Journal of Marketing Communications

ISSN: 1352-7266 (Print) 1466-4445 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjmc20

Consumer responses toward green advertising:

The effects of gender, advertising skepticism, and
green motive attribution

Jason Yu

To cite this article: Jason Yu (2018): Consumer responses toward green advertising: The
effects of gender, advertising skepticism, and green motive attribution, Journal of Marketing
Communications, DOI: 10.1080/13527266.2018.1514317

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13527266.2018.1514317

Published online: 30 Aug 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 9

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjmc20
JOURNAL OF MARKETING COMMUNICATIONS
https://doi.org/10.1080/13527266.2018.1514317

Consumer responses toward green advertising: The effects

of gender, advertising skepticism, and green motive
attribution
Jason Yu
Department of Mass Communications, Southern Illinois University Edwardsville, Edwardsville, IL, USA

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This research examined the effects of gender and skepticism Received 13 January 2018
toward advertising in general (SKEP) on consumer responses Accepted 17 August 2018
toward green advertising at two levels, generalized green adver- KEYWORDS
tising skepticism and personalized attitude toward the green ad Gender difference; green
(Agreen-ad). Using survey data, Study 1 found that men were more advertising skepticism;
skeptical of advertising in general then women, and in turn, more skepticism toward
skeptical of green advertising. Study 2 analyzed some of the data advertising in general; green
collected from an experiment and provided further evidence sup- motive attribution; attitude
porting the effects by showing that women’s Agreen-ad was more toward the green ad;
positive than men’s because of the different levels of SKEP across utilitarian dimension;
gender. Through introducing and testing motive attribution as a hedonic dimension
mediator, the study also offered some insight into the mechanism
of the SKEP effect on Agreen-ad, i.e., consumers with higher SKEP
will more likely attribute the green ad motive to for-profit market-
ing tactics rather than for-environment efforts, and that in turn will
generate negative Agreen-ad. Agreen-ad was diagnosed as unidimen-
sional, but when tested separately, the utilitarian dimension was
found to be more vulnerable to the effects of gender and SKEP.

Increasing ecological awareness among global consumers has led to a green consump-
tion movement. Today, more than a third of global consumers, including 40% of
millennials, view style, status, and environmentalism as intertwined, and for these
consumers, green consumption has changed from being ‘the right thing to do’ to
being ‘the cool thing to do’ (Voight 2013). A growing number of marketers across the
spectrum recognize this consumer behavior and demonstrate their environmental sen-
sitivity in their marketing communications. Yet, consumers are skeptical of green ads
and evaluate green advertising as vague or misleading (Matthes and Wonneberger
2014). Considerable research has been done to explain green advertising skepticism
from the ‘green’ aspect of consumer characteristics such as environmental concern but
has provided contradictory findings, with some suggesting that green consumers are
skeptical of green advertising (Finisterra Do Paço and Reis 2012), and others not
(Hartmann and Apaolaza-Ibáñez 2010; Kong and Zhang 2013; Matthes, Wonneberger,
and Schmuck 2014; Newell, Goldsmith, and Banzhaf 1998), yet others finding the
opposite (D’Souza and Taghian 2005; Matthes and Wonneberger 2014).

CONTACT Jason Yu jyu@siue.edu

© 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 J. YU

However, very little attention has been paid to the consumer characteristics from the
advertising aspect, particularly skepticism toward advertising in general (hereinafter
SKEP). Is it likely that some consumers are skeptical of green advertising because they
are skeptical of advertising in general anyway? After all, today’s consumers are increas-
ingly cynical about business and the marketplace and research has found that cynical
consumers deliberately reduce or minimize their contact with the marketplace in any
way (Helm, Moulard, and Richins 2015) and more specifically, they are more skeptical of
advertising (Obermiller and Spangenberg 1998). Only one study has examined the
relationship between these two constructs (Matthes and Wonneberger 2014) but
stopped at the generalized level of green advertising skepticism (hereinafter GSKP).
The question of how SKEP affects personalized attitude toward the green ad (hereinafter
Agreen-ad) remains unanswered. One of the purposes of this research was to examine the
SKEP effect on consumer responses toward green advertising at both generalized level
of GSKP and personalized level of Agreen-ad.
As an important demographic variable, gender has been widely studied in advertising
research. One research stream focuses on the gender effect on consumer reactions
toward advertising with inconsistent findings. While some suggested no gender differ-
ences (e.g., O’Donohoe 1995; Obermiller and Spangenberg 1998; Shavitt, Lowrey, and
Haefner 1998), others found that gender matters but their findings were opposite with
one showing that women were more skeptical of advertising than men (Matthes,
Wonneberger, and Schmuck 2014), yet more indicating that women’s reactions toward
advertising were more positive than men’s (Berney-Reddish & Areni, 2006; Bush, Smith,
and Martin 1999; Papyrina 2015; Wolburg and Pokrywczynski 2001). Another purpose of
this research was to examine gender differences in SKEP, GSKP, and Agreen-ad.
The attribution theory was utilized to explain the relationship of SKEP and Agreen-ad.
The idea is that a green advertisement is an ambiguous corporate behavioral description
as at least two constructs are applicable to the ad (Higgins 1996), i.e., consumers can
interpret green ad claims either as the firm’s for-environment efforts or for-profit market-
ing tactics. If the consumer is skeptical of advertising in general or has a general
‘tendency toward disbelief of advertising claims’ (Obermiller and Spangenberg 1998,
160), then he may attribute green advertising to for-profit than for-environment. Gearing
toward this theory, we introduced motive attribution as a mediator between SKEP and
Agreen-ad in this research.

Literature Review
SKEP and GSKP
Consumers are concerned that companies often mislead them by using false and/or
incomplete environmental information in green ads in order to improve their brand or
corporate image (Parguel, Benoît-Moreau, and Larceneux 2011). Such consumer con-
cerns lead to an emergence of green skepticism, which is the consumers’ tendency to
doubt the environmental benefits or the environmental performance of a green product
(Leonidou and Skarmeas 2017; Mohr, Eroğlu, and Ellen 1998; Obermiller, Spangenberg,
and MacLachlan 2005). In fact, research has found that consumers with a high level of
advertising skepticism hold more negative attitudes toward the message claims in
 JOURNAL OF MARKETING COMMUNICATIONS 3

corporate social responsibility advertising (Yang and Hsu 2017). A considerable amount
of evidence has been provided suggesting that consumers are skeptical of green claims
in ads indeed (Sheehan and Atkinson 2012; Shrum, McCarty, and Lowrey 1995), that
‘environmental claims are often viewed skeptically and are miscomprehended’ (Bickart
and Ruth 2012, 52), and that ‘consumers evaluate green advertising as vague or
misleading’ (Fowler and Close 2012, 121). Leonidou and Skarmeas’ (2017) study showed
that green skepticism encourages consumers to seek more product information, sparks
negative word of mouth to friends, and makes consumers reluctant to buy green
products.
Amongst the empirical studies of the consumer behavior factors affecting GSKP,
Matthes and Wonneberger (2014) might be one of the very few, if not the only one,
examining the effect of SKEP on GSKP. By using online survey data of Austrian con-
sumers’ responses, they found a significant positive association of SKEP and GSKP. These
two constructs may be interrelated as consumers may transfer their SKEP to their
judgment of green advertising. To build a theoretical framework for further research
on the effect of SKEP on personalized Agreen-ad, we attempted to verify the SKEP and
GSKP relationship from the Chinese consumer perspective:

H1: Consumers with higher SKEP are more skeptical of green advertising.

Agreen-ad Dimensionality and SKEP

Various instruments measuring attitude toward the ad (hereinafter Aad) have been used
to measure Agreen-ad. There have been two competing views of the structure of Aad,
unidimensional versus multidimensional (Muehling and McCann 1993). Many studies
that viewed Aad in unidimensional terms were in line with Lutz’s (1985) definition where
Aad was defined as ‘a predisposition to respond in a favorable or unfavorable manner to
a particular advertising stimulus during a particular exposure occasion’ (46) (e.g., Dens
and Pelsmacker 2010; Kim, Ratneshwar, and Thorson 2017; Kim, Baek, and Choi 2012;
Muehling, Sprott, and Sultan 2014; Sheinin, Varki, and Ashley 2011) and viewed as
‘purely affective and not consisting of a cognitive or behavioral component’ (Muehling
and McCann 1993, 26).
On the other hand, originated from Shimp’s (1981) proposition that Aad may consist
of a cognitive dimension as well as an affective dimension and they are distinct in their
impact on consumers, the multidimensional view has been adopted by a number of
studies (e.g., Batra and Ahtola 1991; Olney, Holbrook, and Batra 1991; Voss,
Spangenberg, and Grohmann 2003). Batra and Ahtola (1991) labeled the two dimen-
sions as ‘hedonic’ that measures the experiential affect and resembles the ‘entertaining’
or ‘pleasurable’ dimension, and ‘utilitarian’, which evaluates the ad on its usefulness and
relevance (also see Olney, Holbrook, and Batra 1991).
Most Agreen-ad studies have followed the unidimensional view and adopted
MacKenzie and Lutz’s (1989) Aad measure (Bickart and Ruth 2012; D’Souza and
Taghian 2005; Kong and Zhang 2013, 2014; Newell, Goldsmith, and Banzhaf 1998;
Schuhwerk and Lefkoff-Hagius 1995; Tucker et al. 2012). D’Souza and Taghian (2005)
seemed to favor the affective/cognitive multidimensional view of Agreen-ad but used
‘believable’, ‘convincing’, and ‘favorable’ to measure the cognitive dimension. Mixing the
4 J. YU

three scales measuring Aad (good, pleasant, and favorable) with two of the three scales
for another construct ad credibility (convincing and believable) used by MacKenzie and
Lutz (1989) was also found in some other studies (Kong and Zhang 2013, 2014). Matthes,
Wonneberger, and Schmuck (2014) scales are essentially the same except ‘believable’
was replaced by another similar item ‘credible’. It is worth noting that in MacKenzie and
Luts’ study (1989), Aad and ad credibility are two distinct constructs and ad credibility
was studied as an antecedent of Aad.
Not much research on the relationship of SKEP and Aad has been done, let alone
SKEP and Agreen-ad. Viewing Aad as unidimensional, Obermiller, Spangenberg, and
MacLachlan’s (2005) study, possibly the only one in this regard, assessed Aad by asking
140 participants to rate 13 print ads and reported negative effects of SKEP on Aad with
findings showing that consumers with higher SKEP liked the ads less, relied on them
less, paid less attention to them, and identified more ad claims as untruthful and false.
Indeed, it can be assumed that a person who is skeptical of advertising in general will
most likely be skeptical of the environmental claims in green ads. The reason might be
that the consumer uses his ‘general skepticism as a cue or proxy to evaluate particular
types of ads, such as green ads’ (Matthes and Wonneberger 2014, 119–120). To reflect
this assumption, a hypothesis was proposed below:

H2: SKEP exerts a negative impact on consumer Agreen-ad.

Gender Differences in GSKP and Agreen-ad

Regarding the gender effect on consumer responses to advertising, previous studies
have offered different suggestions. While an earlier review of British and American
research on attitudes toward advertising and a later empirical study suggested no
strong links between gender and advertising attitudes (Dutta-Bergman 2006;
O’Donohoe 1995), a meta-analysis of gender issues in advertising from 1970 to 2002
found that ‘gender differences in advertising responses exist’ (Wolin 2003, 111). The
research that supported the gender effect has provided contradictory findings though.
Matthes and Wonneberger (2014) found that women were more skeptical of advertis-
ing in general than men. This finding was claimed to be ‘in line with prior research’
(125), which refers to Obermiller and Spangenberg’s (2000) study. However, Obermiller
and Spangenberg only reported a significant difference between student participants’
SKEP and their mothers’ and a nonsignificant difference between students’ SKEP and
their fathers’, while it is unknown whether the difference between mothers’ and
fathers’ SKEP was significant.
In another published article, Shavitt, Lowrey, and Haefner (1998) issued contradictory
statements. In one place, they claimed that ‘on the whole, men’s and women’s attitudes
toward advertising appear largely similar’ (18) whereas on another page they stated that
‘males . . . generally reported more favorable advertising attitudes than others did’ (21).
These statements are based on their comparison of the percentages of males’ and
females’ responses to each measurement point on a 5-point scale (dislike a lot/some,
dislike a little, neither like/dislike, like a little, like a lot/some). However, without using
statistical techniques beyond the percentages, it should be difficult to draw such a
 JOURNAL OF MARKETING COMMUNICATIONS 5

conclusion. Nevertheless, even if merely based on these two groups of percentages, the
result should have been the opposite that females appeared to like advertising more
than males as the sum of ‘like a lot/some’ and ‘like a little’ for females was greater than
that for males and the sum of ‘dislike a lot/some’ and ‘dislike a little’ for females was less
than that for males.
Yet, other studies have found that women hold more positive attitudes toward
advertising then men. Bush, Smith, and Martin’s (1999) survey of college student
responses to advertising found that females had a more positive attitude toward
advertising then males across African-Americans and Caucasians. Wolburg and
Pokrywczynski (2001) found that females judged advertising more informative across
all types of media and rated television advertising considerably better than males.
Later, Berney-Reddish and Areni’s (2006) laboratory experiment showed that women
were generally more accepting of advertising claims then men. In addition, research on
green consumerism has found that compared to men, women are more concerned
about environment (e.g., Franzen and Vogl 2013; McCright 2010; Roberts 1996;
Zelezny, Chua, and Aldrich 2000). Although these studies did not directly examine
the relationship of gender and SKEP, the findings above indicate that men may be
more skeptical of advertising in general, and in turn may have higher generalized GSKP
and more negative personalized Agreen-ad.

H3: Men are (a) more skeptical of advertising in general then women, and (b) more
skeptical of green advertising as well.

H4: Men’s Agreen-ad is more negative than women’s.

H5: SKEP mediates the gender effects on (a) GSKP and (b) Agreen-ad.

The Mediation Role of Motive Attribution

The attribution theory addresses the cognitive processes through which individuals
judge the motives of others and explains how motive attribution affects subsequent
attitudes and behavior (Forehand and Grier 2003). As Forehand and Grier (2003)
reviewed, consumers draw inferences about firm motives (Boush, Friestad, and Rose
1994; Campbell and Kirmani 2000; Friestad and Wright 1994) and that in turn impacts
subsequent brand attitude, company evaluation, and purchase intentions (Campbell
1995; Campbell and Kirmani 2000; Ellen, Mohr, and Webb 2000; Forehand 2000;
Walker et al. 2010; Webb and Mohr 1998). In corporate social marketing research,
consumers have been found to attribute two primary types of motives to firms: pub-
lic-serving motives that focus on the potential public benefits and firm-serving motives
that focus on the potential benefits to the firm itself (Forehand and Grier 2003).
Particularly regarding consumer attribution of green advertising motivation (hereinafter
motive attribution), consumers may attribute the environmental claims in a green ad to
either the firm’s for-environment efforts, for-profit marketing tactics, or both with some
degree of inclination toward one of them.
Kelley’s (1972) ‘discounting principle’ describes how individuals make causal attribu-
tion when facing a behavior that has multiple possible causes. According to this theory,
6 J. YU

the effect of one possible cause on the behavior will be discounted when alternative
causes become salient. When engaging in a green ad, a consumer would attribute the
environmental claims to the firm’s for-environment efforts when the attribute of for-
profit marketing tactics is not salient. In most green advertising cases, the environmental
claims in a green ad could be perceived as benefits to both the firm and environment,
and therefore, consumers’ SKEP may play a key role in their interpretation of the green
ad. When viewing a green ad, a person with higher SKEP would enlarge the for-profit
motivation and discount the for-environment attribute in the ad message in his percep-
tion. Thus,

H6: Consumers with higher SKEP will more likely attribute the environmental claims in
the green ad to the firm’s for-profit marketing tactics rather than the firm’s for-environ-
ment efforts.

Previous research has found that when consumers attribute a firm’s marketing actions
to firm-serving motives, negative responses to the sponsoring firm often ensue
(Andreasen 1996; Drumwright 1996; Ellen, Mohr, and Webb 2000; see Forehand and
Grier 2003; Gurin 1987; Webb and Mohr 1998). One explanation is that consumers use
the existence of for-profit motives as a cue to form their attitudes toward the sponsoring
firm (Forehand and Grier 2003). An alternative explanation is that consumers respond
negatively to the sponsoring firm because they see the ad to be deceptive and
manipulative (Campbell 1995; Forehand 2000; Forehand and Grier 2003). These two
explanations can apply to the effect of motive attribution on Agreen-ad. We assumed that
when the consumer attributes the green ad to the firm’s marketing tactics, negative
attitude toward the ad ensues, whereas the person’s attribution of the ad to the firm’s
for-environment efforts will be followed by a positive attitude toward the ad. We posited
a mediating hypothesis to reflect this theorizing:

H7: Motive attribution mediates the effects of SKEP on Agreen-ad.

Study 1
Participants
The purpose of this study was to examine the relationships among gender, SKEP, and
GSKP through testing H1, H3, and H5a. Four hundred and sixty-two Chinese college
students enrolled in a large urban university located in north China participated in
this campus survey. Each of them was offered a small gift for participation. Of these
participants, 43.1% were male (n = 199) and 56.9% were female (n = 263).
Participants were very close in age as 94.2% of them fell between 18 and 21.

Measures
Mohr, Eroğlu, and Ellen’s (1998) SKEP measure was chosen over other measures because
it matches the GSKP measure that we adopted from the same researchers. All measure-
ment items are presented in Table 1 and were rated on a 7-point Likert scale, from
 JOURNAL OF MARKETING COMMUNICATIONS 7

Table 1. Exploratory factor analysis and reliability test: items, factor loadings, % of variance
explained, and internal consistency (α).
Factor loadings
Construct and measurement items Study 1 Study 2
SKEP (Mohr, Eroğlu, and Ellen 1998) (α = .75) Factor 1
Most advertising is very annoying† .64
Most advertising makes false claims† .70
If most advertising were eliminated, consumers would be better off .58
Most advertising is intended to deceive rather than inform .72
% of variance explained 57.20
GSKP (Mohr, Eroğlu, and Ellen 1998) (α = .70) Factor 1
Most green claims in advertising are intended to mislead rather than to inform .81
consumers
I do not believe most green claims made in advertising† .54
Because green claims are exaggerated, consumers would be better off if such .64
claims in advertising were eliminated
% of variance explained 62.91
SKEP (Obermiller and Spangenberg 1998) (α = .87) Factor Factor
1 2
We can depend on getting the truth in most advertising .62 .22
Advertising’s aim is to inform the consumer† .15 .71
I believe advertising is informative .41 .56
Advertising is generally truthful .65 .28
Advertising is a reliable source of information about the quality and performance .35 .57
of products†
Advertising is truth well told .70 .23
In general, advertising presents a true picture of the product being advertised .74 .30
I feel I’ve been accurately informed after viewing most advertisements .62 .44
Most advertising provides consumers with essential information† .29 .63
% of variance explained 50.16 12.08
Unidimensional Agreen-ad (Olney, Holbrook, and Batra 1991) (α = .92) Factor
1
UTTA1: Uninformative/formative† .52
UTTA2: Not useful/useful .82
UTTA3: Not important/important .83
UTTA4: Not helpful/helpful .82
HEDO1: Not entertaining/entertaining† .76
HEDO2: Not enjoyable/enjoyable .80
HEDO3: Not fun to read (or watch)/fun to read (or watch) .82
HEDO4: Unpleasant/pleasant .81
% of variance explained 65.13
NOTE: SKEP: Skepticism toward advertising in general, GSKP: green advertising skepticism, UTTA: utilitarian dimension
of Agreen-ad, and HEDO: hedonic dimension of Agreen-ad. † Initial measurement items removed from the final
measurement models.

‘completely disagree’ (1) to ‘completely agree’ (7). During the study, these items were
translated into Chinese that matched the Chinese language habit and maintained the
original meaning. As for gender, male was coded as 0 and female coded as 1. The
internal consistency for SKEP (α = .75) and for GSKP (α = .70) reached a moderate level. A
following exploratory factor analysis showed that SKEP explained 57.20% of the item
variance with factor loadings ranging from .58 to .72, and GSKP accounted for 62.91% of
the item variance with factor loadings ranging from .58 to .74. Multicollinearity was
excluded as Pearson correlation coefficients ranged from .30 to .54, and determinant of
the correlation matrix was .37.
8 J. YU

Table 2. Confirmatory factor analysis: regression coefficients (standardized, unstandardized), correla-

tions, variance extracted, construct reliability, model fit (p < .001 in all regression coefficients).
Factors used in analysis
Study 1 Study 2
Indicator MSKP GSKP SKEP UTTA HEDO Agreen-ad
MSKP1: Annoying .78, 1.09
MSKP2: False claims .66, 1.00
GSKP1: Misleading .93, 1.68
GSKP2: Better off being eliminated .55, 1.00
SKEP1: Truth source .67, .91
SKEP2: Truthful .72, .90
SKEP3: Truth well told .72, .92
SKEP4: Truth picture of products .79, .94
SKEP5: Getting informed by viewing .75, 1.00
SKEP6: Informative .60, .92
UTTA1: Not useful/Useful .79, .87 .78, .92
UTTA2: Not important/Important .85, .98 .82, 1.03
UTTA3: Not helpful/Helpful .84, 1.00 .82, 1.05
HEDO1: Not enjoyable/Enjoyable .83, 1.06 .81, 1.01
HEDO2: Not fun to read/Fun to read .85, 1.05 .84, 1.00
HEDO3: Unpleasant/Pleasant .85, 1.00 .84, .96
Correlations
GSKP .57
UTTA −.35
HEDO −.32 .93
Agreen-ad −.34
Average variance extracted .52 .58 .51 .68 .71 .67
Composite reliability .68 .72 .86 .87 .88 .92
Model fit Study 1:
SRMR = .01, GFI = 1.00, AGFI = .99, NFI = 1.00, CFI = 1.00, RMSEA = .00
Study 2 – Unidimensional Agreen-ad (UTTA and HEDO combined):
SRMR = .05, GFI = .92, AGFI = .89, NFI = .93, CFI = .98, RMSEA = .04
Study 2 – Two-dimensional Agreen-ad (UTTA and HEDO separate):
SRMR = .04, GFI = .93, AGFI = .90, NFI = .94, CFI = .99, RMSEA = .03
Note: UTTA: Utilitarian dimension of Agreen-ad; HEDO: hedonic dimension of Agreen-ad; SRMR: standardized root mean
square residual; GFI: goodness of fit index; AGFI: adjusted goodness of fit index; NFI: normed fit index;
CFI: comparative fit index; RMSEA: root mean square error of approximation.

Results
Measurement Model Validation
A confirmatory factor analysis showed that the initial measurement model did not fit the
data adequately, χ2(13) = 98.36, p < .001; SRMR = .06; GFI = .94; AGFI = .87; NFI = .90;
CFI = .91; RMSEA = .12. Modifying the model by removing three items with low
variances, as Table 2 shows, significantly improved model fit, χ2(1) = .92, p = .34;
SRMR = .01; GFI = .99; AGFI = .99; NFI = .99; CFI = 1.00; and RMSEA = .00. In the end,
SKEP was composed of two measurement statements: ‘most advertising is very annoy-
ing’, β = .78, and ‘most advertising makes false claims’, β = .66, with average variance
extracted (AVE) of .52 and composite reliability of .68. GSKP was composed of two items
as well, ‘most green claims in advertising are intended to mislead rather than to inform
consumers’, β = .93 and ‘because green claims are exaggerated, consumers would be
better off if such claims in advertising were eliminated’, β = .55, with AVE of .58 and
composite reliability of .72.
 JOURNAL OF MARKETING COMMUNICATIONS 9

Figure 1. Study 1 – Structural equation analysis: gender effect on GSKP.

Table 3. Structural equation analyses: regression coefficients (standardized, unstandardized), p,

squared multiple correlations (R2), model fit.
Study 1 Study 2
Model I Model II
Variable SKEP GSKP SKEP ATRB Agreen-ad
Total effect
Gender (−.25; −.50)*** (−.14; −.36)*** (−.21; −.49)* (.08; .26)* (.22; .51)**
SKEP (.59; .75)*** (−.38; −.52)** (−.31; −.29)**
ATRB (.22; .15)**
Direct effect
Gender (−.25; −.50)*** (.01; .02) .94 (−.21; −.49)* (.16; .37)*
SKEP (.59; .75)*** (−.38; −.52)** (−.22; −.21)*
ATRB (.22; .15)**
Indirect effects
Gender → SKEP (−.14; −.37)*** (.08; .26)* (.06; .12)*
Gender → SKEP → ATRB (.03; .06)*
SKEP → ATRB (−.12; −.12)**
R2 .06 .34 .04 .15 .18
Model fit SRMR = .02, GFI = .99, AGFI = .97, SRMR = .04, GFI = .91, AGFI = .88, NFI = .91,
NFI = .98, CFI = .99, RMSEA = .05 CFI = .98, RMSEA = .04
***p < .001; **p < .01; *p < .05.
Note: SKEP: Skepticism toward advertising in general; GSKP: green advertising skepticism; ATRB: motive
attribution; SRMR: standardized root mean square residual; GFI: goodness of fit index; AGFI: adjusted good-
ness of fit index; NFI: normed fit index; CFI: comparative fit index; RMSEA: root mean square error of
approximation.

Hypothesis Testing
Following model modification, a structural equation analysis was conducted to assess
the gender effects on SKEP and GSKP as well as the mediating effect of SKEP. The
relationships among these three variables are reflected in Figure 1. The model fit was
satisfactory, χ2(3) = 7.04, p = .07; SRMR = .02; GFI = .99; AGFI = .97; NFI = .98; CFI = .99;
RMSEA = .05. The outcomes revealed a significant positive relationship of SKEP and
GSKP, β = .59, p < .001. This finding supported H1. A significant gender difference was
found in both SKEP, β = −.25, p < .001, and GSKP, β = −.14, p < .05. Thus, H3 was
supported. The significant gender difference in GSKP was reflected on gender’s total
effect, not on its direct effect, which was nonsignificant, β = .01, p = .94. As Table 3
shows, the structural equation estimates demonstrated a significant indirect effect of
gender on GSKP through SKEP, β = −.15, p < .001, BCa CI [−.22, −.08]. Thus, H5a was
supported. The squared multiple correlations for SKEP and GSKP were .06 and .34,
respectively.
10 J. YU

Discussion
This survey revealed that consumers who are skeptical of advertising in general are
indeed skeptical of green advertising as well. While Matthes and Wonneberger’s (2014)
evidence was based on their observations of Austrian consumers’ responses, our study
offered a verification in the Chinese market. The relationship of these two constructs
could be global across different cultures. Further, the findings suggested a significant
gender effect on both SKEP and GSKP, although the effect on SKEP was moderate
explaining only 6% of the variance of SKEP. The results indicated that men are more
skeptical of both advertising in general and green advertising than women and SKEP
mediates the gender effect on GSKP. This finding offers some insight explaining the
gender difference in GSKP, i.e., men are more skeptical of green advertising then women
because men are more skeptical of advertising in general.

Study 2
Participants and Study Procedure
Progressing from generalized GSKP, the second study was to examine the impact of
these two predictors on personalized Agreen-ad and to further investigate how SKEP
affects Agreen-ad by introducing motive attribution as a mediator. H2, H4, H5b, H6, and
H7 were tested in Study 2. The data for analysis were collected from a laboratory
experiment that served multiple research purposes. One hundred and thirty-six students
enrolled in a small college located in eastern China participated in the experiment. They
were offered monetary incentives for their participation. The college focuses on tech-
nology training and a majority of its student population is male. The gender composi-
tion was reflected on the study participation: 75.7% of the participants were male
(n = 103) and 24.3% were female (n = 33). The study followed a two-step procedure.
First, participants took a paper-based survey to assess their SKEP when signing in for
their participation. A week later, the second part of the study was conducted in a
laboratory setting including a computer-based ad presentation followed by a compu-
ter-based survey to measure Agreen-ad. The measurement items were translated into
Chinese literally to match the Chinese participants’ need but maintain the original
meaning of the items in the meantime.

Ad Stimulus
A full-page, four-color print advertisement containing environmental claims in
Chinese was created for a fictitious shampoo brand ‘Botanature’. The slogan for
this ad was ‘Natural herbal shampoo: Let’s protect every drop of water on earth’.
In the body copy, the ad claimed that the product is made from natural herbal
ingredients and contains absolutely no triclosan, an antimicrobial ingredient that is
commonly used to make shampoos that pollute water. It also claimed that the
company donates 1% of the product sales to a national social cause that is dedicated
to water protection in China.
The ad claims are ambiguous in nature as they are subject to multiple interpreta-
tions: For-environment efforts, for-profit marketing tactics, or somewhere between
 JOURNAL OF MARKETING COMMUNICATIONS 11

these two constructs (Higgins 1996). Ambiguous stimulus information about a beha-
vioral description has been commonly used in attitude accessibility and priming
research such as the ambiguous ‘persistent/stubborn’ description used in Higgins,
Rholes, and Jones’ (1977) study. In marketing research, ambiguous product informa-
tion is often used to examine the priming effect on consumer interpretation of product
features (e.g., Shen and Chen 2007; Yi 1993).

Variables and Measures

SKEP and Gender
Obermiller and Spangerberg’s (1998) unidimensional scales consisting of nine items
were employed. Items were scored on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from completely
disagree (1) to completely agree (7). The internal consistency of the measure was
acceptable, α = .87. An exploratory factor analysis using the principal-axis factor extrac-
tion was conducted to determine the factor structure of SKEP. Based on the scree plot,
two factors were rotated using Varimax rotation procedure. The rotated solution, as
shown in Table 1, unexpectedly yielded two factors, the first accounting for 50.16% of
the item variance and the second 12.08%. Correlation coefficients ranged from .23 to .59
and determinant of the correlation matrix was .02. Thus, multicollinearity was not a
concern. On the basis of the factor loadings, instead of the original nine items, six were
selected to compose the measure of SKEP to fit the data. The internal consistency of the
new measure was acceptable, α = .85. Male was coded as 0 and female as 1.

Agreen-ad
Olney, Holbrook, and Batra’s (1991) measures of the utilitarian and hedonic dimensions
were employed. Each was measured by assessment of four items on 7-point semantic
differential scales. The items used to measure the hedonic dimension were ‘entertain-
ing’, ‘enjoyable’, ‘fun to read’, and ‘pleasant’. The utilitarian dimension’s items included
‘informative’, ‘useful’, ‘important’, and ‘helpful’. An exploratory factor analysis using
principal-axis extraction was performed to determine the dimensionality of Agreen-ad.
The scree plot did not support the assumption of multidimensionality as the analysis
yielded only one factor combining all items. The factor accounted for 65.13% of the item
variance with factor loadings from .58 to .85. Thus, the unidimensional Agreen-ad combin-
ing the two dimensions was examined as the dependent variable in the hypothesis
testing model, and the internal consistency of the eight items was good, α = .92.
Meanwhile, considering that the items we adopted are based on Olney, Holbrook, and
Batra (1991) multidimensional view, the two dimensions were also included in two
follow-up testing models and examined as separate dependent variables in parallel
with the unidimensional Agreen-ad. The internal consistency was .85 for the utilitarian
dimension and .89 for the hedonic dimension.

Motive Attribution
Immediately following their exposure to the ad stimulus, participants were asked to
write one sentence to answer an open-ended question ‘why the company calls for water
protection in this ad?’ to assess the motive behind the ad claim. This technique has been
commonly used in previous studies of causal attribution (e.g., Forehand and Grier 2003;
12 J. YU

Harvey and Weary 1984; Wong and Weiner 1981). One hundred and thirty-six responses
in total were collected. A separate group of six judges who neither participated in the
study nor knew the study purpose judged the responses on a scale from ‘marketing
tactics only’ (1) through ‘mostly marketing tactics’ (2), ‘about half marketing and half
environment protection’ (3), and ‘mostly environment protection’ (4) to ‘environment
protection only’ (5). This continuum indicates the participants’ inclination toward these
two attributes of green advertising motivation. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC)
using a two-factor mixed effects model and absolute agreement type was computed
(McGraw and Wong 1996; Shrout and Fleiss 1979). An acceptable degree of reliability
was found among motive attribution measures. The single measure ICC (3,6) was .85
with a 95% CI [.81, .88].

Results
Measurement Model Validation
Two measurement models were tested for further separate analyses, one containing
SKEP and the unidimensional Agreen-ad and the other consisting of SKEP and the two
separate dimensions of Agreen-ad. A confirmatory factor analysis for the first model
showed that model fit was unsatisfactory, χ2(76) = 108.35, p < .01; SRMR = .05;
GFI = .89; AGFI = .85; NFI = .90; CFI = .97; and RMSEA = .06. To modify the model, two
items with the lowest variances were dropped off the measure including ‘informative’,
R2 = .26, and ‘entertaining’, R2 = .56. Table 2 shows the remaining six items with
standardized regression coefficients ranging from .78 to .84. The modified model fitted
the data well, χ2(53) = 66.63, p < .01; SRMR = .05; GFI = .92; AGFI = .89; NFI = .93; CFI = .99;
and RMSEA = .04. The AVEs for SKEP and unidimensional Agreen-ad were .51 and .67, and
the composite reliability values were .86 and .92, respectively.
The second measurement model did not fit the data initially, χ2(74) = 97.80, p < .05;
GFI = .90; AGFI = .86; NFI = .91; CFI = .98; and RMSEA = .05. To reach a satisfactory level,
one utilitarian item, ‘formative’, was dropped due to its low variance, R2 = .29. As Table 2
shows, three items remained with regression coefficients of .79, .85, and .84. One
hedonic item with the lowest variance, R2 = .55, ‘entertaining’ was removed from the
original measure. The regression coefficients for the three remaining items were .83, .85,
and .85, respectively. As a result, model fit was satisfactory, χ2(51) = 56.76, p = .27;
SRMR = .04; GFI = .93; AGFI = .90; NFI = .94; CFI = .99; RMSEA = .03. The AVEs for
SKEP, utilitarian Agreen-ad, and hedonic Agreen-ad were .51, .68, and .71, and the com-
posite reliability values for these latent variables were .86, .87, and .88, respectively.

Hypothesis Testing
A structural equation analysis was conducted to examine the effects of gender and SKEP
on the unidimensional Agreen-ad. Figure 2 shows the theoretical structure of this testing
model. The model well fitted the data, χ2(74) = 89.32, p = .11; SRMR = .05; GFI = .91;
AGFI = .88; NFI = .91; CFI = .98; RMSEA = .04. The squared multiple correlations for SKEP,
UTRB, and Agreen-ad were .04, .15, and .18, respectively. As Table 3 shows, the outcomes
suggested a significant gender effect on the unidimensional Agreen-ad, both in total,
β = .22, p < .01, and directly, β = .16, p < .05. Females held more positive Agreen-ad than
males. H4 was supported. A significant gender difference in SKEP was found again,
 JOURNAL OF MARKETING COMMUNICATIONS 13

Figure 2. Study 2 – Structural equation analysis: effects of gender, skepticism toward advertising in
general, motive attribution on Agreen-ad.

β = −.21, p < .05. H2 was also supported as SKEP was found to significantly negatively
impact Agreen-ad, both directly, β = −.22, p < .05, and in total, β = −.31, p < .01. The
analysis further found a significant indirect effect of gender on Agreen-ad through SKEP,
β = .06, p < .05, BCa CI [.01, .13]. These findings supported H5b, i.e., SKEP mediates the
gender effect on the unidimensional Agreen-ad. Furthermore, H6 and H7 were supported
as the result suggested a significant direct effect of SKEP on ATRB, β = −.38, p < .01, a
significant direct effect of ATRB on Agreen-ad, β = .22, p < .01, and significant indirect
effect of SKEP on Agreen-ad through ATRB, β = −.12, p < .01, BCa CI [−.20, −.06].
Two similar follow-up structural equation analyses were performed to examine the
effects on the two separate dimensions of Agreen-ad. The results showed that the effects
were similar to those found in the first analysis for the unidimensional Agreen-ad. One
notable difference was that gender was found to have a significant effect on the
unidimensional Agreen-ad in the first analysis and a significant effect on the utilitarian
dimension in the second analysis, β = .19, p < .05, but no significant direct effect on the
hedonic dimension in the third analysis, β = .13, p = .10. Another salient difference came
from the variances of the dependent variables explained by the same set of predictors.
The variances of the unidimensional Agreen-ad, the utilitarian dimension, and the hedonic
dimension were .18, .20, and .15, respectively.

Discussion
Study 2 further provided evidence supporting the gender effect on consumer responses
to green advertising and the results indicated that women have more positive Agreen-ad
than men. Such a gender effect may be explained by the gender difference in SKEP as
SKEP was found to mediate the gender effect on the unidimensional Agreen-ad, the
utilitarian dimension, and the hedonic dimension. In addition, this study suggested
that beyond consumers’ generalized GSKP, consumers’ SKEP can influence their perso-
nalized attitudes toward green ads as well. The empirical evidence of the mediating
effect of motive attribution explains the mechanism of how SKEP exerts a positive
impact on Agreen-ad. Someone with higher SKEP will be more likely to attribute the
environmental claims in a green ad to for-profit marketing tactics rather than for-
environment efforts and, in turn, will have a more negative Agreen-ad. The construct of
Agreen-ad in this study was found unidimensional. However, the follow-up analyses
indicated that there might be some differences between the effects of gender and
14 J. YU

SKEP on the utilitarian dimension and on the hedonic dimension, even in such a
situation where Agreen-ad was diagnosed as unidimensional. It seems that compared to
hedonic Agreen-ad, utilitarian Agreen-ad is more vulnerable to the impact of gender and
SKEP.

General Discussion
Most prior studies of consumer characteristics affecting consumer responses toward
green advertising focused on the ‘green’ aspect or green consumerism whereas there
has been a lack of attention to the ‘advertising’ aspect or consumer SKEP. The current
studies filled the gap by offering a verification of the SKEP and GSKP relationship in the
Chinese market, empirical evidence supporting the gender and SKEP effects on Agreen-ad,
and mediation models to explain the mechanism of how gender and SKEP affect
Agreen-ad.

Theoretical Implications
Previous Agreen-ad studies simply employed the established measures of Aad without
testing its dimensionality, yet we found the construct unidimensional in our case. The
dimensionality of Agreen-ad seems not to be global across different studies. Indeed, it is
hard to reason that when viewing an ad, consumers will always trigger a unidimensional
attitude toward the ad or will always generate clearly separate cognitive and affective
reactions. Ad content, consumer characteristics, and situational factors may determine
the dimensionality. Nevertheless, when an ad triggers separate utilitarian and hedonic
attitudes, it is likely that their antecedents and consequences are different. For example,
Study 2 gives a hint that gender and SKEP may exert more powerful impact on the
utilitarian than the hedonic dimension. SKEP is essentially a consumer belief but nega-
tive feelings may come along when SKEP is activated toward specific ad claims, espe-
cially when the consumer’s disbelief of the environmental claims is substantial enough
to arouse a feeling of being deceived or cheated.
On the other hand, an individual’s negative feelings arising from SKEP may not
manifest when an individual is pleased by the ad elements such as humor or music
overwhelmingly. Yet, if the ad is primarily informational, then the consumer’ liking of the
ad should be affected by his SKEP. Indeed, it has been found that consumers with higher
SKEP respond more positively to emotional ad appeals than informational ad appeals
(Obermiller, Spangenberg, and MacLachlan 2005). However, when cognitive information
processing dominates, the SKEP effect on Agreen-ad might be explained by consumer
attribution of the green ad motivation. The mediation analysis suggested that SKEP
negatively affects how the consumer attributes the motive of the environmental claims,
which in turn positively influences his Agreen-ad. Consumers with higher SKEP are more
likely to apply for-profit attribution, which leads to a negative evaluation of the useful-
ness of the ad and sometimes negative emotional reactions as well.
This research also shed some light on gender’s role in green advertising effectiveness
by revealing significant gender differences in SKEP, GSKP, and Agreen-ad. Compared to
men, women were more pleased by the green ad and think the ad more useful,
important, and helpful. The gender differences might be explained by the finding in
 JOURNAL OF MARKETING COMMUNICATIONS 15

gender research that females have greater linguistic skills and often have a lower
threshold for message cue elaboration, hence may have greater access to the implica-
tions of message cues, and, as a consequence, may process and therefore base their
judgments on more of the persuasive supporting arguments (Meyers-Levy 1989; Meyers-
Levy and Sternthal 1991). In the case of this research, females may get more information
cues from the green ad, elaborate more on the environmental claims, and, therefore,
form more positive attitudes toward the green ad. This theorizing also explains the
research finding in Study 2 that gender’s direct effect was not significant on the hedonic
dimension but significant on the utilitarian dimension.

Practical Implications
SKEP was found to have a significant effect on Agreen-ad mediated by motive attribution.
While it may be difficult to change a person’s SKEP, but it is likely to lead the person’s
attribution of the green ad motivation in the direction that the ad sponsor wishes. For
example, placing a green ad in a context with some relevant articles covering environ-
mental issues may improve the reader’s Agreen-ad, as such contextual priming may help
activate the for-environment rather than the for-profit attribute in the reader’s mind
when judging the green ad. Another practical implication is regarding the gender effect.
This research found that women are less skeptical of advertising in general and have
more positive Agreen-ad and that the direct effect of gender was significant on the
utilitarian dimension but not significant on the hedonic dimension. This finding suggests
importance of matching advertising message development to targeting strategy. When
targeting women consumers, making the green ad more informational and enhancing
the strength, readability, and understandability of the arguments in the ad message may
help increase the ad effectiveness.

Limitations and Future Research

Several limitations were recognized in spite of the research significance. While multi-
dimensionality of Agreen-ad was an initial research interest of Study 2, Agreen-ad was
diagnosed as unidimensional by a factor analysis, which imposed a limit on our attempt
to statistically compare the gender and SKEP effects on these dimensions. This might be
due to the stimulus design issue as the ad was essentially an informational print ad with
mediocre visual elements and layout. The dimensionality of Agreen-ad may be manipu-
lated in future studies. Having unequal gender sample sizes in Study 2 is another
limitation due to the risk of increasing the type II error and underestimating the
statistical power (Kaplan and George 1995), even though significant gender differences
were still detected.
In view of the inconsistent findings in literature, we are aware that the gender and
SKEP effects may vary from case to case. Further investigation of the moderating factors
such as environmental concern and involvement may be necessary for future research.
More environmental concerned consumers have been found to be less skeptical of
environmental claims featured in the green ad (e.g., Matthes and Wonneberger 2014).
Environmental concern is also related to the gender effect on Agreen-ad as research has
found that women are more concerned about environmental issues then men (e.g.,
16 J. YU

Davidson and Freudenberg 1996; Mohai 1992; Riechard and Peterson 1998; Stern 1992)
and, as a consequence, may support environmental claims and therefore form positive
Agreen-ad. Involvement might also affect Agreen-ad. According to the Elaboration Likely
Model (Petty and Cacioppo 1986), if ad message involvement is high, then the consumer
will take the central route in information processing and elaborate the environmental
claims, actively attribute the company’s motive of the green ad, and form information-
based judgment of the ad. Product involvement could bias the gender effect on Agreen-
ad. The nature of the product in the ad may influence message processing. The product
in the ad stimulus was shampoo so women might pay more attention to ad and hence
may be influenced more by the environmental claims.
In addition, as a growing number of countries are enacting guidelines for green
marketing, future studies might also consider the possible impact of government
regulation on green advertising skepticism. An international survey conducted by The
Global Advertising Lawyers Alliance (GALA 2014) demonstrates a worldwide trend
toward increased regulation of green marketing, showing 54% of the countries surveyed
had legal or self-regulatory challenges to environmental claims and 15% released new
green advertising rules. It is reasonable to assume that the government regulations may
help keep green marketers honest and responsible when touting their ‘greenness’ and,
in turn, promote green advertising trustworthiness in consumers’ perception and there-
fore reduce consumer skepticism of green advertising in general.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes on contributor
Jason Yu (Ph.D., The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) is an Associate Professor in the
Department of Mass Communications at Southern Illinois University Edwardsville. His research
interests include advertising effects, consumer information processing, and communication-
related consumer behavior.

ORCID
Jason Yu http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5397-4843

References
Andreasen, A. R. 1996. “Profits for Nonprofits: Find a Corporate Parter.” Harvard Business Review 74
(6): 47–59.
Batra, R., and O. T. Ahtola. 1991. “Measuring the Hedonic Utilitarian Sources of Consumer
Attitudes.” Marketing Letters 2 (2): 159–170. doi:10.1007/BF00436035.
Berney-Reddish, I. A., and C. S. Areni. 2006. “Sex Differences in Responses to Probability Markers in
Advertising Claims.” Journal of Advertising 35 (2): 7–16. doi:10.1080/00913367.2006.10639228.
Bickart, B., and J. A. Ruth. 2012. “Green Eco-Seals and Advertising Persuasion.” Journal of
Advertising 41 (4): 51–67. doi:10.1080/00913367.2012.10672457.
 JOURNAL OF MARKETING COMMUNICATIONS 17

Boush, D. M., M. Friestad, and G. M. Rose. 1994. “Adolescen Skepticism toward TV Advertising and
Knowledge of Advertiser Tactics.” Journal of Consumer Research 21 (1): 165–175. doi:10.1086/
209390.
Bush, A. J., R. Smith, and C. Martin. 1999. “The Influence of Consumer Socialization Variables on
Attitude toward Advertising: A Comparison of African-Americans and Caucasians.” Journal of
Advertising 28 (3): 13–24. doi:10.1080/00913367.1999.10673586.
Campbell, M. 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. doi:10.1207/s15327663jcp0403_02.
Campbell, M., and A. Kirmani. 2000. “Consumers’ Use of Persuasion Knowledge: The Effects of
Accessibility and Cognitive Capacity on Perceptions of an Influence Agent.” Journal of Consumer
Research 27 (1): 69–83. doi:10.1086/314309.
D’Souza, C., and M. Taghian. 2005. “Green Advertising Effects on Attitude and Choice of
Advertising Themes.” Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics 17 (3): 51–66. doi:10.1108/
13555850510672386.
Davidson, D., and W. Freudenberg. 1996. “Gender and Environmental Risk Concerns: A Review and
Analysis of Available Research.” Environment and Behavior 28: 302–339. doi:10.1177/
0013916596283003.
Dens, N., and P. D. Pelsmacker. 2010. “Attitude toward the Extension and Parent Brand in Response
to Extension Advertising.” Journal of Business Research 63 (11): 1237–1244. doi:10.1016/j.
jbusres.2009.11.004.
Drumwright, M. E. 1996. “Company Advertising with a Social Dimension: The Role of Noneconomic
Criteria.” Journal of Marketing 60: 71–87. doi:10.2307/1251902.
Dutta-Bergman, M. J. 2006. “The Demographic and Psychographic Antecedents of Attitude toward
Advertising.” Journal of Advertising Research 46 (1): 102–112. doi:10.2501/S0021849906060119.
Ellen, P. S., L. A. Mohr, and D. J. Webb. 2000. “Charitable Programs and the Retailer: Do They Mix?”
Journal of Retailing 76 (3): 393–406. doi:10.1016/S0022-4359(00)00032-4.
Finisterra Do Paço, A. M., and R. Reis. 2012. “Factors Affecting Skepticism toward Green
Advertising.” Journal of Advertising 41 (4): 147–155. doi:10.1080/00913367.2012.10672463.
Forehand, M. R. 2000. “Extending Overjustification: The Effects of Perceived Reward-Giver Intention
on Response to Rewards.” Journal of Applied Psychology 85: 919–931.
Forehand, M. R., and S. Grier. 2003. “When Is Honesty the Best Polity? the Effect of Stated Company
Intent on Consumer Skepticism.” Journal of Consumer Psychology 13 (3): 349–356. doi:10.1207/
S15327663JCP1303_15.
Fowler, A. R. I., and A. G. Close. 2012. “It Ain’t Easy Being Green. Macro, Meso, and Micro Green
Advertising Agendas.” Journal of Advertising 41 (4): 119–132. doi:10.1080/00913367.
2012.10672461.
Franzen, A., and D. Vogl. 2013. “Two Decades of Measuring Environmental Attitudes: A
Comparative Analysis of 33 Countries.” Global Environmental Change 23 (5): 1001–1008.
doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.03.009.
Friestad, M., and P. Wright. 1994. “The Persuasion Knowledge Model: How People Cope with
Persuasion Attempts.” Journal of Consumer Research 21 (1): 1–31. doi:10.1086/jcr.1994.21.
issue-1.
GALA. 2014. Green Marketing: A Global Legal Perspective. US: CreateSpace Independent Publishing
Platform.
Gurin, M. G. 1987. “Cause-Related Marketing in Question.” Advertising Age. 58: S–16. July 27.
Hartmann, P., and V. Apaolaza-Ibáñez. 2010. “Beyond Savanna: An Evolutionary and Environmental
Psychology Approach to Behavioral Effects of Nature Scenery in Green Advertising.” Journal of
Environmental Psychology 30 (1): 119–128. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.10.001.
Harvey, J. H., and G. Weary. 1984. “Current Issues in Attribution Theory and Research.” Annual
Review of Psychology 35: 259–427. doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.35.020184.002235.
Helm, A. E., J. G. Moulard, and M. Richins. 2015. “Consumer Cynicism: Developing a Scale to
Measure Underlying Attitudes Influencing Marketplace Shaping and Withdrawal Behaviors.”
International Journal of Consumer Studies 39 (5): 515–524. doi:10.1111/ijcs.12191.
18 J. YU

Higgins, E. T. 1996. “Knowledge Activation: Accessibility, Applicability, and Salience.” In Social

Psychology: Hangbook of Basic Principles, edited by E. T. Higgins and A. W. Kruglanski, 133–
168. New York: Guilford.
Higgins, E. T., W. S. Rholes, and C. R. Jones. 1977. “Category Accessibility and Impression
Formation.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 13: 141–154. doi:10.1016/S0022-1031(77)
80007-3.
Kaplan, D., and R. George. 1995. “A Study of the Power Associated with Testing Factor Mean
Differences under Violations of Factorial Invariance.” Structural Equation Modeling: A
Multidisciplinary Journal 2 (2): 101–118. doi:10.1080/10705519509539999.
Kelley, H. H. 1972. “Causal Schemata and the Attribution Process.” In Attribution: Perceiving the
Causes of Behavior, edited by E. E. Jones, D. E. Kanouse, H. H. Kelley, R. E. Nisbett, S. Valins, and B.
Weiner. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.
Kim, E. A., S. Ratneshwar, and E. Thorson. 2017. “Why Narrative Ads Work: An Integrated Process
Explanation.” Journal of Advertising 46 (2): 283–296. doi:10.1080/00913367.2016.1268984.
Kim, J., Y. Baek, and Y. H. Choi. 2012. “The Structural Effects of Metaphor-Elicited Cognitive and
Affective Elaboration Levels on Attitude toward the Ad.” Journal of Advertising 41 (2): 77–96.
doi:10.2753/JOA0091-3367410206.
Kong, Y., and A. Zhang. 2013. “Consumer Response to Green Advertising: The Influence of Product
Involvement.” Asian Journal of Communication 23 (4): 428–447. doi:10.1080/01292986.
2013.774433.
Kong, Y., and L. Zhang. 2014. “When Does Green Advertising Work? the Moderating Role of
Product Type.” Journal of Marketing Communications 20 (3): 197–213. doi:10.1080/
13527266.2012.672335.
Leonidou, C. N., and D. Skarmeas. 2017. “Gray Shades of Green: Causes and Consequences of
Green Skepticism.” Journal of Business Ethics 144 (2): 401–415. doi:10.1007/s10551-015-2829-4.
Lutz, R. J. 1985. “Affective and Cognitive Antecedents of Attitude toward the Ad: A Conceptual
Framework.” In Psychological Processes and Advertising Effects: Theory, Research and Application,
edited by L. F. Alwitt and A. A. Mitchell, 45–63. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
MacKenzie, S. B., and R. J. Lutz. 1989. “An Empirical Examination of the Structural Antecedents of
Attitude toward the Ad in an Advertising Pretesting Context.” Journal of Marketing 53 (2): 48–65.
doi:10.2307/1251413.
Matthes, J., and A. Wonneberger. 2014. “The Skeptical Green Consumer Revisited: Testing the
Relationship between Green Consumerism and Skepticism toward Advertising.” Journal of
Advertising 43 (2): 115–127. doi:10.1080/00913367.2013.834804.
Matthes, J., A. Wonneberger, and D. Schmuck. 2014. “Consumers’ Green Involvement and the
Persuasive Effects of Emotional versus Functional Ads.” Journal of Business Research 67 (9):
1885–1893. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.11.054.
McCright, A. M. 2010. “The Effects of Gender on Climate Change Knowledge and Concern in the
American Public.” Population and Environment 32 (1): 66–87. doi:10.1007/s11111-010-0113-1.
McGraw, K. O., and S. P. Wong. 1996. “Forming Inferences about Some Intraclass Correlation
Coefficients.” Psychological Methods 1: 30–46. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.1.1.30.
Meyers-Levy, J. 1989. “Gender Differences in Information Processing: A Selectivity Interpretation.”
In Cognitive and Affective Responses to Advertising, edited by P. Cafferata and A. M. Tybout.
Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Meyers-Levy, J., and B. Sternthal. 1991. “Gender Differences in the Use of Message Cues and
Judgments.” Journal of Marketing Research 28 (1): 84–96. doi:10.2307/3172728.
Mohai, P. 1992. “Men, Women, and the Environment: An Examination of the Gender Gap in
Environmental Concern and Activisim.” Society and Natural Resources 5: 1–19. doi:10.1080/
08941929209380772.
Mohr, L. A., D. Eroğlu, and S. P. Ellen. 1998. “The Development and Testing of a Measure of
Skepticism toward Environment Claims in the Marketers’ Communications.” The Journal of
Consumer Affairs 32 (1): 30–55. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6606.1998.tb00399.x.
Muehling, D. D., and M. McCann. 1993. “Attitude toward the Ad: A Review.” Journal of Current
Issues and Research in Advertising 15 (2): 25–58. doi:10.1080/10641734.1993.10505002.
 JOURNAL OF MARKETING COMMUNICATIONS 19

Muehling, D. D., D. E. Sprott, and A. J. Sultan. 2014. “Exploring the Boundaries of Nostalgic
Advertising Effects: A Consideration of Childhood Brand Exposure and Attachment on
Consumers’ Responses to Nostalgia-Themed Advertisements.” Journal of Advertising 43 (1):
73–84. doi:10.1080/00913367.2013.815110.
Newell, S. J., R. E. Goldsmith, and E. J. Banzhaf. 1998. “The Effect of Misleading Environmental
Claims on Consumer Perceptions of Advertisements.” Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice 6
(2): 48–59. doi:10.1080/10696679.1998.11501795.
O’Donohoe, S. 1995. “Attitudes to Advertising: A Review of British and American Research.”
International Journal of Advertising 14 (3): 245–261. doi:10.1080/02650487.1995.11104615.
Obermiller, C., and E. R. Spangenberg. 1998. “Development of a Scale to Measure Consumer
Skepticism toward Advertising.” Journal of Consumer Psychology 7 (2): 159–186. doi:10.1207/
s15327663jcp0702_03.
Obermiller, C., and E. R. Spangenberg. 2000. “On the Origin and Distinctness of Skepticism toward
Advertising.” Marketing Letters 11 (4): 311–322. doi:10.1023/A:1008181028040.
Obermiller, C., E. R. Spangenberg, and D. L. MacLachlan. 2005. “Ad Skepticism: The Consequences
of Desblief.” Journal of Advertising 34 (3): 7–17. doi:10.1080/00913367.2005.10639199.
Olney, T. J., M. B. Holbrook, and R. Batra. 1991. “Consumer Responses to Advertising: The Effects of
Ad Content, Emotions, and Attitude toward the Ad on Viewing Time.” Journal of Consumer
Research 17 (4): 440–453. doi:10.1086/jcr.1991.17.issue-4.
Papyrina, V. 2015. “Men and Women Watching and Reading: Gender and Information Processing
Opportunity Effects in Advertising.” Journal of Marketing Communications 21 (2): 125–143.
doi:10.1080/13527266.2012.731423.
Parguel, B., F. Benoît-Moreau, and F. Larceneux. 2011. “How Sustainability Ratings Might Deter
“Greenwashing”: A Closer Look at Ethical Corporate Communication.” Journal of Business Ethics
102 (1): 15–28. doi:10.1007/s10551-011-0901-2.
Petty, R. E., and J. T. Cacioppo. 1986. Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes
to Attitude Change. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Riechard, D., and S. Peterson. 1998. “Perception of Environmental Risk Related to Gender,
Community Socioeconomic Setting, Age, and Locus of Control.” Journal of Environmental
Education 30: 11–19. doi:10.1080/00958969809601858.
Roberts, J. A. 1996. “Green Consumers in the 1990s: Profile and Implications for Advertising.”
Journal of Business Research 36 (3): 217–231. doi:10.1016/0148-2963(95)00150-6.
Schuhwerk, M. E., and R. Lefkoff-Hagius. 1995. “Green or Non-Green? Does Type of Appeal Matter
When Advertising a Green Product?” Journal of Advertising 24 (2): 45–54. doi:10.1080/
00913367.1995.10673475.
Shavitt, S., P. Lowrey, and J. Haefner. 1998. “Public Attitudes toward Advertising: More Favorable
than You Might Think.” Journal of Advertising Research 38 (4): 7–22.
Sheehan, K., and L. Atkinson. 2012. “Revisiting Green Advertising and the Reluctant Consumer.”
Journal of Advertising 41 (4): 5–7. doi:10.1080/00913367.2012.10672453.
Sheinin, D. A., S. Varki, and C. Ashley. 2011. “The Differential Effect of Ad Novelty and Message
Usefulness on Brand Judgments.” Journal of Advertising 40 (3): 5–18. doi:10.2753/JOA0091-
3367400301.
Shen, F., and Q. Chen. 2007. “Contextual Priming and Applicability: Implications for Ad Attitude
and Brand Evaluations.” Journal of Advertising 36 (1): 69–80. doi:10.2753/JOA0091-3367360105.
Shimp, T. A. 1981. “Attitude toward the Ad as a Mediator of Consumer Brand Choice.” Journal of
Advertising 10 (2): 9–15. doi:10.1080/00913367.1981.10672756.
Shrout, P. E., and J. L. Fleiss. 1979. “Intraclass Correlation: Uses in Assessing Reliability.”
Psychological Bulletin 86: 420–428.
Shrum, L. J., J. A. McCarty, and T. M. Lowrey. 1995. “Buyer Characteristics of the Green Consumer
and Their Implications for Advertising Strategy.” Journal of Advertising 24 (2): 71–82.
doi:10.1080/00913367.1995.10673477.
Stern, P. 1992. “What Psychology Knows about Energy Conservation.” American Psychologist 47:
1224–1232. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.47.10.1224.
20 J. YU

Tucker, E. M., N. J. Rifon, E. M. Lee, and B. B. Reece. 2012. “Consumer Receptivity to Green Ads: A
Test of Green Claim Types and the Role of Individual Consumer Characteristics for Green Ad
Response.” Journal of Advertising 41 (4): 9–23. doi:10.1080/00913367.2012.10672454.
Voight, J. (2013). “Green Is the New Black: Levi’s, Nike among Marketers Pushing Sustainability.”
Adweek, http://www.adweek.com/news/advertising-branding/green-new-black-levi-s-nike-
among-marketers-pushing-sustainability-153318
Voss, K. E., E. R. Spangenberg, and B. Grohmann. 2003. “Measuring the Hedonic and Utilitarian
Dimensions of Consumer Attitude.” Journal of Marketing Research 40 (3): 310–320. doi:10.1509/
jmkr.40.3.310.19238.
Walker, M., B. Heere, M. Parent, and D. Drane. 2010. “Social Responsibility and the Olympic Games:
The Mediating Role of Consumer Attributions.” Journal of Business Ethics 95 (4): 659–680.
doi:10.1007/s10551-010-0445-x.
Webb, J. D., and L. A. Mohr. 1998. “A Typology of Customers’ Responses to Cause Related
Marketing: From Skeptics to Socially Concerned.” Journal of Public Policy and Marketing 17 (2):
226–239.
Wolburg, J. M., and J. Pokrywczynski. 2001. “A Psychographic Analysis of Generation Y College
Students.” Journal of Advertising Research 41 (5): 33–52. doi:10.2501/JAR-41-5-33-52.
Wolin, L. D. 2003. “Gender Issues in Advertising - an Oversight Synthesis of Research: 19702002.”
Journal of Advertising Research 43 (1): 111–129. doi:10.1017/S0021849903030125.
Wong, P. T. P., and B. Weiner. 1981. “When People Ask “Why” Questions, and the Heuristics of
Attibutional Research.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 40: 650–663. doi:10.1037/
0022-3514.40.4.650.
Yang, C.-M., and T.-F. Hsu. 2017. “Effects of Skepticism about Corporate Social Responsibility
Advertising on Consumer Attitude.” Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal 45
(3): 453–468. doi:10.2224/sbp.5788.
Yi, Y. 1993. “Contextual Priming Effects in Print Advertisements: The Moderating Role of Prior
Knowledge.” Journal of Advertising 22 (1): 1–10. doi:10.1080/00913367.1993.10673391.
Zelezny, L. C., -P.-P. Chua, and C. Aldrich. 2000. “Elaborating on Gender Differences in
Environmentalism.” Journal of Social Issues 56 (3): 443–457. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00177.