SIVAM: The Development of Hierarchy of Effects Model for Unmentionable Product Advertisements
Sumathi Paramasivam Mangalam1*
1 Faculty of Business, Economics and Accounting, HELP University, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
*Corresponding Author: [email protected] Accepted: 15 August 2022 | Published: 1 September 2022
DOI:https://doi.org/10.55057/ajrbm.2022.4.3.17
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Abstract: This paper aims to review the hierarchy of effects models in advertising. The AIDA (Awareness, Interest, Desire, and Action) model has been used by many advertising and marketing academicians and practitioners in marketing and advertising literature. The model is used to measure the effect of an advertisement. However, the development of information technology has radically widened and changed the way of how people communicate and socialize; as well as a paradigm shift from product-oriented marketing to people-oriented marketing. People’s reactions to advertisements are changing from feeling offended, outraged or embarrassed to happy, eager and excited, and vice versa due to culture, tradition, norms moral and religious virtues. As the advertising and marketing field is becoming more complex, therefore the variables in the hierarchy of effects needs to be more systematic in approaching to understand how the evolving socio-demographic impacts consumer power. Based on in- depth literature review and reflective method, this paper introduces a new concept of hierarchy of effects model that was adopted from AIDA, namely: SIVAM (Sensibility, Inquisitiveness, Voracity, Adjudication and Mediate).
Keywords: Unmentionable product, Unmentionable product advertisements, AIDA, Hierarchy of Effects
___________________________________________________________________________
1. Introduction
The purpose of an advertisement is to convert peoples’ perceptions or attitudes by “turning their minds towards” purchase. Advertisement’s penultimate aim is to whirl consumers’
behaviours in a particular manner concerning a product or service; to bait, intrigue and charm consumers to the business and finally to entice, enchant and bewitch existing consumers (Kotler & Keller, 2018). In the nutshell, advertisement is a camouflaged psychological warfare engineered to stimulate an intense desire for a product or service, reinforce values and behaviour, reassure current consumers that they made the right choice as well as to nurture awareness in the marketplace.
Yet, advertisements do not narrate the entire story, but sufficient just to lure consumers. The desired result is for consumers to remember the promises and possibly inspiring a change in their purchasing behaviours. This is feasible as advertisements unconsciously infiltrate consumers’ minds with desires and beliefs – creating a need to know, taste, touch and wanting to own the product, thus leading to either an urge to purchase or a craving to discover more (O’Guinn et al., 2011). In short, advertisements would ethereally weave their spell
inconspicuously to cajole and mesmerize consumers into believing in the product and eventually purchasing it (Terkan, 2014).
2. Literature Review
2.1 Controversial Advertisements
Nonetheless, people are offended when advertisements entice them to ‘think’ of lust, sins, temptation, lasciviousness, wrath, greed, sorrow or other uncontrollable desires. Any visual puffery calculated to hurt feelings or arouse anger, disgust, outrage or embarrassment is seen as offensive and controversial.
Controversial advertisement refers to the products that may harm public morals or are considered socially indecent and unmentionable in public because they are offensive, embarrassing or socially sensitive. Controversial advertisements are accused of implanting unwelcomed feelings in consumers’ minds; hence from the consumers’ social norms and religious values perspective, it becomes offensive (Ting & De Run, 2012). This is an unresolvable predicament as there are uncountable social norms and religious values that can trigger the controversial sentiments across any society, irrespective of whether it is multi- ethnic, multi-religion or not.
Most of the controversies in an advertisement is caused by the execution of the advertisement (Manceau & Tissier-Desbordes, 2006; Beard, 2008). The product is not controversial, but the execution technique is making it become provocative. Any advertisement that portrays indecent language, nudity, racism, sexism, anti-social or subject too personal (Ting et al., 2015), will have a backlash from certain segments of society who will be horrified that such blasphemy is shown. Thus, the advertisement is now controversial, but the product is not.
2.2 Unmentionable Product Advertisements
The other controversy is caused by the advertised product itself such as displaying a sanitary pad in a sanitary pad advertisement. This is where marketers are baffled, consumers are purchasing and using the product albeit discreetly, but advertisements of the same product are scorned. These advertisements are perceived to be controversial, simply because the nature of the product is deemed offensive (Nooh et al., 2014; Ting et al., 2015). The feeling of mortification being near the proximity of these products or being seen with or seen looking at these product advertisements has made people avoid mentioning it in any discussion (Katsanis, 1994). Even though these products are labelled controversial, it is not illegal products; therefore, the advertisements of these products are not illegal either, and these products are used by consumers regardless of gender, ethnicity, religion or income. Yet there is a sense of disquiet when these product advertisements are in public view.
These products are classified as ‘unmentionables’ (Wilson & West, 1981; Katsanis, 1994);
‘socially sensitive products’ (Shao & Hill, 1994; Fahy et al., 1995); ‘provocative products’
(Manceau & Tissier-Desbordes, 2006); ‘controversial products’ (Rehman & Brooks, 1987;
Waller et al., 2005); and ‘offensive products’ (Prendergast et al., 2002; Prendergast & Hwa, 2003). The inception of the term unmentionable was by Wilson and West (1981) who defines it as “products, services, or concepts that for reasons of delicacy, decency, morality, or even fear tend to elicit reactions of distaste, disgust, offence, or outrage when mentioned or when openly presented." These products are bought discreetly and used quietly but never to be mentioned, henceforth the label unmentionables. Advertising unmentionable products is challenging as these advertisements are expected to trigger negative responses. Even if the
execution technique is not offensive, the advertisement will still be offensive for one reason only – the product is an unmentionable; henceforth not suitable for public display. Therefore, even if the unmentionable product advertisement is camouflaged, just because it is advertising an unmentionable product inadvertently the advertisement is seen as embarrassing and undesirable.
2.3 Hierarchy of Effects
Advertisements strike a chord in consumers’ needs, attitudes and desires, therefore soliciting variations of reactions from consumers. The tricomponents (ABC): cognitive (e.g. recall), affective (e.g. attitudes), and conative (e.g. purchase intention) expounds that consumers move from becoming aware of the advertisements, evaluating their feelings and finally leading them to act on the information gleaned, either purchasing the product or a change in their state of mind (Schiffman & Wisenblit, 2019). Henceforth spawned a number of hierarchical models which expatiates on how attitude towards advertisements create desires that lead to purchase intention. All these hierarchical models (Table 1) depict ‘how advertisement works’ in persuading consumers to take action.
Table 1: Selected List of Hierarchical of Effect Models
YEAR MODEL DEVELOPER
1900 AIDA Attention, Interest, Desire, Action E St Elmo Lewis
1910 AICA Attention, Interest, Conviction, Action Printer’s Ink Editorial 1911 AIDAS Attention, Interest, Desire, Action, Satisfaction Arthur F. Sheldon 1915 AICCA Attention, Interest, Confidence, Conviction, Action Samuel R. Hall 1921 AIDCA Attention, Interest, Desire, Conviction, Action Harry D. Kitson 1922 AIJA Attention, Interest, Judgment, Action Alexander Osborn 1938 AID(W)C(S)PS Attention, Interest, Desire (Want), Conviction
(Solution), Purchase, Solution
Edward K. Strong 1940 AIDCA Attention, Interest, Desire, Conviction, Action Clyde Bedell 1956 AIDMA Attention, Interest, Desire, Memory, Action Merrill Devoe 1961 ACCA Awareness, Comprehension, Conviction, Action Russell H. Coney 1961 Hierarchy of
Effects
Awareness, Knowledge, Liking, Preference, Conviction, Purchase
Robert J. Lavidge Gary A. Steiner 1962 AIETA Awareness, Interest, Evaluation, Trial, Adoption Everett M. Rogers 1969 EARACP Exposure, Attention, Retention, Attitude, Change,
Purchase
David A. Schwartz 1969 ACAIP Attention, Comprehension, Attitude, Intention,
Purchase
John Howard Jagdish Sheth 1971 ACALTA Awareness, Comprehension, Attitude, Legitimation,
Trial, Adoption
Thomas S. Robertson
1974 ATR Awareness, Trial, Reinforcement Andrew S. C. Ehrenberg
1975 APMAI Attention, Perception, Memory, Attitude, Intention Morris B. Holbrook 1982 The Association
Model
distribution, vehicle exposure, advertising exposure, advertising awareness, advertising elements awareness, association evaluation, product perception, integrated perception, product evaluation, prior evaluation.
integrated evaluation,
product stimulation, prior stimulation, integrated stimulation,
search, search perception, search evaluation, search simulation,
trial, trial perception, trial stimulation, adoption, adoption perception, adoption evaluation, adoption stimulation.
Ivan L. Preston 1983 The expanded
Association Model
Esther Thorson
1997 Response Model for
Exposure, Type of product/Type of Execution, Processing, Communication Effect, Action
John R Rossiter Larry Percy
Controversial Advertising
2005 AISAS Attention. Interest, Search, Action, Share Dentsu Group 2012 AISDALSLove Attention, Interest, Search, Desire, Action,
Like/Dislike, Share, Love/Hate
Bambang Sukma Wijaya
AIDA (Awareness-Interest-Desire-Action) was the first model to suggest that advertising works through a hierarchy of effects, proposing that consumers need to accomplish a list of chores in order to move through a series of psychological steps from product awareness to purchase (Hackley, 2005). Until consumers are made aware of the product, purchase would not occur. Therefore, awareness is about creating situations that will concoct product awareness.
An advertisement usually grabs the attention of potential consumers by the use of unusual design, colour, sound, typography, celebrity, eye-catching facts, or via digital technologies (Arens et al., 2014; Belch et al., 2017). Consumers are persuaded that the product is worth investigating, by giving them reasons to want to learn more about the product. In this way a need is created, a bond established, and consumers feel as though the product has something unique, hence cementing consumers’ interest in it. In the next stage marketers attempt to create emotional connections by stoking the flames of desire within consumers until they crave for the product. Therefore, consumers move from "I like it" to "I want it". However, the ultimate goal is making a purchase. Consumers who arrive in the action stage are the ones with a positive impression of the product advertised and the only thing left to do now is to purchase the product (Kotler & Keller, 2016).
Despite being quoted as the strongest advertising theory (Barry & Howard, 1990; Butterfield, 1997; Brierley, 2002; Hackley, 2005), AIDA has also been criticized. There is no evidence that consumers behave in this sequential linear way. Moreover, critics do not think that the model illustrates how consumers move from awareness to purchase, and to simply state the stages without explaining them, is not sufficient (Weilbacher, 2001; Karlsson, 2007). The model does not take into consideration the effects of controversial advertisements or unmentionable product advertisements. Despite these criticisms, the hierarchical model is still used for measuring the effectiveness of advertisements in the marketplace. To countercheck these flaws, researchers have tabled variations of contemporary hierarchical models by modifying AIDA to include stages, either by changing the nomenclature of their predecessors or by adding new stages or deleting unrelated stages (Yoo et al., 2004).
Sheldon (1911) proposed that AIDA was missing one stage and added ‘Satisfaction’, hence the birth of AIDAS. This model recognizes that consumers’ emotions influence purchase intentions leading to the sentiment of (un)satisfaction. Only happy (satisfied) consumers will repurchase and do referral, whilst unhappy consumers will provide negative word-of-mouth (WOM) to their friends and families (Rehman et al., 2014). Kitson (1921) introduced AIDCA by adding ‘Conviction’ to AIDA. In conviction, consumers question the necessity to purchase the advertised product. This is where reviews, product information and advertisements combine to instill comfort and confidence towards the product; thus triggering consumers intentions to make a purchase (Ugonna et al., 2017). Covey (1961) incorporated ‘Comprehension’ to the hierarchy of effects, creating ACCA. Once advertisements capture consumers’ interest and evoke desire, they will be roused to seek more information to comprehend the attributes of the product. If the information is able to coax and sway consumers that this product was meant for them, they will be lured into purchasing the advertised product (Karlsson, 2007).
Wijaya (2012) introduced AISDALSLove by including ‘Like/ dislike’, and ’Love’ to AIDAS.
Consumers who had purchased products will share whether they like/dislike to express their
satisfaction or dissatisfaction towards the products. Consumers would eventually develop deep feelings for the product, which can be either (love) positive or (hate) negative. If it is love, they would generate positive WOM and negative WOM if it is hate, leading to loss of future sales (Wijaya, 2012).
The Response Model for Controversial Advertising (1997) illustrates how emotional responses towards controversial advertising persuade consumers to purchase or not to purchase the advertised product. The model depicts that there are two ways responses are evoked (i) capturing consumers’ attitudes towards the advertisements (execution technique), and (ii) attitudes towards the advertised products. Certain products are offensive (matter), therefore when advertised are labelled controversial e.g. adult diapers, birth control pills, infertility treatments and feminine hygiene products (Waller, 1999; Phau & Prendergast, 2001). On the other hand, there are also certain uncontroversial products which became controversial due to the execution technique (manner) undertaken that sparks unwarranted negative emotions (Pope et al., 2004; Waller, 2005). Therefore, matter and manner would determine the level of emotions consumers’ feel, to ascertain whether the advertisement is offensive or not.
3. Methodology
This paper is a conceptual paper. The objective of this paper is to review and analyze the existing hierarchy of effects models in advertising and introducing a new framework of hierarchy of effects model applicable for unmentionable product advertisements. In formulating the framework, the author had reviewed numerous literatures reflected with the latest phenomenon, which is the controversies caused by the unmentionable product advertisements. These advertisements are perceived to be controversial, simply because the nature of the product is deemed offensive. Moreover, an in-depth content analysis was conducted by the author on various pertinent studies on hierarchies of effects models. Whatever the variation, it is based on the assumption that people first learn from advertising, then feelings are formed about the product advertised, and finally, action is taken (Rehman, et. al., 2014).
The current study proposes a revision of AIDA by taking into account that unmentionable product advertisements have different reactions compared to other types of advertisements. It has been over a century since the introduction of AIDA, the first hierarchy of effects model.
The attention given to AIDA in advertising and marketing, attest to its continuing importance as an academic study; and most assuredly to the development and advancement of advertising and marketing practices. This is the catalyst for the proposed framework of a revised hierarchy of effects model for unmentionable product advertisements.
4. Findings - A New Theory
The uniqueness of unmentionable product advertisements is that these products are purchased and used, but consumers feel uneasy, awkward and sheepish or embarrassed looking at the advertisements due to their social norms and religious values. Even if the advertisement is
‘normal’, yet it will still be contrived as controversial due to the type of product it is advertising.
Hierarchies of effects models do not specifically study the response towards unmentionable product advertisements. The closes to this phenomenon is the Response Model for Controversial Advertising (1997) which discusses measuring the effectiveness of controversial advertisements. However, this model analyzes both ‘the matter’ (the type of product) and ‘the manner’ (the type of execution); and unmentionable product advertisements are the result of
‘the matter’ only. After an in-depth analysis of the hierarchical models, this study forwards
SIVAM (Figure 1), a new hierarchy of effects model specifically meant for measuring the effectiveness of unmentionable product advertisements.
Figure 1: New Model Formation
Cognitive is divided into two stage: Sensibility (Awareness) and Inquisitive (Interest). When consumers see the unmentionable product advertisements it will cause a moment of pause for them. Whether they openly accept the knowledge acquired via the advertisements without any fear of social sanction or spurning it in public but in private they are scouting and searching for information, this is all due to the level of conformance to their cultural, social and religious norms.
Sensibility: Sensibility is the acuteness of apprehension or feeling; or the mental susceptibility to sensory stimuli (advertisements). Hence, sensibility is the quality of being able to appreciate and respond to complex emotional or aesthetic influences. People would either be offended or not, seeing the unmentionable product advertisements; as it is them who decides whether the advertisement is good or bad especially in connection to their moral, ethnic and religious virtue.
A point to ponder is that unmentionable product advertisements that people claim to be offensive and embarrassing in public may not be so when they are alone. This emotional ambivalence (Katsanis, 1994; Sabri, 2012) of two contradictory emotions displayed at the same time is a norm in this stage: (i) Public, who would openly watch the advertisements, and (ii) Private, who would object to the advertisements publicly but watch the advertisement alone in the privacy of their house. Therefore, in public, the consumer would behave outraged as he has to conform to the social norms, religious values and morality. As consumers are always behaving contradictorily based on whether they are in public or private, there are two subgroups in sensibility – public and private. Whether consumers see the advertisement openly or secretively, it is influenced by their level of embarrassment of the consumers – higher the embarrassment consumers would be silently watching the advertisements privately, and lower the embarrassment, they would be watching it openly and publicly.
Inquisitive: When the unmentionable product advertisements captivate peoples’ interest, this jolts their curiosity, teasing them to discover more information. Therefore, they would inquire, research or ask questions eager for knowledge of the unmentionables; they become intellectually curious about the product attributes, usage and benefit. In this stage people are searching for information, however, how they search for it differs based on the level of embarrassment felt (Katsanis, 1994): (i) people accepting unmentionable products as not offensive (low embarrassment) would enquire openly from friends, family etc. for more information as they are not ashamed nor embarrassed to do so; and (ii) people who are high embarrassment but is yearning to know more, they would obtain the information online or any other “silent” method whereby the information is sought without anyone knowing of their
“inquisitiveness”.
SIVAM
Sensibility Inquisitive Voracity Adjudication Mediate
Cognitive Affective Conation
Attention Interest Desire Action
AIDAABC
Affective is divided into two stage: Voracity (Desire) and Adjudication (Desire). Consumers are now exposed to emotions and moods elicited from the unmentionable product advertisements. There would not be any sensuality involved in the advertisements, but just because the product is unmentionable, it may cause outrage to see these advertisements. Most of the unmentionables are not even embarrassing or disgusting in any sense. It was just that seeing the advertisements provokes or disturbs emotions, causing strong disposition.
Voracity: This stage describes the stimulated excessive emotional arousal within people when they see unmentionable product advertisements thus creating a different level of embarrassment. Embarrassment is a public emotion that makes people feel exposed, awkward, and filled with regret for whatever their wrongdoing; in this instance, this emotion of shame arises when they violate or not their cultural, social or religious identity (Goffman, 1956;
Lewis, 2008); hence a self-conscious emotion that governs one’s actions, thoughts, and feelings. The experience of embarrassment warns people on their failure to behave according to certain social or religious standards, which threaten the beliefs they hold due to different religious intensities, culture, norms and traditions. The feeling of embarrassment, outrage occurs now, if the information is against any religious belief or practices. However, if the information is not against their religious teachings, the feeling of embarrassment decreases.
Adjudication: The advertisement would be judged in the ‘court of emotions’ and people would decide on the conflicting emotions. If embarrassment is low, then the product would move towards acceptable unmentionable. However, if the embarrassment is high it would move towards unacceptable unmentionable. In the courts of emotion, people adjudicate the level of unmentionability. There are three possible reactions: (i) desirable unmentionable -products that were unacceptable before, but now it is not offensive e.g. cigarette, (ii) undesirable mentionable - products that were acceptable before, but now it is seen as offensive e.g. breastfeeding (iii) undesirable unmentionable - products that was unacceptable before and now e.g. drugs (Shao
& Hill, 1994; Manceau & Tissier-Desbordes, 2006; Jain, 2014).
The conative component consists of Mediate (Action), whether to purchase or not to purchase the advertised unmentionables. If the embarrassment level is low, consumers would purchase the unmentionables openly. However, if the embarrassment is high, then consumers would either hide or buy discreetly or even would not consider purchasing the unmentionable. If the product is undesirable unmentionable then the purchase would be conducted privately.
Desirable unmentionable would be purchased openly. However, undesirable mentionable depends on the level of embarrassment. If the embarrassment level is high then consumers will mediate to either not to purchase or to buy the unmentionable privately. However, if the embarrassment level is low, then consumers may opt to purchase the unmentionable publicly.
This means consumers will mediate whether to purchase openly or to do privately based on their emotional judgment (Voracity and Adjudication).
Figure 2: SIVAM Model
5. Conclusion
The world of advertising is constantly metamorphosing due to the vibrant socio-demographics.
Besides the innovation in advertising creativeness and in business landscapes, technology has also impacted and changed consumers’ behaviours. Therefore, advertising effects are no longer as simple as Awareness, Interest, Desire and Action. Advertisements have evolved from merely persuading people to purchase a product, to mesmerizing, inspiring and bewitching consumers in believing in the advertisement promises and remaining loyal to the advertised products. But this transformation have also resulted in unintentionally offending consumers ethnic values, social norms, moral sensitivities and religious practices; thus resulting in variations and levels of offensiveness in advertisements. The feeling of outraged, discontentment, uneasiness and embarrassment are exhibited when consumers feel the advertisements are not within acceptable level of their culture and religion (Dahl et al., 2003; Clow & Baack, 2014). These emotional outbursts must be acknowledged as contributors towards advertising effects.
Regardless how the unmentionable products are classified – unmentionable, controversial, sensitive, provocative or offensive, the product advertisements are deemed to be socially unacceptable which will ultimately cause a strong reaction of disdain, distaste and embarrassment. Therefore, these advertisements are viewed as negative, offensive and irritating; and are believed to encourage provocative behavior which is disapproved of and forbidden in the eyes of society and cultural practices, hence causing social acrimony and religious uneasiness (Phau & Prendergast, 2001; Waller et al., 2002; Fam et at., 2008). The predicament with unmentionable product advertisements is the product itself; hence the negative reactions are unavoidable (Wilson & West, 1981; Katsanis, 1994). The feeling of uneasiness towards the unmentionable product advertisements is the direct result of how people perceive the level of offensiveness towards these products – the higher the embarrassment the higher is the offensiveness felt; and the lower the embarrassment, the lower is the offensiveness felt towards the unmentionable product advertisements.
When consumers views (Sensibility) the unmentionable product advertisements, they would either be embarrassed and offended or not, in connection to their moral, ethnic and religious virtues. However, he/she who is embarrassed seeing the advertisements in public, may not have the same level of embarrassment seeing the same advertisements in private. Upon viewing the advertisements, consumers would attempt to acquire the advertised product’s knowledge (Inquisitiveness) either through personal experience, online information gathering
on these products or watching advertisements. Whether they openly accept the knowledge acquired via the advertisements without any fear of social sanction or spurning it in public but in private they are scouting and searching for information, this is all due to the level of conformance to their cultural, social and religious norms.
Sensibility
Consumers firstly pay attention to the advertisement
↓ Inquisitive
Consumers then become interested in that advertisement
↓ Voracity
Consumers would be overwhelmed by emotions of either disgust or intrigue
↓ Adjudication
Consumers would accept or reject based on their faith/belief/tradition
↓ Mediate
Consumers r take action in form of purchase of products to openly or covertly Figure 3: SIVAM
Once consumers acquire relevant information it will evoke various levels of emotions (Voracity) about the product. The feeling of embarrassment, uneasiness or resentment, occurs if the information is against any religious belief or practices. Whatever emotions felt, it will then be judged (Adjudication) by consumers, if the information is not against their religious teachings, the feeling of embarrassment decreases; and feelings of exuberant increases as customers are now armed with knowledge of unmentionables that are able to assist in making their life contented, safe and gemutlich.
Lastly in purchase behaviour it is likelihood consumers will behave either desirably or undesirably towards the advertised products. The irony is, consumers who had positive vibes towards unmentionable product advertisements and its products, may end up not purchasing it due to social pressure or religious values. Consumers would purchase openly if their judgment of the emotions was positive (public) and would only covertly buy the product if the judgment was negative (private).
Acknowledgement
In honour of my father, Paramasivam Kanapathi Pillai.
References
Arens, W., Weigold, M., & Arens, C. (2012). Contemporary Advertising and Integrated Marketing Communication. 14th edition, Boston, Irwin-McGraw Hill.
Barry, T. E., & Howard, D. J. (1990). Are View and Critique of Hierarchy of Effects in Advertising. International Journal of Advertising, Vol:9(1), pp.121-135.
Beard, F. K. (2008). Advertising and Audience Offense: The Role of Intentional Humor.
Journal of Marketing Communications, Vol:14(1), pp.1-17.
Belch, G. E., Belch, M. A., Kerr, G. & Powell, I. (2017). Advertising: An Integrated Marketing Communication Perspective. 3rd edition. Australia, McGraw-Hill.
Brierley, S. (2002). The Advertising Handbook. London, Routledge.
Butterfield, L. (1997). Excellence in Advertising, The IPA Guide to Best Practice. United Kingdom, British Library Catalouging.
Clow, K. E., & Baack, D. E. (2014). Integrated Advertising, Promotion and Marketing Communications. 6th edition, New York, Prentice Hall.
Dahl, D. W., Frankenberger, K. D., & Manchandra, R. V. (2003). Does It Pay to Shock?
Reactions to Shocking and Non-Shocking Advertising Content Among University Students. Journal of Advertising Research, Vol:43(3), pp.268-280.
Fam, K. S., Waller, D. S., Ong, F. S., & Yang, Z. (2008). Controversial Product Advertising in China: Perceptions of Three Generational Cohorts, Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Vol:7(6), pp.461-469.
Fahy, J., Smart, D., Pride, W., & Ferrell, O. C. (1995). Advertising Sensitive Products'.
International Journal of Advertising, Vol:14, pp.231-243.
Fereidouni, H. G. (2008). Cultural Attitude Towards Print Media Advertising of Controversial Products Among Female Consumers in Penang. Master of Business Administration, University Sains Malaysia.
Goffman, E. (1956). Embarrassment and Social Organization. American Journal of Sociology, Vol:62, pp.264-271.
Hackley, C. (2005). Advertising and Promotion: Communicating Brands. London, Sage Publication.
Jain (2014). 3D Model Attitude. International Journal of Advanced Research in Management and Social Sciences, Vol:3(3), pp.1-12.
Katsanis, L. P. (1994). Do Unmentionable Products Still Exist? Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol:3(4), pp.5-14.
Karlsson, L. (2007). Advertising Theories and Models: How Well Can These Be Transferred From Text Into Reality? University of Halmstad, Sweden.
Kotler, P. T., & Keller, K. L. (2018). Marketing Management. 15th edition. New York, Prentice Hall.
Lewis, M. (2008). Self-Conscious Emotions: Embarrassment, Pride, Shame and Guilt. In Lewis M, Haviland-Jones J and Barrett F L (Eds.), Handbook of Emotions, 3rd edition.
New York, Guilford Press, PP. 742-756.
Manceau, D., & Tissier-Desbordes, E. (2006). Are Sex and Death Taboos in Advertising?
International Journal of Advertising, Vol:25(1), pp.9-33.
Nooh, M. N., Shukor, S. A., Aziz, R. A., Khairi, K., & Abdullah, M. (2014). Relationship Between Religiosity and Controversial Products and Offensive Nature of Advertising Appeals. Journal of Marketing Management, Vol:2(2), pp.113-128.
O'Guinn, T., Allen, C., & Semenik, R. J. (2011). Advertising and Integrated Brand Promotion.
6th edition. New York, Cengage Learning.
Phau, I., & Prendergast, G. (2001). Offensive Advertising: A View from Singapore. Journal of Promotion Management, Vol:7(1), pp.71-90.
Pope, N. K., Voges, K. E., & Brown, M. R. (2004). The Effect of Provocation in The Form of Mild Erotica on Attitude to the Ad and Corporate Image: Differences Between Cause- Related and Product-Based Advertising. Journal of Advertising, Vol:33(1), pp.69-82.
Prendergast, G., Ho, B., & Phau, I. (2002). A Hong Kong View of Offensive Advertising.
Journal of Marketing Communications, Vol:8(3), pp.165-177.
Prendergast, G., & Hwa, H. C. (2003). An Asian Perspective of Offensive Advertising on the Web. The Review of Marketing Communications, Vol:22(3), pp.393-411.
Rehman, S. N., & Brooks, J. R. (1987). Attitudes towards Television Advertising for Controversial Products. Journal of Healthcare Marketing, Vol:7, pp.78-83.
Rehman, F., Javed, F., Nawaz, T., Ahmed, I., & Hyder, S. (2014). Some Insights in the Historical Prospective of Hierarchy of Effects Model: A Short Review. Information Management and Business Review, Vol:6(6), pp.301-308.
Sabri, O. (2012). Preliminary Investigation of the Communication Effects of “Taboo” Themes in Advertising. European Journal of Marketing, Vol:46(1/2), pp.215-236.
Schiffman, L. G., & Wisenblit, J. L. (2019). Consumer Behaviour, 12th edition. Pearson, New York.
Shao, A. T., & Hill, J. S. (1994). Global Television Advertising Restrictions: The Case of Socially Sensitive Products. International Journal of Advertising, Vol:13(4), pp.347- 366.
Solomon, M. R. (2016). Consumer Behavior: Buying, Having, and Being. 12th edition.
Prentice Hall, New York.
Terkan, R. (2014). Importance of Creative Advertising and Marketing According to University Students’ Perspective. International Review of Management and Marketing, Vol:4(3), pp.239-246.
Ting, H., & De Run, E. C. (2012). Generations X and Y attitude Towards Controversial Advertising. Asian Journal of Business Research, Vol:2(2), pp.18-32.
Ting, H., & De Run, E. C. (2014). Determining Attitudinal Beliefs About Controversial Advertising. International Journal of Business and Society, 15(3), 465-476.
Ting, H., & De Run, E. C. (2015). Attitude Towards Advertising: A Young Generation Cohort’s Perspective. Asian Journal of Business Research, Vol:5(1), pp.83-96.
Ting, H., De Run, E. C., & Jee, T. W. (2015). Attitude Towards Advertising Among Young Adults:
A Comparative Study by Ethnicity. International Journal of Business And Society, Vol:16(3), pp.397-407.
Ugonna, I. A., Okolo, V. O., Obikeze, C. O., Ohanagorom, M., Nwodo, S. I., & Oranusi, I. N.
(2017). Effects of Media Advertising on Consumers’ Purchase Intent in Awka, Anambra State: A Study of Hero Beer. Journal of Business and Management, Vol:19(4), pp.50-60.
Waller, D. S. (1999). Attitudes Towards Offensive Advertising: An Australian Study. Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol:16(3), pp.288-294.
Waller, D. S. (2005). A Proposed Response Model for Controversial Advertising. Journal of Promotion Management, Vol:11(2/3), pp.3-15.
Waller, D. S., Fam, K. S., & Erdogan, B. Z. (2002). A Cross Culture Comparison of Attitudes Toward The Advertising of Controversial Products. Paper presented at International Advertising Association Regional Educational Conference, Sydney.
Waller, D. S., Fam, K. S., & Erdogan, B. Z. (2005). Advertising of Controversial Products: A Cross-Cultural Study. Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol:22(1), pp.6-13.
Wilson, A., & West, C. (1981). The Marketing of 'Unmentionables'. Harvard Business Review, January/February, pp.91-102.
Wilson, A., & West, C. (1995). Commentary: Permissive Marketing – The Effects of the AIDS Crisis on Marketing and Messages. Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol:4(5/6), pp.34-48.
Wijaya, B. S. (2012). The Development of Hierarchy of Effects Model in Advertising.
International Research Journal of Business Studies, Vol:1, pp.73 – 85. Yoo, C. Y., Kim, K., & Stout, P. A. (2004). Assessing the Effects of Animation in Online Banner Advertising: Hierachy of Effects Model. Journal of Interactive Advertising, Vol:4(2), pp.7.
