The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0309-0566.htm

Factors predicting the

effectiveness of celebrity
endorsement advertisements
David H. Silvera and Benedikte Austad
University of Troms, Troms, Norway

Celebrity
endorsement
advertisements
1509
Received February 2003
Revised September 2003

Keywords Product endorsement, Advertising, Social attitudes

Abstract This research examines whether consumers infer that celebrity endorsers like the
products they endorse, and presents a model using these inferences and other characteristics of the
endorser to predict attitudes toward the endorsed product. Participants in two experiments
examined written endorsement advertisements and were asked to infer the extent to which the
endorser truly liked the advertised product and to rate the endorsers attractiveness, similarity to
themselves, and knowledge of the product. Attitudes toward the advertisement, the endorser and
the product were also measured. The resulting model indicated that product attitudes were
predicted by inferences about the endorsers liking for the product and by attitudes toward the
endorser.

Introduction
A recent estimate indicates that approximately 25 percent of American commercials
use celebrity endorsers (Shimp, 2000). In support of this practice, research indicates
that celebrity endorsements can result in more favorable advertisement ratings and
product evaluations (Dean and Biswas, 2001) and can have a substantial positive
impact on financial returns for the companies that use them (Erdogan, 2001). One
possible explanation for the effectiveness of celebrity endorsers is that consumers tend
to believe that major stars are motivated by genuine affection for the product rather
than by endorsement fees (Atkin and Block, 1983). Freiden (1984) concluded that
celebrities are particularly effective endorsers because they are viewed as highly
trustworthy, believable, persuasive, and likeable. Although these results unequivocally
support the use of celebrity endorsers, other research suggests that celebrity
endorsements might vary in effectiveness depending on other factors like the fit
between the celebrity and the advertised product (Till and Shimp, 1998). The objectives
of the present research were to examine factors that influence celebrity endorsement
effectiveness and to develop a model predicting the effectiveness of celebrity
endorsements.
Attribution theory and endorsement effectiveness
Although past research documents a general tendency for consumers to believe in the
purity of the motives of celebrity endorsers, it is likely that this tendency varies
substantially both across consumers and across endorsers. For example, Tripp et al.
We thank Doug Krull and Bas Verplanken for their comments on an earlier version of this
manuscript. This research was partly supported by the Norwegian Research Council, and we
thank them for their assistance.

European Journal of Marketing

Vol. 38 No. 11/12, 2004
pp. 1509-1526
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0309-0566
DOI 10.1108/03090560410560218

EJM
38,11/12

1510

(1994) showed that celebrities who endorse several products are viewed as less credible
endorsers than those who endorse only a single product. Louie and Obermiller (2002)
also demonstrated that celebrities who are blamed for negative events (e.g. accidents)
can have detrimental effects on the products they endorse. In short, the effectiveness of
a celebrity endorser is dynamic, dependent on the celebrity, the product, and perhaps
even societal conditions at the time and place where the advertisement is shown. As
such, it could be fruitful to abandon the use of traditional measures of the celebrity
endorsers trustworthiness or credibility in general (e.g. Freiden, 1984; Ohanian, 1991)
in favor of directly measuring the degree to which individuals evaluate the celebrity as
liking the endorsed product after viewing the advertisement. Such evaluations fit
under a class of judgment that has been referred to as correspondent inferences
(Gilbert and Malone, 1995). Correspondent inferences more generally refer to any
judgment in which observers use an individuals behavior (e.g. an endorser saying that
she loves Cheerios cereal) to infer congruent dispositions in that individual
(e.g. inferring that the endorser actually does love Cheerios cereal). We propose that
correspondent inferences are a direct measure of a celebritys credibility in the specific
context of the advertisement, and thus should predict consumers attitudes toward the
advertised product.
H1. Correspondent inferences will be positively associated with attitudes toward
the advertised product.
Another interesting question in this context is whether consumers will tend to make
correspondent inferences about celebrity endorsers. Early social psychological work in
attribution theory (e.g. Kelley, 1971) suggests not a large endorsement fee should be
viewed as a strong incentive toward endorsement behavior, and thus observers should
doubt that endorsements reflect true liking for the product on the part of the endorser.
However, research indicating that celebrities are especially credible and trustworthy
endorsers (e.g. Freiden, 1984) suggests that consumers might believe celebrities like
the product regardless of endorsement fees. Furthermore, research examining a
phenomenon called correspondence bias suggests that observers are biased such that
they tend to attribute behavior to personal characteristics of the individual performing
that behavior (e.g. liking for the product) even when situational factors
(e.g. endorsement fees) are sufficient to fully explain the behavior (Gilbert and
Malone, 1995; Gilbert and Jones, 1986).
To our knowledge, the only empirical investigation of correspondence bias related
to celebrity endorsement advertisements demonstrated correspondence bias when the
advertisement included several arguments for the product and used the celebritys
name repeatedly, but failed to demonstrate correspondence bias in a more typical
advertisement that included only a picture and a single presentation of the celebritys
name (Cronley et al., 1999). The results of this study are also difficult to interpret
because the study used the midpoint of the rating scale as a comparison value rather
than incorporating a more appropriate comparison value such as how the average
person views the product.
Advertising in Norway
In addition to the very limited quantity of research related to correspondence bias and
the endorsement process, it should also be noted that this research and most of the

research investigating correspondence bias in other contexts has been conducted in the
United States. Considering that the present research was conducted in Norway, it is
potentially relevant to examine cultural differences between Americans and
Norwegians that might influence the effectiveness of endorsement advertisements.
One important difference is that the celebrity system is primarily an American cultural
enterprise. As such, it is possible that Americans identify especially strongly with
celebrities and are thus more willing to accept and internalize endorsement messages
(McCracken, 1989). In contrast, Norwegian cultural norms are antagonistic toward the
celebrity system; celebrities might earn a certain amount of grudging respect for their
accomplishments, but they are also regarded with a certain amount of suspicion and
distrust because of the appearance that they view themselves as better or more
important than the common man (Avant and Knutsen, 1993).
Another factor that could influence the receptiveness of Norwegians to endorsement
advertisements is that Norway has a less commercial culture than the United States.
This non-commercial orientation is evidenced not only by Norways social welfare
system (as opposed to the more market-driven system in the United States), but also by
the tendency of Norwegian advertisers to express relatively strong concern for moral
aspects of advertising (Brinkmann, 1995) as compared to advertising effectiveness, as
well as Norwegian advertisers tendency to make arbitrary decisions based on ad hoc
procedures rather than empirically grounded rational processes (Helgesen, 1992). The
general lack of commercialism in Norway could have mixed effects on receptiveness to
endorsement advertisements it could produce a general distrust toward commercial
messages, but it could also result in more nave consumers who are less conscious of
the size of endorsement fees and their importance in determining product
endorsements.
Although these considerations suggest that Norwegians might be skeptical toward
celebrity endorsers and thus might not exhibit correspondence bias in the context of
endorsement advertisements, correspondence bias is an extremely robust phenomenon
that has been reliably demonstrated in a variety of Western cultures including Norway
(Silvera et al., 2000; see also Gilbert and Malone, 1995 for a review). Based on this
previous research, it was predicted that Norwegian participants would also show
correspondence bias in the context of celebrity endorsements.
H2. Observers will view the product endorser as liking the product better than the
average person likes the product, even when the endorser receives a
substantial endorsement fee.
Celebrity attributes that influence endorsement effectiveness
Previous research examining the effectiveness of celebrity endorsements has focused
primarily on personal attributes of the celebrity that enhance his or her persuasiveness
(see Erdogan, 1999, for a review). For example, a number of researchers have used
models in which source credibility, typically viewed as a function of trustworthiness
and expertise, is the primary factor determining how influential the endorser will be
(Ohanian, 1991; Lafferty and Goldsmith, 1999; Lafferty et al., 2002). Trustworthiness
refers to the general believability of the endorser, and is thus broader but conceptually
similar to correspondent inferences about the endorser. Expertise refers to the product
knowledge of the endorser and thus to the validity of his or her claims regarding the

Celebrity
endorsement
advertisements
1511

EJM
38,11/12

product, and is believed to be a factor that increases persuasiveness above and beyond
the effects of trustworthiness.
H3. Perceived product knowledge of the endorser will be positively associated
with attitudes toward the advertised product.

1512

Other researchers have emphasized the importance of source attractiveness in

determining liking for the endorser and thereby increasing endorsement effectiveness
(e.g. Friedman and Friedman, 1979). To the extent that attractiveness is an important
determinant of endorsement effectiveness, research based on the matchup hypothesis
(Kahle and Homer, 1985; see also Till and Busler, 1998, for a discussion of the matchup
hypothesis in relation to endorser expertise) suggests that its importance is limited by
the degree to which attractiveness fits well with the advertised product (e.g. Kamins,
1990). Thus, for example, physical attractiveness might be useful when selling
cosmetics but not when selling computers. Furthermore, although source
attractiveness research has focused primarily on physical attractiveness,
attractiveness can also be viewed more generally as a positive attitude toward the
endorser. Such positive attitudes might result from admiration or perceived similarity
(McGuire, 1985), although effective advertising is more likely to rely on the admiration
component because the influential power of celebrities is closely connected to their
status as role models (Raven et al., 1998).
H4. Positive attitudes toward the endorser will be associated with positive
attitudes toward the advertised product.
H5. Admiration and elements of physical attractiveness associated with the
product will be associated with positive attitudes toward the endorser, and
will contribute to predicting attitudes toward the advertised product.
H6. Perceived similarity and elements of physical attractiveness that are
unrelated to the product will be associated with positive attitudes toward the
endorser, but will not contribute to predicting attitudes toward the product.
Experiment 1: research methodology
Participants
The participants were 66 students (41 females, 25 males) at the University of Troms
who participated on a voluntary basis. The mean age of the participants was 24.59
years (SD 1:91 years).
Materials
Baseline measure. Prior to examining any of the other experimental materials,
participants were asked to indicate what they believed people in general think about
the Omega watch brand on a scale from 1 not good at all to 7 very good.
Endorsement advertisement. Participants were given a black-and-white copy of a
printed advertisement in which Cindy Crawford endorsed the luxury, diamond-set
watch Constellation Carre` from Omega. The advertisement had a close-up picture of
Cindy Crawford with the watch in front of her. Cindy Crawfords choice was printed
above the picture, and My choice was written in cursive next to the Omega logo at the
bottom of the advertisement.

Evaluation questionnaire. The evaluation questionnaire included measures of

correspondent inferences, attitude toward the advertisement, attitude toward the
product, and attitude toward the celebrity endorser. Correspondent inferences were
measured with three items asking participants to indicate their level of belief that
Cindy Crawford:
(1) likes the Omega brand;
(2) frequently uses the Omega brand; and
(3) views the Omega brand as a good product.
Each of these items was answered on a seven-point scale ranging from 1 Not at
all likely to 7 Extremely likely. The correspondent inference items showed
satisfactory internal reliability (a 0:83).
All attitude items used semantic differential scales with a value of one associated
with the more negative word and a value of seven associated with the more positive
word. Attitude toward the advertisement was measured using the items
pleasant/unpleasant, likeable/not likeable, interesting/uninteresting, and good/bad;
attitude toward the product was measured using the items desirable/not desirable,
pleasant/unpleasant, likeable/not likeable, and good/bad; attitude toward the endorser
was measured using the items interesting/uninteresting, pleasant/unpleasant,
likeable/not likeable, and good/bad. Each of the three attitude measures showed
satisfactory internal reliability (attitude toward advertisement: a 0:85; attitude
toward product: a 0:82; attitude toward endorser: a 0:87).
Participants were also asked to rate how much they admired Cindy Crawford as
well as Cindy Crawfords physical attractiveness, sense of style (attractiveness
relevant to the product domain), similarity to the participant, and knowledge of the
product domain. All of these ratings were made on seven-point scales where 1
indicated low values (e.g. not at all attractive) and 7 indicated high values (e.g. very
attractive).
Procedure
Small groups of participants received an experimental pack that was completed in the
presence of the experimenter and returned immediately upon completion. The first part
of the experimental pack contained a brief description of the study followed by the
baseline measure. After completing the baseline measure, participants were asked to
read a set of instructions that contained the experimental manipulation. Participants
were randomly assigned either to the unpaid condition, in which they were told that
Cindy Crawford endorsed Omega watches on a voluntary basis without receiving any
payment, or the paid condition, in which they were told that Cindy Crawford was
paid 50 million Norwegian kroner (approximately US$6 million) for endorsing Omega
watches. This amount was described as Cindy Crawfords standard endorsement fee.
After reading the instructions, participants viewed the endorsement advertisement
and completed the evaluation questionnaire.
Analyses
In addition to preliminary correlational analyses, the primary results will be presented
using a structural equations model developed in Amos 4.0 (Arbuckle and Wothke,
1999). In addition to the chi-square measure of absolute fit, the comparative fit index

Celebrity
endorsement
advertisements
1513

EJM
38,11/12

1514

(CFI) and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA; Browne and Cudek,
1993) were used as measures of relative model fit. Even for models with poor absolute
fit, recent research suggests that CFI values of 0.95 or higher (Hu and Bentler, 1999)
and RMSEA values of 0.08 or lower indicate reasonably good overall model fit (Browne
and Cudek, 1993).
Results
Preliminary analyses
Gender was originally included as a covariate in all analyses, and was not significantly
associated with any of the primary variables in the study. Thus, gender was not
included in the analyses reported below and will not be discussed further.
Pearson correlations between the variables in Experiment 1 are shown in Table I.
These correlations are consistent with all hypotheses except H3 perceived product
knowledge of the endorser was not significantly correlated with attitudes toward the
advertised product.
Model predicting attitude toward the endorsed product
A theoretical model was first developed based on the hypotheses that attitudes toward
the product were predicted by attitudes toward the endorser, perceived product
knowledge of the endorser, and correspondent inferences about the endorser; and that
attitudes toward the endorser were predicted by admiration of the endorser, the
endorsers sense of style, perceived similarity to the endorser, and physical
attractiveness of the endorser. This theoretical model had both poor absolute fit
( x 2 (21, N 66 85:04, p , 0:001) and poor relative fit (CFI 0:94,
RMSEA 0:22). In the next step, perceived similarity and physical attractiveness
were removed from the model in accordance with the prediction that they would not
contribute to predicting attitude toward the product (H6). Although this revised model
still had poor absolute fit (x 2 (10, N 66 25:09, p , 0:01) and somewhat poor
relative fit (CFI 0:98, RMSEA 0:15), it was a significant improvement over the
original model (x2change 11 59:85; p , 0:001), supporting H6.
This model was then refined to improve goodness of fit by making two further
modifications:
(1) sense of style predicted correspondent inferences in addition to attitude toward
the endorser; and
(2) product knowledge predicted correspondent inferences instead of attitude
toward the product.
This final model (see Figure 1) had good absolute fit (x 2 (9, N 66 11:14, p . 0:25)
and relative fit (CFI 1:00, RMSEA 0:06), and explained 27.01 percent of the
variance in attitude toward the advertised product. All paths shown in Figure 1 are
significant at p , 0:05. The association between correspondent inferences and attitude
toward the product supports H1, and the paths from admiration and sense of style
through attitude toward the endorser to attitude toward the product support H4 and
H5. H3 is also partly supported by the model; although there is no direct path between
product knowledge and attitude toward the product, these two variables are indirectly
connected via correspondent inferences.

0.18
0.69***
0.36**
0.52***
0.35**
0.34**
0.59***
20.08
0.30*
0.50***
0.09
0.05
0.28*
0.40**
0.21

Correspondent
inferences

0.34**
0.31*
0.34**
0.19
0.45***
0.03

Attitude:
advertisement

0.27*
0.22
0.17
0.45***
20.03

Attitude:
product

0.46***
0.41**
0.30*
20.02

Admiration

0.57***
0.15
2 0.22

Physical
attractiveness

0.33**
0.05

Similarity

20.03

Sense of
style

Product
knowledge

Notes: Full variable names are given in the first row, while the first column shows abbreviated names for the same variables; *p , 0:05; **p , 0:01;
***p , 0:001 (two-tailed)

Att: endorser
Corr infs
Att: ad
Att: product
Admiration
Attractiveness
Similarity
Style
Knowledge

Attitude:
endorser

Celebrity
endorsement
advertisements
1515

Table I.
Correlation table for
Experiment 1

EJM
38,11/12

1516

Figure 1.
Model predicting attitude
toward the advertised
product in Experiment 1

Correspondence bias
To determine whether participants showed correspondence bias in their ratings of the
endorser, a 2 2 mixed design ANOVA was used, with target (baseline versus
endorser) as a within-subjects variable and experimental condition (paid or unpaid
endorser) as a between-subjects variable. Correspondence bias would be indicated if
the paid endorser was viewed as liking the endorsed product better than people in
general (i.e. the baseline value). This analysis failed to support H2: in fact, a significant
main effect for target indicated reversed correspondence bias, such that the endorser
(M 3:58, SD 1:16) was viewed as liking the product significantly less than the
average person (M 4:94, SD 0:97; F1; 63 91:38, p , 0:001). Neither the main
effect for experimental condition nor the interaction between target and experimental
condition was significant (F , 1). t-Tests showed that people in general were viewed
as liking the product better than the endorser in both the paid F1; 32 66:26,
p , 0:001) and unpaid conditions F1; 31 34:26, p , :0001).
Discussion
Experiment 1 provided a model predicting participants attitudes toward an endorsed
product from their attitudes toward the endorser and their attributions about the
endorsers liking for the product. In addition, Experiment 1 demonstrated a reversal of
the normally robust correspondence bias phenomenon (Gilbert and Malone, 1995) - on
average, participants believed that the endorser liked the product less than a typical
person would like the product. Although these findings have potentially important
theoretical and applied implications, it is possible that they are an artifact of the
specific stimuli used in Experiment 1. The finding of anti-correspondence bias
particularly needs replication considering that it contradicts a large existing literature
on attributional biases.

To address this concern, Experiment 2 was performed to replicate the findings from
Experiment 1 using a different product and a different endorser. In addition, a control
group was added to provide baseline ratings for the average persons attitude toward
the product, thus protecting against the possibility that demand characteristics
influenced the results in the within-subjects design used in Experiment 1.

Celebrity
endorsement
advertisements
1517

Experiment 2: research methodology

Participants
The participants were 66 students (39 females, 25 males, 2 not reported) who were
recruited at a higher education conference in Oslo, Norway and participated on a
voluntary basis. The mean age of participants was 24.28 years (SD 7:75 years).

Materials
Endorsement advertisement. Participants were given a black-and-white copy of a
printed advertisement in which Pierce Brosnan endorsed Goodlife cologne from
Davidoff. The advertisement consisted of a picture of a Goodlife cologne bottle on the
left and a close-up picture of Pierce Brosnan on the right. The words Davidoff and
Goodlife were written on the ad at the bottom of Pierce Brosnans picture.
Evaluation questionnaire. The evaluation questionnaire included measures of
correspondent inferences, attitude toward the advertisement, attitude toward the
product, and attitude toward the celebrity endorser. Correspondent inferences were
measured with three items asking participants to indicate their level of belief that
Pierce Brosnan:
(1) likes Goodlife cologne;
(2) frequently uses Goodlife cologne; and
(3) views Goodlife cologne as a good product.
Each of these items was answered on an 11-point scale ranging from 0 Not at all
likely to 10 Extremely likely. The correspondent inference items showed
satisfactory internal reliability (a 0:82).
All attitude items used semantic differential scales with a value of one associated
with the more negative word and a value of seven associated with the more positive
word. Attitude toward the advertisement was measured using the items
pleasant/unpleasant, likeable/not likeable, interesting/uninteresting, and good/bad;
attitude toward the product was measured using the items desirable/not desirable,
pleasant/unpleasant, likeable/not likeable, and good/bad; attitude toward the endorser
was measured using the items interesting/uninteresting, pleasant/unpleasant,
likeable/not likeable, and good/bad. Each of the three attitude measures showed
satisfactory internal reliability (attitude toward advertisement: a 0:87; attitude
toward product: a 0:91; attitude toward endorser: a 0:86).
Participants were also asked to rate Pierce Brosnans knowledge of the product
domain, similarity to themselves, and physical attractiveness. All of these ratings were
made on seven-point scales where 1 indicated low values (e.g. not at all attractive)
and 7 indicated high values (e.g. very attractive).

EJM
38,11/12

1518

Procedure
Small groups of participants received an experimental pack that was completed in the
presence of the experimenter and returned immediately upon completion. After
reading a brief description of the study, participants were asked to read a set of
instructions that contained the experimental manipulation. Participants were
randomly assigned to either the unpaid condition, in which they were told that
Pierce Brosnan endorsed Goodlife cologne on a voluntary basis without receiving any
payment, the paid condition, in which they were told that Pierce Brosnan received his
normal endorsement fee for endorsing Goodlife cologne, or the control condition.
Participants in the control condition received a modified version of the experimental
packet which included the following:
(1) a picture of a bottle of Goodlife cologne (without Pierce Brosnan);
(2) three questions asking how much the typical person likes Goodlife cologne that
matched the questions used to measure correspondent inferences about Pierce
Brosnan in the experimental conditions; and
(3) the same four questions measuring the participants attitude toward the product
that were used in the experimental conditions.
Control participants ratings of the typical persons liking for Goodlife cologne served
the same function as the baseline measure in Experiment 1.
Results
Preliminary analyses
Gender was originally included as a covariate in all analyses, and was not significantly
associated with any of the primary variables in the study. Thus, gender was not
included in the analyses reported below and will not be discussed further.
Pearson correlations between the variables in Experiment 2 are shown in Table II.
These correlations are consistent with the results of Experiment 1 except that
perceived similarity of the endorser was not significantly correlated with attitudes
toward the endorser.
Model predicting attitude toward the endorsed product
A preliminary model that was conceptually similar to the final model in Experiment 1
was used to predict attitudes toward the endorsed product in Experiment 2. In this
model, correspondent inferences and attitudes toward the endorser were the only direct
predictors of attitudes toward the product; in addition, perceived product knowledge
and physical attractiveness of the endorser predicted correspondent inferences and
physical attractiveness predicted attitude toward the endorser. Consistent with the
results of Experiment 1, this model had satisfactory absolute fit (x 2 (5, N 66 6:54,
p . 0:25) and good relative fit (CFI 1:00, RMSEA 0:07). However, several of the
path weights were non-significant, and the correlational data suggested that attitudes
toward the advertisement should be included in the model. These modifications were
made to the preliminary model, resulting in a final model that had good absolute fit
x 2 5; N 66 6:02, p . 0:30) and relative fit (CFI 1:00, RMSEA 0:06), as well
as explaining 51.84 percent of the variance in attitudes toward the endorsed product.
In addition to fitting slightly better than the original model, all of the paths in this
model (shown in Figure 2) were statistically significant (p , 0:05).

0.40**
0.57***
0.42**
0.15
0.61***
2 0.05
0.39*
0.32*
0.33*
0.28
0.07

Correspondent
inferences

0.68***
0.32*
0.54***
0.17

Attitude:
advertisement

0.39**
0.39**
0.18

Attitude:
product

0.11
0.27

Similarity

0.02

Physical
attractiveness

Product
knowledge

Notes: Full variable names are given in the first row, while the first column shows abbreviated names for the same variables; *p , 0:05; **p , 0:01;
***p , 0:001 (two-tailed)

Att: endorser
Corr infs
Att: ad
Att: product
Similarity
Attractiveness
Knowledge

Attitude:
endorser

Celebrity
endorsement
advertisements
1519

Table II.
Correlation table for
Experiment 2

EJM
38,11/12

1520

Correspondence bias
As in Experiment 1, correspondence bias would be indicated if the paid endorser was
viewed as liking the endorsed product better than the average person. Correspondent
inferences were first examined in a 1 3 (experimental condition: baseline, paid, or
unpaid) between-subjects ANOVA. This analysis showed a significant main effect for
condition, F2; 64 4:50, p , 0:05, such that the average person was viewed as liking
the product the most (M 5:19, SD 1:44), followed by the endorser in the unpaid
condition (M 4:54, SD 2:06) and the paid condition (M 3:53, SD 1:77),
respectively. A t-test confirmed that the average person was viewed as liking the
product better than the endorser in the paid condition (F1; 39 10:66, p , 0:01),
indicating a reversal of correspondence bias as in Experiment 1. Unlike Experiment 1,
however, there was no difference in correspondent inferences between the control
condition and the unpaid condition, F1; 41 1:37, NS.
General discussion
The primary outcomes from the present experiments were the models predicting
attitude toward the endorsed product. Although there were differences between these
models, both showed the importance of positive attitudes toward the endorser and
correspondent inferences about the endorser in predicting attitudes toward the
product. An interesting theoretical result from these studies was the lack of
correspondence bias in participants inferences about the endorser: in fact, both

Figure 2.
Model predicting attitude
toward the advertised
product in Experiment 2

experiments showed a reversal of correspondence bias, as participants viewed the

endorser as liking the product less than people in general.
Why do endorsement advertisements work?
The most interesting applied issue addressed by the present study is the question of
why endorsement advertisements are effective. A variety of possible mechanisms
exist, including the possibility that positive feelings about the endorser can be
transferred to the product after consumers are exposed to multiple product-endorser
pairings, as well as the possibility that exposure to the endorser outside the context of
the advertisement might give free advertising by bringing the endorsers connection
to the product to consumers minds. The central focus of the present research, however,
was on endorsement effects on product evaluations at the time the advertisement is
viewed. The resulting models indicated that attitude toward the endorser was
associated with attitude toward the product, a finding that is consistent with previous
work based on source attractiveness models of persuasion. The more novel
contribution of these models was the finding that correspondent inferences about the
endorser (i.e., increased beliefs that the endorser truly likes the advertised product)
resulted in a more favorable attitude toward the endorsed product. This finding
indicates that the substantial social psychological literature on attribution and the
processes by which individuals arrive at correspondent or non-correspondent
inferences (see Gilbert and Malone, 1995, for a review) is relevant to determining the
effectiveness of endorsement advertisements, and thus creates numerous promising
possibilities for future research.
Another interesting point about the model from Experiment 1 is that the influence of
correspondent inferences on product attitudes was substantially stronger than the
influence of attitude toward the endorser. Furthermore, correspondent inferences were
based on the endorsers sense of style and on her perceived knowledge of the product
domain, but not on general ratings of attractiveness, likeability, or similarity of the
endorser. To the extent that sense of style can be viewed as the element of
attractiveness that is most relevant to the domain of watches, it appears that
participants in Experiment 1 were fairly rational in the sense that they relied heavily
on valid cues and largely ignored superficial or irrelevant variables in forming their
attitudes toward the product.
This result is in stark contrast to previous research showing a predominance of
superficial, peripheral processing of commercials using celebrities (e.g. Mehta, 1994).
It is also somewhat contradictory with the results from Experiment 2, where
correspondent inferences contributed to attitudes toward the product, but variables
that require relatively little cognitive processing (e.g. physical attractiveness of the
endorser and attitude toward the endorser) played a more prominent role in predicting
attitudes toward the product. This contrast is worthy of further scientific exploration
to what extent are the differences in results due to characteristics of the endorser
(e.g. some endorsers might automatically be trusted and their messages accepted
without question), characteristics of the product (e.g. perhaps because watches are
relatively expensive, watch purchases are evaluated more carefully than purchases of
products like cologne), characteristics of the medium (e.g. print ads are evaluated more
carefully than television ads), or perhaps characteristics of the consumer
(e.g. Norwegians think more carefully about advertisements than Americans)?

Celebrity
endorsement
advertisements
1521

EJM
38,11/12

1522

Anti-correspondence bias
Perhaps the most unusual finding in the present experiments was that participants not
only avoided correspondence bias, but they also showed a reversal of this pattern, a
sort of anti-correspondence bias. Specifically, participants in both experiments
believed that the endorsers liked the product less than most people when the endorser
had received a standard fee for appearing in the advertisement, and in Experiment 1
this occurred even when the endorsement was done without a fee. It might be tempting
to interpret this result as indicating that correspondent inferences play no role in the
effectiveness of endorsement advertisements; however, the observed positive
associations between correspondent inferences and attitude toward the brand in
both experiments are not consistent with this interpretation. Instead, it appears that
participants were generally cynical toward the endorsers motives and that
participants attitudes toward the brand improved to the extent that the
advertisement overcame this cynicism and convinced them the endorser had at least
some degree of liking for the product.
Beyond the practical implications, however, the anti-correspondence bias finding is
a scientific oddity: hundreds of studies over the last 40 years have examined
correspondence bias, and to our knowledge none of these studies have shown a
significant reversal of correspondence bias. There are several possible explanations for
this surprising result. One possibility is that simply appearing in an advertisement
might not be a sufficiently strong behavior to induce correspondent inferences about
the endorser (cf. Cronley et al., 1999). In other words, building strong connections
between the endorser and the product might be necessary to induce consumers to make
correspondent inferences. To the extent that correspondent inferences about the
endorser are strongly associated with attitudes toward the product, advertisers would
be well advised to take this possibility into account.
It is also possible that the anti-correspondence bias observed in the present study is
related to the endorsers. Although Cindy Crawford and Pierce Brosnan are
world-famous celebrities, it remains likely that they get more media exposure in the
US than in Norway. Consequently, they might be more familiar figures to Americans
than to Norwegians, which could in turn increase their believability in the context of
endorsement advertisements (e.g. Kardes, 1999). Another possibility is based on Kahle
and Homers (1985) match-up hypothesis. Neither watches nor cologne are
prototypically associated with physical attractiveness. Although cologne is certainly
associated with attractiveness, it appeals to a different sensory dimension (i.e. olfactory
rather than visual) than classic physical attractiveness. Similarly, watches can be
viewed as fashion accessories, but it is likely that some people also view them as
technical equipment and still others view them as status symbols. These products
might thus represent a poorer fit with endorsers chosen for their physical
attractiveness than beauty products, health-related products, or designer clothing.
A final possible explanation for the observed anti-correspondence bias could be
based on the cultural characteristics of the present sample. It has been argued, for
example, that Hollywood, the star system, and celebrity endorsement are all
profoundly cultural enterprises and that Americans fascination with celebrities
reflects their involvement in the meaning transfer system that celebrities accomplish
(McCracken, 1989). With this in mind, it seems reasonable to suggest that Americans
are particularly interested in celebrities, and this could make them more willing to

accept celebrity endorsements at face value than Norwegians. In fact, Norwegians

might be particularly untrusting of celebrities due to Norwegian cultural norms based
on Janteloven (The Law of Jante; Sandemose, 1933). Essentially, Janteloven states
that one should never try to be more, try to be different, or consider oneself as more
valuable than others. Janteloven has been shown to influence the behavior and
perceptions of Norwegians in a variety of contexts (Avant and Knutsen, 1993), and it
might also lead Norwegians to be more suspicious and untrusting toward celebrities
based purely on the fact that they are celebrities and therefore stand out from the
crowd. Increased suspicion could result in a tendency to actively entertain and evaluate
the possibility that the endorser is motivated by something other than genuine liking
for the product (Fein, 1996), and thus result in non-correspondent inferences about the
endorser (Fein et al., 1990).
Limitations and future research
The primary limitations of the present research relate to generalizability, both
regarding the participant population and the stimulus materials. In particular, future
research should attempt to explain the apparent cultural differences between the
United States and Norway. The preceding discussion of cultural issues suggests
skepticism toward advertising as a possible mediating variable for these cultural
differences, but this should be investigated empirically. Perhaps the most serious
potential problem with the present research involves the use of research participants
who were primarily students. There is substantial evidence that student samples can
limit external validity and thereby limit generalizability of results (Lynch, 1982;
McGrath and Brinberg, 1983), although validity issues are more problematic when
examining mean differences in variables (e.g. attitudes toward rap music are likely to
be much different among 19-year-old students than among the general adult
population) than when examining relationships between variables (Burnett and Dunne,
1986; Ferber, 1977; Sears, 1986). With this in mind, the mean differences in
correspondent inferences (anti-correspondence bias) in the present research should be
regarded with particular caution. Although no research has yet examined
correspondent inferences about endorsements in non-student samples, this concern
is somewhat moderated by the fact that research examining correspondent inferences
across the adult lifespan in non-advertising contexts (Miller, 1984) has obtained similar
results to those typically observed in research using student samples (Gilbert and
Malone, 1995). Another relevant consideration is that Norwegian university students
are older than those in many other countries (the mean age of participants in the
present studies was over 24 years) and are often re-entering the education system after
having spent some time as normal consumers. Nevertheless, it would certainly be
desirable to replicate the present findings using a more representative adult sample.
Another potential generalizability issue stems from the stimuli used in the present
experiments. First, the models predicting attitudes toward the product differed
somewhat between the two experiments. In particular, it appeared that correspondent
inferences and rational information processing played a stronger role in predicting
attitudes toward the product in Experiment 1 than in Experiment 2. This is perhaps
not surprising, given the relative expense of the two products (i.e. consumers might
think more carefully about more expensive purchases), but it does call attention to the
fact that there is unlikely to be a single model that predicts consumer attitudes toward

Celebrity
endorsement
advertisements
1523

EJM
38,11/12

1524

endorsed products in all situations. However, despite the fact that the present
experiments used different product categories and different endorsers, the predictor
variables in the two models were quite similar overall. This suggests that, although
models predicting endorsement effectiveness might vary with advertising context,
there is also likely to be substantial commonality across contexts, and the importance
of correspondent inferences about the endorser might well be one of these
commonalities.
A second generalizability issue relates to a variable that showed relatively little
predictive power in the present experiments the endorsers perceived knowledge
about the product. Although this appears to contradict previous research on source
credibility models in which perceived expertise plays a prominent role in endorser
effectiveness (e.g. Ohanian, 1991), we are inclined to believe that this non-result is a
consequence of the advertisements used in the present research. Neither of the present
experiments used an expert endorsement where part of the endorsers role is to help
the consumer understand the product class and why the endorsed product is superior
to competitor products. It is quite possible that the effectiveness of expert
endorsements depends on a substantially different set of variables than celebrity
(non-expert) endorsements, and as such the modeling of expert endorsement
effectiveness is an issue that should be addressed in future research.
Conclusion
The high costs associated with product advertising make it imperative that advertising
messages effectively increase consumers interest in the product. With that in mind,
studies that examine characteristics of advertisements that make them effective are
especially valuable. The present experiments represent a first step in identifying what
makes endorsement advertisements effective based on work in attribution theory
within social psychology. The results suggest that endorsement advertising
effectiveness can be strongly influenced by consumers inferences concerning
whether the endorser truly likes the product. Advertisers, on the other hand, often
appear to be satisfied with merely creating an association between a popular endorser
and their product with the hope that the endorsers positive image will somehow rub
off on the product. The present research suggests that advertisers should put more
effort not only into choosing endorsers who are well matched with products, but also
into making strong arguments and believable explanations for why endorsers truly do
like the products they endorse.
References
Arbuckle, J.L. and Wothke, W. (1999), Amos 4.0 User Guide, SmallWaters Corporation, Chicago,
IL.
Atkin, C. and Block, M. (1983), Effectiveness of celebrity endorsers, Journal of Advertising
Research, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 57-61.
Avant, G.R. and Knutsen, K.P. (1993), Understanding cultural differences: Janteloven and social
conformity in Norway, Et Cetera.: A Review of General Semantics, Vol. 50 No. 4,
pp. 449-60.
Brinkmann, J. (1995), Moral conflicts among Norwegian advertising professionals: a summary
of pilot data, International Marketing Review, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 50-64.

Browne, M.W. and Cudek, R. (1993), Alternative ways of assessing model fit, in Bollen, K.A.
and Long, S.J. (Eds), Testing Structural Equation Models, Sage Publications, Newbury
Park, CA, pp. 132-62.
Burnett, J.J. and Dunne, P.M. (1986), An appraisal of the use of student subjects in marketing
research, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 329-43.
Cronley, M.L., Kardes, F.R., Goddard, P. and Houghton, D.C. (1999), Endorsing products for
money: the role of correspondence bias in celebrity advertising, Advances in Consumer
Research, Vol. 26, pp. 627-31.
Dean, D.H. and Biswas, A. (2001), Third-party organization endorsement of products: an
advertising cue affecting consumer prepurchase evaluation of goods and services, Journal
of Advertising, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 41-57.
Erdogan, B.Z. (1999), Celebrity endorsement: a literature review, Journal of Marketing
Management, Vol. 15, pp. 291-324.
Erdogan, B.Z. (2001), Selecting celebrity endorsers: the practitioners perspective, Journal of
Advertising Research, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 39-48.
Fein, S., Hilton, J.L. and Miller, D.T. (1990), Suspicion of ulterior motivation and the
correspondence bias, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 58 No. 5,
pp. 753-64.
Fein, S. (1996), Effects of suspicion on attributional thinking and the correspondence bias,
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 70 No. 6, pp. 1164-84.
Ferber, R. (1977), Research by convenience, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 4, pp. 57-8.
Freiden, J.B. (1984), Advertising spokesperson effects: an examination of endorser type and
gender on two audiences, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 33-41.
Friedman, H.H. and Friedman, L. (1979), Endorsers effectiveness by product type, Journal of
Advertising Research, Vol. 19 No. 5, pp. 63-71.
Gilbert, D.T. and Jones, E.E. (1986), Perceiver-induced constraint: interpretations of
self-generated reality, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 50 No. 2,
pp. 269-80.
Gilbert, D.T. and Malone, P.S. (1995), The correspondence bias, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 117
No. 1, pp. 21-38.
Helgesen, T. (1992), The rationality of advertising decisions: conceptual issues, Journal of
Advertising Research, Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 22-31.
Hu, L.T. and Bentler, P.M. (1999), Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
conventional criteria versus new alternatives, Structural Equation Modeling, Vol. 6 No. 1,
pp. 1-55.
Kahle, L.R. and Homer, P.M. (1985), Physical attractiveness of the celebrity endorser: a social
adaptation perspective, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 954-61.
Kamins, M.A. (1990), An investigation into the match-up hypothesis in celebrity advertising:
when beauty may only be skin deep, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 4-13.
Kardes, F.R. (1999), Consumer Behavior. Managerial Decision Making, Addison-Wesley,
Reading, MA.
Kelley, H.H. (1971), Attribution in social interaction, in Jones, E.E., Kanouse, D.E., Kelley, H.H.,
Nisbett, R.E., Valins, S. and Weiner, B. (Eds), Attribution: Perceiving the Causes of
Behavior, General Learning Press, Morristown, NJ, pp. 1-26.

Celebrity
endorsement
advertisements
1525

EJM
38,11/12

1526

Lafferty, B.A. and Goldsmith, R.E. (1999), Corporate credibilitys role in consumers attitudes
and purchase intentions when a high versus a low credibility endorser is used in the ad,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 109-16.
Lafferty, B.A., Goldsmith, R.E. and Newell, S.J. (2002), The dual credibility model: the influence
of corporate and endorser credibility on attitudes and purchase intentions, Journal of
Marketing Theory & Practice, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 1-12.
Louie, T.A. and Obermiller, C. (2002), Consumer response to a firms endorser (dis)association
decisions, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 41-52.
Lynch, J.G. (1982), On the external validity of experiments in consumer research, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 225-39.
McCracken, G. (1989), Who is the celebrity endorser? Cultural foundations of the endorsement
process, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 310-21.
McGuire, W.J. (1985), Attitudes and attitude change, in Lindzey, G. and Aronson, E. (Eds),
Handbook of Social Psychology, Random House, New York, NY, pp. 233-346.
McGrath, J.E. and Brinberg, D. (1983), External validity and the research process: a comment on
the Calder/Lynch dialogue, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 115-24.
Mehta, A. (1994), How advertising response modeling (arm) can increase ad effectiveness,
Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 62-74.
Miller, J.G. (1984), Culture and the development of everyday social explanation, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 46 No. 5, pp. 961-78.
Ohanian, R. (1991), The impact of celebrity spokespersons perceived image on consumers
intention to purchase, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 46-52.
Raven, B.H., Schwarzwald, J. and Koslowsky, M. (1998), Conceptualizing and measuring a
power/interaction model of interpersonal influence, Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
Vol. 28, pp. 307-32.
Sandemose, A. (1933), En Flyktning Krysser Sitt Spor, Tiden Norsk Forlag, Oslo.
Sears, D.O. (1986), College sophomores in the laboratory: influences of a narrow data base on
social psychologys view of human nature, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
Vol. 51 No. 3, pp. 515-30.
Shimp, T.A. (2000), Advertising Promotion: Supplemental Aspects of Integrated Marketing
Communications, 5th ed., Dryden Press, Fort Worth, TX.
Silvera, D.H., Moe, S.K. and Iversen, P. (2000), The association between implicit theories of
personality and the attributional process, Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, Vol. 41,
pp. 107-11.
Till, B.D. and Busler, M. (1998), Matching products with endorsers: attractiveness versus
expertise, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 576-86.
Till, B.D. and Shimp, T.A. (1998), Endorsers in advertising: the case of negative celebrity
information, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 67-82.
Tripp, C., Jensen, T.D. and Carlson, L. (1994), The effects of multiple product endorsements by
celebrities on consumers attitudes and intentions, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 20
No. 4, pp. 535-47.