Exploring Effects of Self-Evaluative and Motivational Schema in Appearance on Advertising Effectiveness in Fashion Ads

Abstract

Thin-idealized models are mainly promoted in fashion ads, supporting “thinness sells.” Based on the self-schema theory, this study investigated how self-evaluative and motivational schema in appearance influenced attitudes toward brand advertising thin models and purchase intention. A web-based survey consisting of three different model stimuli—thin, average-sized, and no models—in fashion ads was conducted. A total of 380 female college students at a large Midwestern university in the United States responded to the web-based survey. Results indicate participants with higher motivational schema in appearance showed more positive attitudes toward brand and greater purchase intention when exposed to thin models rather than average-sized and no models. However, participants with lower motivational schema in appearance responded to thin models less favorably than those with higher motivational schema. These results explored individual differences of motivational self-schema in appearance in responses to thin models. Implications on marketing and advertising strategies for fashion ads were discussed.

Keywords

appearance body image advertisement attitude purchase intention

Self-schema is defined as a mental knowledge structure that represents particular information about the self and organizes the processing of information relevant to the self (Markus, 1977). Appearance self-schema is cognitive-behavioral generalizations on appearance for managing or improving one’s appearance, consisting of self-evaluative and motivational saliences about appearance (Cash et al., 2004). Individuals develop personal experiences to systematize the processing of appearance-related information and such experiences particularly guide individuals’ information processing regarding beauty ideals in media (Markus, 1977).

Appearance self-schemas negatively influence one’s body images (Cash & Labarge, 1996; Cash et al., 2004; Cash & Smolak, 2012; Grogan, 2016; Jung et al., 2001). People who have greater self-schema in appearance experience greater internalization of social and cultural beauty ideals, greater self-ideal discrepancies, greater body dissatisfaction, and more negative body-related emotions or psychological responses (Cash et al., 2004; Cash & Smolak, 2012; Grogan, 2016; Jung et al., 2001). Thin-idealized model images in media are continuously portrayed and promoted as sociocultural beauty ideals that cause people to experience more negative responses such as body dissatisfaction, body anxiety, depression, lower self-esteem, eating disorders, or risky appearance management behaviors (Cash & Smolak, 2012; Grogan, 2016; Moreno-Domínguez et al., 2019; Mulgrew & Tiggemann, 2018; Ordaz et al., 2018; J. K. Thompson et al., 1999; Yu et al., 2011).

However, American fashion retailers and brands, such as Nordstrom, Target, Macy’s, Calvin Klein, Old Navy, Aerie for American Eagle, Forever 21, and Lane Bryant, have increasingly advertised average-sized or plus-sized models, representing more diversified body sizes and shapes (Amodio, 2018; Cheng, 2017; Feitelberg & Hughes, 2017). Prior researchers also have found no differences in advertising effectiveness between thin- and average-sized models, but they have found more positive attitudes and greater purchase intentions toward brands advertising average-sized and/or normally attractive models rather than thin and/or highly attractive models (Dittmar & Howard, 2004; Halliwell & Dittmar, 2005; Tsai & Chang, 2007; Yu, 2014; Yu et al., 2011).

There is the critique that thin-idealized models are no more effective than average-sized models in addition to inducing unhealthy messages and negative body images (Cash & Smolak, 2012; Dittmar & Howard, 2004; Grogan, 2016; Halliwell & Dittmar, 2005; Jobsky, 2014; Tsai & Chang, 2007; Yu, 2014; Yu et al., 2011; Yu & Jung, 2018). However, thin-idealized models are constantly used and promoted in the advertising and fashion industries supporting the idea that “thinness sells” (Gillian, 2000). Use of thin-idealized models might increase or decrease attitudinal and behavioral responses depending on individual differences in appearance-related or body image–related variables. Potential variables, such as thin-ideal internalization, awareness of social pressures to be thin, and social comparison tendency, tend to have negative impacts on body dissatisfaction but do not significantly influence attitudes toward the ads and purchase intention (Yu, 2014). There may be potential variables that decisively influence individual differences when responding to ads advocating thinness sells.

In this study, appearance self-schema was specifically chosen and investigated as a potential variable influencing attitudes toward the brand advocating thinness sells and purchase intention. Individuals possess self-evaluative and motivational schema in appearance for improving and managing their appearance (Cash et al., 2004). The motivational salience of appearance self-schema may possibly facilitate more positive attitudes and purchase intentions toward the brand advocating thinness sells, whereas self-evaluative salience about appearance would function in the opposite way. Despite strong, existing evidence regarding negative effects of appearance self-schema on body image, few researchers have investigated the impact of self-evaluative and motivational schema in appearance on advertisements advocating thinness sells.

Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate how self-evaluative and motivational schemas in appearance influenced attitudes toward brands advertising thin-idealized models and purchase intention, and how differently thin-idealized versus nonidealized model images influenced the impact of self-evaluative and motivational schemas in appearance on attitudes toward brands and purchase intention. Utilizing self-schema theory, I present a more clear-cut understanding of the roles of self-evaluative and motivational saliences of appearance self-schema on advertising effectiveness, compared to thin-idealized and nonidealized model images. Findings from this study could be useful to develop and enhance a healthier, more effective advertising strategy toward individuals who want to shape positive self-image using their appearance self-schema.

Theoretical Framework

Self-schema theory, proposed by Markus (1977), was applied to explain the impact of appearance self-schema on advertising effectiveness, depending on model thinness. According to the self-schema theory (1977), self-schema is “cognitive generalizations about the self, derived from past experience, that organize and guide the processing of the self-related information contained in an individual’s social experience” (p. 63). Self-schema functions as a cognitive structure and selective mechanism to (a) categorize, organize, or process information about the self for making judgments or decisions, (b) retrieve behavioral evidence from previous experiences, (c) predict future behaviors, and (d) resist counter-schematic information about the self (Markus, 1977). Depending on presence and content of self-schema, individuals’ self-schemas vary and selectively influence interpretation of information about the self and behavior that may result in differences in judgments about the self, self-description, and prediction of future behaviors (Markus, 1977).

Based on this theory, it was hypothesized that individuals’ self-evaluative and motivational saliences of appearance self-schema differently influence information processing and interpretation of media images and produce differences in making judgments or decisions about the self and predicting future behaviors. That is, the impacts of self-evaluative and motivational schema in appearance may vary when interpreting thin-idealized versus nonidealized model images, as well as determining attitude toward brands advertising thin-idealized or nonidealized model images and purchase intention.

Literature Review

Appearance Self-Schema

Self-schema becomes involved in processing information about the self in domains such as personality, self-identity, the social self, body weight, and appearance (Cash & Labarge, 1996). Individuals who are schematic for physical appearance will process information relevant to appearance differently than those who are aschematic for appearance (Cash & Labarge, 1996). Appearance-schematic individuals are more likely to put more importance on appearance, psychologically invest more in their physical appearance, and experience a more negative body image than appearance-aschematic individuals, especially when they are exposed to negative body-weight information or stimuli (Cash & Labarge, 1996; Cash & Smolak, 2012). According to Cash and Labarge’s study (1996), appearance self-schema is associated with negative body image, social anxiety, and self-consciousness, poor self-esteem, depression, eating disturbances, and public self-consciousness to look better to others.

Self-schema originates from one’s history of personal and social experiences and features various domains within the individual (Cash et al., 2004; Markus et al., 1982). When Cash et al. (2004) assessed one’s personal investment in their appearance, they identified self-evaluative and motivational saliences of appearance self-schema derived from the salience of one’s appearance in conceptual domains, such as historical salience, attentional and cognitive salience, salience to one’s sense of self, behavioral salience, affective salience, and interpersonal salience. Evaluative salience of appearance self-schema is defined as “the extent to which individuals define or measure themselves by their physical appearance in their social and emotional experiences,” and motivational salience of appearance self-schema is defined as “the extent to which individuals attend to their appearance and engage in appearance-management behaviors” (p. 312).

Both women and men with greater evaluative salience of appearance self-schema tend to show greater schematic investment in appearance as well as perfectionistic concerns about how they present themselves to others (Cash et al., 2004). They also perceive greater self-ideal discrepancies, have more negative body image quality for life, internalize appearance-related media ideals more seriously, and experience more frequently dysphoric body anxiety and more disturbed eating attitudes (Cash et al., 2004). However, compared to the evaluative salience of appearance self-schema, Cash et al. (2004) found that the motivational salience of appearance self-schema is less dysfunctional in engaging in appearance investment or management behavior because it influences neither body image quality of life nor self-esteem for both men and women. Yu and Jung (2018) also found women with greater motivational salience of appearance self-schema tend to have lower body anxiety and higher self-esteem, whereas women with higher evaluative salience of appearance self-schema tend to have higher body dissatisfaction and body anxiety but lower self-esteem.

Cash et al. (2004) found that both self-evaluative and motivational saliences in appearance investment or schematicity significantly influence body image dissatisfaction as well as disturbed eating attitudes and eating disorder behaviors. However, few scholars have investigated how these two saliences of appearance self-schema influence attitudinal and behavioral responses toward the brand portraying or advocating thin-idealized model images. Hargreaves and Tiggemann (2002) found that appearance commercials with thin ideals increased college-aged women’s activation of appearance schema, anger, and body dissatisfaction more than nonappearance commercials. Ip and Jarry (2008) also reported negative effects of both evaluative and motivational saliences of appearance self-schema on appearance self-esteem after media exposure of thin-ideal images or products. Interestingly, Yu and Jung (2018) found women with greater evaluative salience of appearance self-schema showed greater body dissatisfaction and body anxiety when exposed to thin-idealized model images rather than nonidealized model images. That is, the impacts of evaluative salience of appearance self-schema on body image were moderated by media exposure of thin ideals (Yu & Jung, 2018). These previous researchers supported the negative effects of appearance self-schema on body image and self-esteem after media exposure of thin ideals but did not provide empirical evidence about the potential effects of appearance self-schema on attitudinal and behavioral responses toward brands promoting thin ideals in advertisements.

Impact of Media Images on Advertising Effectiveness

Presentation of societal beauty ideals associated with body thinness is noticeable in media and advertisements because thin women are considered more physically attractive than large-sized women (Cash & Pruzinsky, 2002; Cash & Smolak, 2012; Grogan, 2016; Rudd & Lennon, 2001). Previous researchers indicated mixed results about positive advertising effectiveness of using highly attractive and thin models, compared with normally attractive and average-sized models (Bower & Landreth, 2001; Halliwell & Dittmar, 2005; Tsai & Chang, 2007). Highly attractive models were not more effective than normally attractive models (Bower & Landreth, 2001; Tsai & Chang, 2007). Besides, thin and/or more attractive models did not always create more effective, favorable attitudes and purchase intentions than average-sized and/or less attractive models (Dittmar & Howard, 2004; Halliwell & Dittmar, 2005; Yu, 2014; Yu et al., 2011). Prior scholars found no differences in attitude toward the ads, attitude toward brand, and purchase intention by models’ thinness (Dittmar & Howard, 2004; Halliwell & Dittmar, 2005; Yu, 2014; Yu et al., 2011).

Models’ thinness and attractiveness may influence consumers to perceive discrepancy between the models and themselves, which results in higher levels of body dissatisfaction (Yu, 2014). Yu and Jung (2018) found individuals with higher appearance self-discrepancy between actual and ideal selves tend to experience greater body dissatisfaction and body anxiety when exposed to thin models rather than average-sized models in the ads. However, inflated body dissatisfaction after seeing thin models in the ads did not significantly influence attitudes toward the ads nor purchase intention (Yu, 2014).

Overall, positive advertising effectiveness of thin, attractive models has been inconsistently supported, while some researchers support positive linkages between average-sized models similar to consumers and advertising effectiveness. Despite existing evidence about the impact of models’ thinness on body image and advertising effectiveness, few researchers have investigated a possible body image–related predictor that influences individual differences in responding to thin versus average-sized model images in the ads. Yu (2014) investigated thin-ideal internalization, awareness of social pressures, and social comparison tendency as possible predictors on body image and advertising effectiveness. She found these three predictors negatively influenced body image but did not influence advertising effectiveness. An investigation of possible body image–related predictors, such as self-evaluative and motivational schemas in appearance, is lacking on advertising effectiveness. Self-evaluative and motivational schemas in appearance are overlooked as an antecedent of attitudinal and behavioral responses that may influence individual differences in responding to media images. Particularly, individuals having higher motivational salience of appearance self-schema may enhance attitudinal and behavioral responses to thin-idealized model images in the ads, supporting the assumption of thinness sells because they tend to have higher motivations to improve their appearance through fashion consumption.

Hypotheses

Based on the self-schema theory and the literature review, the following hypotheses were developed to examine how self-evaluative and motivational schema in appearance influence advertising effectiveness, measured by attitude toward brands advertising with thin- or average-sized model images in the ads and purchase intention.

Hypothesis 1: Women who have a greater self-evaluative schema in appearance tend to (a) show a more negative attitude toward the brand and (b) respond with lower purchase intention toward the advertised products than those who have a lower self-evaluative schema in appearance.

Hypothesis 2: Women who have a greater self-evaluative schema in appearance tend to (a) show a more negative attitude toward the brand and (b) respond with lower purchase intention toward the advertised products than those who have a lower self-evaluative schema in appearance, when exposed to thin model images rather than average-sized model images in the ads.

Hypothesis 3: Women who have a greater motivational schema in appearance tend to (a) show a more positive attitude toward the brand and (b) respond with greater purchase intention toward the advertised products than those who have a lower motivational schema in appearance.

Hypothesis 4: Women who have a greater motivational schema in appearance tend to (a) show a more positive attitude toward the brand and (b) respond with greater purchase intention toward the advertised products than those who have a lower motivational schema in appearance, when exposed to thin model images rather than average-sized model images in the ads.

Method

Sample

A random, convenient sample of 6,000 female college students at a large Midwestern university in the United States was contacted by the university’s registrar’s office for a web-based survey. They were divided into three groups of 2,000 for each stimulus and emailed a cover letter, including a link to a web-based survey. Female college students were used because, first, females tend to experience body image concerns more than males regardless of age and body image, as such concerns are widely publicized as “women’s issues” (Grogan, 2016). Second, female college students are reported to experience more weight concerns, pursuit of thinness, risky appearance management behaviors, social comparison with thin-idealized media images, and poor body image and self-esteem (Cash & Pruzinsky, 2002; Grogan, 2016; Yu, 2014). Third, according to a meta-analysis that examines research about the effects of the media on body image, a majority of researchers reported the use of college students aged from 19 to 21 (Grabe et al., 2008).

Stimuli

Three stimuli were developed through digital manipulation of fashion model images, using Adobe Photoshop Version 6.0. Ten thin or average-sized fashion model images were selected from Vogue, Elle, Glamour, Marie Claire, and Harper's Bazzar magazines. Their body sizes and specific body areas were transformed through stretching, squeezing, and modifying techniques. Both thin and average-sized models were featured with the same face, hair, height, clothing, and background. Thin model stimulus included 10 thin model images with clothing sizes of 0–2. The average-sized model stimulus contained 10 average-sized model images with clothing sizes of 14–16. The average clothing sizes for women in the United States are sizes of 14–16 (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2012). The no-model stimulus consisted of 10 clothing-only images on display mannequins as a control condition to enhance validity of the results from the two stimuli and reduce any possibility of errors in data analysis and conclusion.

Instruments

Participants assessed their own appearance self-schema, including both self-evaluative and motivational schemas in appearance, before viewing the stimuli and evaluated their own attitudes toward brand and purchase intention after viewing the stimuli. Established scales were used to assess key variables. First, self-evaluative and motivational schemas in appearance were assessed by a 20-item revision of Appearance Schemas Inventory–Revised developed by Cash et al. (2004). This scale consists of 12 items of evaluative salience of appearance self-schema and 8 items of motivational salience of appearance self-schema to evaluate individuals’ cognitive-behavioral appearance-related self-schema. The Likert-type scale had a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Cash et al. (2004) reported that the internal consistency of evaluative salience of appearance self-schema was .89, while motivational salience of appearance self-schema was .86.

Attitude toward brand was assessed using six cognitive and affective items extracted from Bruner (1998) and Fiore et al. (2005). These 6 items consisted of a 5-point Likert-type semantic differential scale ranging from 1 (dislike) to 5 (like) and measured attitude toward brand in the ads using the models that participants browsed on the screen. The reliability of these items was reported as .97 (Yu, 2009).

Purchase intention was assessed through three behavioral intention items adapted from Baker and Churchill (1977), which evaluated the probability that participants would purchase the products just browsed in the ads. These three conative items on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranged from 1 (no, definitely not) to 7 (yes, definitely; Baker & Churchill, 1977).

Data Collection

The Institutional Review Board approved the use of human subjects in this study before data collection. A web-based survey was conducted by modifying Dillman et al.’s (2014) web survey design. The university’s Registrar’s Office contacted a total of 6,000 female college students, who were randomly selected and divided into three groups of 2,000. Each group of 2,000 female students was designated to view one of the three model stimuli. A cover letter with a link to the web survey was emailed to the female students, and a follow-up email was sent to them after 1 week (Dillman et al., 2014). Participants first completed evaluation of their own appearance self-schema. Then, they were exposed to view one of the three model stimuli. After they viewed the stimuli, they were asked to assess their attitudes toward brand and purchase intention.

Data Analysis

The summed score of the multiple items for each variable was used for data analysis, instead of using the mean score of the multiple items in each variable. Thus, an equal weight for each variable was provided, although the scales used in the multiple variables were different. Using IBM SPSS Statistics 25, data were analyzed with descriptive analysis, preliminary analysis, exploratory factor analysis, correlations, and multiple regressions.

Results

Descriptive Analysis

A total of 380 female college students at a large Midwestern university in the United States responded to the web-based survey, yielding a usable response rate of 6.3%. The mean age of the respondents was 22 years (SD = 5.30). Of these respondents, 92.1% were European American, 2.6% were African American, 4.0% were Hispanic American, 1.1% were Asian American, and 0.3% were other ethnicities. All participants reported 67 different majors. The sample size for each stimulus was 136 for thin models, 117 for average-sized models, and 127 for no models. Due to a low response rate of the web-based survey, a nonresponse bias was assessed by calculating estimated response rates on key characteristics such as age, ethnicity, major, and year in school of the total university female student population. The sample distribution was very similar to the university population, indicating little sign of nonresponse bias. After removing missing or incomplete data, a total of 321 responses were used for data analysis.

Manipulation Check of the Stimuli

A manipulation check was conducted to determine the effectiveness of the stimuli used in this study. Perceived differences of thinness between the two versions of thin and average-sized models were evaluated using the Contour Drawing Rating Scale (M. A. Thompson & Gray, 1995). Use of this scale enabled identification of the models’ thinness through nine body figures ranging from 1 (very thin) to 9 (very curvaceous). According to a one-way between-group analysis of variables, participants perceived that the thin models were thinner than average-sized models: F(1, 204) = 569.68, p < .001. The thin models were rated as mean 1.81, whereas the average-sized models were rated as mean 6.03, indicating a successful manipulation of the stimuli, based on the models’ thinness.

Preliminary Analyses

Construct validity was assessed by conducting exploratory factor analysis to determine a dimension of multiple indicators for each variable. Principal component analysis was used with orthogonal Varimax rotation. Kaiser normalization and requirement of eigenvalues greater than 1.0 were adopted for factor identification. The eigenvalue is the amount of variance explained by a factor and is estimated by summing the squared loadings on a factor. A factor loading is an estimated correlation between the observed variable and all items in the factor, ranging from −1 to 1. Factor loadings exceeding .40 were considered as evidence for construct validity (Hair et al., 1998). For all four variables, one factor was identified, indicating unidimensionality of the multi-item measurement variables.

To assess composite reliability, internal consistency was examined using Cronbach’s α coefficient (Cronbach, 1951). Cronbach’s α of .70 or higher was considered an acceptable cutoff to determine internal consistency of the multiple indicators for each variable (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). Reliabilities of all four variables were above .70, demonstrating internal consistency for each variable (see Table 1).

Table 1.

Results of Exploratory Factor Analysis.

Constructs	Factor Loading	Cronbach’s α
Appearance self-schema
Decide on the extent to which you personally disagree or agree with each statement: 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
Self-evaluative schema in appearance		.86
1. When I see good-looking people, I wonder about how my own looks measure up.	.76
2. I seldom compare my appearance to that of other people I see.	.63
3. When something makes me feel good or bad about my looks, I tend to dwell on it.	.73
4. If I like how I look on a given day, it’s easy to feel happy about other things.	.53
5. If somebody had a negative reaction to what I look like, it wouldn’t bother me.	.60
6. My physical appearance has had little influence on my life.	.53
7. When I meet people for the first time, I wonder what they think about how I look.	.78
8. In my everyday life, lots of things happen that make me think about what I look like.	.77
9. If I dislike how I look on a given day, it’s hard to feel happy about other things.	.73
10. I fantasize about what it would be like to be better looking than I am.	.73
11. By controlling my appearance, I can control many of the social and emotional events in my life.	.59
12. My appearance is responsible for much of what’s happened to me in my life.	.60
(Eigenvalue = 5.39, % variance explained = 44.88%)
Motivational schema in appearance		.89
13. I spend little time on my physical appearance.	.67
14. I try to be as physically attractive as I can be.	.74
15. I have never paid much attention to what I look like.	.73
16. I often check my appearance in a mirror just to make sure I look okay.	.54
17. When it comes to my physical appearance, I have high standards.	.73
18. Dressing well is not a priority for me.	.71
19. Before going out, I make sure that I look as good as I possibly can.	.75
20. What I look like is an important part of who I am.	.67
(Eigenvalue = 3.88, % variance explained = 48.49%)
Attitude toward brand		.98
Please indicate your attitude toward the brand in the ads using the models that you just browsed on the screen: 1 to 5
1. Dislike/like	.95
2. Negative/positive	.96
3. Bad/good	.97
4. Unfavorable/favorable	.97
5. Unpleasant/pleasant	.96
6. Not appealing/appealing	.94
(Eigenvalue = 5.53, % variance explained = 92.08%)
Purchase intention		.78
Please rate the probability that you would purchase the products that you just browsed in the advertisements: 1 (no, definitely not) to 7 (yes, definitely)
1. Would you like to try the products on the ads?	.84
2. Would you buy the products on the ads if you happened to see it in a store?	.89
3. Would you actively seek out the products on the ads in a store in order to purchase it?	.78
(Eigenvalue = 2.10, % variance explained = 70.13%)

Discriminant validity was also examined through the Pearson correlations among the constructs, and the criterion of correlation values less than .85 was suggested for demonstrating discriminant validity (Kline, 1998). As shown in Table 2, relatively low to moderate correlations among the variables were identified, representing discriminant validity of the variables.

Table 2.

Results of Pearson Correlation Analysis.

Key Variables	MT	SESA	MSA	AB	PI
Model type	—
Self-evaluative schema in appearance	−.02	—
Motivational schema in appearance	−.01	.59***	—
Attitude toward brand	−.08	.08	.17**	—
Purchase intention	−.03	.12*	.08	.55***	—
Mean	.06	40.27	27.89	21.38	4.14
Standard deviation	.82	8.85	4.56	5.34	1.14

Note. n = 321. MT = model type; SESA = self-evaluative schema in appearance; MSA = motivational schema in appearance; AB = attitude toward brand; PI = purchase intention.

*p < .05. **p < .01 (two-tailed).

Testing Hypotheses

Multiple regression analyses were conducted to examine the main and interaction effects of model type and two appearance self-schemas on attitude toward brand and purchase intention. Independent variables included model type, self-evaluative schema in appearance, motivational schema in appearance, interaction between model type and self-evaluative schema in appearance, and interaction between model type and motivational schema in appearance. Dependent variables were attitude toward brand and purchase intention. Model type coded thin models as 1, average-sized models as −1, and no models as 0. The three independent variables were centered by deducting a mean to avoid a multicollinearity issue, especially in the interaction variables with model type and two appearance self-schemas.

Hypotheses 1(a) and 1(b) were not supported. As seen in Table 3, there were no main effects of self-evaluative schema in appearance on advertising effectiveness. Self-evaluative schema in appearance did not significantly and negatively influence attitude toward brands advertising the thin or average-sized model images, β = −.02, t = −.27, p > .05, nor purchase intention, β = .12, t = 1.68, p > .05. That is, participants who had a greater self-evaluative schema in appearance did not show a more negative attitude toward the brand and respond with lower purchase intention toward the advertised products than those who had a lower self-evaluative schema in appearance. Findings confirmed no main effect of self-evaluative schema in appearance on advertising effectiveness.

Table 3.

Multiple Regression Analyses Testing Hypotheses 1–4.

Dependent Variable
Independent Variable	F-Value	R²	B	Std. Error	β	t
Attitude toward brand	3.70**	.06
Model type	(5, 315)		−.57	.36	−.09	−1.61
Self-evaluative schema in appearance			−.01	.04	−.02	−.27
Motivational schema in appearance			.20	.08	.17	2.45*
MT × SESA			−.02	.05	−.02	−.36
MT × MSA			.22	.10	.16	2.29*
Purchase intention	1.93	.03
Model type	(5, 315)		−.05	.08	−.03	−.59
Self-evaluative schema in appearance			.02	.01	.12	1.68
Motivational schema in appearance			.01	.02	.01	.04
MT × SESA			−.01	.01	−.02	−.31
MT × MSA			.04	.02	.14	1.99*

Note. n = 321 (listwise deletion). The categorical variable “model type” was coded as Thin Model = 1, Average-Sized Model = −1, No Model (Control) = 0. MT = model type; SESA = Self-evaluative schema in appearance; MSA = Motivational schema in appearance.

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001 (two-tailed).

Hypotheses 2(a) and 2(b) were not supported. No interaction effect of model type and self-evaluative schema in appearance on advertising effectiveness was indicated. Regardless of thin and average-sized model images presented in the ads, self-evaluative schema in appearance did not significantly and negatively influence attitude toward brand, β = −.02, t = −.36, p > .05, as well as purchase intention, β = −.02, t = −.31, p > .05. This means that participants who had a greater self-evaluative schema in appearance did not show a more negative attitude toward brand or lower purchase intention toward the advertised products, when exposed to thin models or averaged-sized models.

Hypothesis 3(a) was supported, but Hypothesis 3(b) was not supported. As seen in Table 3, there was a significant main effect of motivational schema in appearance on attitude toward brand. That is, motivational schema in appearance significantly and positively influenced attitude toward brand, β = .17, t = 2.45, p < .05. Participants with higher motivational self-schema in appearance showed more positive attitudes toward brand than those who had a lower, motivational schema in appearance. However, motivational schema in appearance did not significantly or positively influence purchase intention, β = .01, t = .04, p > .05.

Hypotheses 4(a) and 4(b) were supported. There were significant interaction effects of model type and motivational schema in appearance on attitude toward brand and purchase intention. The positive effect of motivational schema in appearance on attitude toward brand depended on exposure of the thin versus average-sized models: β = .16, t = 2.29, p < .05. Participants who had higher motivational schema in appearance showed greater positive attitudes toward brand when they watched thin models rather than average-sized or no models. Additionally, the positive effect of motivational schema in appearance on purchase intention was also moderated by exposure of the thin and average-sized model images: β = .14, t = 1.99, p < .05. Participants who had higher motivational schema in appearance responded to greater purchase intention when they watched thin models than average-sized or no models.

According to the multiple regression analyses in Table 3, model type did not significantly influence attitude toward brand after model exposure, β = −.09, t = −1.61, p > .05, as well as purchase intention, β = −.03, t = −.59, p > .05. An additional analysis through one-way between-group analysis of variance also supported no differences in attitude toward brand, F(2, 318) = 1.13, p > .05, and purchase intention, F(2, 318) = .02, p > .05. Participants exposed to thin models (M = 20.81, SD = 5.39) did not significantly show more or less positive attitudes toward brand than participants exposed to average-sized models (M = 21.82, SD = 5.54) and no models (M = 21.62, SD = 5.07). Similarly, participants exposed to thin models (M = 4.02, SD = 1.09) did not significantly show greater or lower purchase intention than participants exposed to average-sized models (M = 4.08, SD = 1.18) and no models (M = 4.34, SD = 1.15).

Figures 1 and 2 demonstrate the moderating effects of model type on the relationship between motivational schema in appearance and attitude toward brand/purchase intention. That is, the nature or strength of the relationship between motivational schema in appearance and attitude toward brand/purchase intention changed, depending on different model types in the ads. Participants who had higher motivational schema in appearance showed more positive attitudes toward brand and greater purchase intention when exposed to thin models in the ads than when exposed to average-sized models in the ads. Contrastingly, participants who had lower motivational schema in appearance responded with a more positive attitude toward brand and greater purchase intention when exposed to average-sized models in the ads. That is, there were individual differences of attitudinal and behavioral responses to model images in the ads, depending on the degree of motivational schema in appearance and model type.

Figure 1.

Moderating effect of model type on the relationship between motivational schema in appearance and attitude toward brand.

Figure 2.

Moderating effect of model type on the relationship between motivational schema in appearance and purchase intention.

Discussion

In this study, I investigated how self-evaluative and motivational schemas in appearance influenced attitudes toward brands advertising thin and average-sized models and purchase intention, and how using thin versus average-sized models influenced the effect of two appearance self-schemas on attitude toward brand and purchase intention. In this study, participants’ attitudes toward brand and purchase intention were not different by model type, including thin, average-sized, or no models. Consistent with prior studies, I supported the idea that thin-idealized models in ads were no more effective than average-sized models in terms of attitudinal and behavioral responses (Dittmar & Howard, 2004; Halliwell & Dittmar, 2005; Tsai & Chang, 2007; Yu, 2014; Yu et al., 2011).

Participants’ self-evaluative schema in appearance did not influence their attitude toward brand nor purchase intention when exposed to thin models or averaged-sized models. However, participants with higher motivational schema in appearance showed more positive attitudes toward brand and responded positively toward the brand with greater purchase intention when exposed to thin models rather than average-sized models. This implies that individuals who have higher motivational schema in appearance may be more inspired or stimulated by thin models in ads, internalize them more seriously to shape their personal appearance goals, and consequently respond to advertising with thin models more favorably (Cash & Smolak, 2012; Yu, 2014; Yu et al., 2011).

Through the findings from this study, I make an academic contribution by providing empirical evidence of motivational schema in appearance as a significant antecedent and moderator influencing positive responses to thin-idealized model images in ads. In this study, theoretical contributions were made by empirically testing the self-schema theory and highlighting the important function of motivational schema in appearance on advertising effectiveness, especially for fashion brands. I also contribute the groundbreaking insight of thinness sells and explain why thin-idealized models are constantly utilized in the advertising and fashion industries. In spite of the critique regarding the negative impact of thin-idealized model images on body image and self-esteem, thin models are considered more effective in ads than average-sized or realistic models (Yu, 2014). The functional role of motivation schema in appearance advocates the current advertising practices overflowing thin-idealized model images everywhere.

People tend to represent their status characteristics through appearance in a hierarchical social structure (Rudd & Lennon, 2001). Thinness is one of the key status characteristics that contains social and cultural values—thin women are considered more physically attractive, professional, competent, socially desirable, and comfortable (Cash & Pruzinsky, 2002; Cash & Smolak, 2012; Grogan, 2016; Rudd & Lennon, 2001). To be thin and physically attractive is socially and culturally valued. Many women are eager to achieve thinness and physical attractiveness to be socially advantaged and accepted as well as avoid being stigmatized or rejected due to appearances in interpersonal processes (Cash & Pruzinsky, 2002; Cash & Smolak, 2012; Grogan, 2016; Rudd & Lennon, 2001). Many women perceive their bodies as malleable and controllable to achieve culturally and socially accepted features of physical thinness and appearance (Jobsky, 2014). According to this study’s findings, individuals more schematic for being thin or physically attractive may process appearance-related information more actively and seriously than those who are aschematic or less schematic for appearance, especially when exposed to thin model images rather than average-sized model images in ads. Appearance self-schema is used for managing or improving one’s appearance, and individuals with greater appearance self-schema tend to have higher schematic investment in appearance (Cash et al., 2004). I identify a significant role of motivational schema in appearance to process media images for improving or managing appearance. Compared to self-evaluative schema in appearance, motivational schema in appearance tend to be more functional in processing thin-idealized model images and engaging in appearance investment or management behavior.

From another perspective, I also suggest that the use of thin models may influence attitudinal and behavioral responses in an unintended direction, depending on individual differences in motivational schema in appearance. For example, individuals who have lower or no motivational schema could respond to thin-idealized model images less positively than average-sized model images. That is, individual differences in motivational schema in appearance could result in double-edged effects of the use of thin models on attitudinal and behavioral responses because ads advocating thinness sells tend to work only for individuals who have greater motivational schema in appearance.

Thus, I suggest implications for developing advertising and marketing strategies with perspectives of individual differences in motivational schema in appearance. Female consumers with lower motivational schema in appearance are likely to respond to thin-idealized models less favorably than those with higher motivational schema. Promoting the motivation or desire to be thin or physically attractive using thin models will not work effectively for female consumers with low or average motivational schema in appearance. Alternative or combined use of average-sized or nonidealized model images may enhance advertising effectiveness for those with low and average motivational schema in appearance. Thin models in ads would not be the most successful, effective strategy in marketing or advertising for all female consumers who have individual differences in self-evaluative and motivational schemas in appearance. Marketers or advertising professionals need to inclusively use more average-sized, plus-sized, or nonidealized model images of beauty to provide a variety of body weights, sizes, and shapes in ads to maximize advertising effectiveness (Feitelberg & Hughes, 2017).

For example, Aerie, a fashion brand of American Eagle Outfitters, has inclusively presented realistic model images with curvy, plus-sized bodies, as well as launched an anti-retouching movement through its #AerieReal campaign since 2014 (Cheng, 2017). The fashion brand’s body positivity campaign has gained support and positive responses from consumers; hence, their fashion brand’s sales increased 20% during 2016 (Cheng, 2017). Following Aerie’s game-changing practice to break stereotypes and encourage self-expression for all women, more fashion retailers in mass market, such as Forever 21, Target, and Old Navy, have begun to embrace realistic, nonidealized models with curvy, extended sizes (Cheng, 2017). Advertising campaigns like #AerieReal, JCPenney’s #HereIAm, and Dove’s Campaign for Real Beauty communicate the value beauty and fashion brands provide to their target consumers (Nguyen, 2019). Ad campaigns that support diversity, inclusion, and body positivity will not only redefine beauty through the use of more diverse and real women as models but also diversify the representation of women in ads to improve body image and self-esteem of women everywhere. Victoria’s Secret, one of the leading lingerie brands in the United States, canceled their 2019 fashion show because of declining viewership and increasing criticism toward the use of thin-idealized, body-objectified, and hypersexualized models (Nguyen, 2019; Safdar, 2019). The brand’s portrayal of women does not appeal to female customers as strongly as it did because female consumers want to look for more body inclusivity and diversity messages that encourage female empowerment, like those found in Rihanna’s Savage X Fenty, Third Love, and Aerie (Nguyen, 2019).

It is becoming more important to create ads and marketing campaigns that do not exclude or alienate their target consumers by using only thin-idealized model images. As indicated in this study, individual differences in motivational schema in appearance should be considered more seriously when developing advertising and marketing campaigns. Fashion brands and advertising companies need to be encompassing and inclusive of all body types in ads and advocate for the acceptance of all bodies regardless of size, shape, form, or appearance. This is because all humans should be empowered to have a positive body image by challenging the current ways of presenting unrealistic or thin-idealized beauty standards.

Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research

This study should be evaluated or interpreted with several limitations. First, this study employed a random, convenient sample of female college students, predominantly European American, enrolled in a Midwestern university in the United States. Responses from a college student sample could be different from those of the total U.S. population. Second, this study may be limited by the stimuli used because all models in the stimuli were White. The main focus of this study was to investigate the moderating effects of model type featured by thinness on the relationship between appearance self-schema and advertising effectiveness. Thus, potential effects of ethnicity and other factors, such as age, sex, sexual orientation, and so forth, were excluded. For future research, more diverse samples with a wide variety of age, sex, education, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and cultures could provide more understanding of individual differences in appearance self-schema, along with racially different model images in all different shapes and sizes. Exploring additional moderators such as a model’s ethnicity, attractiveness, or similarity may provide more in-depth explanations about how appearance self-schema influences advertising effectiveness.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Amodio

J. V.

(2018, May 3). New plus size fashion brands from Loft, Macy’s and others. https://www.newsday.com/lifestyle/fashion-and-shopping/plus-size-fashion-1.18362466

Baker

M. J.

Churchill

G. A.

(1977). The impact of physically attractive models on advertising evaluations. Journal of Marketing Research, 14(4), 538–555.

Bower

A. B.

Landreth

S. L.

(2001). Is beauty best? Highly versus normally attractive models in advertising. Journal of Advertising, 30, 1–12.

Bruner

G. C.

(1998). Standardization & justification: Do A_ad scales measure up? Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 20(1), 1–18.

Cash

T. F.

Labarge

A. S.

(1996). Development of the Appearance Schemas Inventory: A new cognitive body-image assessment. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 20(1), 37–50.

Cash

T. F

Melnyk

Hrabosky

J. I.

(2004). The assessment of body-image investment: An extensive revision of the appearance schemas inventory. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 35, 305–316.

Cash

T. F.

Pruzinsky

. (2002). A handbook of theory, research, and clinical practice. Guilford Press.

Cash

T. F.

Smolak

. (2012). Body image: A handbook of science, practice, and prevention. Guildford Press.

Cheng

(2017, October 3). There’s a reason you’re seeing more curvy models in mass-market fashion campaigns. Glamour. https://www.glamour.com/story/curvy-models-commercial-fashion-casting

10.

Cronbach

L. J.

(1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 31, 93–96.

11.

Dillman

D. A.

Smyth

J. D.

Christian

L. M

. (2014). Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method (4th ed.). John Wiley & Sons.

12.

Dittmar

Howard

(2004). Professional hazards? The impact of models’ body size on advertising effectiveness and women’s body-focused anxiety in professions that do and do not emphasize the cultural ideal of thinness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 43(4), 477–497.

13.

Feitelberg

Hughes

(2017, March 14). Paying attention at last, designers, retailers upgraded plus-size offerings. Women’s Wear Daily. http://wwd.com/fashion-news/fashion-features/paying-attention-at-last-designers-retailers-upgrade-plus-size-offerings-10841590/

14.

Fiore

A. M.

Jin

H.-J.

Kim

(2005). For fun and profit: Hedonic value from image interactivity and responses toward an online store. Psychology & Marketing, 22(8), 669–694.

15.

Gillian

(2000, May 30). Skinny models ‘send unhealthy message.’ The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/may/31/audreygillan

16.

Grabe

Ward

L. M.

Hyde

J. S.

(2008). The role of the media in body image concerns among women: A meta-analysis of experimental and correlational studies. Psychological Bulletin, 134(3), 460–476.

17.

Grogan

. (2016). Body image: Understanding body dissatisfaction in men, women and children. Routledge.

18.

Hair

J. F.

Black

W. C.

Babin

B. J.

Anderson

R. E.

Tatham

R. L

. (1998). Multivariate data analysis. Prentice Hall.

19.

Halliwell

Dittmar

(2005). The role of self-improvement and self-evaluation motives in social comparisons with idealized female bodies in the media. Body Image, 2(3), 249–261.

20.

Hargreaves

Tiggemann

(2002). The effect of television commercials on mood and body dissatisfaction: The role of appearance-schema activation. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 21(3), 287–308.

21.

Jarry

J. L.

(2008). Investment in body image for self-definition results in greater vulnerability to the thin media than does investment in appearance management. Body Image, 5(1), 59–69.

22.

Jobsky

. (2014). The body-image-meaning-transfer model: An investigation of the sociocultural impact on individuals’ body-image. Anchor Academic Publishing.

23.

Jung

Lennon

S. J.

Rudd

N. A.

(2001). Self-schema or self-discrepancy? Which best explains body image? Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 19(4), 171–184.

24.

Kline

R. B

. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford Press.

25.

Markus

(1977). Self-schemata and processing information about the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 63–78.

26.

Markus

Crane

Bernstein

Siladi

(1982). Self-schemas and gender. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42(1), 38–50.

27.

Moreno-Domínguez

Servián-Franco

del Paso

G. A. R.

Cepeda-Benito

(2019). Images of thin and plus-size models produce opposite effects on women’s body image, body dissatisfaction, and anxiety. Sex Roles, 80(9–10), 607–616.

28.

Mulgrew

K. E.

Tiggemann

(2018). Form or function: Does focusing on body functionality protect women from body dissatisfaction when viewing media images? Journal of Health Psychology, 23(1), 84–94

29.

Nguyen

(2019, November 22). The 2019 Victoria’s Secret fashion show has been canceled. It was only a matter of time. https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2019/11/22/20978041/victorias-secret-fashion-show-canceled

30.

Nunnally

J. C.

Bernstein

I. H

. (1994). Psychometric theory. McGraw-Hill.

31.

Ordaz

D. L.

Schaefer

L. M.

Choquette

Schueler

Wallace

Thompson

J. K.

(2018). Thinness pressures in ethnically diverse college women in the United States. Body Image, 24, 1–4.

32.

Rudd

N. A.

Lennon

S. J.

(2001). Body image: Linking aesthetics and social psychology of appearance. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 19(3), 120–133.

33.

Safdar

(2019, May 10). Victoria’s Secret fashion show leaving network TV. The Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/victorias-secret-fashion-show-leaving-network-tv-11557512139

34.

Thompson

J. K.

Coovert

M. D.

Stormer

S. M.

(1999). Body image, social comparison, and eating disturbance: A covariance structure modeling investigation. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 26(1), 43–51.

35.

Thompson

M. A.

Gray

J. J.

(1995). Development and validation of a new body image assessment scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 64, 258–269.

36.

Tsai

Chang

(2007). The effect of physical attractiveness of models on advertising effectiveness for male and female adolescents. Adolescence, 42(168), 827–836.

37.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2012). Anthropometric reference data for children and adults: United States, 2007–2010. Vital and Health Statistics, 11. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_11/sr11_252.pdf

38.

(2009). Relationship of body satisfaction to virtual product experience and perceived risk of product performance in online and multi-channel apparel shopping (Publication No. 10818) [Doctoral dissertation, Iowa State University]. Digital Repository@ Iowa State University. https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/etd/10818

39.

(2014). Deconstructing college students’ perceptions of thin-idealized versus nonidealized media images on body dissatisfaction and advertising effectiveness. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 32(3), 153–169.

40.

Damhorst

M. L.

Russell

D. W.

(2011). The impact of body image on consumers’ perceptions of idealized advertising images and brand attitudes. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal , 40(1), 58–73.

41.

Jung

(2018). Effects of self-discrepancy and self-schema on young women’s body image and self-esteem after media image exposure. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal , 47(2), 142–160.