to) it is the central element of reactance theory. Reactance is measured on a 9 item scale
that is based off of Hong’s Psychological Reactance Scale (Hong & Faedda, 1996), but updated
to fit the variables of this study. This scale is scored on a 5 point Likert scale with response
categories ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree.
Online Advertisements. Online advertisements are static or animated advertisements
displayed on Internet websites. All advertisement type names, dimensions, and characteristics
used in this study are consistent with the Internet Advertising Bureau’s Guidelines for Digital
Advertising (IAB, 2012).
Online Consumers. Online consumers are people old enough to own and operate a credit
card and capable of purchasing goods and/or services through online transactions. Various
cultural backgrounds are measured by virtue of the country in which they are involved in
eCommerce.
Chapter I Summary
The purpose of this paper is to study the effects of online advertising on consumer
aggression. This study is unique because it focuses on how the locations and levels of animation
associated with online advertisements arouse reactance in British and American consumers and
then measures their willingness to act out aggressively as consumers. With the technological
advances of the Internet, this format is yet another advertising medium that represents a
continuously growing and dynamic field where marketers are rapidly reinventing their
approaches as well as continuing to block the goals of consumers when not executed morally or
ethically. Hence, it is important to study the triggers of consumer aggression so that the
business’ bottom line does not suffer from unintentional negative reactions to advertisements.
With the theoretical framework just presented in this chapter, it is appropriate to review the
relationship between consumer reactance and aggression and then seek to understand how it is
affected by advertising. These relationships and concepts are explored in the next chapter by
first looking at the fundamental causes of aggression and the various ways in which advertising
reproduces them. Next, several external variables related to human behavior—such as
personality type, mood, attitude, and feelings—are reviewed as possible instigators of consumer
aggression. Then, consumer reactance as a result of frequent, disruptive, and invasive
advertising is examined in marketplace exchanges to illustrate the various ways in which this
psychological theory is observed. Finally, hypotheses are formed in chapter III based on how the
various aspects of online advertising lead to consumer reactance.

CHAPTER II
Literature Review
Chapter Introduction
When looking at advertisements themselves, Aaker and Bruzzone (1985) found that
consumers respond negatively to them when they contain irritating qualities. They tested the
advertisements of sixteen different products (through 524 commercials) in order to measure
consumer irritation levels in three areas: product class, market segmentation, and copy execution.
From this, they found that many factors increase irritation. Their study uncovers that consumers
are annoyed by advertisements when a sensitive product is involved, the situation in the
commercial is obviously fake, someone in the ad is disrespected, relationships are threatened,
graphic physical discomfort is seen, uncomfortable tension is shown, an unsympathetic character
is portrayed, there is a suggestive scene, or the advertisement is generally not executed well (p.
55-56). Furthermore, it supports the evidence gathered in the previous section that marketing
needs to be reformed to limit the amount of aggression it causes.
Marketers should not purposely create ads that contain irritating and annoying qualities, as
Anker and Bruzzone (1985) point out, because they lead to higher levels of annoyance levels
amongst consumers. When consumers are annoyed, they have the tendency to act defiantly and
with malfeasance (Harris & Reynolds, 2003; 2004), lending toward aggressive behavior in the
marketplace. Therefore, this section will start by exploring the very nature of aggression and
then investigate reasons why it occurs amongst consumers. Next, it will review how advertising,
in particular, is an instigator of aggression in the marketplace. The theory of psychological
reactance will be explained as the basis of the reason for such aggressive consumer reactions to
advertisements. Finally, this section will further investigate the various qualities of the
advertisements themselves in order to provide validity for the research questions and hypotheses
proposed in this study.
Exploring Aggression
To study aggressive consumer reactance in the marketplace, this study first examined
aggression in its most basic, primal forms. Then, it reviewed cultural reasons as causes of
aggression. Next, aggression in commerce situations where flourishing advertising scenarios
dominate the focus of consumers was explored.
Basic Aggression: Insights from Animals. Many scholars believe that aggression is
instinctual and used by humans when it is convenient. Zing Yang Kuo’s (1961) experiment with
cats and mice and long-term observations made on chimps and bonobos demonstrate that
aggression in animals is “modified by experience” and “does not need to be learned” (p. 24). He
also expresses that “Aggression is an optional strategy” which is “determined by the animal’s
previous social experiences, as well as by the specific social context in which the animal finds
itself” (p. 24).
This suggests that aggression is not learned and is a tool that may be used to affect a desired
response. As Darwin (1861) writes that only the strongest and fittest survive, Lorenz (1966)
points out how animals purposely act aggressively as a means of survival. He writes about the
utility of aggression through several species. With rats, for instance, larger clans dominate
aggressively through numbers. Also, sexual competition among some pheasant species leads to
eradicating members unnecessarily. Therefore, there is a clear natural utility of aggression in
animals, which is to, among several other things, raise their young in the wild and reveal the best
leaders and pack masters to ensure the longevity of the group.

By these studies, aggression is instinctual and necessary for survival. The next section will
contrast the need to be aggressive in humans and review the specific variables that directly
contribute towards it, which possibly reveals a distinction in willingness to respond aggressively
to advertisements when reactance is aroused.
Human Aggression: Cultural Insights. Beyond animals, Berkowitz (1993) finds that
humans are ingrained to respond aggressively to certain types of attacks. Many authors cite
various cultural aspects as the causes for sociological change in stances on aggression. Gilmore
(1990), for instance, explores the way masculinity affects a culture and finds that it contributes to
the warrior culture, which continues to reinvent itself around the world and throughout history.
He writes:
This cultural hypostasis of the male image, which I believe exists to a degree in many
societies, led me to believe that the manhood ideal is not purely psychogenetic in origin
but is also a culturally imposed ideal to which men must conform whether or not they
find it psychological congenial. That is, it is not simply a reflection of individual
psychology but a part of public culture, a collective representation (p. 5).
The Iroquois Native American tribe is a culture in which scholars continue to study the
sociological changes for their drastic turn toward violence. These people changed their long-
standing peaceful behavior to a highly aggressive one after seventeenth-century Europeans
introduced competition in the expanding fur trade industry. This pitted the Iroquois against
neighboring tribes and ultimately resulted in many bloody wars of which the Iroquois won
through their transition to aggressive combat. On their shift toward this violent stance, Anker
(unknown year) writes that “warfare was not for territorial gain but for the no less real but more
ephemeral goals of revenge, retribution, and establishment of manhood” (p. 10). Here,
aggression was instigated by many outside variables, one major reason being cultural influence.
Cohen and Nisbett (1994) further explore cultural attitudes towards aggression by comparing
various indicators of violence between southern and non-southern US citizens. They actually
find varying levels of testosterone in people from that region (compared to people from northern
and western states) when they are frustrated or threatened. This is encapsulated in the “cultural
of honor” phenomenon, which is widely seen in the south and a possible differentiator of
aggressive motivation between southern and non-southern cultures. On this, these authors write:
If individuals believe that they must own and even carry weapons for protection, and if
they respond to insults with sufficient anger to occasionally cause them to use those
weapons, this will tend to affect the entire local community. Its members may respond
with heightened consciousness of the need for protection, more vigilance concerning
threats, and a consequent greater likelihood of violence (p. 449).
By this research, it is clear that aggression is intrinsically motivated and then enhanced through
obligation to conform to omnipresent cultural motifs as well as external pressure from society.
When reviewing the impact of culture on aggression towards advertising, several authors find
that marketing opinions differ throughout the world despite advances in globalization and
technology. In fact, De Mooij (2003) reviews universal advertising approaches around the world
to find that cultural variables impact consumer purchasing behavior and responses to advertising.
The author writes, “Global advertising…does not appeal to universal values because there are no
universal values” (p. 196). This illustrates that marketers should customize their campaigns
across the globe to achieve greater advertising effectiveness. Rojas-Mendez, Davies, and
Madran (2009) agree. They compared advertising avoidance behaviors in different countries and
found that culture is a significant predictor of overall attitude towards advertising and explains
behavioral avoidance. Earlier research on marketplace assertiveness and aggression also
supports the notion that culture impacts the consumer’s level of aggression in marketplace
exchanges (Richins & Verhage, 1987) and international perceptions of advertising (Chan et al.,
2007).
Despite this evidence for marketers to deploy culturally-focused and locally-sensitive
advertising, other authors explore the effects of acculturation (the process of cultural and
psychological change that results from the meeting of two cultures) from globalization and the
emergence of global brands and global consumers. Akram, Merunka, and Akram (2011)
accounted for consumer ethnocentrism in their review of how consumers perceive global
products, yet still uncover a preference for global marketing approaches by consumers of all
nations. They found that “Consumers tend to prefer global brands because of higher perceived
quality and higher prestige and fundamentally because of brand globalness which is defined as
the degree to which the brand is perceived as having multimarket reach and thus is believed to be
globally available, desirable and demanded” (p. 293). At the same time, Douglas and Craig
(2011) review new global trends with consumers. They find that new segments of global
consumers are warm to common marketing approaches that span borders when heterogeneous
economic and cultural exchanges exist. In their study, they review concepts such as global
brands and global consumers, noting the advertising utility therein. The advancing
communications capabilities of the Internet offer an even further chance for this type of
convergence to flourish, bringing somewhat different conclusions to earlier research on common
advertising approaches to different cultures throughout the world; therefore, cultural differences
and their various views on advertising must be understood.

Geert Hofstede’s (1984) theory of cultural dimensions categorizes people in various societies
from one another in four distinct ways: individualism/collectivism, power distance, uncertainty
avoidance, and masculinity/femininity. In his later work, Hofstede (1991) also includes long-
/short-term orientation as a fifth category. These dimensions are the basis of many cross cultural
studies, including ones where aggression towards advertising is measured. In their reactions to
advertising, Chan et al. (2007) states that and individualist cultures, where societal beliefs are not
as commonly shared, such as case in the United States and United Kingdom, are more liberal in
their acceptance of offensive advertisements (Fam et al., 2013). Here society is more reliant on
laws and regulations, versus social norms in high-context societies, in order to restrict offensive
qualities of advertisements. As many authors (Richins & Verhage, 1987; Chan et al., 2007)
reveal that assertiveness and aggression vary between cultures of different dimensions, few (if
any) authors effectively measure advertising levels across similar countries as instigators of
aggression.
It is still necessary to investigate consumer aggression in order to understand other likely
causes. The next section will explore the ways in which consumers demonstrate aggression as a
result of advertising. This is based off of the theory of reactance, so aggressive reactance to
advertising is also reviewed.
Consumer Aggression toward Advertising
Harris and Reynolds (2003) explored the consequences of dysfunctional consumer activity
from the firm’s point of view. Through their study, they determined that the customer is not
always right, contrary to the ostensible Western corporate slogan for improved customer
satisfaction and loyalty. In fact, they outline several negative consequences on employees who
must deal with deviant customers, other customers exposed to the deviant behavior, and the
organization receiving the consumer’s aggressive actions. They write, “not only are customers
‘not always right’, in fact, they can frequently lie, cheat, act abusively, and even physically or
psychologically harm customer-contact employees” (p. 157).
In a later study, these two authors (Harris & Reynolds, 2004) state, “the majority (and not the
minority) of customers exhibit jaycustomer behaviors” (p. 351)—which means that customer
deviance and malfeasance is highly likely in the marketplace, no matter the medium or location.
Harris and Dumas (2009) look at this behavior in an online environment. They find that
consumers justify and rationalize online misbehavior when they are sharing content in a peer-to-
peer fashion. Rather than paying for software online, for example, people view themselves as
victims of commerce and do not claim any injury or responsibility for the legal ramifications of
pirating such goods. Other techniques studied are when consumers claim normalcy, relative
acceptability, justification by comparison, and appeals to higher loyalties (p. 384-385).
Nevertheless, these are deviant, dysfunctional, and selfish characteristics that have serious
business consequences.
Groth and Grandey (2012) also found that aggressive consumer encounters lead to negative
consequences. They reviewed such encounters from both the employee’s and customer’s
perspectives to find linkages between the two. When the situation starts bad and continues to
escalate, they call them “negative exchange spirals” and describe them as open-loop scenarios
where each exchange feeds the other (p. 210). The only end, they write, is a “dyadic” model,
which is an exchange spiral where one party (either the customer or the employee) breaks the
negative back-and-forth (p. 210). To learn from them, such encounters must be studied as they
occur and all of them seem to differ slightly (p. 225).

By these studies, it is obvious that aggressive consumer situations vary and must be dealt
with in a manner that is issue-specific. To understand this, Richins (1983) measured consumer
responses to dissatisfaction by looking at the nature of dissatisfaction, perceptions of blame, and
perceptions of the retailer’s responsiveness as variables for spreading negative opinions and
information. She discovered that firms are most likely to turn a bad situation around when it has
not escalated too far where heightened levels of dissatisfaction are realized. From this study, it is
understood that consumer aggression is mostly seen from increases in frustration and
dissatisfaction.
On frustration and dissatisfaction, Aronson (2008) distinguishes between hope and
deprivation, similar to Brehm’s (1966) theory of psychological reactance to explain how these
two aggressive-producing feelings may be reduced. He writes, that “frustration is most
pronounced when the goal is becoming palpable and drawing within reach, when expectations
are high, and when the goal is blocked unjustifiably” (p. 273). A child who has never seen a
certain type of toy before will not respond aggressively if he does not get a chance to play with
it. But, if the child expects to play with the toy at a certain time, then he (as seen through the
theory of reactance) will aggress if that freedom to do so is denied. As this applies to commerce,
if a consumer understands that a product is not for sale in a store or from a website, she will feel
as though her freedom to choose that product is under threat and, therefore, arouse reactance.
Consistent with the theory of reactance, Harris (1974) studied the timing of aggressive
provocations. She analyzed the frustration levels of patrons who were standing in line waiting
for tickets and then cut off by rowdy teenagers, finding that frustration levels increased the closer
the patron was to the front of the line. This is another study on aggression that is consistent with
Brehm’s (1966) theory of psychological reactance: the higher the threat to removing freedom,
the likelier a consumer is to demonstrate reactance. This is supported by Twenge et al. (2001)
who reviewed the effects of rejection on frustration, only to find that it undoubtedly increases a
person’s hostility.
Increases in Exposures to Violence Leads to More Violence. Marketers constantly seek
new opportunities to interact with consumers and architect specific emotional responses aimed at
generating high interest and awareness of their products and services. Lutz, MacKenzie, and
Belch (1982) found that the consumer’s mood has a significant effect on his attitude toward
advertising and Aaker, Staymann, and Hagerty (1986) found that ads evoking positive feelings
generate more positive impressions of advertising. Therefore, marketers aim to incite positive
feelings like happiness, enthusiasm, excitement, and love in their advertising because sales
opportunities are then at their ripest.
While this logic seems sound from a business standpoint, it is appropriate to further explore
the psychological effects of aggressive feelings in order to determine the utility (or lack thereof)
in aggression-inducing advertisements. Many studies look into the effects on aggressive
tendencies due to prolonged exposure to aggressive situations and encounters. Liebert & Baron
(1972) find that watching violence on TV increases one’s violent tendencies in their real life
actions. Josophson (1987) then finds that TV violence, in particular, is the greatest predictor of a
child’s tendency to act violently.
Shrum (1999) expands on these previous studies by reviewing the desensitizing effects of TV
through several existing memory recall models. For both positive and negative programming, he
found that people are more tolerant of the mood the TV program aims to achieve. For instance,
people tolerate violence more after having just viewed it on TV. Johnson et al. (2002) finds that
the more exposure to television during adolescence, the more prone someone is to act
aggressively. These correlational studies lend support to the notion that when people are
exposed to higher amounts of violence and frustration, they are more likely to become
aggressive, even if they were not originally prone to violence to begin with. Hence, the bottom
line implication is that their tendency to act violently is increased when the violence is viewed on
a desensitizing medium, such as TV is increased.
Rose and Neidermeyer (1999) similarly find that when an encounter prevents consumers
from achieving their shopping goals or violates their normal activity, then they are more likely to
respond aggressively, which is another manifestation of psychological reactance. They find that
goal-blocking and norm violations are the biggest cause to consumer aggression. Therefore,
consciousness of aggressive stimuli in advertising should be understood by marketers so as not to
provoke it amongst their audience and cause them to engage in psychological reactance.
How Aggressive Responses to Advertising Result in Consumer Reactance. Consumers
respond to freedom threatening advertising aggressively. They do this through two means: either
by ignoring the advertisements passively (Clancy, 1994; Krugman & Johnson, 1991) or by
actively acting out against them (Abernethy, 1991). Speck and Elliot (1997), for instance, find
clear predictors of overt ad avoidance by consumers. Therefore, it is necessary to review the
relationship between frustration and aggression and Brehm’s (1966) theory of Psychological
Reactance in order to better understand how aggression manifests itself in a consumer setting
when reactance is high.
Aronson (2008) writes that “frustration is increased when a goal is near and your progress
toward it is interrupted” (p. 273). This is even further enhanced when the interruption to the goal
is unexpected. When a goal seems attainable and the expectations to achieve it are high,
blocking it or distracting someone from it results in the emotion of extreme frustration, which
leads to a greater need to act aggressively. This is demonstrated by Worchel (1974) who shows
that when authority figures block the goals of their subjects, the subjects respond by derogating
them since their freedom is restricted. Clee and Wicklund (1980) describe this as “aggression, or
hostility directed toward the source of the threat” (p. 402). To further explain the frustration and
aggression theories behind this, Aronson (2008) writes, “Thus, frustration is not the result of
simple deprivation; it is the result of relative deprivation” (p. 273). Therefore, it is also the
perception of someone’s freedom being threated or the goal that is blocked (which is the
definition of reactance) that also leads to anger and frustration.
In line with Aronson’s implication just mentioned, the opportunity for consumers to
experience reactance theory is abundant when their freedom is threatened, or perceived to be
threatened. Clee and Wicklund’s (1980) explanation of this is an accurate portrayal of how
consumers experience reactance:
Reactance theory is applicable to any situation in which the following elements are
present. First, a consumer must expect a measure of freedom to act in a given situation.
Second, some threat must arise that infringes upon that freedom….the sources of such
threats are varied; they may stem from social influence attempts by other people, from
impersonal barriers to action, such as product unavailability, or may even be self-
imposed. As long as the basic two elements are present—expectation of freedom and
threat of freedom—the stage is set for a reactance theory interpretation of resultant
behavior. Reactance is then manifested [and]…moderated by such variables as the a
priori importance of the threatened freedom (p. 403).

By this explanation, consumers respond in aggressive and assertive ways when they experience
reactance. Therefore, it is necessary to review the nature of those two behaviors in commerce
situations.
Previous research on market place exchanges examined assertiveness and aggression together
(Fornell & Westbrook, 1979; Westbrook, 1981), but later ones classified the two interaction
styles separately (Chiazzi, Heimberg & Doty, 1982). Westbrook (1981) found no relationship at
all between aggressiveness and assertiveness when a consumer is dissatisfied. Hollandsworth’s
(1977) research suggests that assertive responses are more adaptive than aggressive ones in
handling anger and interpersonal conflict, whereas Richins (1983) develops an entire scale to
measure aggressiveness on its own. As they relate to reactance, assertive and aggressive
behaviors preserve the consumer’s right to choose, but in different ways. Richins and Verhage
(1987) write that “Assertiveness involves standing up for one’s rights without infringing upon
those of others, whereas aggression involves the use of noxious stimuli to maintain rights” (p.
94).
The Boomerang Effect. These notions in the previous section are consistent with Brehm’s
(1966) research on threats to consumer freedom and are better explained through the Boomerang
Effect. This is a term born out of psychological reactance and formalized by Clee and Wicklund
(1980). They write:
If all potentially informative features of the communication could be deleted (i.e., all
persuasive arguments), and if the communicator was not a source of reference group
opinion, then the introduction of pressure-laden statements should indeed produce an
absolute boomerang effect (p. 402).

The Boomerang Effect refers to when a consumer is coerced and he responds with an equal, but
opposite reaction in order to restore his freedom. As the term implies, this could mean that the
consumer purposely behaves in the specific way that is under threat of loss. For instance, if a
consumer is presented with an overabundance of advertising for a product and experiences
reactance arousal, he may choose not to buy it because his freedom is blocked by the invasive
ads. Furthermore, these authors specify that if the consumer does not change his behavior, then
it could be that he, at least, changes in attitude.
To provide further detail and background, the Boomerang Effect is a part of psychological
reactance that refers to a person’s tendency to engage in behavior that is associated with a
threatened freedom in order to restore that freedom (Brehm & Sensenig, 1966). It contributes to
the many reasons consumers reject messaging seen in advertising and is seen in several ways.
First, while not calling it as such, Wicklund and Brehm (1968) found a significant evidence of
the Boomerang Effect in their experiments regarding attitudinal freedom among highly
competent people. Then, when attitude toward a position is high, Worchel and Brehm (1970)
found that reactance is carried out. In their study, subjects were exposed to speeches containing
freedom threatening communication and moved away from the promoted position because of
reactance. Next, Heilman and Toffler (1976) found the level of intensity is a determinant on the
amount of reactance with which people are motivated to respond when their freedom is
threatened. The more intense attempts to restrict her subjects’ freedoms, the more vehemently
they wanted to engage in what was being threatened, they found. Finally, Clee and Wicklund
(1980) coin the term “Boomerang Effect” when heavily loaded “pressure” statements are
introduced under circumstances where the communicator is not the source of the reference
group. They write that “threats to freedom that emanate from social-influence attempts increase
strength as the externally-imposed pressure to change increases” (p. 390). This explains the
motivation for how the consumer wishes to respond with an equal, but opposite reaction to the
initial encounter of coercion.
In-store Experiences. Consumer frustration is caused by a variety of marketing and
advertising sources that, as Brehm (1966) postulates, limit their freedom or threaten to take it
away. Rose and Neidermeyer (1999), for instance, identify specific precursors to consumer
aggression as a result of their research on negative in-store experiences. They find the
following-freedom inhibiting reasons as causes of consumer frustration:
• Blocking the goal. This is when a product is out of stock, excessive wait times are
experienced, or stores fail to perform somehow.
• Disagreement or Misinformation. When the marketer and the customer disagree or
when the consumer realizes that the information he is reviewing is incorrect, they
become confused or experience a sense of misunderstanding. During these times,
consumers also feel deceived.
• Violation of Norms. This occurs when someone’s expectations are inhibited, such as
another patron cutting in, experiencing poor personal hygiene while shopping, and
deviations in behavior are observed. Similar to reactance, violating the consumer’s
norms is a form of threatening her freedom to choose according to her expectations.
• Proactive aggression. This is when someone acts with direct aggression (p. 14).
These authors observed that the consequences of frustrating shopping situations are changes in
emotional states and expressions, use of verbal aggression, and direct or indirect physical
aggression (indirect physical aggression is seen through passive-aggressive acts, such as littering,
defacement, or stealing). They determine that the majority of aggressive marketer-to-consumer

acts occur during a service encounter or shopping experience. Therefore, they conclude that
marketers should understand the antecedents of aggression to identify how it is instigated and
then correct marketplace designs to “minimize aggression triggers” (p. 14).
Yi and Gong (2008) extend the understanding of in-store aggression by proving that
customer satisfaction is an important link between what a consumer learns from an employee
through his behavior and how customers behave as a result. They use a comprehensive
framework to investigate the relationship between employee and customer behaviors as they
relate to acts of citizenship and dysfunction. They prove that service employees teach consumers
behavior through their interaction, which results in a level (which could be high or low,
depending on the employee’s behavior) of customer satisfaction. This in turn generates an
equivalent level of customer response (p. 977). As it relates to aggression, customers act with a
similar level of hostility as what they learn from their interaction with employees.
Negative and Positive Word-of-Mouth Communication. Given the importance of
analyzing consumer frustration from Rose and Neidermeyer’s (1999) findings, it is then
important to understand how they will react aggressively. Wetzer, Zeelendberg, and Pieters
(2007) analyze the goals of consumers when they socialize negative-word-of-mouth (N-WOM)
communication and the business effects it has on firms. They found that anger, irritation,
disappointment, dissatisfaction, frustration, indignation, and hate are the emotions felt after a
negative consumption experience, which causes people to act aggressively via N-WOM
communication for the purposes of venting or seeking revenge. They prove that these emotions
result in N-WOM communication about a firm and advise marketers to “pay attention to the
specific emotion that is felt by a consumer who communicates about a negative experience” (p.
675).
Soscia (2007), on the other hand, shows that gratitude leads to positive WOM
communication and finds that purchase intentions go up. Further to this, she proves that guilt
inhibits a consumer’s tendency for negative expressions. “When the consumer feels responsible
for the negative outcome, a sense of guilt lessens the chance that such actions as negative word
of mouth will be directed at and damage the service provider” (p. 889). By this research, it is
very important for marketers to consider the emotional attachment consumers place on their
experience with the product or service, no matter the advertising format.
WOM communication, whether positive or negative, is an extremely effective form of
advertising since consumers usually trust the opinions of their friends and family members over a
spokesperson of a firm with whom they have never met. WOM communication is easily
disseminated to large groups very rapidly via modern forms of electronic communication and
holds a social obligation to conform to its recommendations (Solomon, 2009, p. 416). While
this can help businesses, it can also hurt them, if the populous has a negative opinion of a product
or service or—as it relates to this study—opinion of an advertisement.
In his book, Consumer Behavior, Michael Solomon (2009) touches on the damaging effects
of N-WOM communication with:
…Consumers weigh negative word-of-mouth more heavily than they do positive
comments. According to a study the White House Office of Consumer Affairs did, 90%
of unhappy customers will not do business with a company again. Each of these people
is likely to share his grievance with at least nine other people, and 13% of these
disgruntled customers will go on to tell more than 30 people of their negative experience
(p. 418).
Considering this, marketers seek to limit aggressive responses to their advertising to ensure sales
and reputations are not negatively impacted. In order to do so, they must first understand human
aggression and then architect campaigns that generate appropriate emotional responses to
achieve their goals.
Oftentimes, employees and firms are unable to control aggressive situations. Her, Kardes,
and Kim (1991) investigate the effectiveness of face-to-face WOM information exchanges.
They find them to be more effective than print advertisements and the only times in which WOM
information exchanges are overcome is when the consumer has a prior impression of a brand or
the information is extremely negative (p. 460-461). Their study illustrates the power of the
consumer in his ability to spread positive or negative information via WOM.
When conducted online (known as “electronic WOM” or “eWOM”), Park and Lee (2009)
find, that this impact is even greater than when conducted in face-to-face situations. They also
investigate the direction (positive or negative) of eWOM and find that negative eWOM is much
more effective than positive eWOM. Therefore, marketers face greater susceptibility to negative
eWOM when their website is not very well established (p. 65). Wu and Wang (2010), on the
other hand, found highly persuasive results in positive eWOM appeals. They reviewed message-
appeal type and message source credibility as it varies by individual involvement through
eWOM (p. 450). People who are highly involved in their product already have more trust,
affection, attitude and intention to buy that product when presented with a rational approach to
eWOM versus an emotional one and rational approaches always win over emotional ones in
eWOM marketing (p. 465-466).
In the same vein as eWOM, Park and Kim (2008) looked at the effectiveness of online
consumer reviews through their type and number. Of the reviews read by experts on a subject
(e.g.: aficionados, authority figures) and ones by novices (e.g.: average, low-engaged
consumers), experts are more likely to engage in a purchase when they read more attribute-
focused reviews. Meanwhile, novices typically make a purchase after reading more benefit-
centric reviews (p. 407). As previous research suggests, negative reviews about the product’s
benefit or attribute will sway an expert or a novice in a similar way.
Anti-Brand and -Product. The information marketers push to consumers in their
advertisements affects their choice by encouraging reactance. When searching for brands and
products, Brucks (1985) found that subjective knowledge about a brand or product detracts from
the consumer’s confidence in their choice. When the available information is taken away or
threatened, consumers rely purely on their subjective convictions. This, in turn, causes them to
seek out greater brand and product opinions before making a purchase, indicating that reactance
plays some part in the type of information (subjective or objective) available to consumers.
Complementary to this point, other authors find that consumers rely on emotional cues in their
responses when frustrated with product searches (Sun & spears, 2012).
When market leaders create exciting and innovative products, they set new standards for
consumer expectations. Murray and Haubl (2010) found that businesses who do not comply to
these new “standards” often fall victim to consumer reactance because “users tend to react
negatively to a lack of choice” (p. 47). “Being constrained to using a single interface arouses
psychological reactance, which reduces perceived ease of use and, ultimately, increases the
probability that the user will switch to a competing interface” (p. 47). The existing products that
do not adapt, or acquiesce, to the likeness of the new product experience losses in sales because
consumers feel that their choice is threatened.

Others, such as Moore and Hutchinson (2001) find that the consumer’s general reaction to a
brand impacts his response to the advertisement. This suggests that someone’s impression of the
brand—irrespective of their situation—is already biased towards a decision once the
advertisement appears to them. Such a case of brand conditioning may only serve to fuel
reactance in scenarios where the consumer’s ability to choose a favorite brand is threatened.
This point by Moore and Hutchinson (2001) that the consumer’s general reaction to a brand
impacts his response to the advertisement suggests there might be more at play than just his
reaction to the advertisement that leads to increases in frustration levels. The earlier work of
Krishnan and Valle (1979), who reviewed complaint behaviors, supports this need. They find
that what consumers attribute to the source of their dissatisfaction is an important mediator of
complaint behavior. Therefore, it is important to look at other variables that lead to a person’s
frustration level, desire to complain, and intentions to react aggressively to advertising. Feelings
toward advertisements are one example of an appropriate variable to review since they have a
direct effect on the consumer’s attitude toward the ad (Staymann & Aaker, 1988). Other factors
like the consumer’s personality, attitude, mood, and trust levels are also explored in this section
in order to understand their effects on aggressive responses to advertising.
Effects of Personality, Mood, Attitude, and Feelings on Advertising Aggression
Personality. As Rose and Neidermeyer (1999) were interested in the various types of
aggressive situations and proved that an aggressive situation alters the consumer’s mood in an
adverse way and is compounded when the consumer’s personality type is more prone to
aggressive behavior, personality traits are other conditions that potentially fuel aggressive
consumer reactions to advertisements. As understood from the theory of psychological
reactance, consumers are likely to respond aggressively to situations and encounters when their
freedom is restricted or under threat of loss. They observed that consumers who are already
prone to aggression by way of their personalities are more likely to launch pre-canned aggressive
scripts that can escalate the already aggressive situation (p. 15). One form of this is through
complaint, which Robertson and Shaw (2009) found as a result from aggressive encounters. So,
it is useful to explore the existing literature on personality type to determine if some are more
prone to aggressiveness than others.
Scholars categorize human personality into five major types (aka “The Big Five”), which are
neuroticism, extroversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness (Bleidorn et al, 2010).
According to Verduyn and Brans (2012) extroversion is most closely associated with positive
emotions while neuroticism is strongly correlated with negative ones. Highly narcissistic
individuals tend to generally be more anxious, angry, or depressed and are emotionally reactive
to events by which most people are not affected (Psychologistworld.com, 2012). A neurotic’s
“negative emotional reactions tend to persist for unusually long periods of time, which means
they are often in a bad mood. These problems in emotional regulation can diminish a neurotic's
ability to think clearly, make decisions, and cope effectively with stress”
(Psychologistworld.com, 2012).
Therefore, it is seems that consumers with neurotic personalities are more likely to react
aggressively to situations where aggressive reactions are expected, such as when a consumer’s
freedom is threatened as the theory of psychological reactance addresses. Conversely,
extroverted people would likely respond to advertisements in a more positive manner towards
business goals. Because of these differences, it is important for marketers to understand them
and adjust their campaigns accordingly.

Belk (1988) found that consumers gravitate towards brands that are aligned to their
personalities and Bao and Sweeney (2009) find that marketers exploit this. In their study, they
developed brand positioning maps to predict consumer behavior, finding that companies create
brand personalities to market to individuals who appeal to those traits and that their outcomes
can be predicted with a certain degree of accuracy. Evidence exists that neurotic people prefer
“trusted brands” to reduce their anxiety while extroverts prefer “social brands” to appease their
outgoing nature (Mulyanegara et al. 2007, p. 244).
This tactic to build a brand reflective of the consumer’s personality type capitalizes on his
involvement as a consumer, of which, Chen and Lee (2005) reviewed different personality types
for clues into varying levels of consumer involvement, finding that the consumer’s personality
type (no matter whether it is one of high- or low-involvement) has a significant effect on her
impression of a website image, which (in turn) has a significant effect on purchase behavior.
They found that highly involved personality types purchase more from sites with lots of
information. This comes as no surprise from earlier research on involvement, showing that the
higher someone is involved in an advertisement, the easier it is to accept the information it
contains and delivers (Zaichkowsky, 1985).
Further to this, the amount of involvement a consumer has could lead to him expressing his
personality. Fennis and Bakker (2001) found that individuals with a high need to evaluate things
do not like watching too many commercials in general and tend to transfer their overall irritation
of advertisements to unrelated, neutral products (p. 22). This implies that people who are of that
particular personality type may act aggressively against a business simply because they do not
like advertisements in general. If an ad (any ad that is, according to this study) upsets these
people, then they could potentially lash out against the nearest business around since that
represents the quickest and most convenient outlet for them. As it is impossible to segment this
portion of the community from any other, marketers are challenged to appease such individuals.
Similar to the tendency for individuals with a high need to evaluate to lash out against
commerce, consumers who possess a sense of entitlement (as seen from narcissism) are known
for their displays of verbal aggression. Boyd and Helms (2005) found a direct correlation
between consumer entitlement and aggression in their study of advertising on personality types.
They collected empirical evidence that observed highly entitled consumers following through
with aggressive action against businesses, to include refusing to pay for items and desires to
punish workers (p. 283). The reason, they conclude, for such an aggressive consumer response
(e.g.: lashing out at workers) is that consumers who feel highly entitled “feel alienated from the
exchange process and expect that it will be exploitative” and have “highly inflated expectations
as to how things should transpire at the buyer-seller interface” (p. 283). Thus, there is agreement
among scholars that marketers must craft their campaigns carefully so as not to set-off someone
with an explosive personality type when reactance arousal is likely.
Despite the consumer’s personality type, there is sufficient academic evidence to support the
notion that advertisements do not trigger the personality; rather it is the mood and feelings that
are most significant in measuring an aggressive consumer response to advertising. In separate
studies, Kassarjian (1971) and Batra and Ray (1986) both found that personality does not impact
the consumer’s response to an advertisement. Kassarjian (1971) writes that “A few studies
indicate a strong relationship between personality and aspects of consumer behavior, a few
indicate no relationship, and the great majority indicate that if correlations do exist they are so
weak as to be questionable or perhaps meaningless” (p. 415). Similar to this, the work of Batra
and Ray (1986) reveals that other variables (beyond personality type) are the ones that truly
impact a consumer’s opinion about the brand or advertisement. They write that “moods and
feelings evoked by an ad are independent of respondent statements of praise for or criticism of
the manner in which the ad was made” (p. 235). And, in a later study by Batra with Holbrook
(1987), he further investigates the role of emotions in mediating the effects of advertising to find
that they play a significant role in the consumer’s overall attitude toward the ad and advertising
in general.
By these studies, these authors are effectively showing that ads evoke feelings, no matter
what and discount personality type as a consistent and valid measure in determining the level of
aggression in a consumer’s response to advertising. Therefore, this study will not evaluate
personality type. But, it is necessary to further explore the impact of advertising on the
consumer’s mood, attitude, and feelings as reasons for aggressive responses to advertisements.
The next sections will focus on the consumer’s attitude, mood, and feelings towards advertising
during freedom-blocking instances when reactance is at its highest.
Attitude and Mood. When attitude toward a position is high, Worchel and Brehm (1970)
found that reactance is carried out. In their study, subjects were exposed to speeches containing
freedom threatening communication and moved away from the promoted position because of the
theory of reactance. Barratt and Slaughter (1998) discovered that when unable to vocalize
intentions, people are impulsively aggressive and their actions are even predetermined, no matter
the discipline (p. 300), which is a complementary finding and one that shows the transcendence
of reactance theory through both time and discipline. Because of these points, it is worthy to
investigate the effects of the consumer’s attitude and mood on his propensity to respond
aggressively to advertisements.
Aaker and Bruzzone’s (1985) study shows that moods and attitudes generated by advertising
have an impact on the consumer’s level of acceptance towards a brand or product. While they
find that irritating and annoying advertisements are effective in grasping someone’s attention,
they are not effective in selling anything because of how the advertisements make the consumer
feel. They write:
Even though irritating advertising can be successful it is likely to happen in spite of the
irritation, not because of it. The irritation still has a negative effect that in the aggregate
could work to reduce the credibility of all advertising (p. 57).
To explore how the consumer’s attitude and mood toward advertising is molded further, other
authors study the individual differences of consumers during advertising encounters.
Lutz, MacKenzie, and Belch (1982) find that the consumer’s attitude towards an ad is
determined by his general perceptions of advertising. Regarding the consumer’s mood, they
write, “These feelings, whether positive or negative, are thought to transfer to [their attitude
toward the ad]” (p. 538) and that their attitude towards the ad is affected by their general opinion
of advertising. This is supported in a later study by Gardner (1985), who built a conceptual
framework of the consumer’s mood state, citing that as the mediating role on his behavior in
response to an advertisement. He measured the effects of individual behavior, evaluation
criteria, and recall ability based on the consumer’s mood state, finding that all of these factors
impact how he acts during service encounters, purchase decisions, and choices in marketplace
communications. Ultimately, Gardner (1985) found that the moods consumers receive from
advertisements effects their willingness to shop. As expected, good moods achieved from
advertising encounters cheer people up and lend to positive marketplace reactions and judgments
(p. 287). Somewhat unexpected, however, are that some respondents are actually encouraged to
shop more when their reaction to an advertisement is negative, but that is only because they are
responding to these moods in a coping manner in order to deal with their down-trodden attitude
(p. 296).
Regardless of the individual differences of consumers, Lutz, MacKenzie, and Belch (1982)
find that consumers all follow the same path in developing their moods, which then leads to their
overall attitudes of advertising. This path starts with how the ad is exposed to them, which
includes the amount of advertising “clutter” experienced as well as the type of programming in
which it is viewed. This, then, leads to the context in which the consumer receives the
advertisement, which then varies based on the individual differences of consumers. As these
steps determine the consumer’s mood, which impacts his attitude toward the advertisement, the
exposure to advertising clutter is where the opportunity for reactance is found. In order to
understand how ad clutter and overload lead to reactance, Clee and Wicklund (1980) write:
Too much product information, if perceived as a barrier that must be assimilated and
understood before one can, in good faith, purchase a product could generate reactance
effects. The consumer may react to such information overload as a threat to his/her
freedom to make a purchase (p. 403).
Carrying the understanding of advertising clutter even further forward, Ha (1996) finds that the
consumers’ individual differences are the most significant determinant in leading to reactance.
She investigated the quantity, competitiveness, and intrusiveness of ads as three dimensions of
advertising clutter. She measured advertising effectiveness in terms of the consumer’s resistance
to ads and evidence of brand equity, which she defines as the consumer’s loyalty to the brand.
She found that the consumer’s perceived level of intrusiveness has the biggest impact on his
overall attitude toward advertising. This is best illustrated in Ha’s (1996) own words:
Past studies have assumed that there is a common high-clutter level for every individual
and the effect of clutter is across the board. Results of this study show that this
assumption is far from valid, especially in the intrusiveness dimension of clutter. Some
consumers may welcome advertising so much that they do not perceive advertising as
interrupting their consumption of the media content. Some consumers may be so hostile
toward advertising that even the arrangement of the ads does not interrupt their reading;
they still consider the ads intrusive. The intrusive dimension of clutter demonstrates its
effects on Aav [attitude toward advertising] only when the individual’s perception of
intrusiveness level is used, but not in a manipulated intrusiveness level situation. Thus,
perceived intrusiveness is a better predictor than actual intrusiveness of the advertising
arrangement on audience behavior (p. 81-82).
In further consideration of the unique factors added to this mix by individual differences, it
would only serve as apparent that the medium on which the advertisement is viewed also has an
effect on both the opportunity for reactance due to advertising clutter as well as the consumer’s
attitude toward the advertisement. To demonstrate this, Tan and Chia (2007) reveal that the
medium on which the ad is seen does, in fact, determine the consumer’s overall attitude toward
advertising. They write:
One’s attitude towards advertising in general may actually be a reflection of one’s
attitude towards television advertising, which is independent of attitude towards print
advertising. Thus, deteriorating attitudes towards advertising on the whole could
possibly be attributed more to the negative associations that people have towards
television advertising specifically. The negative and significant impact of television
advertising on print advertising shows that one’s attitude towards print advertising is
affected by one’s general attitude towards advertising, indirectly through one’s attitude
towards television advertising (p. 370).
Speck and Elliot (1997) explain that people use cognitive, behavioral, and mechanical means for
avoiding advertisements, constantly evaluating their alternatives and developing methods for
avoiding advertisements. They notice that people form ad-avoiding attitudes, which differ by
medium. They find that habits consumers form to skip TV commercials, for instance, are similar
to the ones they employ to avoid radio and print advertisements. While the habits they form may
be similar, there are clear distinctions by medium: advertisements on Television are the most
avoided medium, yet they find clear differences between avoidance tendencies for the other
mediums (print, and broadcast media). They posit that these differences are a result of what
consumers grow to expect from advertising on different mediums. Print ads contain more
information, for instance, while broadcasting yields higher entertainment ads. This thinking is
consistent with Ducoffe’s (1996) study on the consumer’s tendency not to avoid ads when
entertainment and information are experienced at the right balance. However, from both of these
studies, the ad is the central reason for a consumer’s positive or negative responses to the ad’s
business goals (i.e.: engaging the consumer or selling a product), which pinpoints it as the
freedom-blocking agent. As other studies show, the consumer’s desire to avoid the ads is
because of the reactance it arouses. Regarding this point, Speck and Elliot (1997) write that
search hindrance, distractions, and disruptions are the greatest advertising contributors to
reactance arousal. These three things lead to greater avoidance of advertisements by consumers
because they are goal blocking. Ultimately, they find that the impact of search hindrances from
advertising is the greatest predictor of ad avoidance

In addition to Speck and Elliot’s (1997) findings, Ha (1996) shows how the medium can lead
to advertising avoidance through her study. She cautions marketers to pay attention to the
quantity of advertisements they deploy on their respective media for a “large quantity of ads
could lead to reactance and produce an unfavorable environment for the consumers to process
the ads by the resultant negative Aav [attitude toward the advertisement]” (p. 83).
By these studies, it is apparent that the individual attitudes generated by advertisements have
a significant impact on the consumer’s reactions to them. It is quite clear that extensive research
in this category exists; however, changes in attitude and mood impact one’s feelings and
emotions. Therefore, it is also appropriate to investigate how advertising affects a consumer’s
feelings and emotions.
Feelings and Emotions. Emotional responses to advertisements play a significant role in
how a consumer reacts to them. Gardner (1985) found that if people like the ads, then they will
likely appreciate the brand and vice-versa, writing that “well-liked advertisements may lead to
the formation of more favorable brand attitudes than un-liked ads” (p. 197). In support of this
positive approach toward capturing the hearts of consumers through advertising, Soscia (2007)
finds that a “sense of gratitude” amongst consumers results in positive recognition of the brand
and increases repurchase intentions. She advises that “marketers should try to provide situations
where customers feel that they are the target of extra effort by sellers” (p. 890).
Several other authors agree that emotional responses to advertisements are effective. Stout
and Leckenby (1986) found that the higher the emotional response to the advertisement, the
higher the consumer will re-review or playback the ad content. They find that people talk about
how their feelings from advertisements and emotional levels are classified into three distinct
ones in their study. These categories are experiential, empathetic, and descriptive; and, each
level offers a different consumer reaction. Experiential reactions are the only level that benefits
businesses as they lead to positive brand recognition and attitude, while empathetic and
descriptive ones create negative purchase intention and brand recall (p. 40-41). These negative
reactions result in decreased sales and may be classified as aggressive consumer responses to
emotional charges in advertising. This line of thought is consistent with Aaker, Staymann, and
Hagerty (1986) who find that “warm” feelings from commercials positively increase the
consumer’s reaction to them. When a positive (aka: “warm”) feeling is associated with a
commercial, his attitude toward the ad (in addition to his likelihood to purchase the product)
increases, these authors found. They describe the feeling of “warmth” as “a positive, mild,
volatile emotion involving physiological arousal and precipitated by experiencing directly or
vicariously a love, family, or friendship relationship” (p. 377) and show sufficient evidence that
studying consumer feelings is a worthy and useful pursuit because of the benefits to advertising
“warm” ones achieve. In line with these studies, Edel and Burke (1987) find that ads evoke
feelings no matter what and put forth sufficient evidence to suggest they are suitable predictors
of an ad’s overall effectiveness. In fact, they find that advertisements containing low amounts of
information (yet ones that are highly transformative) only generate negative feelings towards the
advertisement amongst consumers. They reveal that both positive and negative feelings co-occur
and are important considerations in predicting overall ad effectiveness when the right mix of
involvement and transformation is achieved in the advertisement. Consistent with this train of
thought, Stayman and Aaker (1988) find that only at high exposure levels do feelings have any
direct effect on the consumer’s attitude toward the ad. They support this conclusion from their
review of decades of studies that examine the effects of advertisements resulting in annoying
feelings and emotions.

While it is now clear that advertisements generate emotional responses, it is also important to
review the medium on which they are seen to determine if that also has an effect. Singh and
Hitchon (1989) observe that the conditions under which advertisements are the highest in
emotional responses are when they are viewed during exciting television programming. In these
situations, the program’s stimulus enhances the consumer’s emotional reaction to advertisements
by increasing learning, which increases ad cognition in return. This line of thought is finalized
by Wood (2012), who reveals that emotional ads (even if there is no real or clear message) are
highly effective for the mere fact that they are emotional. When viewed online, Li and Meeds
(2005; 2007) find that consumers avoid them if their appearance arouses reactance, but Ducoffe
(1996) proved that consumers prefer to engage with them if they are entertaining and
informative. To some degree, this is a matter of ad placement, which will be discussed later in
this chapter since it is an entirely separate variable. However, given Wood’s (2012) conclusions
that all ads evoke emotional responses, there are many examples of how this emotional response
leads to the theory of psychological reactance. Ariely (2000) found that consumers prefer to
control the information they receive and react negatively when they do not. This shows how
reactance is manifested in advertising when control of information is limited as an emotional
response. Avnet et al. (2012) carries this knowledge forward by their study where they show that
trust in feelings increases the effects of reactance.
While Wood (2012) shows that reactions to ads are effective because they are emotional,
previous authors disagree that there is a correlation between ads and feelings at all. Brown et al.
(1998) conducted a meta-analysis of the relationship between ad-evoked feelings and advertising
responses to find that there is no direct relationship between ads and feelings. Therefore, it is
important to study the aspects of the advertisements, themselves, to determine the cause and
reason for emotional responses. Since negative emotional responses lead toward consumer
aggression and have the most detrimental impact on commerce, the next section will focus on the
aspects of the advertisements themselves that generate aggressive emotional responses when
reactance is aroused. Because this study is focused on Internet ads, only the qualities of online
ads are investigated.
Qualities of Online Advertisements that lead to Aggression
From the previous sections, it is evident that personality is not the overall determinant of a
consumer’s aggressive reaction to advertisements since there is sufficient evidence that ads
evoke attitudes, feelings, and moods that shape the person’s opinion of the advertisement, no
matter the person’s personality type (Edel & Burke, 1987). Also, it is understood by these
studies that when advertising generates negative feelings, consumers are not likely to engage
with them, nor purchase the advertised product (Wood, 2012). Therefore, it is now important to
investigate the characteristics and placement factors of the online ads themselves to determine
what contributes most to these negative moods and aggressive reactance arousal.
Li, Edwards, and Lee (2002) measured the perception that consumers have on advertising
intrusiveness. Much like the focus of this study, these authors based their study off of the theory
of psychological reactance and several other seminal ones that address advertising’s irritating
and intrusive effects on the consumer’s feelings as well as the consumer’s desire to avoid ads
altogether. The authors measured the timing in which the advertisement is displayed, the
duration of the advertisement, the congruence of the advertisement to the editorial content, and
the perceived amount of information and entertainment the advertisement offers in order to
measure consumer perception of the intrusiveness and irritation of advertising. Through their
model, they draw several conclusions about how psychological reactance is manifested because
of the intrusive and irritating effects of advertising. Mainly, reactance to advertising is observed
at high levels when consumers are under intense online tasks and searches for information. The
interruption of the advertisements in their study aroused reactance when the advertisement was
congruent with the topic of the site on which it resides. For instance, if a consumer is searching
for a car on cars.com and an advertisement for Chevrolet cars pops up, the consumer’s desire to
avoid the Chevrolet ad increases because she feels that it is impeding on her goals to find what
she is looking for on the cars.com site, regardless of the fact that the ad itself is about a car.
Whereas Li, Edwards, and Lee (2002) expand upon the existing literature of advertising’s
negative consequences, they further marketing knowledge by demonstrating that advertising’s
intrusiveness is an antecedent of the consumer’s feelings of irritation and avoidance to the ads.
This means that a consumer may perceive that an ad is annoying, but not necessarily avoid it.
They write, “Unexpectedly, irritation did not significantly predict ad avoidance…avoidance was
driven by the perceived intrusiveness of the ad” (p. 90). This still does not explain how the ads
lead to aggressive consumer responses, leaving a gap in marketing knowledge in this area.
While it is clear from their study that ads are perceived as intrusive and people are more likely to
avoid intrusive ads because they arouse reactance, it still not definitive whether or not they
contribute to aggressive actions in the marketplace.
In order to answer this question, the following qualities of online advertising are reviewed:
frequency, duration, location, animation level, and timing of advertisements. The following sub-
sections will explore what is known and unknown about how these advertising qualities
contribute towards reactance arousal and the desire and willingness for consumers to act
aggressively.
Frequency of online Advertising. Previous schools of thought on the effectiveness of all too
frequent, invasive, and disruptive advertising indicated that consumers remember them more.
Losciuto (1968) found that a higher frequency of exposure to advertising results in “significantly
greater recall of simulated brand names and slogans” (p. 679). But, more recent studies indicate
that higher exposure frequencies to advertising annoy consumers. Pelsmacker and Bergh (1998),
for instance, find that too much exposure to, and repetition of, advertisements leads to consumer
irritation and outright avoidance of the ad and its advertised product and brand. The write,
“repeating the ad itself, the core message or the brand all lead to significant increases in the level
of irritation” (p. 23).
Whether the frequency of advertisements indicates anything seriously grave and dire to the
businesses who are supplying them is the real reason to investigate this marketing practice as
cause for concern. Berger (1999) writes that “advertising decisions can be used to influence
memory factors that have a direct bearing on the relationship between brand attitudes and
behavior” (563). She says that advertisers cannot predict consumer attitudes and behavior when
there is more information in ads, but that attitudes and behaviors are more predictive when
advertising repetition is high. Building off of her results, other authors provide even clearer
proof that high frequency advertisements lead to consumer aggression. Xia and Sudharshan
(2002) find that frequent and disruptive ads lead to decreased and detrimental viewing times of
consumers.
When applied to an online environment, the effectiveness of advertising frequency on sales is
more easily measured because of click-through rate metrics and other analytics based off of
clicks. Broussard (2000) finds that when advertising frequency is low, the best sales results are
achieved, suggesting that “repetition is a key factor in achieving branding objectives on the web”
(p. 454). He also writes that the best results were achieved “when advertising frequency levels
on sites were relatively low” (p. 455). Chandon, Chtourou, and Fortin (2003) agree, finding that
higher frequencies of advertisements result in lower click-through rates (CTRs) on banner ads.
Li and Meeds (2007), however, found that consumers tend to avoid online advertisements when
their frequencies are higher. They conclude this based on Brehm’s (1961) theory of
psychological reactance. They write that “high reactant people evaluated pop-up ads as more
intrusive than others under a high repetition condition, which suggested that these people were
more likely to get offended and irritated by intrusive ads under a high repetition condition” (p.
99).
Duration and Timing of online Advertising. Besides the advertisement’s frequency, other
qualities of online ads that impact a consumer’s opinion are how long they last and the point
during the consumer’s journey in which they are encountered. The timing of Internet ads are
easily manipulated by online marketers. They are automatically placed in key locations and
programmed to appear with specific actions by unaware consumers (Li and Meeds, 2005;
Edwards, Li, & Lee, 2002). However, if a consumer’s time is limited and a lengthy online ad
blocks him from achieving his goal at a key point when he has almost reached it, reactance is
highly likely to be aroused. Therefore, it is necessary to further review how the timing and
durations of online ads generate aggressive consumer responses to them.
While Olney, Holbrook, and Batra (1991) find that the advertising content that generates
positive feelings increases a consumer’s willingness to view an ad, Ducoffe (1996) points out
that technological missteps with online advertising will reverse this effect and lead to reactance.
He writes that “the length of time it takes for graphic images to build on screens is likely to try
the patience of many consumers” (p. 25). Despite technological improvements since that study
was published, many online consumers are still susceptible to lengthy advertisement load times
because of several reasons (e.g.: outdated and slow computers on which the consumer is viewing
the ad or antiquated host site architecture conflicting with the newer and more technologically
advanced codebase of the online advertisement). Later research by Li, Edwards, and Lee (2002)
reveals that lengthy advertisements arouse reactance, which supports this line of thought.
“Participants viewing a 10 second ad experienced a similar amount of reactance as did those
viewing the 20-second ad” (p. 89), they write. However, their conclusions ultimately state that
the duration of advertisements do not have an impact on the consumer’s perceived level of
intrusiveness or ad avoidance. Similarly, Redondo (2009) later finds that brand attitudes actually
improve after brief exposures to prominent advertising placements and long exposures to subtle
ones. This, he concludes, is because the advertisement is perceived as less intrusive.
By these studies, it is not obvious that the advertisement’s duration is a conclusive
contributor to reactance arousal, so further exploration into how the timing of advertisements
impacts consumer reactance is needed. Chattopadhyay and Nedungadi (1992) find that
consumers lose their ability to remember advertisements (no matter the medium) as time passes.
This is even the case with likeable ads, which could (under this condition) even leave consumers
with negative attitudes about the brand. Huberman et al. (1998) extends this research in an
online environment, observing that the tendency for Internet users to deviate from their goals
increases when the length of their session grows. This means that they will only likely gravitate
to ads that are congruent with their journey when first beginning their online sessions and vice-
versa the longer they are online. Marketers capitalize on longer Internet sessions because it
means greater exposure to their advertisements, which may lead to higher consumer
engagements with them (Hanson & Kalyanam, 2007). Also, Hoffman and Novak (1996) find
that lengthier internet sessions usually result in more repeat visits to websites, which also
increases the possibility that consumers will click on an advertisement. Thus, the timing in
which advertisements are exposed to consumers significantly impacts their attitude towards
them, so it is necessary to explore this further.
Chatterjee, Hoffman, and Novak (2003) address the concepts associated with the timing of
Internet advertisements. They measure the amount of times consumers are exposed to
advertisements and then how much they click on them, finding that they are mostly at the
beginning of a user’s session. “It appears that gains from repetition accrue earlier (and hence
more) in sessions where consumers click more on banner ads in general” (p. 537). Interesting,
however, is that the amount of advertising engagements consumers make seems to predict their
activity in future sessions. Instances where consumers are exposed to similar advertisements for
lengthy periods of time impacts this because it affects their level of “ad wear out”, which has
been seen to contribute to reactance from earlier studies.
Xia and Sudharshan (2002) measured the timing of online advertisements against the
concrete and abstract goals of consumers when online tasks were being performed. They found
that people do not like to be interrupted early in their online journey if their goals are abstract.
This is because “they were trying to integrate the new information [coming from the
advertisement that was interrupting them] into their cognitions, and as a result, they spent less
time on the task” (p. 276). However, they observed a completely opposite situation when the
consumer’s goals are concrete, writing “The timing of interruptions did not at all influence the
viewing patterns of participants with concrete goals” (p. 276). These studies support the notion
that the timing in which the ad is seen does not contribute to reactance.
Advertising Location. Perhaps, the consumers with concrete goals from the previously
mentioned study by Xia and Sudharshan (2002) are exercising banner blindness (as indicated by
Burke et al., 2004), which is also supported by later research from Li and Meeds (2005) who find
that “the majority of Internet users habitually closed pop-up windows immediately after they
appeared in order to avoid the ad” (p. 206). While ad avoidance is an aggressive response (albeit
passive) caused by reactance from the consumer’s desire to restore his freedom that was lost
from the interruption of the advertisement, both of these conclusions are respective to the ad’s
location and not its timing or duration. Therefore, the ad quality of location is necessary to
investigate for determining reactance arousal and the consumer’s willingness and desire to
respond aggressively toward the ad.
The importance of an advertisement’s location cannot be overlooked and there are areas of a
consumer’s field of view that stand out more than others. Rosbergen, Pieters, and Wedel (1997)
researched the gaze patterns of consumers to find that only the headline of an ad has any
significant impact. They found that consumers shift and focus their view for long periods of
“gazing” time to the top of the page where the headline portion of the advertisement appears.
This is very similar to where Internet banner advertisements reside on webpages.
Briggs and Hollis (1997) conclude that internet advertising, in general, is effective, but stress
the importance of the advertisement’s location. They measured the impact on click-through rates
of banner ads at the top of a webpage against the impression the consumer receives from the
banner ad. Regarding the effect of banner ads, they write that they have an immediate positive
effect, observing that: “Consumer loyalty and brand presence increase, perceptions of the brand’s
personality are positively impacted, and the advertising helped to differentiate the brand from its
competition” (p. 38).

Overall, they attribute the unique location of the advertisement as a positive moderator of
consumer impressions of advertising, saying “Banner ads remind people of a brand’s existence,
stimulate latent or dormant brand associations, and can cause people to change their attitudes
toward the brand; thus increasing their likelihood to purchase” (p. 44). These findings are
supported by Cho (1999), who also finds that banner ads at the top of the page are the most
effective locations of Internet advertisements. Further support that the best location to achieve
the most advertising recall at the top of the page is seen in a study by Burke et al. (2004). They
studied “banner blindness”, the idea that people purposely ignore banner ads, to find that “the top
banner was remembered significantly better than the randomly-placed banner” (p. 1,142).
Several other authors agree that banner ads are effective and useful advertising techniques.
Broussard (2000) says that online banner ads are the most effective type of Internet ad and their
awareness goes up with increases in the frequency in which they are viewed. Cho, Lee, and
Tharp (2001) find that banner ads contribute to higher opinions attitudes of ads because they
increase purchase intentions. Even though banner ads were forced upon viewers in their study,
they found that consumers favored the ad, brand, and were more likely to purchase the product.
Dreze and Hussherr (2003) uncovered similar results. They found that web surfers purposely
avoided looking at banner ads by capturing eye-tracking data, but found that their very presence
on the page increased the consumer’s brand recognition and recall of the advertisement. Gong
and Maddox (2003) report similar results, finding that even one extra exposure to a banner ad
improves brand recall, brand attitude, and purchase intention.
While the importance of banner ad locations at the top of a webpage is evident, other online
advertisements vary in their locations on the page and affinity for resulting in aggressive
consumer responses. Pop-ups continue to be a popular means for advertisers to grab a

consumer’s attention with rich and interactive media. These are advertisements that
automatically launch in a new browser anywhere in the user’s field of view (aka: browser
window) when a webpage is loaded. There are also pop-under advertisements, which are seen
after the user closes his browser window. Next, interstitials interrupt a user’s journey and force
him to react to it by either “skipping” it or closing the window that pops up. Chandon, Chtourou,
and Fortin (2003) explain that these advertisements force their exposure upon users by
interrupting a website’s content. Pop-ups and interstitials are very similar, the only difference
being that a pop-up automatically launches in a new browser window when a webpage is loaded
(Li & Meeds, 2005). Newer interstitials expand within the webpage and further force a person to
view it for a pre-set duration (Edwards, Li, & Lee, 2002). Both of these types, pop-ups and
interstitials, irritate customers (Rayport & Jaworski, 2001) and are the most aggressive forms of
Internet Advertising (Stern, Zinkham, & Holbrook, 2002).
No matter, the type of advertisement, its location has a significant impact on the opportunity
for a consumer to experience reactance. This is especially true in an online environment. On
Internet advertisement locations, Li, Edwards, and Lee (2002) write that “interruptions force
users to respond cognitively, affectively, or behaviorally, possibly resulting in either positive or
negative outcomes for the advertiser” (p. 84). While it is known that greater frequencies of
exposures to advertisements increases brand recall (Li & Meeds, 2005), scholars now understand
that consumers form negative attitudes toward advertisements (Ha, 1996) or outright avoidance
of them (Abernethy, 1991) because of their freedom-blocking characteristics when they are
perceived as intrusive and invasive. Therefore, regardless of the type of Internet advertisement,
the perceived level of intrusion and invasiveness of them continues to be an accurate and valid
measurement on the likelihood that a consumer will respond aggressively to them.

Because of that reasoning, it is worthy to explore the difference in efficacy between Internet
advertisement types since their various formats appear in different locations on a page. In
separate studies, Li and Meeds (2005, 2007), for instance, find that any Internet advertisement
that forces its exposure on a consumer leads to greater levels of irritation and avoidance. In these
studies, they investigated the effects of pop-up, banner, and interstitial advertisements.
Interstitials and pop-ups both yielded the highest feelings and perceptions of advertising
intrusiveness, the consequences of which “suggest Internet users tend to have negative feeling[s]
toward such ad formats” (Li & Meeds, 2005, p. 206). Li, Edwards, and Lee (2002) agree with
this assessment, finding that ads within a page contribute to higher reactance than those
encountered during natural breaks, such as when leaving a page or going to a new section.
Regarding banner ads, Li and Meeds (2007) agree with previous research that they are
considered significantly less intrusive and, therefore, more effective than intrusive ones. They
conclude that banner ads do not have as significant of an effect on brand recall, loyalty, feelings
toward the ad, and ad avoidance as intrusive ones, like pop-ups and interstitials.
With the ability for online marketers to manipulate the location of the many Internet
advertising formats that exist, investigating where they appear in the consumer’s field of view is
an appropriate measure of their aggressive responses to them and worthy of this study.
Advertisement Animation Levels. In addition to the unique ways in which online
marketers place, distribute, and run their campaigns, the advertisements they use are now more
dynamic. Online marketers previously saw declines in click-through rates of banner ads by an
average of 0.5% (IAB 2001; IAB 2004), so they began using rich media to better capture the
attention of consumers and entice them to click on their ads. Now, banner ads are animated,
flashy, colorful, imagery-rich, intensely-worded, and even noisy in content in order to enhance
the consumer’s experience with them; however, this is also another situation where reactance
arousal from online advertising is present.
Gardner (1983) writes that advertisements with prominent attributes and characteristics allow
consumers to more easily remember them. By his study, he finds that the consumer’s familiarity
with the product increases his recognition of it and the brand. This study indicates a positive
relationship between an ad’s characteristics and a consumer’s willingness to engage with it.
Ducoffe (1996) extends this understanding by identifying the entertainment and educational
value as the advertisement’s most prominent attribute. He finds that the right balance of these
two attributes in advertisements is important for marketers to seek the right mix. He advocates
for information and entertainment to be smartly used in conjunction with each other so that
consumers experience positive feelings from the advertisement. If marketers wish to limit
aggressive consumer responses to advertisements, then they should aim to produce positive
feelings from their marketing, as understood from Aaker and Bruzzone’s (1985) study where
consumers who experience irritation from advertising are not keen to engage with them, nor
purchase the product.
Several authors explore the effect of specific characteristics of animated online ads and their
effects on consumer reactions to them. Some key elements are demonstrated to increase
consumer appeal and engagement while others do not, resulting in a blockage to the consumer’s
online goals. Moore, Stammerjohan, and Coulter (2005) looked at the way online
advertisements influence a consumer’s attention and attitude, finding that the color of an online
ad has a positive impact on ad recognition. Incongruent colors between the ad’s fore and
background positively impact the consumer’s attitude toward the ad, for instance, leading to
favorable responses to advertising. Despite that positive finding, Granka, Hembrooke, and Gay
(2006) found that users disconnect from ads because their color characteristics. They found that
the dynamic aspects of the ad due to the color schema are extraneous to site goals as well as the
user’s own needs and motivations. They say that:
In spite of attempts to make these ads stand out by using bold contrasts and backgrounds,
users are likely to ‘visually disconnect’ from these regions because the elements appear
extraneous to both the goals of the site and the user’s own needs/motivations for
accessing the site (p. 43).
Another aspect of advertisements that contributes to its characteristics is in the messaging itself.
Miller et al. (2007) reveals that concrete language receives higher attention from consumers, is
viewed as more important, and creates positive assessments of the advertisement source.
Controlling language, they find, however, increases reactance and the consumer’s tendency to
reject the advertisement’s messaging. Cho (1999) is another author who focuses on animated
online advertisements. In his study to understand how people process Internet advertising, he
reveals that more animated ads increase click-through rates. Chandon, Chtourou, and Fortin
(2003), in a later study, agree. Their data supports the idea that animated banner advertisements
generate more clicks. They also find that the size of the ad has an effect on how many people
click on them. Bigger animated banner ads generate higher CTRs, they find.
Despite these positive findings, however, Bayles (2002) finds that there is no significant
relationship between animation and recognition of ads. In fact, there is poor recognition, she
finds as she writes that “When looking at awareness of animation, the number of times animation
was present, its location were often incorrectly recalled. This indicates awareness of animation
on the webpage, but uncertainty as to where it appeared” (p. 364). Ultimately, she observes poor
consumer recall of Internet advertisements with animation, which is supported by Burke et al.
(2004), who find that animated ads contribute to “Banner Blindness” (the idea that people ignore
banner ads on purpose). They also find that animated online advertisements increase the time it
takes for a user to search for something online because of their distracting qualities, which
represents a goal blockage and situation where consumer reactance is likely.
Finally, Thota, Song, and Larsen (2010) find that high exposure to animated banner
advertisements arouses reactance amongst consumers, which is explained as such:
When advertisers restrict consumers’ expected freedom, consumers will attempt to
restore their freedom. Thus, when consumers are forcibly exposed to banner ads that
blink and flash, distracting them from the contents of the webpage they want to focus on,
they could react defensively by thinking such things as ‘I don’t want to see these ads—
advertisers know that since I cannot close this ad, I will be forced to see it’ or ‘These
advertisers are trying too hard to persuade me,’ or ‘Why does this website allow such
ads?’ Thus…, psychological resistance could lead website visitors to become skeptical
about such advertising on websites (p. 97).
These authors find that consumers become skeptical towards the website on which they see the
animated advertisement, they conclude, which negatively affects their attitudes toward the
website and the brand in the ad. This also decreases their willingness to return to the website
that hosted the animated advertisement. They find the reason for this to be that “consumers
perceive animated banner ads to be coercive and unfair and exhibit psychological reactance”
(Thota, Song, & Larsen, 2010 p. 111).
As understood by Clee and Wicklund (1980), the Boomerang Effect explains the motivation
for how consumers wish to respond with an equal, but opposite reaction to their threat of
freedom when reactance is aroused. As this study aims to measure aggressive consumer
reactance to online advertising, the Boomerang Effect is identified to be the instinctual consumer
response when aggravated by threats to their freedoms. Because advertisements represent the
freedom-blocking agent in this study, the consumer’s Boomerang Effect is understood to be his
reaction to the advertised business or product. As understood from the literature, when
aggressed, this boomerang will be a negative attack to the advertised business or product. Since
these are situations where the consumer is frustrated, which is known to result in negative
emotions, this study will, therefore, explore the willingness and desire for consumers to act
aggressively when reactance is aroused. A model describing the concept of this study based off
of the literary findings and theoretical approach is shown in Figure 2.

One-time exposure to an untreated ad
Pre Desire for

Perceived Ad Reactance Consumer
Treatment
Intrusiveness Arousal Aggression
Reactions
RQ1 H1a H1b H1c
H2a H2b H2c

RQ2 Culture Culture Culture
Treatment Conditions
Ad H3a Ad H3b Ad H3c

RQ3
Animation Animation Animation
Ad H4a Ad H4b Ad H4c

RQ4
Location Location Location
Post Perceived Desire for

Treatment Reactance
RQ5 Ad Consumer
Reactions Arousal
Intrusiveness Aggression
H5 H6
Figure 2. Conceptual Model. Reactions to untreated ads are hypothesized to score low for
perceived ad intrusiveness (PAI), reactance arousal (RA), and desire to respond as an aggressive
consumer (DCA) to the advertised brand or product while reactions to treated ads are
hypothesized to score much higher for these dependent variables. Additionally, it is
hypothesized that increases in perceived ad intrusiveness (PAI) lead to greater reactance arousal
(RA) and a stronger desire for consumer aggression (DCA). Culture (Cu), ad location (Al), and
level of ad animation (Aa) are the independent variables and treatment conditions.
Chapter II Summary
This paper aimed to uncover whether or not online advertisements lead to aggressive
consumer reactance in the United States and United Kingdom as well as which parts of the
online ads, themselves, are the highest contributors to reactance arousal. The following
Methodology section describes the basis for an experiment that collects empirical data and
manipulates the loss of freedom due to pervasiveness of online advertisements. Appropriate
participants, statistical procedures, experimental protocol, and measures used for the study are
discussed.
CHAPTER III
Methodology
The purpose of this chapter is to describe the research design and methodology used to
answer the research questions of this study. The chapter is divided into eight sections: 1) the
research design, 2) experimental stimulus, 3) subjects, 4) sampling procedures, 5) research
questions and hypotheses 6) instrument, 7) data analysis, and 8) limitations of the study.
Research Design
This study investigated the effects of online advertising on consumer aggression in the
United States and the United Kingdom. Specifically, it examined the location and animation
levels of online advertising against Perceived Ad Intrusiveness, Reactance Arousal, and Desire
for Consumer Aggression through in an online experiment. Because of the conclusions already
known about the qualities of online advertisements with respect to aggressive consumers,
manipulating the frequency (Pelsmacker & Bergh, 1998; Berger, 1999; Xia and Sudharshan,
2002; Chandon, Chtourou, & Fortin, 2003; Li & Meeds, 2007), duration (Li, Edwards, Lee,
2002; Chattopadhyay & Nedungadi, 1992; Huberman, 1998), and timing of the ads (Chatterjee,
Hoffman, & Novak, 2003; Xia & Sudharshan, 2002) was not conducted; rather, these variables
were held constant during this study. The location of online advertisements and their level of
their animation were selected as the independent variables to treat and measure the dependent
variables of perceived ad intrusiveness, reactance arousal, and desire for consumer aggression.
As a control measure, this study utilized a 2 x 5 x 3 mixed factorial design. The independent
variables (which are referred to as treatments) were shoppers from two cultural backgrounds (1.
the United States and 2. the United Kingdom) who experienced online advertisements in five
different locations (1. the top of the screen; 2. the bottom of the screen; 3. the middle of the
screen; 4. the left side of the screen; and 5. the right side of the screen) and at three levels of
animation (1. no animation; 2. some animation; and 3. full animation). This resulted in thirty
treatment groups and experimental conditions to which subjects were randomly assigned. US
respondents were assigned to the first fifteen groups while UK respondents were assigned to the
next fifteen. The first fifteen groups were exactly the same as the second fifteen and are shown
in Table 1. These treatments were manipulated in the online experiment to measure the
dependent variables (which are referred to as measurements). The dependent variables in this
study are perceived ad intrusiveness, reactance arousal, and consumer aggression. The same
dependent variables were measured between groups on the same subjects under the same
conditions as well as within groups before and after the treatments were applied, making this
study a mixed factorial design. Finally, a control group was not used in this study, so it is quasi-
experimental versus fully experimental. Therefore, this study was a three-factor, quasi-
experimental, mixed factorial design.

Table 1. Treatment Groups
Treatment Groups
US Treatment UK Treatment
US Group UK Group
Combination Combination
No Animation, No Animation,
Group 1 Group 16
Top of the Page Top of the Page
Group 2 Group 17
Left Side of the Page Left Side of the Page
Group 3 Group 18
Middle of the Page Middle of the Page
Group 4 Group 19
Right Side of the Page Right Side of the Page
Group 5 Group 20
Bottom of the Page Bottom of the Page
Some Animation, Some Animation,
Group 6 Group 21
Group 7 Group 22
Group 8 Group 23
Group 9 Group 24
Group 10 Group 25
All Animation, All Animation,
Group 11 Group 26
Group 12 Group 27
Group 13 Group 28
Group 14 Group 29
Group 15 Group 30
Experimental Stimulus
Advertising is frequent, pervasive, and disruptive by design, especially on the Internet in both
the United States and the United Kingdom where wealthy companies dedicate extremely large
amounts of money to their digital marketing budgets, as seen from the research presented in the
previous chapters. These budgets continue to grow and marketers’ ability to reach more and
more consumers is ever expanding, resulting in even more intrusive online advertising through
highly animated ads in all possible website locations. This trend further threatens consumer
freedoms by blocking their task-oriented online goals—contributing to reactance arousal—as
well as frustrates them, lending to instances of consumer aggression. To test this scenario, which
encompasses the dependent variables, this study employed a fictitious advertisement for “Lucky
Coffee” that could be manipulated according to the specified treatments. The ad was created for
the purposes of this study and mimics the online marketing presence of a real coffee companies.
The product was chosen because it is one that is consumed worldwide and the brand was
purposely falsified in order to avoid any possible pre-conceived biases amongst subjects, as
warned by some authors as having the potential to negatively impact results (Speck & Elliott,
1997; Briggs & Hollis, 1997). The ads for Lucky Coffee were placed in locations and at sizes
consistent with typical eCommerce experiences in order to measure their level of aggressive
consumer reactance arousal in an online, task-oriented environment. The locations and size
dimensions chosen are outlined in and represented exposure conditions during typical
eCommerce experiences, according to the Internet Advertising Bureau’s guidelines for digital
advertisements (IAB, 2012).
As mentioned above, three treatments measured Perceived Ad Intrusiveness, Consumer
Reactance, and Desire for Consumer aggression. These treatments were two levels of cultural
background (the US and UK), five levels of advertisement location (the top of the screen, the
bottom of the screen, middle of the screen, left side of the screen, and right side of the screen),
and three levels of animation (no animation, some animation, and all animation). The levels of
the advertising location treatment are shown in Figure 3 and the levels of the ad animation
treatment are shown in Figure 4. Table 2 lists the order in which participants were assigned to
the various treatment combinations for both countries. Each new, incoming participant was
assigned to the group associated with the next treatment combination listed in that table.
Participants were assigned to treatment combinations sequentially via the group to which they
were assigned, as seen in Table 1. Each participant saw their assigned treatment combination
eleven times and the deployment of the experimental stimulus is fully described in the “Sampling
Procedures” section of this chapter. When manipulating the ad’s location and level of animation,
consumers viewing advertisements that were fully animated and located in the middle of the
screen were expected to respond with the highest feelings of perceived ad intrusiveness,
reactance arousal and desire for consumer aggression.

Location #1: Top of the page “Leaderboard”

728 (wide) x 90 (high) Pixels
Location #2: Left side of the Page “Skyscraper”
Location #4: Right side of the Page “Skyscraper”

160 (wide) x 600 (high) pixels

Location #3: Middle of the screen
“Medium Rectangle”
Location #5: Bottom of the page “Leaderboard”

728 (wide) x 90 (high) Pixels
Figure 3. Ad Location. All advertisement locations, names, dimensions, frames per second
(fps), and durations were set according to the Internet Advertising Bureau’s guidelines for digital
advertisements (IAB, 2012). No ad exceeded the IAB’s maximum thresholds of 24 fps and 15
seconds in duration.
Animation #1: No elements of the Advertisement are animated
Animation #2: The words of the brand/product name, “Lucky Coffee” (along
with its signature steaming coffee mug icon), will animate
Animation #3: All elements of the ad will animate: the word “Drink”, the brand/product
name of “Lucky Coffee”, the coffee cup (with steam) icon, and the ad’s tagline
Figure 4. Ad Animation Levels. The advertisement’s shape and layout adjusted according to its
location. The above image is similar to how the top and bottom of the page leaderboard
advertisements appeared, while the Left and Right side of the screen “skyscraper”
advertisements adjusted to the vertical rectangle shapes portrayed in the previous figure.
Similarly, the advertisement that was placed in Location #3 mimicked the Medium Rectangle
shape described in that figure.
Table 2. Treatment Combinations
Treatment Combinations
Number Sequence of Treatments Combinations

1 No Animation, Top of the Page
2 No Animation, Left Side of the Page
3 No Animation, Middle of the Page
4 No Animation, Right Side of the Page
5 No Animation, Bottom of the Page
6 Some Animation, Top of the Page
7 Some Animation, Left Side of the Page
8 No Animation, Middle of the Page
9 Some Animation, Right Side of the Page
10 Some Animation, Bottom of the Page
11 All Animation, Top of the Page
12 All Animation, Left Side of the Page
13 All Animation, Middle of the Page
14 All Animation, Right Side of the Page
15 All Animation, Bottom of the Page
Note. The treatment combinations in this table were deployed sequentially to

participants. Each participant saw only one treatment combination 11 times.
Subjects
Consumers throughout the world who own and use credit cards to buy products and services
online are the target of online advertisements. Businesses collect their data from electronic
exchanges and use it to build digital marketing campaigns. Since this study compared the effects
of online advertising between two culturally similar as well as marketing-intensive societies,
consumers from the US and UK who are 1) old enough to own and use a credit card and 2)
Internet-savvy enough to make an online purchases within the last 12 months were recruited as
the subjects for this study. Subjects were recruited from eCommerce websites to fit the theme of
the study’s focus, which was to understand and measure the impacts of online advertising on
consumer aggression. Table 3 shows the sites from which participants were recruited to take part
in this study. When visiting one of these sites, an ad that encouraged eligible participants to
click on a hyperlink to the study was available. It was unknown who clicked on the link to this
study and the same recruitment methods were applied to each country (the US and UK), ensuring
that the data collected for this study was from random assignments.
Table 3. US and UK Participant Recruitment Websites

US and UK Participant Recruitment Websites
Site Name US Website Address UK Website Address
Craig’s List www.craigslist.com http://london.craigslist.co.uk/

http://pages.ebay.co.uk/help/sell/classi
EBay Classified www.ebayclassifieds.com
fied.html
Wall Street Journal The Times
The “Classified” https://classifieds.wsj.com/ http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/c
sections of major lassifieds/
online national LA Times
newspapers http://www.latimes.com/classified/j The Daily Mail
obs/ http://mailclassified.co.uk/
(Other top-
http://www.vivastreet.co.uk/
ranking sites for http://www.classifiedads.com/
http://www.freeads.co.uk/ for the UK
classified ads)
The advertisement used to recruit subjects for this study is seen in Figure 5.
Participants for Marketing Research Study Wanted – Win an iPod Shuffle!
I am a Doctorate of Business Administration student from Alliant International

University in San Diego, California, United States of America. I am conducting this
study as part of my dissertation to examine the effects of online advertising on
consumer aggression. Your participation is anonymous and should take you no more
than 10 minutes to complete. Your responses will only be used to further scholarly
knowledge in the field of marketing.
To express my gratitude for your participation, you may opt into a drawing to win
an iPod Shuffle (2GB) in a color of your choice. You must finish the entire study in
order to be eligible for the drawing.
*** WIN AN iPOD SHUFFLE – 2GB – ANY COLOR ***
This study is completely voluntary and designed around real online advertising
situations for the purposes of academic research. You will not be asked to reveal any
personal or sensitive information and no computer or network data will be captured
other than your email address if you choose to opt into the drawing for the completion
prize. None of the information you provide, nor your responses, will be shared with
any party at any time other than me, the Principal Investigator of this study, in order
to conduct my research and host the drawing for the completion prize.
In order to participate in this study, your permanent residence must be in either the
United States or United Kingdom and you must be old enough to own and operate a
credit card. Also, you must have made at least one online purchase in the last 12
months. If you do not meet these requirements, you are not eligible to participate and
please do not attempt to do so.
Please click here http://themarketingdrisin.com/ to begin.
Thank you!
Figure 5. Advertisement Used to Recruit Participants. The advertisement used to recruit

participants for this study was placed on top-ranking Classified websites in the US and UK.
When subjects clicked on the link in the recruitment ad, they were taken to a separate website to
begin the study. A complete description of the online experiment eligible subjects underwent is
described in the “Sampling Procedures” section of this chapter.
Sampling Procedures
The population for this study was a random sample of 458 US and UK online shoppers (248
from the US and 209 from the UK). All subjects were sourced from the eCommerce sites listed
in the previous section and then screened for eligibility to participate in the study. Only the data
from eligible subjects was used. As described in the “Subjects” section of this chapter, only
subjects old enough to maintain a credit and Internet-savvy enough to have used it to purchase
goods or services online within the last 12 months were eligible to participate in this study.
Respondents who met this criterion were invited to participate in an academic marketing
research study by clicking on a link that launched the study. Also as described in the “Subjects”
section of this chapter, respondents were incentivized to complete the study through an offering
to be entered into a drawing for an iPod Shuffle (2GB) in the color of their choosing. This prize
was chosen because of its connection to the study’s digital theme. The initial launch screen that
participants saw listed the study’s purpose and served as the Informed Consent Form, which was
required to secure their agreement to participate in the study. This screen also informed subjects
about the study’s length and the general participation requirements.
The following text was shown to participants and a screenshot of this page is in Appendix A
under the “Introduction Page” section in Figure A1.
Dear Participant,
Welcome and thank you for participating in this academic study. I am a student
working on his Doctorate of Business Administration Degree at Alliant International

University in the field of Marketing. I am currently conducting research on the effects of
online advertising on consumer aggression and ask for your feedback regarding various
online advertising conditions.
The purpose of this study is to better understand how online advertisements affect
consumers and the businesses that field them. This study will take approximately 10
minutes to complete and your participation is entirely voluntary. If you feel
uncomfortable at any time, you are free to close your browser and discontinue the study;
however, you are strongly encouraged to answer all questions since omitted responses
may render your survey unusable for the study and there is an incentive of possibly
winning an iPod Shuffle (2GB in the color of your choosing) for finishing the entire
study.
By participating in this study, you will run through an online study that is
representative of a basic Internet task commensurate with eCommerce. At both the
beginning and end of this study you will be asked a few short questions about your
reactions to certain advertising stimuli. Please conduct this study and answer all
questions by yourself so as not to bias your answers. On the following screens you will
be asked for some basic demographic information and then the study will begin. Please
read all instructions on each screen.
The result of this study is used for research purposes only. Your responses are
completely confidential, anonymous, and will not be shared with or revealed to any other
party. There are no risks associated with participating in the study and your participation
is beneficial to the higher education institutions that thrive to serve you better. If you
have any questions about this research study, please contact me at clobus@alliant.edu. If
you have any questions about research participants’ rights, please contact the Institutional
Review Boards (IRB) (SD-IRB@alliant.edu) at 1-858-635-4741. If you agree to
participate in this study, please check the box below. By checking it, you indicate that
you understand this statement and agree to participate in this study.
Then, participants submitted their agreement and consent to conduct the study by clicking on a
radio button next to an agreement or disagreement choice. The agreement choice read as
follows:
I have fully read and understand information above and consent/agree to participate in
this research study. Also, I confirm that I am at least 18 years of age, reside in either the
US or UK, and have made an online purchase with a credit card in the last 12 months.
The disagreement-choice read as follows:
Thank you, but I choose not to participate in this study. (NOTE: By clicking on this
button, you will be exited from the study.
Subjects who clicked on the second radio button, indicating their disagreement to participate in
the study, were directed to the final Exit screen and saw the following message:
Thank you very much for your time. Your participation in this study is now complete.
As a reminder, any responses you provided are completely anonymous and none of your
information will be shared with anyone other than me, the researcher, who will only use
it for academic research purposes. If you have any questions about this research study,
please contact me at clobus@alliant.edu. If you have any questions about research
participants’ rights, please contact Alliant International University’s Institutional Review
Board (IRB) at SD-IRB@alliant.edu or 1-858-635-4741. You may now close your
browser or browser tab.

A screenshot of this page is seen in Appendix A under the “Exit Page” section in Figure A12.
Subjects who chose the first radio button and accepted the terms and conditions of the study
were taken to a follow-on Demographic screen, where their country of origin (either the US or
the UK) and age information were collected. A screenshot of this page is seen in Appendix A
under the “Demographic Page” section in Figure A2. Then, participants were taken to a page
containing a static advertisement in the middle and top of the screen for Lucky Coffee with the
pre-test questions listed beneath. This ad was untreated and shown at the top of the page for all
respondents to reference when completing the pre-test questionnaire. Figure A3 in the “Pre-Test
Page” section of Appendix A shows a screenshot of this page and how the untreated ad appeared
to participants. Also, the full listing of the pre-test questions is available in Appendix B. These
pre-test questions were exactly the same as the ones asked in the post-test questionnaire since
this study measured the difference in participants’ answers before and after the treatment was
applied in order to gauge the level in which the ads were perceived as intrusive, the amount of
reactance that they aroused, and desire in which the participant wanted to aggressively respond
to them as a consumer.
Once participants finished the pre-test questionnaire, they were taken to another screen where
they were instructed to complete an online task that was representative of the mouse click actions
required by consumers who make online purchases during eCommerce situations. A screenshot
of this page is seen in Figure A4 in the “Treatment Page” section of Appendix A. Respondents
saw several open boxes that cascaded down the page in a zig-zag fashion and were instructed to
click into each box in sequential order beginning at the top-left and then continuing down the
page from right to left until all of them were checked. Similar to how Xia and Sudharshan
(2002) examined interruptions on the consumer’s online decision making process by first
presenting their respondents with a task and then deploying online advertisements as treatment
variables, participants of this study were also presented with a simple online task that represented
real-world, interactive eCommerce mouse clicks while receiving the various advertisement
treatments. Because this study mimicked a similar format as those authors for measuring
interruptions, some external validity was achieved by adopting their method. These authors also
affirm that choosing a simple task is an appropriate way to expose respondents to treatments and
measure them with efficacy when they state interruptions:
…have a greater facilitating effect on simple tasks than on complex tasks. Performance
on simple tasks can withstand a higher level of arousal than that on complex tasks
because a larger number of information cues are to be attended to in performing complex
tasks (Xia and Sudharshan, 2002, p. 266).
To further reinforce the appropriateness of choosing a simple online task for external validity,
other authors comment on how the Internet is inherently interactive (Steuer, 1992) and rich with
advertisements from marketers who seek the attention of their consumers (Bakos 1997).
Therefore, it is appropriate to present respondents with a representative online function and
advertising-intensive environment in this study that mimics actual eCommerce experiences in
order to achieve external validity.
Once the subject clicked into the first open box, a checkmark appeared and the box
transitioned from a prominent black and white color to a subdued gray color with a checkmark
image visible inside of the box to indicate that it no longer needed to be checked or clicked on.
Subjects were required to click on each box in order. The boxes were un-clickable if they were
already checked, or if the respondent attempted to check a box out of sequence. As participants
checked the boxes, advertisements began to appear on the screen according to the location and
animation treatment combination associated with their group. Participants from each country
(the US and the UK) were randomly assigned to one of the 15 conditions (five advertisement
locations times three levels of advertisement animation equals a total of 15 conditions). When
adding the US and UK groups together, the total number of conditions resulted in 30 respondent
groups that were measured (15 condition groups per culture multiplied by two cultures equals 30
groups). Table 1 in the “Research Design” section of this chapter lists the treatment
combinations associated with each group and Table 2 describes the sequential order in which
incoming subjects were assigned to their treatment combinations.
Treatments appeared after every fifth box was checked until subjects encountered their
respective treatments 11 times. Each treatment lasted for 3 seconds in duration. Screenshots
depicting how subjects encountered there are seen in the “Treatment Page” section of Appendix
A in Figures A4, A5, A6, A7, A8, and A9. With these parameters, the frequency, duration, and
timing factors of the advertisement’s treatment were held constant. The thresholds for duration,
timing, and frequency are consistent with the IAB’s digital advertising guidelines, which state
that online advertisements should not last longer than fifteen-seconds and are initiated frequently
throughout the user’s navigation experiences over the entire course of a campaign as supported
by the self-Regulatory Program for Online Behavioral Advertising (DAA, 2010). According to
existing literature (Xia & Sudharshan, 2002; Chandon, Chtourou, & Fortin, 2003; Li & Meeds,
2007; Li, Edwards, & Lee, 2002; Chattopadhyay & Nedungadi, 1992; Chatterjee, Hoffman, &
Novak, 2003), the effects of the frequency, duration, and timing variables on reactance arousal
and aggressive consumer responses are widely known and, thus, were not be included as
variables in this study.

After encountering the treatment, subjects were asked the same questions as before on a
follow-on page called the Post-Test Page in order to measure the difference in their responses.
However, subjects did not encounter any treatment on this page in order maintain their focus on
the ads just encountered on the previous page. This page is described in the “Post-Test Page”
section of Appendix A and seen in Figure A10.
Subjects were then taken to another page where their information for the drawing for the
incentive prize was collected. Figure A11 of the “Incentive Page” section of Appendix A
contains a screenshot of this page. Here, respondents were told that their participation made
them eligible to enter a drawing to win an iPod Shuffle by providing their email address.
Subjects were reminded that the data collected on this screen was stored separately from what
was collected earlier in the study in order to maintain participant anonymity. Finally,
participants were taken to a final page where they were thanked for their participation in the
study and made aware of how they might contact the Institutional Review Board (IRB), if they
experienced any issues. A screenshot of this page is seen in Appendix A under the “Exit Page”
section in Figure A12. The entire length of the study did not last for more than 10 minutes,
which was the time that was advertised to them during the recruitment period.
The research questions (RQ) and Hypotheses (H) associated with this study are restated
below with conceptual and operational variables included in each question. The sources of
measurement scales are also provided in the text that follows. All of the scales used in this study
asked their original questions, but the wording was updated to fit the theme and treatment of this
study. Also, all scales were all measured on a 7 point Likert scale during this study for
consistency in measurement purposes, but some of them were originally scored differently.
• H1a: There is a difference in perceived ad intrusiveness (PAI) scores before and after the
treatment
• H1b: There is a difference in reactance arousal (RA) scores before and after the treatment
after the treatment
A 7 item scale measured respondents’ perceived level of ad intrusiveness, consisting of these
items: distracting, disturbing, forced, interfering, intrusive, invasive, and obtrusive (Li, Edwards,
& Lee, 2002). The wording of the questions from this scale remained the same and it was
originally scored on a 7 point Likert scale with response categories ranging from strongly agree
to strongly disagree, so nothing about it was changed. Reactance arousal was measured on a 9
item scale based off of Hong’s Psychological Reactance Scale (Hong & Faedda, 1996) and
updated to fit the variables of this study. This scale was originally scored on a 5 point Likert
scale with response categories ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree, but was
converted to a 7 point Likert scale in this study to match the scoring of the other scales that were
used. Desire for consumer aggression was measured using Richins’ Aggression scale (1983).
Like the previous scale, Richins’ Aggression scale (1983) was originally scored on a 5 point
Likert scale with response categories ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree, but was
converted to a 7 point Likert scale in this study to match the scoring of the other scales that were
used. It was also updated to fit the variables of this study.

RQ2: Does culture affect levels of perceived ad intrusiveness (PAI), reactance arousal (RA), and
desire to respond as an aggressive consumer (DCA) when exposed to online advertisements?
• H2a: Culture (Cu) has a significant effect on the difference in perceived ad intrusiveness
(PAI) scores before and after the treatment
• H2b: Culture (Cu) has a significant effect on the difference in reactance arousal (RA)
Prior to beginning the experiment, respondents were already categorized by culture and PAI, RA,
and DCA were measured on the same scales mentioned in RQ1.
RQ3: Does the amount of ad animation (Aa) affect levels of perceived ad intrusiveness (PAI),
reactance arousal (RA), and desire to respond as an aggressive consumer (DCA) when exposed to
• H3a: The amount of ad animation (Aa) has a significant effect on the difference in
• H3b: The amount of ad animation (Aa) has a significant effect on the difference in
The relationship between Aa and PAI, RA, and DCA were measured on the same scales
mentioned in RQ1.
arousal (RA), and desire to respond as an aggressive consumer (DCA) when exposed to online
advertisements?
• H4a: Ad location (Al) has a significant effect on the difference in perceived ad
• H4b: Ad location (Al) has a significant effect on the difference in reactance arousal (RA)
The relationship between Al and PAI, RA, and DCA were measured on the same scales
mentioned in RQ1.
• H5: There is a correlation between post-treatment levels of perceived ad intrusiveness
(PAI) and post-treatment levels of reactance arousal (RA)
The relationship between PAI and RA were measured on the same scales mentioned in RQ1.
RQ6: Do consumers desire to respond to the advertised brand or product aggressively (DCA) in
the marketplace when ads arouse reactance (RA)?
• H6: There is a correlation between post-treatment levels of reactance arousal (RA) levels
and post-treatment levels of desire for consumer aggression (DCA)
The relationship between RA and DCA were measured on the same scales mentioned in RQ1.
Instrument
A questionnaire composed of three established scales was used to collect primary data for
this study. A summary of items that were measured is shown in Table 4. The level of the
perceived online advertising pervasiveness was measured by the Intrusiveness (Li, Edwards, &
Lee, 2002) scale. Next, a scale that is based off of Hong’s Psychological Reactance Scale (Hong
& Faedda, 1996) measured the level of the respondents’ reactance arousal. Finally, the
respondents’ willingness and desire to act aggressively was measured by a scale based off of
Richins’ Consumer Aggression Scale (1983). All scales were modified to address the online
advertisements used in the study and were measured on a 7 point Likert scale (the Pre- and Post-
Test Questionnaires are seen in Appendix B).
Table 4. Measurement Items and Scales Used in the Pre- and Post-Test Questionnaire
Measurement Items and Scales Used in the Pre- and Post-Test Questionnaire
Type of
Variables Items Scale Source
Measurement
Li, Edwards,
Perceived Ad 7 point Likert
1-6 Intrusiveness and Lee
Intrusiveness scale
(2002)
Reactance 5 point Likert Hong’s Psychological Hong and
7-14
Arousal scale Reactance Scale Faedda (1996)
Aggressive 5 point Likert

15-20 Aggression Richins (1983)
Desires scale
Demographics were also collected during this study since it was conducted in both the US
and the UK. The demographic information collected was the participant’s country of origin and
age.
Data Analysis
Data analysis was performed using the SPSS (version 17.0.0, released August 23, 2008)
statistical analysis program. To first establish sufficient reliability and validity for testing the
construct of this study, Exploratory Factor Analysis was conducted. Exploratory Factor Analysis
is “a set of statistical procedures designed to represent a set of variables in terms of a smaller
number of hypothetical variables or underlying factors or traits” (Purprua, 1999, p. 8). It was the
statistical method chosen to explore the empirical data to determine if any variables were
“associated with a particular underlying dimension, component, or factor” (Meyers, Gamst &
Guarino, 2006, p. 4) as well as “examine inter-relationships among the factors without imposing
a model on the data” (Purprua, 1999, p. 8). Exploratory Factor Analysis examined the
dimensions of the scales and measured the mean scores of the items to establish the appropriate
reliability and validity for conducting a follow-on Multivariate Analysis of Variance
(MANOVA) of the collected data to test the hypotheses in this study.
MANOVA is defined as a multivariate statistical test procedure that is used when data has
been “collected on multiple dependent variables” and “especially if these variables are known or
are believed to be related to each other” (Meyers, Gamst & Guarino, 2006, p. 10). MANOVA
extends beyond the univariate t test and Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) designs. While these
univariate designs measure multiple independent variables, they are both only capable of
analyzing one dependent variable. Because the data in this study was collected and analyzed for
three dependent variables (perceived ad intrusiveness, reactance arousal, and desire for consumer
aggression), it is a multivariate design and a MANOVA procedure is appropriate to explore the
relationship between them (Meyers, Gamst & Guarino, 2006). Conducting a MANOVA with
this many variables also reduces the chances of committing Type-I error. If three separate multi-
factor ANOVAs, for instance, were run, the analysis would be guessing at the correct
measurements (Meyers, Gamst & Guarino, 2006, p. 367). Furthermore, it is impossible to see a
pattern of covariation among the dependent variables when ANOVAs are run separately. In this
scenario, the multiple ANOVAs that are run could possibly result in no differences at all.
However, because the MANOVA looks at both the differences in means as well as the direction
and size of the correlations among the dependent variables, it helps reveal the amount of
covariation between them (Keppel & Wickens, 2004; Meyers, Gamst & Guarino, 2006). Finally,
when commenting on multivariate designs, Harris (2001) states, “many different pieces of
information about an applicant...may be of value in predicting his or her…[behavior], and it is
necessary to consider how to combine all of these pieces of information into a single ‘best’
prediction (p. 11). Considering all of this, a MANOVA procedure was deemed appropriate for
this study. To also lend even more evidence that a MANOVA procedure is appropriate for a
behavioral sciences experiment (the type of which is this study) that aims to address real-life
factors, Meyers, Gamst and Guarino (2006) explain the value of multivariate designs from two
perspectives:
First, we all seem to agree that individuals generate many behaviors and respond in many
different although related ways to the situations they encounter in their lives. Univariate
analyses are, by definition, able to address this level of complexity in only a piece-meal
fashion because they can examine only one aspect at a time….The second reason why the
field appears to have reached consensus on the importance of multivariate design is that
we hold the causes of behavior to be complex and multivariate. Thus, predicting
behavior is best done with more rather than less information. Most of us believe that
several reasons explain why we feel or act as we do (p. 5).

In running the MANOVA, descriptive statistics were first used to evaluate respondents’
demographic information and responses. Next, the variance between the average of participants’
pre- and post-test scores were measured to examine the main and interaction effects for the
proposed hypotheses. Critical F-Values were used to check for statistical significance of the
treatments on the measurements and their associated Partial Eta Squared results (ηp2) determined
the strength of the related effect sizes at the 95% confidence level (p = .05). This is explained by
Meyers, Gamst and Guarino (2006) who write:
Accounting for a statistically significant amount of the variance does not directly tell us
the proportion of variance that the effect has explained. Strength of relationship indexes
the degree of shared or explained variance that two or more variables have in common (p.
295).
By reporting the values for statistical significance as well as the strength of effect sizes, the
performance of the independent variables are more clearly shown and understood. Additionally,
Cohen (1977, 1988) clarifies the levels of strength for effect sizes. From his publications, it is
understood that ηp2 values greater than 0.15 indicate a large effect size, ones greater than 0.06
are medium, and values above 0.01 are small. Effect size values are presented and discussed
when statistically significant results are achieved and help to identify the strength of the
associated results.
Finally, the meaning of these results are interpreted and described as supporting or not
supporting the proposed hypotheses. To do this, the multivariate results of the MANOVA
procedure are reported first and then followed by the univariate ones. From Hummel and Sligo
(1971), it is understood that the univariate results must be analyzed after interpreting the
multivariate ones because the multivariate results are only the beginning of the analysis. While
they look at the big picture, the univariate results (which are similar to running separate one-way
ANOVAs as part of a step-down analysis) investigate significant one-way analyses of all of the
independent variables on each dependent variable separately. But, this must be done in a
MANOVA procedure after understanding significance from the multivariate results since
researchers must take great care to control for Type I error and prevent drawing incorrect
conclusions (Cohen, 1988; Meyers, Gamst & Guarino, 2006; Keppel & Wickens, 2004).
In addition to explaining how the MANOVA procedures are followed for reporting the
results of this study, it is also important to state how MANOVA treats its variables since they are
presented and discussed in the following chapters. MANOVA is the multivariate extension to
the univariate ANOVA procedure and attempts to alleviate the constraints of univariate
procedure. Keppel and Wickens (2004) write that “the univariate model constrains the
possibilities for the variances of the scores and the correlations among them” (p. 375). They
describe two outcomes of this when the univariate model “constrains” the variance: “First, the
variances of all the treatment conditions are identical. Second, the same thing happens to
correlations between the scores; they too are identical” (p. 375). This refers to homogeneity of
variance and homogeneity of correlation, respectively and results in the data showing compound
symmetry when this is the case. However, when the multivariate model is used, it “treats all the
scores from a subject as a single multipart random variable that contains the individual scores
within it” (Keppel & Wickens, 2004, p. 375). This creates a new, random variable that correlates
several variables all at once. This is possible because both MANOVA and ANOVA (i.e.: the
multivariate extension of the univariate model) assess the main effects and interactions based on
the linear combinations. Thus, the new variable that is created is a linear combination that
maximizes the difference between groups. To further explain this, Keppel and Wickens (2004)
write:
This [multivariate] model treats all the scores from a subject as a single multipart random
variable that contains the individual scores within it….The model itself simply says that
this random variable has what is known as a multivariate normal distribution, which is a
generalization of the normal distribution that allows for the correlations among several
variables. The parameters of this model…are the parameters of the multivariate
distribution. They are of three types: the means of the individual scores,…the variances
of these scores,…and the correlations between the pairs of the scores. The null
hypothesis tested by the multivariate analysis of variance is the same as that tested by the
univariate form, namely, that the means of the individual scores are all identical. The
way the two models differ is in how the variability among the scores is expressed….the
univariate model imposes compound symmetry of the data. All the scores must have the
same variance, and the correlations between any pair of scores must be the same. The
multivariate model completely relaxes this requirement. It can accommodate any pattern
of variances and correlations. Because of this flexibility, it applies to situations for which
the univariate model is inappropriate. This robustness comes at a cost, however. The
multivariate analysis, in effect, must estimate all those variances and correlations from
the data, and this process reduces the amount of information that can be brought to bear
on the differences among the means. As a result, when the assumptions of the univariate
model hold, the multivariate tests have less power (p. 375).
This explanation about the differences between univariate and multivariate models is important
to this study because the new random variable for which the more flexible multivariate approach
creates returns substantial results with respect to this study.
Chapter III Summary
This chapter outlined a design for studying the effects of online advertising on consumer
aggression. Appropriate research questions and hypotheses were presented and an appropriate
methodology on how to test it was outlined. The research design and experimental stimulus
sections of this chapter explained how the proposed study was conducted. Then, the number and
type of respondents necessary for conducting this type of study was presented. Finally, an
explanation on the most appropriate statistical methods for analyzing the collected data was
presented.
CHAPTER IV
Research Findings
The purpose of this chapter is to present the findings of the data analysis associated with this
study. First, the samples that were collected as well as the profile of the respondents, and
classification of the treatment groups are reviewed. Then, a description of the statistics outlined
substantial differences in the mean scores of pre- and post-test responses to the questionnaire that
subjects completed before and after experiencing the treatment associated with this study. Next,
Exploratory Factor Analysis was used to screen the data and check for manipulations as well as
conduct validity and reliability checks. Then, the significant results of a Multivariate Analysis of
Variance of the collected data were presented. Finally, a post-hoc analysis of the data was
conducted and some additional findings were provided.
Samples
703 questionnaires were distributed, but only 458 were usable and analyzed in this study. Of
the usable responses, 249 of them were from US respondents and 209 were from the UK. For
the animated advertisement treatment, 150 respondents saw ads with no animation levels while
158 respondents saw ones with some animation to them and 150 respondents saw advertisements
that were totally animated. For the treatment associated with the ad’s location, 98 respondents
experienced ads at the top of the page, 84 at the left side of the page, 95 in the middle of the
page, 95 to the right side of the page, and 86 at the bottom of the page. There were a total of
thirty groups (fifteen groups for the US and another fifteen for the UK that were composed of the
same treatment combinations as seen in Table 1). Table C1 in Appendix C shows the number of
usable responses that were analyzed per group. If subjects failed to click into any of the follow-
on screens after launching the initial one to begin the study before a 15 minute per-page timer
expired, then their session was discontinued and they were forced to restart the entire study.
Profile of the Respondents
All respondents were online shoppers who resided in the US and UK who were old enough to
own a credit card and Internet-savvy enough to have used it in the last 12 months to make an
online purchase. The majority of respondents were from the US (54%, n = 249) and the rest
were from the UK (46%, n = 209). The age of respondents varied from 16 to 93 and most
respondents were in their mid-20s to mid-30s for both countries. Generally speaking, US
subjects were slightly older than those in the UK. The highest concentration of subjects from US
subjects were ages 30 (6%, n = 14), 34 (6%, n = 15), 35 (8%, n = 21), 37 (4%, n = 11), 39 (4%, n
= 9), and 66 (3%, n = 8) with the oldest overall subject at 93 years of age. This is seen visually
in Figure 6.
n = 21 at 35 yrs
25 n = 15
at 34
Number of Respondents
20 n = 14 yrs
at 30 n = 11 at 37 yrs
15 yrs
n = 9 at 39 yrs n = 8 at
10 66 yrs
5
0
19 24 29 34 39 44 49 55 60 65 70 93
Age of US Subjects
NOTE: Oldest subject age at 93 yrs
Figure 6. Number of Respondents by Age for US Subjects. “Yrs” refers to years old.
Conversely, the highest concentrations of UK subjects were ages 19 (3%, n = 7), 25 (4%, n = 8),
29 (5%, n = 11), 35 (6%, n = 12), and 39 (6%, n = 12) and the youngest overall respondent at 16
years of age. This is seen visually in Figure 7.
n = 11 at 29 yrs n = 12 at 35 yrs
14 n = 8 at
25 yrs n = 12 at 39 yrs
12 n = 7 at
Numer of Respondents
10 19 yrs
8
6
4
2
0
16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 62 80
Age of UK Subjects
NOTE: Youngest subject age at 16 yrs
Figure 7. Number of Respondents by Age for UK Subjects. “Yrs” refers to years old.
However, the majority age group of all subjects from both the US and UK was 35 (US: 14%, n =
249; UK: 6%, n = 209).
Treatment Groups
This study was a 2 (US or UK) x 3 (no, some, or all ad animation) x 5 (ad location at the top,
left, middle, right, or bottom of the page) mixed factorial design, resulting in thirty treatment
groups. Groups one through fifteen were replicated for each of the two country groupings for a
total of thirty groups. The names of these groups are:
• Group 1 and 16: No animation, top of the page

• Group 2 and 17: No animation, left side of the page
• Group 3 and 18: No animation, middle of the page
• Group 4 and 19: No animation, right side of the page
• Group 5 and 20: No animation, bottom of the page
• Group 6 and 21: Some animation, top of the page
• Group 7 and 22: Some animation, left side of the page
• Group 8 and 23: Some animation, middle of the page
• Group 9 and 24: Some animation, right side of the page
• Group 10 and 25: Some animation, bottom of the page
• Group 11 and 26: All animation, top of the page
• Group 12 and 27: All animation, left side of the page
• Group 13 and 28: All animation, middle of the page
• Group 14 and 29: All animation, right side of the page
• Group 15 and 30: All animation, bottom of the page
A quantitative representation of the fifteen treatment groups is seen visually in in Figure 8.
Among US respondents, the subjects assigned to Group 1 (no animation, top of the page) and
Group 9 (some animation, bottom of the page) were the majority (n = 21, 8% for Group 1 and n
= 20, 8% for Group 9) of respondents, while the subjects from Group 24 (some animation, right
side of the page) represented the majority of respondents (n = 16, 8%) for the UK. Group 2 (no
animation, left side of the page) yielded the least number of US responses (n = 13, 5%) while
groups 17 (no animation, left side of the page), 19 (no animation, right side of the page), 27 (all
animation, left side of the page), 29 (all animation, right side of the page), and 30 (all animation,
bottom of the page) contained the least amount of UK responses (all groups at n = 13, 6%).
United States United Kingdom

25
21
Respondents per Group
20
20 18 18 17 17 17 18 16
15 14 16 15 16
15 13 14 14 13 15 13 14141414 1414 13 15 1313
10
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718192021222324252627282930
Group Number
Figure 8. Number of Respondents per Treatment Group.
Exploratory Factor Analysis
Using principal component analysis as the extraction method, Exploratory Factor Analysis
was used to analyze the twenty components measuring the three factors of this study: perceived
ad intrusiveness, reactance arousal, and the desire to act aggressively as a consumer to the
advertised brand or product. It measured the dimensions and structure of the collected data,
discovering that three factors could explain 50% or more of the cumulative variance at 57.903%.
Since the focus of any Exploratory Factor Analysis is on the cumulative percentage of variance
accounted for with the least number of factors as possible in order to most accurately explain
variance (Meyers, Gamst, & Guarino, 2006, p. 504), the three factors in this study were
considered viable and, thus, used in this study.
Data Screening and Manipulation Checks. This study utilized five levels of ad location
(top, left, middle, right, and bottom of the page) and three levels of ad animation (no, some, all
ad animation) to measure the amount of perceived ad intrusiveness, reactance arousal, and desire
to act aggressively as a consumer to the advertised brand or product. Respondents were required
to answer all pre- and post-test questions by stating their level of agreement or disagreement on a
7 point Likert scale to the statements designed at measuring these variables. The average of
respondents’ answers were used.
All collected data was screened for completeness and manipulation checks were conducted
against pre-test responses to ensure that the measurements met acceptable levels of reliability
and validity in which to analyze the data. All data screening and manipulation checks were
conducted through Exploratory Factor Analysis using SPSS 17. No missing values were
discovered both visually and after running a check for completeness in SPSS 17. Some
appropriate adjustments were made when measurement failures were uncovered. These
corrections included removing one measurement (Question 6) completely and re-assigning two
of them (Question 7 and Question 8) to another measure.
One of the twenty measurement components (Question 6) did not correlate with any of the
factors at all, so it was disregarded as unusable and the analysis was re-run with only nineteen
components. A Varimax rotation with Kaiser Normalization was run to rotate the factors. From
that, two components (Question 7 and Question 8), which were originally assigned to the factor
measuring the respondent’s reactance arousal, were found to more closely correlate with the
factor measuring the respondent’s desire to act aggressively as a consumer as latent variables.
Therefore, these two components were re-coded to measure that factor. Measurements in this
analysis were found to moderately correlate with one another based on their Pearson r scores, so
an oblique rotation was also run, even though the correlation of the factors is not necessarily high
enough to warrant one. However, the pattern matrix output from the oblique rotation yielded the
exact same results as the Varimax rotation, lending even more support to correcting the
measurement failures uncovered by the Exploratory Factor Analysis. Meyers, Gamst, and
Guarino (2006) advise researchers to consider such scenarios in their research. The steps taken
to recode the measurement questions were conducted as follows:
• Questions 1 through 5: Remained as their original assignment to the factor measuring
perceived ad intrusiveness because of their high correlation to that factor.
• Question 6: Disregarded completely due to no correlation found.
• Question 7 and 8: Re-assigned from the factor measuring reactance arousal to the
factor measuring desire for consumer aggression because they more highly correlated
with that factor.
• Questions 9 through 14: Remained assigned to their original factor measuring
reactance arousal due to their high correlation with it.
• Questions 15 through 20: Remained assigned to their original factor measuring desire
for consumer aggression due to their high correlation with it.
Table 5 also depicts these changes, but is organized by question order and categorized by
measurement correlation to more easily show the question re-distribution after incorporating the
results of the Exploratory Factor Analysis.
Perceptually, Question 6 was somewhat redundant with other questions. It read, “The ad for
Lucky Coffee forcefully tried to capture my attention” and was worded very similarly to others,
such as “The ad for Lucky Coffee was forced upon me” and “The ad for Lucky Coffee interfered
with my ability to focus”. Therefore, it is both statistically and semantically fitting to remove
this question. Likewise, Question 7 and Question 8 read as follows:
• Question 7: “The ad for Lucky Coffee frustrates me because I feel like it prevents me
from making free and independent decisions about the type of coffee I want to buy”.
Table 5. Re-Distribution of Measurement Questions after Rotation

Re-Distribution of Measurement Questions after Rotation
Question Perceived Ad Reactance Desire for Consumer

Number Intrusiveness Arousal Aggression
1 High correlation (.774)
6 (Disregarded completely due to no correlation with any factors)
Note. Correlations were statistically significant at p < .05 and measured using Pearson r.
• Question 8: “The ad for Lucky Coffee angers me because I feel as though I am no longer
able to choose between different types of coffee products”.
The Exploratory Factor Analysis dictated moving these questions from the reactance arousal
scale to the scale measuring desire for consumer aggression. Since the desire for consumer
aggression scale measured the likelihood in which respondents wanted to engage in activities
focused on aggressive consumer responses to the advertised brand or product (like “give Lucky
Coffee a bad online rating” or “boycott” or “bash the reputation” of Lucky Coffee through blogs
and social media) versus the perception of losing their freedom from it (as was the case with all
of the other questions on the Reactance Arousal scale), these questions did, in fact, seem to align
more closely to a different scale. Therefore, it was fitting to move Question 7 and Question 8 to
the scale measuring the respondent’s desire for consumer aggression.
Descriptive Statistics. This section describes the results achieved from the collected data.
Mean values for each of the 20 items scored before and after the treatments were applied in this
study are seen in Table 6. All factors were measured on a 7 point Likert scale where Strongly
Agree = 1 and Strongly Disagree = 7, so the greater the extent to which respondents agreed to the
statements in the Pre- and Post-Test questionnaires yielded lower numbers and indicated that
more of the measurement was experienced. Higher scores indicated greater disagreement with
the items mentioned in the scales.
Among US respondents, Item 3 resulted in the greatest difference in mean score responses
before and after treatments were applied. Item 3 measured perceived ad intrusiveness on a 7
point Likert scale and asked respondents for their amount of agreement or disagreement towards
the statement, “The ad for Lucky Coffee was forced upon me.” Pre- and post-test mean scores
(with standard deviations in parentheses) were 4.06 (1.97) and 2.39 (1.72), respectively, which
resulted in a difference in mean values of 1.66. For UK respondents, Item 13 resulted in the
greatest difference in mean score responses before and after treatments were applied. Pre- and
post-test mean scores (with standard deviations in parentheses) were 4.07 (1.81) and 2.82 (1.95),
respectively, which resulted in a difference in mean values of 1.24. Item 13 measured reactance
arousal on a 7 point Likert scale and asked respondents for their amount of agreement or
Table 6. Item Mean Scores for Pre- and Post-Test Responses
Item Mean Scores for Pre- and Post-Test Responses
US (n = 249) UK (n = 209)
Before After Diff. Before After Diff.
Item M SD M SD M M SD M SD M
1 3.71 1.83 2.76 1.75 0.96 3.43 1.76 2.73 1.84 0.70
2 5.08 1.77 3.96 2.11 1.12 4.74 1.94 3.71 2.05 1.03
3 4.06 1.97 2.39 1.72 1.66* 3.36 1.78 2.20 1.66 1.17
4 4.62 1.84 3.05 1.83 1.57 4.01 1.94 2.81 1.80 1.20
5 4.16 2.25 2.66 1.79 1.51 3.44 2.10 2.45 1.83 1.00
6 3.34 1.97 1.86 1.29 1.48 2.92 1.77 1.80 1.40 1.12
7 6.04 1.35 5.25 1.91 0.80 5.66 1.65 4.99 2.07 0.67
8 6.34 1.24 5.77 1.66 0.57 6.10 1.36 5.59 1.83 0.51
9 5.54 1.73 4.36 2.14 1.18 5.25 1.81 4.26 2.26 0.99
10 5.27 1.74 4.27 2.14 0.99 4.78 1.92 4.24 2.17 0.55
11 5.72 1.48 4.74 2.02 0.98 5.33 1.81 4.56 2.12 0.77
12 3.00 1.77 2.37 1.66 0.63 2.89 1.67 2.66 1.89 0.23
13 4.49 1.87 3.00 1.95 1.50 4.07 1.81 2.82 1.95 1.24^
14 5.15 1.72 4.08 2.16 1.06 4.60 1.90 4.09 2.18 0.52
15 6.38 1.09 5.42 1.82 0.96 6.32 1.24 5.44 1.80 0.88
16 5.94 1.39 5.06 1.89 0.88 5.85 1.48 5.42 1.82 0.43
17 5.99 1.43 5.35 1.83 0.65 5.91 1.53 5.40 1.83 0.51
18 5.69 1.65 5.38 1.73 0.31** 5.70 1.60 5.54 1.77 0.16
19 6.73 0.82 6.25 1.43 0.47 6.58 1.12 6.22 1.42 0.36
20 6.41 1.08 5.76 1.74 0.66 6.35 1.27 5.75 1.71 0.60
Note. "Diff." is the difference in mean scores before and after the treatments were
applied. M = Mean, SD = Standard Deviation, n = sample size.
* = Greatest difference in mean scores for US respondents, ** = Smallest difference in
mean scores for US respondents.
^ = Greatest difference in mean scores for UK respondents, ^^ = Smallest difference in
mean scores for US respondents.
disagreement towards the statement, “I consider Lucky Coffee’s ad to be an intrusion on my
online experience.”
Conversely, Item 18 resulted in the smallest difference in responses before and after
treatments were applied for both the US and UK. Item 18 measured desire for consumer
aggression on a 7 point Likert scale and asked respondents for their amount of agreement or
disagreement towards the statement, “I feel like the only way for my complaints about Lucky
Coffee’s online advertisements to be heard is if I tell my friends and family on social media how
much I dislike them and try to get others to boycott Lucky Coffee products.” Pre- and post-test
mean scores (with standard deviations in parentheses) for this item for the US were 5.69 (1.65)
and 5.38 (1.73), respectively, which resulted in a difference in mean values of 0.31. Pre- and
post-test mean scores (with standard deviations in parentheses) for this item for the UK were
5.70 (1.60) and 5.54 (1.77), respectively, which resulted in a difference in mean values of 0.16.
Reliability and validity. After re-ordering the questions, the three factors were checked for
reliability and all of them received high Cronbach’s Alpha scores. The score for perceived ad
intrusiveness was α = .799; reactance arousal, α = .880; and, desire for consumer aggression, α =
.878. This check for reliability confirms that the steps taken above were appropriate.
Furthermore, the factors measured in this study were statistically significantly and sufficiently
correlated (as noted by their Pearson r scores) at the 0.01 significance level, resulting in even
greater validity of the data associated with this study after the above-mentioned rotations were
made.
Assumptions. In addition to confirming acceptable levels of reliability and validity for the
measures of this study’s factors from the Exploratory Factor Analysis conducted above, it is also
appropriate to ensure that the assumptions of this study’s test were met as part of its
manipulation checks. As described in the “Data Analysis” section of Chapter III, MANOVA
was used to analyze the data in this study. There are many assumptions associated with
MANOVA. First, an appropriate sample size should be chosen. For the three measurements
associated with this study, (ad intrusiveness, reactance arousal, and desire for consumer
aggression), Keppel and Wickens (2004) suggest the equation

ω

= φ2 + 1 to determine the total sample size of three-factor designs. In this
ω
study, to solve for N (which is the total sample size needed for this study), ω2effect = 0.25, dfeffect =
8, and φ = 1.7. To explain these values, a moderate effect size of ω2 = 0.25 is appropriate,
According to Keppel and Wickens (2004). Next, the degrees of freedom for the effect size is
calculated based on the study’s 2 x 3 x 5 design. With that structure, df = (2 – 1) * (3 – 1) * (5 –
1) = 8. From Pearson and Hartley’s (1951) power function charts when the degrees of freedom
(df) is 8, φ is estimated to be 1.7. Given these values, N equals 390.15 (or 390, when rounded to
the nearest whole number). Where N is the total sample size, individual group (also called cell)
sizes (which is referred to by the symbol n) may be determined by dividing the total population
(which is referred to by the symbol N) by the total number of groups, which are 30, to equal n,
which equals 13.005 (or, 13 when rounded to the nearest whole number). Therefore, the
minimum number of respondents needed per group is 13 in order to meet the sample size
assumption to conduct MANOVA for this study. Per the complete (and, hence, usable
responses) collected as part of this study as seen in Table C1 in Appendix C, each group had a
minimum of 13 respondents, so the sample size assumption for conducting a MANOVA test
with this study was successfully met.
Keppel and Wickens (2004) also explain that cell sizes can be calculated with

ω

= φ2 In this case power is determined through the noncentrality parameter (φ) and then
ω

combining effect size (ω2) to calculate the sample size of the groups. For this calculation, a
power of 0.8 is chosen because Cohen (1988) suggests that “studies [are] designed to achieve
alpha levels of at least .05 with power levels of 80 percent” (Hair et al., 2006, p. 35). Also
according to these authors, a moderate effect size of ω2 = 0.25 is appropriate. When calculated,
n = 9.18 or 9, if rounded, as the total amount of respondents needed per cell for a 2 x 3 x 5 mixed
design with 30 groups. Since the sample size per cell size is lower than the previous calculation
and statisticians typically recommend using larger number sample sizes to achieve greater
statistical significance and reliability, the larger sample size of at least 13 respondents per cell (n
= 13), or a 390 total responses (N = 390) was sought during the data collection phase of this
study.
The next MANOVA assumption in which to check is normality. The Case Processing
Summary output in SPSS revealed that no cases were missing and all of them were valid for each
dependent variable by country group. Therefore, the normality assumption of MANOVA was
met for this study.
Multivariate outliers were the next MANOVA assumption that were checked. Using SPSS,
the Mahalanobis distance for each case was calculated, resulting in six violations. According to
Meyers, Gamst, and Guarino (2006, p. 673), a Mahalanobis distance value of 16.266 was used as
the threshold number because the critical chi-square distribution at a stringent alpha level (p <
.001) with 3 degrees of freedom (df were equal to the number of variables under examination, df
=3) was appropriate for considering the Mahalanobis distance. These six cases were considered
outliers and, thus, eliminated. Despite eliminating these six outliers, each cell still contained at
least 13 cases, ensuring that the criteria for sample size was still met.
Linearity was the next MANOVA assumption that was checked. Using scatter plot outputs
from SPSS, it was found that the linearity of the country group for all dependent variables was
violated to a minor extent. None of the scatterplots analyzed resulted in extreme violations and
were not considered to be severe; hence, adequately meeting the assumption for linearity.
The rest of the assumptions for conducting a MANOVA test (including homogeneity of
regression, multicollinearity and singularity, and homogeneity of variance-covariance matrices)
were checked using SPSS outputs. None of these assumptions were violated, confirming that all
MANOVA assumptions for this study were met.
A final criterion for conducting a MANOVA procedure is that the dependent variables are
somewhat correlated. Several authors warn that MANOVA is not appropriate if the dependent
variables are too highly correlated (Keppel & Wickens, 2004; Meyers, Gamst, & Guarino, 2006).
Correlation analysis was conducted against the dependent variables in this study, finding them to
be moderately correlated. The pre-treatment dependent variables were less correlated than post-
treatment dependent variables. These results are analyzed in the “Correlation Analysis of
Dependent Variables” section of this chapter and further affirm that a MANOVA is the
appropriate procedure in which to analyze the data associated with this study.
While this study was already validated in a beta-test phase, the manipulation checks and
corrections made in this section strengthen its internal validity. The results of the mixed
measures MANOVA conducted in this study’s analysis are presented in the next section.
Significant main effects and three-way interactions for perceived ad intrusiveness (PAI),
reactance arousal (RA), and desire for consumer aggression (DCA) are reviewed against the
treatment variables associated with this study, which are country (Cu), ad location (Al), and the
level of ad animation (Aa).

Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA)
The results for each measurement from conducting a mixed measures MANOVA to compare
the effects of country (Cu), ad location (Al), and level of ad animation (Aa) on perceived ad
intrusiveness (PAI), reactance arousal (RA), and desire for consumer aggression (DCA) against
the advertised brand or product are discussed in this section. This was done by investigating the
effects of before and after treatments on these measurements. The average differences in mean
scores for pre- and post-test responses for each measurement are discussed first. Each
measurement is reviewed separately, beginning with perceived ad intrusiveness, followed by
reactance arousal, and then desire for consumer aggression. Then, the results of the multivariate
effects and treatments on each measurement are presented. Next, a post-hoc analysis is
conducted. Finally, the impact of Age (as a covariate) is analyzed.
Descriptive Statistics for Perceived Ad Intrusiveness. Perceived Ad Intrusiveness was
measured by the average differences in pre- and post-test responses on a 7 point Likert scale to
ad location and animation treatments. “All animation, right side of the page” (Pre-Test M =
4.5677, SD = 1.2265; Post-Test M = 2.4774, SD = 0.9305) received the highest difference in
mean scores (Pre/Post difference M = 2.0903); thus, concluding that respondents who received
that treatment felt that those ads were the most intrusive. Conversely, respondents who
experienced the “Some animation, left side of the page” (Pre-Test M = 3.6258, SD = 1.1795;
Post-Test M = 3.0387, SD = 1.6544) treatment received the smallest difference in mean scores
(Pre/Post difference M = 0.5871). Descriptive statistics for both countries for 15 items
measuring perceived ad intrusiveness are summarized in Table 7.
Descriptive Statistics for Reactance Arousal. Reactance Arousal was measured by the
average differences in pre- and post-test responses on a 7 point Likert scale to ad location and
Table 7. Descriptive Statistics for Perceived Ad Intrusiveness

Descriptive Statistics for Perceived Ad Intrusiveness
Treatment N Min. Max. M^ SD ^ M ^^ SD ^^

No animation, top of
35 1 7 3.868 1.245 2.720 1.414
the page
No animation, left
26 1 7 4.008 1.322 2.646 1.189
side of the page
No animation,
33 1 7 4.018 1.503 3.067 1.770
middle of the page
No animation, right
28 1 7 3.864 1.476 3.271 1.440
side of the page
No animation,
28 1 7 3.950 1.380 2.944 2.046
bottom of the page
Some animation, top
32 1 7 3.506 1.339 2.481 1.262
of the page
Some animation, left
31 1 7 3.625** 1.178 3.038** 1.654
side of the page
Some animation,
30 1 7 4.120 1.311 2.700 1.422
middle of the page
Some animation,
36 1 7 3.667 1.346 2.617 1.255
right side of the page
Some animation,
29 1 7 4.448 1.541 2.897 1.645
bottom of the page
All animation, top of
31 1 7 3.845 1.365 2.794 1.591
the page
All animation, left
27 1 7 3.519 1.365 2.237 1.114
side of the page
All animation,
32 1 7 3.888 1.559 2.406 1.253
middle of the page
All animation, right
31 1 7 4.567* 1.227 2.477* 0.930
side of the page
All animation,
29 1 7 4.400 1.393 2.724 1.422
bottom of the page
Note. ^ = Pre-Test values, ^ ^ = Post-Test values.
* = Greatest difference in mean scores, ** = Least amount of difference in mean scores.
animation treatments. As seen for the descriptive statistics for both countries for 15 items
measuring reactance arousal in Table 8, “All animation, bottom of the page” (Pre-Test M =
4.9253, SD = 1.18989; Post-Test M = 3.7471, SD = 1.184338) received the highest difference in

Table 8. Descriptive Statistics for Reactance Arousal

Descriptive Statistics for Reactance Arousal

35 1 7 4.857 1.179 3.805 1.689
the page
No animation, left
26 1 7 4.590 1.379 3.423 1.627
side of the page
No animation,
33 1 7 4.546 1.464 4.025 1.944
middle of the page
No animation, right
28 1 7 4.686** 1.470 4.214** 1.670
side of the page
No animation,
28 1 7 5.077 1.241 4.060 1.872
bottom of the page
Some animation, top
32 1 7 4.109 1.610 3.526 1.777
of the page
31 1 7 4.441 1.538 3.962 1.720
side of the page
Some animation,
30 1 7 4.844 1.214 3.889 1.657
middle of the page
Some animation,
36 1 7 4.440 1.553 3.477 1.725
Some animation,
29 1 7 5.328 1.338 4.282 1.604
bottom of the page
31 1 7 4.968 1.373 3.957 1.849
the page
All animation, left
27 1 7 4.037 1.512 3.358 1.600
side of the page
All animation,
32 1 7 4.5000 1.319 3.224 1.506
middle of the page
31 1 7 5.0591 1.153 3.930 1.542
side of the page
All animation,
29 1 7 4.925* 1.190 3.747* 1.844
bottom of the page
mean scores (Pre/Post difference M = 1.1782); thus, concluding that the most reactance was
aroused when respondents received that ad treatment. On the other hand, respondents who
experienced the “No animation, right side of the page” (Pre-Test M = 4.6845, SD = 1.4694; Post-
Test M = 4.2143, SD = 1.66966) treatment received the smallest difference in mean scores
(Pre/Post difference M = 0.4702).
Descriptive Statistics for Desire for Consumer Aggression. Descriptive statistics for both
countries for 15 items measuring desire for consumer aggression are summarized in Table 9 and,
like the other variables, it was measured by the average differences in pre- and post-test
responses on a 7 point Likert scale to ad location and animation treatments. “All animation,
middle of the page” (Pre-Test M = 6.1563, SD = 0.88445; Post-Test M = 5.2773, SD = 1.60949)
received the highest difference in mean scores (Pre/Post difference M = 0.8790). So, the highest
desire to be an aggressive consumer toward the advertised brand or product was seen when
respondents received that ad treatment. Respondents who experienced the “All animation, left
side of the page” (Pre-Test M = 5.7824, SD = 1.03403; Post-Test M = 5.5972, SD = 1.12571)
treatment, however, received the smallest difference in mean scores (Pre/Post difference M =
0.1852).
Multivariate Effects.
Based on the recommendations of several authors when analyzing multivariate results with as
many levels and with as large of a sample size as was used in this study (Keppel & Wickens,
2004; Meyers, Gamst, & Guarino, 2006), Wilks’ lambda (“Wilks’ λ”) was chosen as the
appropriate measurement for analyzing the multivariate strength of statistically significant
effects. The greater the extent to which respondents answered in agreement meant the more of
the measurements they experienced. The amount of variance between pre- and post-test
responses determined the extent to which the treatment variables influenced those measurements.
Significant interaction effects between groups for country of origin (Cu) and the level of ad
animation (Aa) in the ad, Wilks’ λ= 0.96, F (6,850) = 2.73, p = .012. As described earlier,
Table 9. Descriptive Statistics for Desire for Consumer Aggression

Descriptive Statistics for Desire for Consumer Aggression

35 1 7 6.221 1.007 5.511 1.449
the page
No animation, left
26 1 7 6.029 0.956 5.370 1.306
side of the page
No animation,
33 1 7 6.224 0.839 5.754 1.260
middle of the page
No animation, right
28 1 7 6.295 0.800 5.857 1.135
side of the page
No animation,
28 1 7 6.362 0.770 5.768 1.192
bottom of the page
Some animation, top
32 1 7 5.969 1.006 5.520 1.358
of the page
31 1 7 5.794 1.109 5.432 1.534
side of the page
Some animation,
30 1 7 6.233 1.013 5.400 1.605
middle of the page
Some animation,
36 1 7 5.875 1.116 5.250 1.601
Some animation,
29 1 7 6.539 0.491 6.035 1.397
bottom of the page
31 1 7 6.028 1.188 5.440 1.721
the page
All animation, left
27 1 7 5.782** 1.034 5.597** 1.126
side of the page
All animation,
32 1 7 6.156* 0.885 5.277* 1.610
middle of the page
31 1 7 6.298 0.877 5.540 1.628
side of the page
All animation,
29 1 7 6.194 1.098 5.392 1.723
bottom of the page
Cohen (1977, 1988) advises that ηp2 values greater than 0.15 indicate a large effect size, ones
greater than 0.06 are medium, and values above 0.01 are small. From these results, the strength
of this effect is small (ηp2 = .02), indicating that a minimally substantial relationship is present;
however, small effects sizes do not add enough power to the ability to explain the variance, so
more data investigation is required. Also, in order to fully understand the meaning of these
statistically significant results Hummel and Sligo (1971) explain that it is necessary to follow-up
with univariate procedures to compare their results against the ones found here in the
multivariate results. While indicating support for H2a (Cu has a significant effect on the
difference in PAI scores before and after the treatment), H2b (Cu has a significant effect on the
difference in RA scores before and after the treatment), H2c (Cu has a significant effect on the
difference in DCA scores before and after the treatment) as well as H3a (Aa has a significant
effect on the difference in PAI scores before and after the treatment), H3b (Aa has a significant
effect on the difference in RA scores before and after the treatment), and H3c (Aa has a
significant effect on the difference in DCA scores before and after the treatment), more analysis
is required to fully understand the impacts of the country (Cu) and level of ad animation (Aa) on
the measurements of this study. With just this data, the impact of these variables on the
measurements is not evident. These results are seen in Table 10.
Table 10. Multivariate Results for Between Groups Effects

Multivariate Results for Between Groups Effects
Hypothesis Error Partial Eta

Effect Value F Sig.
df df Squared
Cu * Aa Wilks' lambda .963 2.730 6.000 850.00 .012* .019
Note. Significant at the p < 0.05 level, * = p < .05, ** = p < .01, *** = p < .001.
Cu = Culture, Aa = Level of Ad Animation.
From the multivariate results in Table 11, subjects experienced significant interaction effects
from the treatments associated with this study when they are combined with the subject’s country
of origin (Cu), Wilks’ λ = 0.97, F(3,425) = 4.82, p = .003. The strength of the within groups
effects for before and after treatments combined with Cu are small to medium,
Table 11. Multivariate Results Before and After Treatments Combined with Country
Multivariate Results Before and After Treatments Combined with Country

Effect Value F Sig.
df df Squared
Pre/Post- Wilks'
.967 4.824 3.000 425.00 .003* .033
treatments * Cu lambda
Cu= Culture.
ηp2 = .03, indicating that the treatments applied in this study had a substantial impact on the
multivariate results when the subject’s country of origin is considered. As noted with the
previous table, these results again imply support for H2a, H2b, and H2c, but their full meaning
and understanding cannot be understood without further analysis of the univariate results
(Hummel & Sligo, 1971).
Univariate Effects for Perceived Ad Intrusiveness. Repeated measures MANOVA
revealed that country (Cu) and ad animation (Aa) had a significant interaction effect on perceived
ad intrusiveness (PAI) as a between group factor F(2, 427) = 3.59, p = .029, ηp2 = .02. Table 12
shows these results. The strength of the effect on Cu and Aa are small for PAI, meaning
subjects’ country of origin helps explain their perception that the ads are intrusive because of
their level of animation; however, it is not clear which country, nor which level of animation,
best explains this.
Table 13 reveals that there were significant repeated measures effects for PAI from the
interaction of the treatments used in this study and Cu F(1,427) = 8.09, p = .005, ηp2 = .02; and
Aa F(2,427) = 5.26, p = .006, ηp2 = .02; and Aa and ad location (Al) F(8,427) = 2.13, p = .032,
ηp2 = .04. The strength of these effects are small but they mean that country of origin helps
explain subjects’ perceptions that the ads were intrusive when they were animated, which is
Table 12. Between Groups Effects on Perceived Ad Intrusiveness

Between Groups Effects on Perceived Ad Intrusiveness
Type III Sum Mean Partial Eta

Source Measure df F Sig.
of Squares Square Squared
Cu * Aa PAI 19.957 2 9.979 3.586 .029* .017
Cu = Culture, Aa = Level of Ad Animation, PAI = Perceived Ad Intrusiveness.
Table 13. Repeated Measures Effects on Perceived Ad Intrusiveness

Repeated Measures Effects on Perceived Ad Intrusiveness

Pre/Post-
treatments * PAI 8.663 1 8.663 8.090 .005* .019
Cu
Pre/Post-
treatments * PAI 11.263 2 5.631 5.259 .006** .024
Aa
Pre/Post-
treatments * PAI 18.223 8 2.278 2.127 .032* .038
Aa * Al
Cu = Culture, Aa = Level of Ad Animation, Al = Ad location, PAI = Perceived Ad
Intrusiveness.
evidence in support of H2a as well as H1a (There is a difference in perceived ad intrusiveness
(PAI) scores before and after the treatment). Also, when the ads were animated and their
location varied, respondents perceived them to be intrusive, which lends support to H3a (The
amount of ad animation (Aa) has a significant effect on the difference in perceived ad
intrusiveness (PAI) scores before and after the treatment) and H4a (Ad location (Al) has a
significant effect on the difference in perceived ad intrusiveness (PAI) scores before and after the
treatment). These results are further understood from an inspection of the mean scores for PAI.
These mean scores were substantially higher at their baseline measurement for US respondents
(M = 4.169, SD = .087) compared to ones in the UK (M = 3.732, SD = .094). The means for
Post-Test scores for each country (for the US, M = 2.779, SD = .093; for the UK, M = 2.714, SD
= .100) were nearly the same, indicating that UK respondents began the study perceiving the ads
as more intrusive than respondents from the US, which lends support to H2a. This is seen
visually from Figure 9 where it is clear that both countries perceived the ads as intrusive because
of their sharp, downward slope, but the difference in perception levels between the two countries
after the study is small (ηp2 = .02). This suggests that the ads generated less perceptions of
intrusiveness for respondents from the UK because they began the study already thinking that the
Mean Scores
Before After
Figure 9. Perceived Ad Intrusiveness by Country.

ads were more intrusive than respondents in the US. Nonetheless, H2a is fully supported by
these results.
The strength of the effect between the before and after treatment responses when interacting
with the level of the ad’s animation (Aa) for perceived ad intrusiveness (PAI) is small-to-medium
(ηp2 = .019); however, mean scores for post-test responses show greater slopes for increases in
animation because the mean scores for fully animated ads experienced the greatest variance in
pre- and post-test answers (for pre-test answers, M = 4.032, SD = .110; and, for post-test
answers, M = 2.765, SD = .116). This is seen visually in Figure 10 where the line labeled “All
Animation” has the sharpest slope. These results indicate that fully animated ads contributed
most towards PAI, which indicates that the more the ad was animated, the greater the respondent
felt that it was intrusive; hence, more evidence to fully support H3a.
Mean Scores
Before After
Figure 10. Perceived Ad Intrusiveness due to Level of the Ad’s Animation.

Similarly, the strength of the interaction effect between animation and position are small-to-
medium (ηp2 = .024) for perceived ad intrusiveness. When inspecting the mean scores, the
greatest variance between pre- and post-test answers was seen in cases were fully animated ads
were encountered on the right side of the page (for pre-test answers, M = 4.502, SD = .246; and,
for post-test answers, M = 2.478, SD = .263), indicating that respondents perceived these ads to
be the most intrusive; hence, more evidence to fully support H3a and H4a.
From the statistically significant results for the univariate main and interaction effects of Cu,
Aa, and Al on PAI, several hypotheses are, thus, supported:
• H1a: There is a difference in PAI scores before and after the treatment
• H2a: Cu has a significant effect on the difference in PAI scores before and after the
treatment
• H3a: Aa has a significant effect on the difference in PAI scores before and after the
treatment
• H4a: Al has a significant effect on the difference in PAI scores before and after the
treatment
Univariate Effects for Reactance Arousal. In the Multivariate results presented in Tables
10 and 11, support for H2a, H2b, H2c, H3a, H3b, and H3c were implied, but more investigation
of the data was needed. Interpreting the univariate results as a means to do so is appropriate
(Hummel & Sligo, 1971) and for reactance arousal, no statistically significant univariate results
for neither the main nor interaction effects were found from a repeated measures MANOVA.
Based on the findings for perceived ad intrusiveness (PAI) where ad location (Al) and ad
animation (Aa) were significant, the results of those variables when measured against reactance
arousal (RA) exceeded the confidence levels selected for this study (p < .05). From the main
effects, the significance level for ad location was p = .072 and p = .097 for level of animation.
Also from previous multivariate results, subjects’ country of origin was a significant main effect
between groups and would be expected to yield similar results for RA; however, it did not as the
results for country (Cu) against RA were p = .270, which (again) exceeds the 95% confidence
level selected for this study (p = .05). Therefore, no statistically significant main effects were
observed.
Similarly, a review of the results for interaction effects did not produce any statistically
significant differences between group means. This reveals that none of the groupings of
independent variables when interacting with each other explain the variance for RA at the 95%
confidence level. However, when the level of ad animation (Aa) interacted with ad location (Al)
for PAI, significant interaction results were achieved. Because of this, it was expected that
similar results would be seen for RA. This was not the case, nor was it for the interaction of Cu
and Aa, which yielded statistically significant interaction results for the previous measure. For
RA, the results of those interaction effects between groups all exceeded the 95% confidence level
selected for this study.
As described in Chapter III, multivariate models allow for more flexibility than univariate
ones and creates a new variable that correlates several variables all at once. This is possible
because MANOVA assess the main and interaction effects based on linear combinations and
maximizes the difference between groups in this new variable by combining all correlations at
once. In this study, this newly created variable was labeled “Pre/Post-treatments” and was the
only one that returned statistically significant results for RA F(1,427) = 287.33, p < .001, ηp2 =
.448. This result is seen in Table 14 and explains the impact of the treatments on RA by
comparing the severity of change in subjects' the pre- and post-test answers. The strength of the
Table 14. Between Groups Effects on Reactance Arousal

Between Groups Effects on Reactance Arousal
Type III
Mean Partial Eta
Source Measure Sum of df F Sig.
Square Squared
Squares
Pre/Post-
treatments RA 1363.765 1 1363.765 346.368 .000*** .448
RA = Reactance Arousal.
before and after treatment effect is medium (ηp2 = .448) for RA, meaning that the study
successfully aroused reactance amongst respondents, but does not indicate which independent
variables mostly contribute to this other than all of the independent variables combined together.
While this lends support to H1b (There is a difference in RA scores before and after the
treatment), it does not reveal any specific predictors of this outcome, leaving the body of
knowledge on the contributions that an ad’s location and level of animation have towards
reactance arousal vague.
Table 15, however, reveals a significant effect for RA between the study’s treatments and
Table 15. Repeated Measures Effects on Reactance Arousal

Repeated Measures Effects on Reactance Arousal
Type III
Mean Partial Eta
Source Measure Sum of df F Sig.
Square Squared
Squares
Pre/Post-
treatments * RA 10.383 1 10.383 12.462 .000*** .028
Cu
Cu = Culture, RA = Reactance Arousal.
country (Cu), F(2, 427) = 12.46, p < .001, ηp2 = .03, meaning respondents’ country of origin
helps explain the increases in reactance arousal when encountering the combination of treatments
associated with this study, which are ad location (Al) and level of ad animation (Aa). The
strength of these effects are small to medium (ηp2 = .03) for RA, revealing that country of origin
(Cu) adequately predicts reactance arousal levels when faced with the ad location and ad
animation treatments. While this lends support to H2b, mean scores must be reviewed to fully
understand this.
Upon inspecting the mean scores for the interaction between the pre- and post-test treatments
and Cu on RA, US baseline scores were slightly higher than the ones from the UK (for the US, M
= 4.890, SD = .088; for the UK, M = 4.504, SD = .095). The means for post-test scores for each
country (for the US, M = 3.807, SD = .110; for the UK, M = 3.858, SD = .119) were nearly the
same, indicating that UK respondents began the study more reactant than US respondents. This
is further explained visually in Figure 11 where it is clear that reactance levels were higher for
UK respondents, based off of their pre-test answers, but shown to be nearly the same value for
both countries when looking at reactance arousal in their post-test answers. This suggests that
the ads aroused less reactance for respondents from the UK because they began the study in a
more highly reactant state than US respondents. The implications of this are further explained in
the next chapter, but full support for H2b is evident by these results.
From the statistically significant results for the univariate main and interaction effects on RA,
two hypotheses are supported:
• H1b: There is a difference in RA scores before and after the treatment
• H2b: Cu has a significant effect on the difference in RA scores before and after the
treatment
Mean Scores
Before After
Figure 11. Reactance Arousal by Country.
There was no evidence to support the other hypotheses associated with the effects of Aa and Al
on RA, so the following were not supported:
• H3b: Aa has a significant effect on the difference in RA scores before and after the
treatment
• H4b: Al has a significant effect on the difference in RA scores before and after the
treatment
Univariate Effects for Desire for Consumer Aggression. The Multivariate results
presented in Tables 10 and 11 lent support to H2c and H3c, but it is necessary to review the
univariate results (Hummel & Sligo, 1971) on desire for consumer aggression (DCA) before
doing so. As was the case with for reactance arousal, no statistically significant univariate
results for the main nor interaction effects were found from a repeated measures MANOVA for
DCA. Similar to what was mentioned for those results, it was expected to find significant
interaction effects for Cu, Al, and Aa based on the findings for PAI; however, all results for these
variables exceeded the confidence levels selected for this study (p < .05). The interaction effects
with Cu were above the 95% confidence level at p = .072, p = .264 for Aa, and p = .328 for Al.
Therefore, no statistically significant main effects were observed.
Similarly, a review of the results for interaction effects on DCA did not produce any
statistically significant differences between group means, revealing that none of the groupings of
independent variables can explain the variance seen for DCA at the 95% confidence level. As
stated earlier, it was expected to see some interaction since PAI achieved statistically significant
results when the Aa interacted with Al. This was not the case, nor was it for the interaction of Cu
and Aa, which were also statistically significant interaction results for PAI. For DCA, these
interaction effects all exceeded the 95% confidence level selected for this study.
As was the case with RA, the random variable that repeated measures MANOVA procedures
creates to correlate several variables at once and allow for more flexibility in the analysis,
revealed that “pre- and post-test treatments” returned statistically significant results for DCA
F(1,427) = 33.88, p < .001, ηp2 = .07, as seen in Table 16. This explains the impact that the
Table 16. Repeated Measures Effects on Desire for Consumer Aggression

Repeated Measures Effects on Desire for Consumer Aggression

Pre/Post-
treatments DCA 18.936 1 18.936 33.883 .000*** .074
DCA = Desire for Consumer Aggression.
treatments had on DCA by comparing the change in subjects' the pre- and post-test answers
within each of the groupings of independent variables. The strength of this effect is medium for
desire for consumer aggression (ηp2 = .074), meaning that the desire for subjects to be aggressive
consumers increased from when they gave their pre-test responses to when the completed their
post-test ones. This was due to the combination of the means of all of the treatments that they
experienced during the study. Because this result is for the newly created variable that takes into
account the correlation of all variables, it lends support to H1c, but does not clearly state which
specific independent variable contributes most to this. Like RA, this leaves the body of
knowledge about the contributions of an ad’s location and level of animation on the consumer’s
desire to respond desire respond aggressively to the advertised brand or product vague.
Nonetheless, these results fully support H1c:
after the treatment
There was no evidence to support the other hypotheses associated with the effects of Aa and Al
on DCA, so the following were not supported:

Correlation Analysis of the Dependent Variables
In this section, the correlation of the dependent variables are assessed in order to analyze
Hypotheses 5 and 6 which aim to uncover the relationship between them. First, paired-samples t
tests of the before and after results for PAI, RA, and DCA are assessed via a repeated measures
approach in order to uncover any patterns associated with encountering the advertising treatment
combinations associated with this study. At the advice of Meyers, Gamst, and Guarino (2006),
this is done by “making univariate comparisons of the means on a single dependent measure” (p.
315) and is appropriate for measuring the differences in before and after results. Then,
correlations between each of the post-test results for the dependent variables are run in order to
uncover the links between them after the treatments were encountered to better understand how
PAI, RA, and DCA relate to one another, which is again at the advice of Meyers, Gamst, and
Guarino (2006). The Pearson r statistic is used in this analysis since it “indexes the extent to
which a linear relationship exists between two quantitatively measured variables” (Meyers,
Gamst, & Guarino, 2006, p. 107).
The results of the paired-samples t tests are seen in Table 17 and the direction of the
difference in their sample means is positive. As sated earlier in this chapter, all factors were
Table 17. Paired-Samples t Test of the Before and After Results for Dependent Variables
Paired-Samples t Test of the Before and After Results for Dependent Variables
Measures M SD t df Sig. d
Pre/Post PAI 1.214 1.521 17.090 457 .000*** .798
Pre/Post RA .901 1.340 14.395 457 .000*** .672
Pre/Post DCA .594 1.053 12.081 457 .000*** .565
Note. Significant at the p < 0.05 level, * = p < .05, ** = p < .01, *** = p < .001. Tests are 2-
tailed. PAI = Perceived Ad Intrusiveness, RA = Reactance Arousal, DCA = Desire for
Consumer Aggression.
measured on a 7 point Likert scale where Strongly Agree = 1 and Strongly Disagree = 7,
meaning that the greater the extent to which respondents agreed to the statements in the Pre- and
Post-Test questionnaires yielded lower numbers and indicated that more of the measurement was
experienced. Likewise, higher scores indicated greater disagreement with the items mentioned in
the scales. Given this coding and the way in which pairwise t tests subtract the mean values of
the first group from the second to arrive on direction, a positive t value in this study indicates
that subjects went from disagreeing to the statements that they perceived the ad as intrusive, that
it aroused reactance, and that it caused them to desire to respond to it aggressively as a consumer
in the pre-test questionnaire to agreeing that it did, in fact, incite all of those feelings in the post-
test questionnaire after encountering the various advertising treatment combinations. Three
paired-samples t tests compared initial mean pre-test scores for PAI, RA, and DCA with their
post-test scores after receiving the advertisement treatment combinations (Cu, Aa, and Al)
associated with this study. These tests were found to be statistically significant, t(457) = 17.090,
p < .001 for PAI; t(457) = 14.395, p < .001 for RA; t(457) = 12.081, p < .001 for DCA. These
results also achieved large effect sizes. As described earlier, Cohen (1977, 1988) explains that
effect sizes greater than 0.15 are large, greater than 0.06 are medium, and greater than .01 are
small. Cohen’s d is the statistic used to show effect sizes and they are large for each of the
comparisons, d = .798 for PAI, d = .672 for RA, and d = .565 for DCA. Hence, these results
reveal statistically significant and uniquely substantial increases in feelings that the ads and their
various treatment combinations were perceived as intrusive (before: M = 3.95, SD = 1.39; after:
M = 2.73, SD = 1.45), aroused reactance (before: M = 4.69, SD = 1.40; after: M = 3.79, SD =
1.72), and increased the desire to respond to them aggressively from a consumer standpoint
(before: M = 6.13, SD = .972; after: M = 5.54, SD = 1.46).

Next, a correlation analysis of the dependent variables was conducted. As stated in the
“Assumptions” section of this chapter when the criteria for a MANOVA procedure were
explained to be met, it was emphasized that the dependent variables associated with this study
must be somewhat correlated. According to Meyers, Gamst, and Guarino (2006), “A correlation
is a way to index the degree to which two or more variables are associated with or related to each
other” (p. 107). According to these authors, the appropriate correlation statistic to use in this
analysis is a Pearson coefficient, r, and “indexes the extent to which a linear relationship exists
between two quantitatively measured variables” (Meyers, Gamst, & Guarino, 2006, p. 107).
Drawing from those previous correlation results, Table 18 shows a statistically significant
correlation between the post-test results for the measurements of this study, which helps evaluate
H5 (There is a correlation between post-treatment levels of PAI and post-treatment levels of RA)
Table 18. Correlation Results for Post-Treatment Dependent Variables

Correlation Results for Post-Treatment Dependent Variables
Post-treatment Dependent Variables PAI RA DCA

Pearson r 1 .711*** .497***
PAI Sig. .000 .000
N 458 458 458
Pearson r .711*** 1 .729***
RA Sig. .000 .000
N 458 458 458
Pearson r .497*** .729*** 1
DCA Sig. .000 .000
N 458 458 458
PAI = Perceived Ad Intrusiveness, RA = Reactance Arousal, DCA = Desire for Consumer
Aggression.
and H6 (There is a correlation between post-treatment levels of RA levels and post-treatment
levels of DCA). Meyers, Gamst, and Guarino (2006) advise that a correlation of .1 is needed for
the results to be considered significant (p. 114) and Cohen (1998) explains that correlations of .5,
.3, and .1 are regarded as large, moderate, and small. The relationship between the PAI and RA
post-treatment results is significant at the 99% confidence level (p < .01), r = .711, p < .001, N =
458 and considered to be very strong. Regarding the relationship between post-treatment RA and
DCA, significant results are also seen at the 99% confidence level (p < .01), r = .729, p < .001, N
= 458 and also considered to be very strong. This means that increases in PAI lead to increases
in RA and increases in RA lead to increases in DCA. This means that subjects who perceive the
advertising treatment combinations as intrusive will become reactant and experience a desire to
respond to them as aggressive consumers.
These results lend full support to H5 and H6; thus, the following hypotheses were supported:
• H5: There is a correlation between post-treatment levels of PAI and post-treatment levels
of RA
• H6: There is a correlation between post-treatment levels of RA and post-treatment levels
of DCA
Post-Hoc Analysis
While SPSS does not allow for post-hoc tests when selecting a covariate (in the results of this
study, age was entered in the computation as a known covariate), a separate MANOVA without
age was conducted using a Bonferroni post-hoc analyses. Meyers, Gamst, and Guarino (2006)
suggest this type of test to compare the main effects and control for Type I error. Specifically,
these authors state:

Perhaps the most popular procedure to follow up multivariate significance is to conduct
separate t tests or ANOVAs on each dependent variable with an adjusted alpha level.
The adjustment to the alpha level is called a Bonferroni correction, which reduces the
possibility of operating with an inflated Type I error rate due to the use of multiple
univariate tests (Meyers, Gamst, & Guarino, 2006, p. 373).
The Bonferroni post hoc analysis adjusts probability by using the formula α/p with a. In this
study, the alpha level was .05 and the number of dependent variables was 3, so the Bonferroni
adjustment is .05/3, which results in an adjusted p-value of p = .017, was used in post-hoc
testing. Only variables with three or more conditions are applicable for a Bonferroni post-hoc
analysis adjustment, which leaves the Al and Aa variables as available treatments to re-test.
Consistent with earlier results, post-hoc tests using the Bonferroni adjustments returned
statistically significant results for the effects of Aa on PAI. It was shown earlier that ads that
were not animated at all and ads that were fully animated returned statistically significant results
for PAI at the 98.3% confidence level. Therefore, post-hoc testing affirms the reliability of the
previously achieved results for the effects of Aa on PAI, but does not support any interactions
with Al. Ultimately, this means that the ad’s level of animation explains the variance in
perceived ad intrusiveness better than any other variables.
Additional Findings
Age was a suspected covariate, so it was included in the MANOVA analysis, revealing
statistically significant results between and within groups. As seen in Table 19, the multivariate
effects for age were significant between groups, Wilks’ λ = 0.98, F (3,425) = 2.81, p = .039. The
strength of this effect was small, ηp2 = .02, meaning that it helps explain the perception of ad
intrusiveness, reactance arousal, and desire for consumer aggression to a limited extent between
Table 19. Multivariate Results of Between Groups Effects for Covariates

Multivariate Results of Between Groups Effects for Covariates

Effect Value F Sig.
df df Squared
Age Wilks' Lambda .981 2.811 3.000 425.00 .039* .019
Note. Significant at the p < 0.05 level, * = p < .05, ** = p < .01, *** = p < .001
the subject’s country and the treatment combinations that were encountered. Nonetheless, these
results indicate that age is a significant contributor to how much of the variables in this study
respondents experienced and warrant further investigation.
When further investigating these results, Table 20 reveals that there was also a significant
repeated measures interaction between age and the pre- and post-test treatments from the
multivariate results, Wilks’ λ = 0.96, F (3,425) = 6.41, p < .001. The strength of this effect was
small to medium, ηp2 = .04, meaning that subjects’ age substantially explains their perception
that the ads were intrusive as well as explains why they achieved heightened states of reactance
arousal and had a desire to respond as an aggressive consumer to the advertised brand or product.
Table 20. Multivariate Results of Repeated Measures Effects for Covariates

Multivariate Results of Repeated Measures Effects for Covariates

Effect Value F Sig.
df df Squared
Pre/Post-
Wilks'
treatments * .957 6.412 3.000 425.00 .000*** .043
Lambda
Age
Note. Significant at the p < 0.05 level. * = p < .05, ** = p < .01, *** = p < .001
In reviewing the between groups results from Table 21, however, Age had significant main
effects on PAI F(1, 427) = 6.60, p = .011, ηp2 = .02, and RA F(1, 427) = 4.90, p =.027, ηp2 = .01,
Table 21. Between Groups Effects of Age

Between Groups Effects of Age

Age PAI 18.336 1 18.336 6.590 .011* .015
RA 19.284 1 19.284 4.898 .027* .011
but not for DCA. The strength of these effects were small, meaning that while Age helps explain
why the subjects in this study felt that the ads were intrusive or why they aroused reactance, it is
unclear how much of an effect age actually has on these two variables.
Further investigation of this variable shows that repeated measures results for age were
significant for all measurements associated with this study, as seen in Table 22. Within groups,
Table 22. Repeated Measures Effects of Age

Repeated Measures Effects of Age

Pre/Post- PAI 11.124 1 11.124 10.389 .001** .024

treatments * RA 14.042 1 14.042 16.854 .000*** .038
Age
DCA 2.525 1 2.525 4.518 .034* .010
age had a significant interaction effect on all variables when combined with the pre- and post-test
treatments associated with this study. These results were F(1, 427) = 10.40, p = .001, ηp2 = .02
for PAI; F(1, 427) = 16.85, p < .001, ηp2 = .04 for RA; and, F(1, 427) = 4.52, p = .034, ηp2 = .01
for DCA. The strength of these effects were substantial for all measurements and most revealing
for RA, meaning that the treatments associated with this study will best predict heightened states
of reactance from online advertisements when the subject’s age is considered. This is further
explained in the next chapter where the findings of this study are discussed.
Chapter IV Summary
The data collected from the online survey was subjected to statistical analysis using the SPSS
17 tool. Data screening and manipulation checks were conducted using Exploratory Factor
Analysis. The data was first screened for completeness and then reliability and validity checks
were conducted to ensure that it achieved acceptable levels. Then, the data was reviewed against
the assumptions for a repeated measures MANOVA, finding that all were sufficiently met.
These assumptions included sample size, normality, multivariate outliers, linearity, homogeneity
of regression, multicollinearity and singularity, and homogeneity of variance-covariance
matrices. Data analysis was run relative to the research questions, which included the descriptive
statistics and MANOVA results. From this analysis, it was found that 9 out of 14 hypotheses
were supported. Table 23 shows the results of the hypothesis testing associated with this study
and the meaning of their results are elaborated in the next chapter.
Table 23. Summary of Hypothesis Testing
Summary of Hypothesis Testing
Research Questions and Associated Hypotheses Results

• H1a: There is a difference in perceived ad intrusiveness (PAI) scores
Supported
before and after the treatment
• H1b: There is a difference in reactance arousal (RA) scores before and
Supported
after the treatment
• H1c: There is a difference in desire for consumer aggression (DCA)
Supported

RQ2: Does culture affect levels of perceived ad intrusiveness (PAI), reactance arousal (RA),
and desire to respond as an aggressive consumer (DCA) when exposed to online
advertisements?
• H2a: Culture (Cu) has a significant effect on the in perceived ad
Supported
• H2b: Culture (Cu) has a significant effect on the difference in
Supported
• H2c: Culture (Cu) has a significant effect on the difference in desire
Not Supported
RQ3: Does the amount of ad animation (Aa) affect levels of perceived ad intrusiveness
(PAI), reactance arousal (RA), and desire to respond as an aggressive consumer (DCA) when
exposed to online advertisements?
• H3a: The amount of ad animation (Aa) has a significant effect on the
difference in perceived ad intrusiveness (PAI) scores before and after Supported
the treatment
• H3b: The amount of ad animation (Aa) has a significant effect on the
difference in reactance arousal (RA) scores before and after the Not Supported
treatment
• H3c: The amount of ad animation (Aa) has a significant effect on the
difference in desire for consumer aggression (DCA) scores before and Not Supported
after the treatment
arousal (RA), and desire to respond as an aggressive consumer (DCA) when exposed to
• H4a: Ad location (Al) has a significant effect on the difference in
Supported
• H4b: Ad location (Al) has a significant effect on the difference in
Not Supported
• H4c: Ad location (Al) has a significant effect on the difference in
desire for consumer aggression (DCA) scores before and after the Not Supported
treatment
• H5: There is a correlation between post-treatment levels of perceived

ad intrusiveness (PAI) and post-treatment levels of reactance arousal Supported
(RA)
RQ6: Do consumers desire to respond to the advertised brand or product aggressively (DCA)
in the marketplace when ads arouse reactance (RA)?
• H6: There is a correlation between post-treatment levels of reactance

arousal (RA) levels and post-treatment levels of desire for consumer Supported
aggression (DCA)
Note. 9 out of 14 hypotheses were supported.
Finally, additional findings revealed that age was a significant covariate in this study. The
strength of the effects on age and the measurements in this study when interacting with the pre-
and post-test treatments were most notable for reactance arousal, somewhat for perceived ad
intrusiveness, and were least apparent for desire for consumer aggression. This means that
knowing consumers’ age helps predict heightened states of reactance when experiencing the
treatments associated with this study.

CHAPTER V
Findings, Contributions, Limitations, and Future Research
In the previous chapter, a detailed discussion of the research findings related to intrusive
advertising contributing to reactance arousal and desire to respond as an aggressive consumer
was conducted. Additionally, the chapter highlighted the effects of age as a covariate. This
chapter provides a discussion of the findings, contributions of this research to the academic
community, and implications of the study for practitioners. Lastly, the limitations of this study
and recommendations for future research are explored.
Discussion of Findings and Conclusions
The focus of this study was to determine if online advertisements caused people to respond to
them in an aggressive manner in commerce situations. To investigate this, the perception of ads
as being intrusive was first tested. Then, the same ads were used to arouse reactance and, finally,
it was determined if that reactant state led to an aggressive response to the advertised brand or
product from a commercial standpoint. Specifically, the study asked if there was a link between
ads that are perceived as intrusive and arousing heightened states of reactance and leading to
aggressive consumer responses to them. While investigating this, data was controlled to include
only online shoppers from the United States and United Kingdom who are old enough to own a
credit card and Internet-savvy enough to make online purchases.
The data collected from an online survey was subjected to statistical analysis using SPSS 17.
Exploratory Factor Analysis was used to screen the data and check for manipulations as well as
conduct validity and reliability checks against it. Then, a Multivariate Analysis of Variance of
the collected data against the measurements of this study was conducted. Finally, the results of
this analysis lent support to the proposed hypotheses.

This study addressed five research questions and the analysis provided insight into answering
those questions. The research questions for this study are presented again as follows:
• RQ1: Do online advertisements lead to heightened states of perceived ad intrusiveness
(PAI), reactance arousal (RA), and desire to respond to the advertised brand or product
aggressively (DCA) as a consumer?
• RQ2: Does culture affect levels of perceived ad intrusiveness (PAI), reactance arousal
(RA), and desire to respond as an aggressive consumer (DCA) when exposed to online
advertisements?
• RQ3: Does the amount of ad animation (Aa) affect levels of perceived ad intrusiveness
(PAI), reactance arousal (RA), and desire to respond as an aggressive consumer (DCA)
when exposed to online advertisements?
• RQ4: Does the ad location (Al) affect levels of perceived ad intrusiveness (PAI),
reactance arousal (RA), and desire to respond as an aggressive consumer (DCA) when
exposed to online advertisements?
• RQ5: Do consumers experience heightened states of reactance arousal (RA) when ads are
• RQ6: Do consumers desire to respond to the advertised brand or product aggressively
(DCA) in the marketplace when ads arouse reactance (RA)?
Ultimately, it was the researcher’s goal to uncover the effects of online advertising on
consumer aggression. To do so, each of these questions were investigated by creating an online
advertising scenario that was representative of typical eCommerce experiences loaded with
pervasive advertisement stimuli. Then, various advertisement treatments were applied to incite
reactance arousal and the desire to respond to the advertised brand or product immediately in
view as an aggressive consumer. The location and level of animation respondents experienced
while performing their representative eCommerce action (in this study, respondents were given
the task of following a click-through sequence to represent the many clicks required by a shopper
to purchase a good or service online) were manipulated. Statistical testing using repeated
measures MANOVA revealed many significant results that helped answer the research questions.
The basic design and structure of the study was initially tested and considered to be well
constructed, meaning that this study and the data collected from it are considered to be valid and
reliable for research purposes. Furthermore, the data indicated that this study achieved feelings
of ad intrusiveness, reactance arousal, and desire for consumer aggression for 458 people in the
US and UK. The researcher’s goal to build an advertising situation where these states were
achieved via a representative eCommerce situation were met. The way in which subjects
encountered the treatments of this study explains (with near 100% certainty) why those states
were achieved. Answering the research questions will explain what elements of the study most
significantly contributed to this.
To address the first research question, it asked if online advertisements lead to heightened
states of PAI, RA, and DCA to the advertised brand or product. The findings from this research
are consistent with previous studies (Li, Edwards, & Lee, 2002; Li & Meeds, 2005) regarding
PAI. Online advertisements were found to be intrusive; however, the respondent’s country of
origin and the level of the ad’s animation explained most of the variance associated with feelings
of PAI in this study, which is addressed when answering the second research question. RA and
DCA for RQ1, however, increased because of respondents’ encountering the treatments
associated with this study. There are no statistically significant results to explain the exact
treatment combinations that contributed to this. The findings, nonetheless, are that the ads
experienced during this study raised subjects’ feelings of intrusiveness, reactance, and desire to
respond to them as aggressive consumers.
The second research question asked if Cu affected levels of PAI, RA, and DCA when exposed
to online advertisements. From the results mentioned above, it was found that respondents’
country of origin explained 95% of the reason for perceiving the ads as intrusive in this study.
When looking deeper at the effects of the respondent’s country of origin on PAI, the results of
this study revealed that respondents from the UK began it feeling as though the ads were more
intrusive than respondents in the US. Respondents from both cultures ended up experiencing the
same heightened perception levels of advertising intrusiveness, but this means that respondents
in the US perceived the ads to be more intrusive than respondents from the UK. This is an
important finding because it has substantial implications for marketing managers in how they
present advertisements to US consumers versus UK ones. These results are very similar to RA.
Like the results achieved for perceived ad intrusiveness, Cu explains a great deal of respondents’
heightened state of reactance arousal. UK subjects began the study in an already higher state of
reactance arousal and US subjects became more highly reactant. Unlike PAI, however, Cu
explains nearly 100% of the variance for RA, which is almost 5% higher than PAI. Therefore, it
was clearly found that Cu explains why consumers find advertisements to be intrusive and
become reactant to them with US consumers experiencing this to a much greater degree than UK
consumers. The implications of this are very significant because it implies that US consumers
will be more reactant and experience greater perceptions that ads are intrusive than UK ones, but
UK shoppers are already more reactant when they initially encounter advertisements. In either
culture, marketing managers must understand the mindsets of their consumers in order to avoid
any unnecessary pitfalls from inciting reactance arousal by generating scenarios where
advertisements are perceived as highly intrusive.
The third and fourth research questions asked about the effects of the other treatments on
PAI, RA, and DCA. Research Question 3 asked if Aa contributes to heightened levels of PAI,
RA, and DCA. From the results of this study, the level of the ad’s animation alone accounted for
nearly 100% (the actual percentage was 99.6%) of why it was perceived as intrusive.
Furthermore, when Aa and the Al were measured together, they explain 68% of why subjects
perceived the ads as intrusive. For all respondents, animated ads on the right side of the page
resulted in the greatest perceptions of advertising intrusiveness. However, there were no
statistically significant results from the tests in this study regarding the effects of Aa on RA and
DCA, so it is unclear to what extent the ad’s animation level contributed to those measurements.
Similarly, Research Question 4 asked if Al contributes to heightened levels of PAI, RA, and
DCA. As just explained, when measured with Aa, the only significant result achieved is that Al
explains 68% of PAI. These findings reveal that fully animated ads on the right side of the page
resulted in the highest PAI, but do not yield any significant main or interaction results when Al is
evaluated by itself for any of the measurements. Overall, it is unclear which specific ad location
and animation combinations contributed the most to the results that were achieved in this study
for RA and DCA.
Research Question 5 and 6 were similar because they evaluated the relationship between the
dependent variables. Research Question 5 asked if consumers experience heightened states of
RA when PAI is heightened. The data analysis revealed significant correlations for the post-
treatment results between these two dependent variables, revealing that there is a substantial
relationship between them. This means that when consumers perceive ads as intrusive because
of the treatments encountered in this study, they will become reactant to them. Similarly,
Research Question 6 asked about the same type of relationship between RA and DCA, the post-
treatment results of which are also significant and substantial, again indicating a strong, similar
relationship between them. This means that subjects who are reactant due to the treatment
combinations encountered in this study will respond to the advertised brand or product as
aggressive consumers. Thus, the answers to Research Questions 5 and 6 display the links
between the dependent variables in this study, revealing that increases in PAI result in increases
in RA and increases in RA leads to higher DCA.
Finally, age was included in this study as a covariate and yielded significant results for all
tests. The impact of the effect’s strength, however, was small for all measurements, so its exact
contributions to perceived ad intrusiveness, reactance arousal, and desire for aggression are
unclear. Generally speaking, respondents from the US who participated in this study were older
than the ones from the UK and the effects of Perceived Ad Intrusiveness were higher for that
country, suggesting that older consumers from the US perceive online advertisements as more
intrusive as well as experience higher levels of reactance arousal and consumer aggression than
younger ones from the UK. However, age yielded significant multivariate results for the entire
study, regardless of the respondent’s country of origin, which helps to partially explain results
for reactance arousal and desire for consumer aggression. It was found that age has a significant
impact on the results of this study, so marketers cannot ignore the demographics of their
consumers when attempting to control for ad intrusiveness, reactance arousal, and consumer
aggression.
Contributions of This Research
As technology grows and the internet allows for a wider and greater number of inventive
ways in which marketers may reach their consumers, there is a need to review the consequences
of creating highly pervasive and intrusive advertising situations. On the subject of marketing
reform, several authors challenge the current state of digital marketing affairs with respect to
online advertising (Rayport, 2013; Ducoffe, 1995; Goldsmith & Lafferty, 2000; Dahlen &
Lange, 2005), cautioning businesses to reform their current advertising practices. If not, it has
been proven for decades that consumers will avoid advertisements when they are perceived as
irritating and annoying (Raymond & Greyser, 1968; Aaker & Bruzzone, 1985; Wang et al.,
2002). This is not ideal for the businesses who are trying to sell products and services online,
nor the marketer who is attempting to inform consumers of the value and utility of a legitimately
useful and good advertised brand or product. Furthermore, there is evidence that consumers are
aggressive toward advertising when heightened states of reactance are aroused (Clancy, 1994;
Krugman & Johnson, 1991; Speck & Elliot, 1997; Worchel, 1974; Clee & Wicklund, 1980). To
alleviate this struggle on the Internet where online advertising is highly pervasive and intrusive
to begin with by its very nature, marketers may seek to better understand situations that arouse
reactance amongst their consumer bases, such as scenarios where ads are perceived as highly
intrusive, and take action to eliminate them. This would result in a likely avoidance of
aggressive consumers, which certainly will not hurt the business’ bottom line, nor negatively
impact ROI targets.
This study identified factors hypothesized to impact the relationship between perceived ad
intrusiveness, reactance arousal, and desire for consumer aggression. These factors included the
consumer’s country of origin, the ad’s location and level of animation. Duration, timing, and
frequency treatments were held constant, based on the findings of previous authors (Pelsmacker
& Bergh, 1998; Berger, 1999; Xia and Sudharshan, 2002; Chandon, Chtourou, & Fortin, 2003;
Li & Meeds, 2007; Li, Edwards, Lee, 2002; Chattopadhyay & Nedungadi, 1992; Huberman,
1998; Chatterjee, Hoffman, & Novak, 2003; Xia & Sudharshan, 2002). Thus, the findings of this
quantitative study make significant contributions to the knowledgebase in psychology, consumer
behavior, and marketing research.
Li and Meeds (2005) used Brehm’s (1966) theory of psychological reactance to test
consumer responses to various forms of online advertisements, finding that Internet
advertisements lead to immediate reactance situations. Also, when the frequency of online
advertising is high, consumers tend to avoid ads (Li & Meeds, 2007). Before these studies, other
authors explored reactance and online advertising (Li, Edwards, & Lee, 2002) to investigate how
online advertisements arouse psychological reactance as well as how that leads to aggressive
consumer reactions to them. Intrusive online ads, they found, irritate people, which causes them
to avoid the ads altogether. This study yielded similar results: it was discovered that online
shoppers in both the US and the UK find online ads to be intrusive, with US consumers
experiencing this at greater levels than subjects in the UK. Along these lines, another interesting
discovery was that online shoppers in the UK already perceive ads to be more intrusive than US
consumers. Both of these findings lend substantial implications for marketing managers. When
presenting online marketing materials to US shoppers, marketers should be aware of the
extremely likely scenario that their audience will find them to be more intrusive than consumers
in other countries, like the UK. Likewise, UK marketers must understand that their consumers
are already expecting highly intrusive advertising situations. In both scenarios, shoppers feel
that online advertisements are highly intrusive. Furthermore, it was found that this was
experienced most when the ads were fully animated and on the right side of the page.
It was also discovered that advertisements perceived as intrusive lead to higher levels of
reactance arousal for respondents from both countries with (as seen with perceptions of
advertising intrusiveness) US consumers experiencing greater amounts of reactance arousal and
UK shoppers beginning their advertising encounters at higher reactant states. Again, consumers
from both cultures achieved equally heightened levels of reactance arousal after participating in
the study, but with US consumers experienced this to a larger extent when they encountered the
advertising treatments associated with this study. Therefore, US marketing managers must be
cognizant of these likely outcomes to avoid unnecessarily arousing reactance amongst their
consumer bases. Also, marketers in the UK must be sensitive to the already higher reactant
states of their consumers. In either culture, marketing managers should not purposely incite
reactance arousal because it is evident that reactance arousal from online advertising contributes
to consumer aggression from the results of this study. The exact elements of the online
advertisements that directly account for this were not discovered in this study, but this study does
build upon previous research where reactance yields frustration. Reactance is still aroused when
some aspect of the ad (like its content, for instance) frustrates the consumer (Clee & Wicklund,
1980; Edwards, Li, and Lee, 2002; Li & Meeds, 2005, Li & Meeds, 2007; Dillard & Shen, 2005;
Miller et al., 2007). This study confirms that online advertising, as a format and vehicle,
contributes towards consumer aggression when heightened states of reactance arousal are
achieved.
In the section above, it was discussed how the before and after treatments were strong
contributors toward reactance arousal, but there was no evidence that was statistically significant
for the treatment combinations of ad position and level of ad animation that lead to increases
reactance arousal or desire for consumer aggression. The results for these treatments were not
statistically significant, specifically, but the study contained only ads where this treatment was
applied. Since the study was relatively short (it only lasted for a maximum of 10 minutes)
respondents only encountered the ads themselves, barring any unaccounted for distractions,
implying that the ads in this study, no matter their position or animation, are the likely
contributors to the statistically significant results for reactance arousal and consumer aggression.
Finally, the age of respondents had a significant contribution to the overall findings of this
study. The age of the consumer was a covariate that was found to explain a significant amount
of the observed variance in the outcomes. Generally speaking, US respondents were slightly
older than UK respondents. This likely explains some of the reasons why US respondents
experienced these variables to greater extents. Younger generations who encounter more
technology at earlier ages where pervasive online advertising is more commonplace than what
older ones are used to experiencing are more prone to developing organic conditioning
mechanisms and, thus likely to become more desensitized to the deleterious effects of online
advertising on the psyche and eCommerce. Therefore, marketing managers should seek to
understand the demographic variations of their audiences to prevent deploying highly pervasive
online advertising situations to older generations where possible.
Marketers may continue operating under the previously tested theory that advertising has
long-term effects (Clarke, 1976; Lodish et al., 1995) and that it serves to increase the consumer
“learning” experience about the advertised brand or product through repetition (Sawyer & Ward,
1979). But, it is important to note that these results do not negate ad avoidance. Consumers will
still avoid ads when they are frustrated by them—the existing body of knowledge on that
behavior (Speck & Elliot; 1997), has yet to be disproven. This study confirms that ads will not
only be avoided when they are perceived as intrusive, but consumers will also retaliate upon
them when they are perceived as too intrusive because they arouse reactance and that contributes
to consumer aggression against the brand or product in focus. Therefore, marketers should
review their current online advertising campaigns at a fundamental level for possible scenarios
where this may be the case. If not, their consumers may retaliate against them, which could lead
to negative ROI consequences.
From the results of this study, online advertising, when employing the same treatment
combinations that were used in this study, is confirmed to be perceived as intrusive, arouse
reactance, and incite consumer aggression. Businesses will continue to prosper from online
advertisements if they are received by US and UK consumers at lower frequencies that are not
perceived as intrusive nor at levels that threaten the freedom of consumer choice between other
ads. By this study, the need for marketing reform and understanding of consumer behavior
remains in order to achieve less destructive consumer responses to online advertising and
appropriately reform the discipline in digital formats.
Limitations and Future Research
This study investigated the simple and main effects of two aspects of online advertising on
aggressive consumer reactance: ad location and level of animation in the ad. Other variables,
such as frequency, duration, and timing were held constant. Manipulating the variables that were
held constant in future studies could help to determine their contributions to reactance arousal as
well as how aggressive a consumer is willing to respond to an advertised brand or product. Also,
this study was only administered to consumers in the US and UK. While advertising levels in
these two countries are extremely high and cultural dimensions exist in similar categories
(Hofstede, 1984), future studies could investigate these effects in other cultures where cultural
dimensions vary more substantially since advertising is abundant and pervasive in many other
parts of the world. Furthermore, the mood, attitude towards advertising, and personality type of
respondents were purposely not included as measurements in this study, based off of findings
correlated to aggressive responses in existing literature. But, adding these variables to the
current model could prove useful and might reveal other considerations in arousing aggressive
consumer reactance in future studies.
On another note, while technology continues to advance at rapid speeds, the medium (i.e.: an
Internet webpage, which was the context in which this study was conducted) will someday (if not
already) become stale to consumers and out-right avoided as a shopping preference. So
incorporating the same model into different, more current types of formats and channels like
mobile devices, social media platforms, and wearable technology are worthy fields of pursuit in
future studies. To this point, the age variable was collected and measured as a covariate and
yielded significant results on perceived ad intrusiveness and could be further investigated as a
possible contributor to the other variables in different formats and channels. For instance, older
generations may not utilize as many social applications as younger ones. Conversely, younger
generations may not access as many web pages as older ones because digital tools warrant
different types of software. Each group may feel more or less violated when advertising
permeates throughout the medium in which they are most comfortable. Furthermore, the effects
of conditioning and desensitization between younger and older generations was not heavily
scrutinized in this study. Younger generations are increasingly faced with higher exposure levels
to technological options (as well as distractions from digital advertising) at earlier ages where
their chances of subconsciously developing conditioning mechanisms are much more likely to
occur with them than with older ones. Because of this, they may be more naturally conditioned
to multiple technological stimulations simultaneously and naturally realize methods aimed at
helping them adapt to the more sophisticated distractions. Similarly, differences in gender are
not addressed in this study and could prove to vary the results in future studies.
Depending on the speed in which subjects completed this study, participants were only
briefly exposed to online advertisements. The total duration and timespan in which subjects
experienced online advertisements in future studies could be extended to attempt to incite more
reactance and desire for consumer aggression from online advertisements. It was not determined
prior to conducting this study if a common timeframe exists where reactance arousal is known
after receiving online advertisements. If such a period were apparent, then the timing of the
treatments used in this study to collect its data could be adjusted in future iterations. To this
point, no secondary data regarding the average length in which consumers from the same
populations as the subjects of this study spend during eCommerce experiences was collected
prior to building the data collection mechanism that was used in this study. Perhaps, if it is
discovered that US and UK shoppers typically spend more time in eCommerce scenarios where
they experience higher amounts of online advertisements for longer periods, then future methods
of this study should be extended.
The environment in which the respondent conducted this study was not controlled.
Respondents clicked on a link from an Internet-capable device and location of their choosing.
They could have been distracted by other people or stimuli, which could have resulted in their
loss of focus, resulting in possibly less attention than intended paid to the treatments of this
study. Also, the researcher did not know who took this study. The same person could have
taken it more than once, possibly skewing the results. Future studies of this type could do well
by more strictly controlling the participants and the environment in which they take the study.
Finally, this study did not specifically focus on the content of online advertisements due to
the existing body of knowledge on that variables effects on the measurements of this study.
Instead, a fictitious ad was purposely created and used in order to avoid any preconceived
participant bias for the treatment. Future studies, however, could include real-world ads, which
would invite more external validity, but necessitate more control. Whether it be positive or
negative, real-world ads are purposely built at great costs (certainly more than what was used for
this study) to arouse an emotional response and generate a consumer reaction. Instead of using
an unknown, innocuous advertisement, ads with more emotional depth could return more
significant results for perceived ad intrusiveness, reactance arousal, and desire for consumer
aggression in future studies.

References
Aaker, D. A., Bruzzone, D. E. (1985). Causes of Irritation in Advertising. Journal of Marketing.
49, 47-57.
Aaker, D. A., Staymann, D. M. & Hagerty, M. R. (1986). Warmth in Advertising: Measurement,
impact, and Sequence Effects. Journal of Consumer Research. 12, 365-381.
Abernethy, A. M. (1991). Physical and mechanical avoidance of television commercials: an
exploratory study of zipping, zapping and leaving. In Proceedings of the American Academy
of Advertising (pp. 223-231). New York: The American Academy of Advertising.
Ad Age Data Center. (2013). Ad Spending Totals by Medium [data file]. Retrieved from
http://adage.com/article/datacenter-advertising-spending/
Advertising Association & WARC. (2013). AA/Warc Expenditure Report [data file]. Retrieved
from expenditurereport.warc.com.
Advertising. (2010). Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopaedia Britannica Ultimate Reference
Suite. Chicago: Encyclopædia Britannica.
Akram, A., Merunka, D, & Akram, M. (2011). Perceived brand globalness in emerging markets
and the moderating role of consumer ethnocentrism. International Journal of Emerging
Markets, 6, 201-303. doi: 10.1108/17468801111170329
American Marketing Association. (2011). Ethical Norms and Values for Marketers. Retrieved
from http://www.marketingpower.com/AboutAMA/Pages/Statement of Ethics.aspx.
Anker, D. (Unknown). Lessons from Erie Warfare. Unknown.
AOL. (2010). Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopaedia Britannica Ultimate Reference
Suite. Chicago: Encyclopædia Britannica.
AOL Corporation. (2014). http://corp.aol.com. Retrieved on November 2, 2014.

Ariely, D. (2000). Controlling the Information Flow: Effects on Consumers’ Decision Making
and Preferences. Journal of Consumer Research, 27, 233-248.
Aronson, E. (2008). The Social Animal (10th ed.). New York: Worth Publishers.
Avnet, T., Pham, M. T. & Stephen, A. T. (2012). Consumers’ Trust in Feelings as Information.
Journal of Consumer Research, 39, 720-735. doi: 10.1086/664978
Bakos, J. Y. (1997). Reducing buyer search costs: Implications for electronic
marketplaces. Management Science, 43(12), 1676-1692.
Bao, J. Y. E. & Sweeney, J. C. (2009). Comparing Factor Analytical and Circumplex Models of
Brand Personality in Brand Positioning. Psychology and Marketing, 26(10), 927-949.
Barratt, E.S. & Slaughter, L. (1998). Defining, measuring, and predicting impulsive aggression: a
heuristic model. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 16, 285-302.
Batra, R. & Ray, M. L. (1986). Affective Responses Mediating Acceptance of Advertising.
Journal of Consumer research, 13, 234-249.
Bayles, M. E. (2002, April). Designing Online Banner Advertisements: Should We Animate?
In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp.
363-366). ACM.
Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research, 2(15),
139-168.
Berger, I. E. (1999). The Influence of Advertising Frequency on Attitude-Behavior Consistency:
A Memory Based Analysis. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 14(4), 547-568.
Berkowitz, L. (1993). Aggression. New Yorki: McGraw-Hill.
Bleidorn, W. et al. (2010). Nature and nurture of the interplay between personality traits and
major life goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(2), 366-379.
Boyd III, H. C., & Helms, J. E. (2005). Consumer entitlement theory and measurement.
Psychology and Marketing, 22(3), 271-286. doi: 10.1002/mar.20058
Brehm, J. W. (1966). A Theory of Psychological Reactance, New York: Academic Press. Inc.
Brehm, J. W. (1989). Psychological Reactance: Theory and Applications. Advances in Consumer
Research, 16, 72-75.
Brehm, J. W., Sensenig, J. (1966). Social influence as a function of attempted and implied
usurpation of choice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4(6), 703-707.
Brehm, J. W., Stires, L. K., Sensenig, J., & Shaban, J. (1966). The attractiveness of an eliminated
choice alternative. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2(3), 301-313. doi:
10.1016/0022-1031(66)90086-2
Briggs, R. & Hollis, N. (1997). Advertising on the Web: Is There Response Before Click-
Through? Journal of Advertising Research, 37(2), 33-45.
Broussard, G. (2000). How Advertising Frequency Can Work to Build Online Advertising
Effectiveness. The Market Research Society, 42(2), 439-457.
Brown, S. P., Homer, P. M., & Inman, J. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of relationships between ad-
evoked feelings and advertising responses. Journal of Marketing Research, 114-126.
Brucks, M. (1985). The Effects of Product Class Knowledge on Information Search Behavior.
Journal of Consumer Research, 12, 1-16.
Burke, M., Gorman, N., Nilsen, E., & Hornof, A. (2004). Banner ads Hinder Visual Search and
Are Forgotten. In CHI'04 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems (pp.
1139-1142). ACM.
Buchner, A., Erdfelder, E., Faul, F., & Lang, A. (2009). G*Power (Version 3.1.2) [Computer
program]. http://www.psycho.uni-duesseldorf.de /aap/ projects/gpower/.

Bushman, B. J. & Bonacci, A. M. (2002). Violence and Sex Impair memory for Television Ads.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 557-564. doi: 10.1037//0021-9010.873.3.557
Bushman, B. (2005). Violence and sex in Television Programs Do Not Sell Products in
Advertisements. American Psychological Society, 16(9), 702-708. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-
9280.2005.01599.x
Campbell, M. C. (1995). When Attention-Getting Advertising Tactics Elicit Consumer
Inferences of manipulative Intent: The Importance of Balancing Benefits and Investments.
Journal of Consumer Psychology, 4(3), 225-254.
Chan, K., Li, L., Diehl, S., & Terlutter, R. (2007). Consumers’ Response to Offensive
Advertising: a Cross-Cultural Study. International Marketing Review, 24(5), 606-628.
Chandon, J. L., Chtourou, M. S., & Fortin, D. R. (2003). Effects of Configuration and Exposure
Levels on Responses to Web Advertisements. Journal of Advertising Research. 43(2), 217-
229. doi: 10.1017/S0021849903030228
Chatterjee, P., Hoffman, D. L., & Novak, T. P. (2003). Modeling the Clickstream: Implications
for Web-Based Advertising Efforts. Marketing Science, 22(4), 520-541.
Chattopadhyay, A. & Nedungadi, P. (1992). Does Attitude Toward the Ad Endure? The
Moderating Effects of Attention and Delay. Journal of Consumer research, 19, 26-33.
Chen, W. J., Lee, C. (2005). The Impact of Web Site Image and Consumer Personality on
Consumer Behavior. International Journal of Management, 22(3), 484-496.
Cho, C. H. (1999). How Advertising Works on the WWW: Modified Elaboration Likelihood
Model. Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising. 21(1), 33-50.
Cho, C. H., Lee, J. G., & Tharp, M. (2001). Different Forced-Exposure Levels to Banner
Advertisements. Journal of Advertising Research. 41(4), 45-56.

Clancey, M. (1994). The television audience examined. Journal of advertising Research, 34(4).
Clarke, D. G. (1976). Econometric measurement of the duration of advertising effect on
sales. Journal of Marketing Research, 345-357.
Clee, M. A. & Wicklund, R. A. (1980). Consumer behavior and psychological reactance. Journal
of Consumer Research, 6, 389-405.
Cohen, D., & Nisbett, R. E. (1994). Self-protection and the culture of honor: Explaining southern
violence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 551-567. doi:
10.1177/0146167294205012
Cohen, J. (1977), Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, revised ed., Academic
Press, New York, NY.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Psychology Press.
Dahlen, M. & Lange, F. (2005). Advertising Weak and Strong Brands: Who Gains? Psychology
and Marketing, 22(7), 473-488. doi: 10.1002/mar.20069
Darwin, C. R. (1861). On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection Or The
Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. (eds. 3). Murray: Ghent University.
De Mooij, M. (2003). Convergence and divergence in consumer behaviour: implications for
global advertising. International Journal of advertising, 22(2), 183-202.
Digital Advertising Alliance. (2010). Participate in the Self-Regulatory Program: Company
Information. Retrieved October 18, 2013 from http://www.aboutads. info/participants.
Dillard, J. P. & Shen, L. (2005). On the nature of reactance and its role in persuasive health
communication. Communication Monographs, 72, 144-168. doi:
10.1080/03637750500111815
Douglas, S.P. & Craig, C.S. (2006). International Marketing Research. (3rd ed.). John Wiley &
Sons, Ltd.: West Sussex, UK.
Dreze, X., & Hussherr, F. X. (2003). Internet advertising: Is anybody watching? Journal of
Interactive Marketing, 17(4), 8-23. doi: 10.1002/dir.10063
Ducoffe, R. H. (1995). How consumers assess the value of advertising. Journal of Current Issues
and Research in Advertising, 17(1), 1-18.
The Economist. (2013, August 3). Omnipotent, or omnishambles? The Economist. Retrieved on
November 2, 2014 from www.economist.com.
Edell, J. & Burke, M. C. (1987). The Power of Feelings in Understanding Advertising Effects.
Journal of Consumer Research. 14, 421-433.
Edwards, S. M., Li, H., & Lee, J. H. (2002). Forced exposure and psychological reactance:
Antecedents and consequences of the perceived intrusiveness of pop-up ads. Journal of
Advertising, 31(3), 83-95.
eMarketer. (2013, December 19). UK mobile ad spending to pass the £1 billion mark this year.
eMarketer. Retrieved from http://www.emarketer.com.
Fam, K. S., Waller, D. S., Run, E. C., & He, J. (2013). Advertising dislikeability in Asia: is there
a relationship with purchase intention and frequency? Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and
Logistics, 25(1), 144-161. doi: 10.1108/13555851311290984
Fennis, B. M. & Bakker, A. B. (2001). “Stay tuned—we will be back right after these messages”:
need to evaluate moderates the transfer of irritation in advertising. Journal of Advertising,
30(3), 15-25.
Fornell, C., & Westbrook, R. A. (1979). An exploratory study of assertiveness, aggressiveness,
and consumer complaining behavior. Advances in Consumer Research, 6(1), 105-110.

Fritz, N. K. (1979). Claim recall and irritation in television commercials: An advertising
effectiveness study. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 7(1-2), 1-13.
Gardner, M. P. (1983). Advertising Effects on Attributes Recalled and Criteria Used for Brand
Evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 10, 310-318.
Gardner, M. P. (1985). Does attitude toward the ad affect brand attitude under a brand evaluation
set? Journal of Market Research, 22, 192-198.
Gardner, M.P. (1985). Mood states and consumer behavior: a critical review. Journal of
Consumer Research, 12(3), 281-300.
Gilmore, D. D. (1990). Manhood in the making: cultural concepts of masculinity. Yale
University Press.
Goldsmith, R. E., & Lafferty, B. A. (2002). Consumer response to websites and their influence
on advertising effectiveness. Internet Research, 12(4), 318-328.
Gong, W. & Maddox, L. M. (2003). Measuring Web Advertising Effectiveness in China. Journal
of Advertising Research. 43(1), 34-48.
Gourville, J., T., & Soman, D. (2005). Overchoice and assortment type: when and why variety
backfires. Marketing Science, 24(3), 382-395. doi: 10.1287/mksc.1040.0109
Granka, L., Hembrooke, H., & Gay, G. (2006, March). Location, location, location: viewing
patterns on WWW pages. In Proceedings of the 2006 symposium on Eye tracking research &
applications (pp. 43-43). ACM.
Greyser, S. A. (1973). Irritation in Advertising. Journal of Advertising Research, 13, 3-10.
Groth, M. & Grandey, A. (2012). From bad to worse: negative exchange spirals in employee
customer service interactions. Organizational Psychology Review, 2(3), 208-233. doi:
10.1177/2041386612441735
Ha, L. (1996). Observations: advertising clutter in consumer magazines: dimensions and
effects. Journal of Advertising Research, 36(4), 76-84.
Ha, L. & McCann, K. (2008). An Integrated Model of Advertising Clutter in Offline and Online
Media. International Journal of Advertising. 27, 4, 569-592.
Hammock, T., & Brehm, J. W. (1966). The attractiveness of choice alternatives when freedom to
choose is eliminated by a social agent. Journal of Personality, 34(4), 546-554. doi:
10.1111/1467-6494.ep8933868
Hanson, W., & Kalyanam, K. (2007). Principles of Internet marketing. South-Western College
Publishing.
Harris, M. B. (1974). Mediators between frustration and aggression in a field
experiment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 10(6), 561-571. doi: 10.1016/0022-
1031(74)90079-1
Harris, R. J. (2001). A primer of multivariate analysis (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Harris, L. C. & Dumas, A. (2009). Online consumer misbehavior: an application of
neutralization theory. Marketing Theory, 9(4), 379-402. doi: 10.1177/1470593109346895
Harris, L. C., & Reynolds, K. L. (2003). The consequences of dysfunctional customer
behavior. Journal of Service Research, 6(2), 144-161. doi: 10.1177/1094670503257044
Harris, L. C., & Reynolds, K. L. (2004). Jaycustomer behavior: an exploration of types and
motives in the hospitality industry. Journal of Services Marketing, 18(5), 339-357. doi:
10.1108/08876040410548276
Heilman, M. E., & Toffler, B. L. (1976). Reacting to reactance: an interpersonal interpretation of
the need for freedom. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 12(6), 519-529. doi:
10.1016/0022-1031(76)90031-7
Her, P., Kardes, F.R., & Kim, J. (1991). Effects of word-of-mouth and product-attribute
information on persuasion: an accessibility-diagnosticity perspective. Journal of Consumer
Research, 17, 454-462.
Ho, C. H. & Cheon, H. J. (2004). Why do people avoid advertising on the Internet? Journal of
Advertising, 33, 4, 89-97.
Hoffman, D. L., & Novak, T. P. (1996). Marketing in hypermedia computer-mediated
environments: conceptual foundations. The Journal of Marketing, 50-68.
Hofstede, G. (1984). Culture's consequences: International Differences in Work Related
Values (Vol. 5). Sage.
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the
Mind (Vol. 2). London: McGraw-Hill.
Holbrook, M. B., Batra, R. (1987). Assessing the Role of Emotions as mediators of Consumer
Responses to Advertising. Journal of Consumer Research, 14, 404-420.
Hollandsworth Jr, J. G. (1977). Differentiating assertion and aggression: some behavioral
guidelines. Behavior Therapy, 8(3), 347-352. doi: 10.1016/S0005-7894(77)80067-1
Hong, S., & Faedda, S. (1996). Refinement of the Hong psychological reactance scale.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56, 173-182. doi:
10.1177/0013164496056001014
Huberman, B. A., Pirolli, P. L. T., Pitkow, J. E., & Lukose, R. M. (1998). Strong Regularities in
World Wide Web Surfing. Science, 280 (5360), 95-97.
Hummel, T. J., & Sligo, J. R. (1971). Empirical comparison of univariate and multivariate
analysis of variance procedures. Psychological Bulletin, 76(1), 49. doi: 10.1002/sim.6044

Hunt, S. D., & Vitell, S. (1986). A general theory of marketing ethics. Journal of
Macromarketing, 6(1), 5-16. doi: 10.1177/0276146706290923
Hustad, T. P., Pessemier, E. A. (1973). Will the Real Consumer Activist Please Stand Up: An
Examination of Consumers' Opinions About Marketing Practices. Journal of Marketing
Research, 10, 319-324.
Hyman, M. R., Tansey, R., & Clark, J. W. (1994). Research on advertising ethics: Past, present,
and future. Journal of Advertising, 23(3), 5-15.
IAB (2001), Internet Advertising Revenues Soar Again, Near $5 Billion in Q1 07. Retrieved
October 6, 2013 from http://www.iab.net/about_the_iab/recent_press_
releases/press_release_ archive/press _release/5170.
IAB (2004), IAB/PwC Release Final Full-Year 2003 Internet Ad Revenue Figures. Retrieved
October 6, 2013 from http://www.iab.net/about_the_iab/recent_press _releases/press_release
_archive/press _release/4703.
IAB (2012), IAB Display Advertising Guidelines. Retrieved October 18, 2013 from
http://www.iab.net/guidelines/508676/508767/displayguidelines.
Johnson, B. (2014, April 27). Revenue, staffing, stocks and digital show growth for agencies in
2014 report. Advertising Age. Retrieved on November 2, 2014 from www.adage.com.
Johansson, J. K. (2006). Why marketing needs reform. In Jagdish Sheth & Rajendra Sisodia
(Eds), Does Marketing Need Reform? (37-44). London and New York: M.E. Sharpe.
Johnson, E. J. & Russo, J. E. (1984). Product Familiarity and Learning New Information.
Journal of Consumer Research, 11, 542-549.
Johnson, J. G., Cohen, P., Smailes, E. M., Karen, S., Brook, J. (2002). Television viewing and
aggressive behavior during adolescence and adulthood. Science, 295, 2468-2471.

Josophson, W. D. (1987). Television violence and children’s aggression: Testing the priming,
social script, and disinhibition prediction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53,
882-890.
Kassarjian, H. H. (1971). Personality and Consumer Behavior: A Review. Journal of Marketing
Research. 8, 409-418.
Keppel, G., & Wickens, T. D. (2004). Design and analysis. A researcher's handbook (4th ed.).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education International.
Kohn, P. M., & Barnes, G. E. (1977). Subject variables and reactance to persuasive
communications about drugs. European Journal of Social Psychology, 7(1), 97-109.
Kohn, P. M., & Smart, R. G. (1984). The impact of television advertising on alcohol
consumption: An experiment. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 45(04), 295.
Kotler, P., Gregor, W., & Rogers, W. (1977). The Marketing Audit Comes of Age. In Ben Enis,
Keith Cox & Michale Mokwa (Eds.), Marketing Classics: A Selection of Influential Articles
(p. 586-600). Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.
Krishnan, S. & Valle, V. A. (1979). Dissatisfaction Attributions and Consumer Complaint
Behavior. Advances in Consumer Research, 6, 445-449.
Krugman, D. M., & Johnson, K. F. (1991). Differences in the consumption of traditional
broadcast and VCR movie rentals. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 35(2), 213-
232.
Kuo, Z. Y. (1961). Genesis of the cat’s response to the rat. In E. Aronson (Ed.), Instinct (p. 24).
Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.
Laczniak, G. R. (1983). Framework for Analyzing Marketing Ethics. Journal of
Macromarketing. 3(1), 7-18.

Laczniak, G. R. (1993). Marketing Ethics: Onward Toward Greater Expectations. Journal of
Public Policy and Marketing. 12(1), 91-96.
LaTour, M. S., & Zahra, S. A. (1989). Fear appeals as advertising strategy: should they be
used? Journal of Consumer Marketing, 6(2), 61-70.
Li, C. & Meeds, R. (2005). Different Forced-Exposure levels of Internet Advertising: An
Experimental Study on Pop-up and Interstitials. In Proceedings of the Conference-American
Academy of Advertising (Vol. 2005, p. 200). Pullman, WA; American Academy of
Advertising; 1999.
Li, C. & Meeds, R. (2007). Factors Affecting Information Processing of Internet Advertisements:
a Test on Exposure condition, Psychological Reactance, and Advertising Frequency. In
Proceedings of 2007 Annual Conference of the American Academy of Advertising (pp. 93-
101). University of Oregon.
Liebert, R. M., & Baron, R. A. (1972). Some immediate effects of televised violence on
children's behavior. Developmental psychology, 6(3), 469. doi: 10.1037/h0032584
Lodish, L. M., Abraham, M. M., Livelsberger, J., Lubetkin, B., Richardson, B., & Stevens, M. E.
(1995). A summary of fifty-five in-market experimental estimates of the long-term effect of
TV advertising. Marketing Science, 14(3 supplement), G133-G140. doi:
10.1287/mksc.14.3.G133
Longman, K. A. (1997). If Not Effective Frequency, Then What? Journal of Advertising
Research, 37(4), 44-50.
Lorenz, K. (1966). On Aggression (M. Wilson, Trans.). New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.
Losciuto, L. (1968). Effects of Advertising Frequency and Product Usage on Recall: a
Laboratory Simulation. Proceedings, 76th Annual Convention, APA. Reprinted. 679-680.

Lundstrom, W. J. & Lamont, L. M. (1976). The Development of a Scale to Measure Consumer
Discontent. Journal of Marketing Research, 13(4), 373-381.
Lutz, R. J., MacKenzie, S. B. & Belch, G. E. (1982). Attitude Toward the Ad as a Mediator of
Advertising Effectiveness: Determinants and Consequences. Advances in Consumer
Research. 10, 532-539.
Markman, A. B., & Loewenstein J. (2010). Structural comparison and consumer choice. Journal
of Consumer Psychology, 20(2), 126-137. doi: 10.1016/j.jcps.2010.01.002
Meyers, L. S., Gamst, G., & Guarino, A. J. (2006). Applied Multivariate Research: Design and
Interpretation. Sage.
Miller, C. H., Lindsay, T. L., Deatrick, L. M., & Young, A. M. (2007). Psychological reactance
and promotional health messages: the effects of controlling language, lexical concreteness,
and the restoration of freedom. Human Communication Research, 33, 219-240. doi:
10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00297.x
Moore, D. L. & Hutchinson, J. W. (2001). The Effects of Ad Affect on Advertising
Effectiveness. Advances in Consumer Research. 10, 526-531.
Moore, R. S., Stammerjohan, C. A., & Coulter, R. A. (2005). Banner Advertiser—Web Site
Context Congruity and Color Effects on Attention and Attitudes. Journal of Advertising.
34(2), 71-84.
Mulyanegara, R. C., Tsarenko, Y., Anderson, A. (2007). The Big Five and Brand Personality:
Investigating the Impact of Consumer personality on Preferences Towards Particular Brand
Personality. Journal of Brand Management. 16, 234-247. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.bm.2550093
Murray, K. B. & Haubl, G. (2010). Freedom of Choice, Ease of Use, and the Formation of
Interface Preferences. MIS Quarterly, forthcoming.

Nielson. (2013). Global AdView Pulse Report [data file]. Retrieved on July 18, 2013 from
nielson.com/us/ed/reports/2013/global-adview-pulse.
Novak, T. P., Hoffman, D. L. & Yung, Y. F. (2000). Measuring the Customer Experience in
Online Environments: A Structural Modeling Approach. Marketing Science, 19 (1), 22-42.
Olney, T. J., Holbrook, M. B. & Batra, R. (1991). Consumer Responses to Advertising: the
Effects of Ad Content, Emotions, and Attitude Toward the Ad on Viewing Time. Journal of
Consumer Research. 17, 440-453.
Park, D.H., & Kim, S. (2008). The effects of consumer knowledge on message processing of
electronic word-of-mouth via online consumer reviews. Electronic Commerce Research and
Applications. 7, 399-410. doi: 10.1016/j.elerap.2007.12.001
Parise, S., Guinan, P., Weinberg, B. (December 15, 2008). The secrets of marketing in a web 2.0
world. The Wall Street Journal. New York, NY. Retrieved May 20, 2012 from
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122884677205091919.html
Pearson, E. S., & Hartley, H. O. (1951). Charts of the power function for analysis of variance
tests, derived from the non-central F-distribution. Biometrika, 38, 112-130.
Pelsmacker, P. D. & Van den Bergh, J. (1998). Advertising Content and Irritation: A Study of
226 TV Commercials. Journal of International Consumer Marketing. 10(4), 5-27. doi:
10.1300/J046v10n04_02
Peterman, M. L., Roehm, Jr., H. A. & Haugtvedt, C. P. (1999). An Exploratory Attribution
Analysis of Attitudes Toward the World Wide Web As a Product Information Source.
Advances in Consumer Research. 26, 75-79.
Pollay, R. W. (1986). The distorted mirror: reflections on the unintended consequences of
advertising. Journal of Marketing, 50(2), 18-36.

Purpura, J. E. (1999). Learner strategy use and performance on language tests: A structural
equation modeling approach. Cambridge University Press.
Quandt, R. E. (1956). A probalistic theory of consumer behavior. Quarterly Journal of
Economics, 70, 507-536.
Rains, S. A., & Turner, M. M. (2007). Psychological reactance and persuasive health
communication: a test and extension of the intertwined model. Human Communication
Research, 33(2), 241-269. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00298.x
Raymond, B. & Greyser, S. (1968). Advertising in America: The Consumer View. Harvard
University, Boston, MA.
Rayport, J. F. (2013). Advertising’s New Medium: Human Experience. Harvard Business
Review, 77-84.
Rayport, J. E. & Jaworski, B. J. (2001). ECommerce, Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill/Irwin
MarketspaceU.
Redondo, I. (2009). The Effectiveness of Casual Advergames on Adolescents’ Brand Attitudes.
European Journal of Marketing. 46(11/12), 1671-1688. doi: 10.1108/03090561211260031
Richins, M. L. (1983). Negative Word-of-mouth by dissatisfied consumers: A Pilot Study.
Journal of Marketing. 68- 78.
Richins, M. L., & Verhage, B. J. (1987). Assertiveness and aggression in marketplace
exchanges: testing measure equivalence. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 18(1), 93-
105. doi: 10.1177/0022002187018001010
Robertson, N., & Shaw, R. N. (2009). Predicting the likelihood of voiced complaints in the self-
service technology context. Journal of service research, 12(1), 100-116. doi:
10.1177/1094670509333789
Rojas-Méndez, J. I., Davies, G., & Madran, C. (2009). Universal differences in advertising
avoidance behavior: A cross-cultural study. Journal of Business Research, 62(10), 947-954.
doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.08.008
Rosbergen, E., Pieters, R. & Wedel, M. (1997). Visual Attention to Advertising: A Segment-
Level Analysis. Journal of Consumer Research. 24, 305-314.
Rose, R.L. & Neidermeyer, M. (1999). From Rudeness to Road Rage: The Antecedents and
Consequences of Consumer Aggression. Advances in Consumer Research. 26, 12-17.
Saegert, J. (1987). Why Marketing should quit giving subliminal advertising the benefit of the
doubt. Psychology and Marketing. 4, 107-120.
Sawyer, A. G., & Ward, S. (1979). Carry-over effects in advertising communication. Research in
Marketing, 2, 259-314.
Sebastian, M. (2014, September 29) Is digital advertising ready to ditch the click? Advertising
Age. Retrieved from http://www.adage.com.
Sheth, J. N., & Sisodia, R. S. (Eds.). (2006). Does Marketing Need Reform? London and New
York: ME Sharpe.
Shrum, L.J. (1999). Television and persuasion: effects of the programs between the ads.
Psychology & Marketing. 16(2), 119-140.
Singh, S. N., & Hitchon, J. C. (1989). The intensifying effects of exciting television programs on
the reception of subsequent commercials. Psychology and Marketing, 6(1), 1-31.
Singhapakdi, A., & Vitell, S. J. (1990). Marketing ethics: factors influencing perceptions of
ethical problems and alternatives. Journal of Macromarketing, 10(1), 4-18. doi:
10.1177/027614679001000102
Smith, W. J. (2006). Coming to concurrence: improving marketing productivity by reengaging
resistant consumers. In Jagdish Sheth & Rajendra Sisodia (Eds), Does Marketing Need
Reform? (37-44). London and New York: M.E. Sharpe.
Solomon, Michael R. (2009) Consumer Behavior. Buying, Having, and Being. 5th Edition,
Prentice Hall, Pearson.
Soscia, I. (2007). Gratitude, Delight, or Guilt: The role of Consumers’ Emotions in Predicting
Postconsumption Behaviors. Psychology and Marketing, 24(10), 871-894.
Speck, P. S. & Elliott, M. T. (1997). Predictors of advertising avoidance in print and broadcast
media. Journal of Advertising, 26(3), 61-76.
Statista. (2014). Global advertising spending 2011-2018 by region. Retrieved from
www.statista.com November 2, 2014.
Stayman, D. M. & Aaker, D. A. (1988). Are all the effects of ad-induced feelings mediated by
Aad? Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 368-373.
Stern, B.B., Zinkhan, G. M., & Holbrook, M. B. (2002). The Netvertising image: Netvertising
Image Communication Model (NICM) and Construct Definition. Journal of Advertising.
31(3), 15-27. doi: 10.1080/00913367.2002.10673673
Steuer, J. (1992). Defining virtual reality: Dimensions determining telepresence. Journal of
communication, 42(4), 73-93.
Stoll, M., Baecke, S., & Kenning, P. (2008). What they see is what they get? an fMRI-study on
neural correlates of attractive packaging. Journal of Consumer Behavior, 7(4-5), 342-359.
doi: 10.1002/cb.256
Stout, P. & Leckenby, J. D. (1986). Measuring Emotional Responses to Advertising. Journal of
Advertising. 15(4), 35-42.

Sun, Q. & Spears, N. (2012). Frustration and consumer Evaluation of Search Advertising and
Search Engine Effectiveness: The Case of hedonic Versus Utilitarian Product. Journal of
Electronic Commerce Research, 13(2), 122-134.
Tan, S. J. & Chia, L. (2007). Are We Measuring the Same Attitude? Understanding Media
Effects on Attitude Towards Advertising. Sage, 7(4), 353-377.
Treise, D., Weigold, M. F., Conna, J., & Garrison, H. (1994). Ethics in advertising: ideological
correlates of consumer perceptions. Journal of Advertising, 23(3), 59-69.
Thota, S. C., Song, J. H., & Larsen, V. (2010). Do animated banner ads hurt websites? The
moderating roles of website loyalty and need for cognition. Academy of Marketing Studies
Journal, 14(1), 91-116.
Twenge, J. M., Baumeister, R. F., Tice, D. M., & Stucke, T. S. (2001). If you can't join them,
beat them: effects of social exclusion on aggressive behavior. Journal of personality and
social psychology, 81(6), 1058. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.81.6.1058
Unknown. (2012). Neuroticism Test: You’re your 5. Neuroticism. Psychologistworld.com.
Retrieved on March 11, 2012 from http://www.psychologist
world.com/influence_personality/fivefactortest/neuroticism1.php
Verduyn, P., & Brans, K. (2012) Personality and individual differences: the relationship between
extraversion, neuroticism and aspects of trait affect. Department of Psychology. 52, p. 664-
669.
Vranica, S. & Bender, R. (July 28, 2013). Advertising giants to merge. The Wall Street Journal.
New York, NY. Retrieved July 29, 2013 from
online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324809004578634133795292520.html
Vranica, S. & Steward, C. S. (August 4, 2013). Old-school ad execs sweat as data geeks flex
muscle. The Wall Street Journal. New York, NY. Retrieved August 5, 2013 from
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323997004578644220074391246.html
Wang, C., Zhang, P., Choi, R., & Eredita, M. D. (2002, August). Understanding consumers’
attitude toward advertising. In Eighth Americas conference on information systems (pp.
1143-1148).
Westbrook, R. A. (1981). Assertion, Aggression, and Consumer Response to Dissatisfaction.
Unpublished manuscript, University of Arizona.
Wetzer, I. M., Zeelenberg, M., & Pieters, R. (2007). “Never Eat in That Restaurant, I Did!”:
Exploring Why People Engage in Negative World-of-Mouth Communication. Psychology
and Marketing. 24(8), 661-680.
Wicklund, R. A. & Brehm, J. W. (1968). Attitude change as a function of felt competence and
threat to attitudinal freedom. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 4(1), 64-75. doi:
10.1016/0022-1031(68)90050-4
Wind, Y. J. (2006). Challenging the Mental Models of Marketing. In Jagdish Sheth & Rajendra
Sisodia (Eds), Does Marketing Need Reform? (37-44). London and New York: M.E. Sharpe.
Wood, O. (2012). How Emotional Tugs Trump Rational Pushes: The Time Has Come to
Abandon a 100-Year-Old Advertising Model. Journal of Advertising Research. 31-39. doi:
10.2501/JAR-52-1-031-039
Worchel, S., Andreoli, V., & Archer, R. (1976). When is a favor a threat to freedom: The effects
of attribution and importance of freedom on reciprocity. Journal of Personality, 44(2), 294-
310. doi: 10.2501/JAR-52-1-031-039

Worchel, S. & Brehm, J. W. (1970). Effect of threats to attitudinal freedom as a function of
agreement with the communicator. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 14(1), 18-
22. doi: 10.1037/h0028620
Wu, P., Wang, Y. (2010). The influences of electronic word-of-mouth message appeal and
message source credibility on brand attitude. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing Logistics, 23,
448-472. doi: 13555851111165020
Xia, L. & Sudharshan, D. (2002). Effects of Interruptions on consumer online decision
processes. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 12(3), 265-280. doi:
10.1207/153276602760335103
Yi, Y., & Gong, T. (2008). If employees “go the extra mile,” do customers reciprocate with
similar behavior?. Psychology & Marketing, 25(10), 961-986.
Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1986). Conceptualizing Involvement. Journal of Advertising. 15 (2), 4-15.
Zajonc, R. B. (1980). Feeling and thinking: preferences need no inferences. American
psychologist, 35(2), 151.
Zillmann, D. & Weaver, J. B. (1999). Effects of prolonged exposure to gratuitous media violence
on provoked and unprovoked hostile behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29,
145-165.
Zinkhan, G. M. (1994). Advertising ethics: emerging methods and trends. Journal of
Advertising, 23(3), 1-4.

APPENDIX A
Screenshots and Sequence of the Study

This study included seven screens. The first screen, called the Introduction Page, captured
participants’ consent and agreement to the terms and conditions of the study. Subjects who
declined to participate could indicate this at the bottom of the screen and, when doing so, were
taken to the study’s Exit Page; however, subjects who agreed to participate, were taken to the
Demographic Page where their country of origin and age information were collected. Then,
subjects were presented with the pre-test questions on the Pre-Test Page (which included the
questions listed in Appendix B). On this page, they saw an untreated online advertisement and
answered questions based on their reaction to that untreated ad. After this, subjects were given
an online task to perform that was representative of a typical eCommerce experience. While
doing this they experienced the treatments of this study according to their assigned group on the
Treatment Page. Then, subjects were presented with the same set of questions as before on the
Post-Test Page; however, subjects did not seen any ads while answering the questions this time
so that they could focus on the treatment they just encountered. Subjects who successfully
navigated to this point in the study were then taken to the Incentive Page, where their email
address and color preference of the incentive prize were collected. Finally, subjects were taken
to Exit Page where the study ended. The following sections of this appendix display screen shots
of all of these pages.
Introduction Page
The Introduction Page is the first page participants of this study encountered and a screenshot
of this page is seen in Figure A1. It captured participants’ consent and agreement to the terms
and conditions of the study. If participants declined, then they were taken to the Exit Page;
however, if they agreed to participate in the study, then they were taken to the Demographic
Page.
Figure A1. Screenshot of the Introduction Page.
Demographic Page
After subjects agreed to participate in the study, their country of origin and age were
collected on this page. A screenshot of this page is seen in Figure A2.
Figure A2. Screenshot of the Demographic Page.

Pre-Test Page
After participants submitted their demographic information on the previous screen, they were
presented with the Pre-Test Questionnaire (note: all questions are fully displayed in Appendix
B). Participants answered all of these questions based on their reaction to the ad without any
treatment applied. A screenshot of this page is seen in Figure A3.
Figure A3. Screenshot of the Pre-Test Page.

Treatment Page
After participants answered the pre-test questions, they were instructed to click into each of
the open boxes that cascaded down the page in a zig-zag fashion from top-to-bottom and left-to-
right. After clicking into a box, a check-mark appeared and the box’s color became subdued,
rendering it un-clickable. Participants were instructed to click into each box, in order, until all of
them were checked. This was an online task representative of the mouse click actions required
by consumers to make online purchases. A screenshot of this is seen in Figure A4.
Figure A4. Screenshot of the Treatment Page without Any Treatments Applied.
As participants checked the boxes, advertisements began to appear on the screen according to the
location and animation treatment combination associated with their group. These treatments
appeared after every fifth box was checked until the treatment was shown 11 separate times.
Each treatment lasted 3 seconds and covered the participant’s field of view according to the
subject’s treatment combination. Screenshots of each of the location portions of the treatment
combinations are seen in Figures A5, A6, A7, A8, and A9. The animation aspect of the
treatment combinations cannot be displayed in text format due to their dynamic nature, but the
animation aspect is thoroughly described in Chapter III via Figure 4.
Figure A5. Ad Treatment: Top of the Page.

Figure A6. Ad Treatment: Left Side of the Page.
Figure A7. Ad Treatment: Middle of the Page.

Figure A8. Ad Treatment: Right side of the Page.
Figure A9. Ad Treatment: Bottom of the Page.

Post-Test Page
After participants completed the online task and encountered their respective treatment
combinations 11 times, they were presented with the post-test questions on the Post-Test page,
which were the same questions they saw earlier on the Pre-Test Page in order to measure the
differences in their responses before and after encountering the treatments. This page was nearly
identical to the Pre-Test Page, but unlike the Pre-Test Page, no advertisements were shown on
this page to allow participants the chance to focus on the treated ads they just saw. A screenshot
of this page may be seen in Figure A10.
Figure A10. Screenshot of the Post-Test Page. Unlike the Pre-Test page, no advertisements
were shown on this page to allow participants the chance to focus on the treated ads they just
saw.
Incentive Page
Subjects who successfully navigated through all previous screens of the study were taken to
the Incentive Page. On this page, they were presented with the option to enter their email
address on the screen in order to be entered into a drawing for a chance to win a prize. The prize
was a 2-gigabyte iPod Shuffle in the color of their choice. This prize was offered to participants
as incentive to complete the study. All of the information captured on this screen was stored in a
database separate from the responses given on previous screens in order to maintain participant
anonymity. A screenshot of this page may be seen in Figure A11.
Figure A11. Screenshot of the Incentive Page. Participants were encouraged to finish the study
with the option of entering into a drawing for an iPod Shuffle (2GB) in any available color of
their choosing. An email address was required for this, but participants were reminded that any
information entered on this screen was kept separate from the study to ensure their anonymity.
Exit Page
Finally, participants were taken to Exit Page, where they were thanked for their time and
given the contact information for the Institutional Review Board to report any issues. A
screenshot of this page is seen in Figure A12.
Figure A12. Screenshot of the Exit Page. If participants did not agree to the terms of the study,
nor give their consent to take it, they were taken here immediately after indicating as such from
the Introduction Page; otherwise, they arrived at this page after successfully navigating through
the entire study. The purpose of this page was to thank subjects for their participation and
conclude the study.
APPENDIX B
Pre- and Post-Test Questionnaires

Participants were given the questionnaire presented in this appendix before and after
encountering the treatments associated with this study. The difference in pre- and post-test
responses was used to measure the subjects’ perceived level of ad intrusiveness, reactance
arousal, and desire to respond aggressively to the advertised brand or product. All questions
scored on a 7 point Likert scale. The instructions and questions read as follows:
Instructions. Please state your level of agreement or disagreement to the following statements by
selecting the appropriate radio buttons underneath each statement. Please only mark one choice
per statement and complete the entire questionnaire. Thank you.
1. The ad for Lucky Coffee distracted me.
o o o o o o o
Strongly Somewhat Slightly Neutral Slightly Somewhat Strongly
Agree Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Disagree
2. Seeing the ad for Lucky Coffee is disturbing.
o o o o o o o

3. The ad for Lucky Coffee was forced upon me.
o o o o o o o
4. The ad for Lucky Coffee interfered with my ability to focus.
o o o o o o o
5. The ad for Lucky Coffee was shown to me without my permission.
o o o o o o o
6. The ad for Lucky Coffee forcefully tried to capture my attention.
o o o o o o o

7. The ad for Lucky Coffee frustrates me because I feel like it prevents me from making free
and independent decisions about the type of coffee I want to buy.
o o o o o o o
8. The ad for Lucky Coffee angers me because I feel as though I am no longer able to choose
between different types of coffee products.
o o o o o o o
9. The ad for Lucky Coffee prevents me from doing the thing that I was focusing on and I now
feel like avoiding Lucky Coffee whenever I see it in the future.
o o o o o o o
10. I feel like Lucky Coffee is attempting to influence me with their advertising and that makes
me want to avoid Lucky Coffee altogether.
o o o o o o o

11. I feel like Lucky Coffee is forcing me to buy their product after seeing their advertising and,
because of that, I will not buy any of their coffee.
o o o o o o o
12. I would be content if I did not have to look at online advertisements for Lucky Coffee ever
again.
o o o o o o o
13. I consider Lucky Coffee’s ad to be an intrusion on my online experience.
o o o o o o o
14. The attempts in Lucky Coffee’s ad to persuade me to buy their coffee actually makes me
want to do the opposite and never buy their coffee.
o o o o o o o

15. I feel like writing an email to Lucky Coffee to complain about their online advertisements.
o o o o o o o
16. I would give Lucky Coffee a bad online rating and review, if given the chance.
o o o o o o o
17. I would be satisfied to know that a blog dedicated to bashing the reputation of Lucky Coffee
exists.
o o o o o o o
18. I feel like the only way for my complaints about Lucky Coffee’s online advertisements to be
heard is if I tell my friends and family on social media how much I dislike them and try to get
others to boycott Lucky Coffee products.
o o o o o o o

19. If I ever go to a Lucky Coffee store, I will loudly make a scene (so that everyone in there
hears me) and ask to speak with a manager in order to complain about their online
advertisements.
o o o o o o o
20. I think I am going to write something on any of Lucky Coffee’s social media sites that I can
find about how bad their advertisements are because the company should really know this.
o o o o o o o

APPENDIX C
Treatment Groups
A total 703 questionnaires were distributed during the data collection phase of this study, but
only 458 were considered usable after appropriately screening respondent scores for validity,
reliability, and completeness using the SPSS 17 statistical analysis tool. There were a total of
249 usable US responses and 209 UK ones. These 458 usable samples are further broken out by
treatment group in Table C1.
Table C1 Table 24. Number of Usable Samples by Treatment Group
Number of Usable Samples by Treatment Group
US US Treatment Usable UK UK Treatment Usable

Group Combination amount Group Combination amount
Group No Animation, Group No Animation,

21 14
1 Top of the Page 16 Top of the Page

13 13
2 Left Side of the Page 17 Left Side of the Page

18 15
3 Middle of the Page 18 Middle of the Page

15 13
4 Right Side of the Page 19 Right Side of the Page

14 14
5 Bottom of the Page 20 Bottom of the Page
US GROUP 1-5 TOTAL 81 UK GROUP 16-20 TOTAL 69
Group Some Animation, Group Some Animation,

18 14

17 14

16 14

20 16
US US Treatment Usable UK UK Treatment Usable

Group Combination amount Group Combination amount

15 14
Group All Animation, Group All Animation,

17 14

14 13

17 15

18 13

16 13
US TOTAL Sample Size 249 UK TOTAL Sample Size 209
Note. A minimum of 13 samples per group (aka: cell) were needed to meet the appropriate
sample size for conducting a Repeated Measures MANOVA analysis on this data. Each group
achieved a usable sample size of 13 respondents or better.

The Effects of Online Advertis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Effects of Online Advertis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE EFFECTS OF ONLINE ADVERTISING ON CONSUMER AGGRESSION

Dissertation presented to the Faculty of the

Alliant School of Management

Alliant International University

In Partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Business Administration

Christopher A Lobus, M.S.

Ute Jamrozy, Ph.D., Chairperson

Rachna Kumar, Ph.D.

Wendy Chung, Ph.D.

Martin Cary, Ph.D.

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

Marketers continue to understand that over-exposing consumers to advertisements enhances

best explains results for perceptions of ad intrusiveness. US participants experienced this to

committee members, I am most grateful that never gave up on me and challenged me

appropriately throughout my doctoral transformation process, which was essentially this

field of Marketing independently with authority. I cannot thank her enough.

conceived my theoretical framework. Dr. Sarkisyan challenged my approach and procedures as

perspective on the results of my study.

much stronger and confident.

List of Tables xiii

List of Figures xiii

Current State of Advertising 3

An Increasing Use of Digital Advertising 5

Marketing Reform and the Ethics of Advertising 7

Ethics of Using Sex and Violence in Ads 9

Models for Marketing Reform 10

Theory of Psychological Reactance 13

Reactance and Consumer Behavior 14

Advertising as a Possible Cause of Psychological Reactance 15

Information Processing and Overload 15

Reactance with Online Advertisements 17

Purpose of this Study 19

Scope of the Study 23

Objectives of the Study 24

Research Questions and Hypotheses 24

CHAPTER II. Literature Review 29

Basic Aggression: Insights from Animals 30

Human Aggression: Cultural Insights 31

Consumer Aggression toward Advertising 34

Increases in Exposures to Violence Leads to More Violence 37

How Aggressive Responses to Advertising Result in Consumer Reactance 38

The Boomerang Effect 40

Negative and Positive Word-of-Mouth Communication 43

Anti-Brand and -Product 46

Effects of Personality, Mood, Attitude, and Feelings on Advertising Aggression 47

Attitude and Mood 51

Feelings and Emotions 56

Qualities of Online Advertisements that lead to Aggression 59

Frequency of online Advertising 61

Duration and Timing of online Advertising 62

Advertisement Animation Levels 68

CHAPTER III. Methodology 75

Chapter III Summary 101

CHAPTER IV. Research Findings 102

Profile of the Respondents 103

Treatment Groups 104

Exploratory Factor Analysis 106

Data Screening and Manipulation Checks 106

Descriptive Statistics 110

Reliability and validity 112

Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) 116