See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/323669043

The multidimensionality of anthropomorphism in advertising: the

moderating roles of cognitive busyness and assertive language

Article  in  International Journal of Advertising · March 2018

DOI: 10.1080/02650487.2018.1438054

CITATIONS READS

27 803

4 authors, including:

Brooke Reavey Marina Puzakova

Dominican University Lehigh University
10 PUBLICATIONS   35 CITATIONS    28 PUBLICATIONS   671 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Hyokjin Kwak
Drexel University
47 PUBLICATIONS   1,397 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Brooke Reavey on 04 April 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 International Journal of Advertising
The Review of Marketing Communications

ISSN: 0265-0487 (Print) 1759-3948 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rina20

The multidimensionality of anthropomorphism

in advertising: the moderating roles of cognitive
busyness and assertive language

Brooke Reavey, Marina Puzakova, Trina Larsen Andras & Hyokjin Kwak

To cite this article: Brooke Reavey, Marina Puzakova, Trina Larsen Andras & Hyokjin Kwak
(2018): The multidimensionality of anthropomorphism in advertising: the moderating roles
of cognitive busyness and assertive language, International Journal of Advertising, DOI:
10.1080/02650487.2018.1438054

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2018.1438054

Published online: 09 Mar 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 10

View related articles

View Crossmark data

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

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rina20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING, 2018
https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2018.1438054

The multidimensionality of anthropomorphism in advertising:

the moderating roles of cognitive busyness and assertive
language
Brooke Reaveya, Marina Puzakovab, Trina Larsen Andrasc and Hyokjin Kwakc
a
Department of Marketing, Dominican University, River Forest, IL, USA; bDepartment of Marketing, Lehigh
University, Bethlehem, PA, USA; cDepartment of Marketing, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA, USA

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Anthropomorphized brands or products in advertisements are Received 18 February 2017
known to affect consumers’ attitudes in a positive direction. Accepted 1 February 2018
However, most research treats anthropomorphized stimuli as the KEYWORDS
same in both its design and effects. We explore the Anthropomorphism;
multidimensional nature of anthropomorphism in advertising by cognitive busyness; print
investigating two degrees of humanization (i.e. subtle vs. overt) that advertising; assertive
generate different outcomes in terms of advertising performance. language
For example, we find that consumers prefer ads that use overt
humanization (compared to subtle and no humanization) when an
ad uses assertive language (i.e. Buy NOW!); however, they prefer ads
that use subtle humanization when coupled with ads that do not
include assertive language. We find a similar pattern when
consumers are cognitively busy. Managerial and theoretical
implications are discussed.

Introduction
Advertising practitioners frequently use spokes-characters, mascots, and animated ani-
mals to enhance consumer perceptions of a brand as humanlike. Prior research finds that
product and brand humanization in advertising generates positive consumer reactions
such as greater product liking (Aggarwal and McGill 2007), increased brand recall (Pashu-
pati 2009), and enhanced brand evaluations (Garretson and Burton 2005). Humanization
is an advertising tactic in which an advertised entity (e.g. a product) is represented in a
way that triggers its perceptions as humanlike (Puzakova, Kwak, and Rocereto 2013).
Anthropomorphism is the consumers’ cognitive responses of perceiving humanlike
behaviour, emotions, intentions, and features in a non-human entity (Epley, Waytz, and
Cacioppo 2007).
Academic research examines anthropomorphism as a binary variable. That is, prior
work compares the impact of anthropomorphized or non-anthropomorphized entities on
downstream evaluations. However, in practice, marketers incorporate various humanlike
elements. For example, practitioners use first-person communication in the advertising

CONTACT Hyokjin Kwak hk47@drexel.edu

© 2018 Advertising Association
2 B. REAVEY ET AL.

copy, include humanlike product representations, or incorporate brand spokes-characters.

In this research, we contribute to prior work by exploring the multidimensional nature of
anthropomorphism. We identify two varying degrees of humanization (i.e. subtle vs. overt)
in different media (i.e. words vs. pictures) used by marketers to trigger anthropomorphism
and show that these two degrees lead to different evaluations of advertising and brand
performance. Additionally, we examine how consumers’ attitudes towards different forms
of humanization change dependent on cognitive busyness or the use of assertive lan-
guage (i.e. Buy NOW!) in advertising.
First, we define subtle humanization as the extent to which a non-human agent is
adorned with indirect and subtle human characteristics in both product design and mar-
keting communications. Examples of subtle humanization in the ad are referring to a
brand in human language (i.e. he, she, they); imbuing a non-human spokes-character with
uniquely human emotions (i.e. love, hope, shame); presenting a product in a shape resem-
bling in a human (i.e. Dannon’s Light and Fit ® Protein Shake bottle), or representing a
product that moves in a humanlike manner but maintains mechanistic tendencies (i.e. the
iPhone login screen that shakes ‘its head’ no when the wrong login is used).
Next, we define overt humanization as the extent to which a non-human agent is
adorned with direct and overt human characteristics in both product appearance and
marketing communications. The more frequently used form of humanization in marketing
communications is when humanlike spokes-characters engage in human behaviours and
humanized communications (e.g. Keebler Elves, Mr. Clean, and the M&M characters).
Examples of overt humanization include ad copy that refers to the brand in the first per-
son (i.e. I, we); non-human spokes-characters or actors talking like a human, products that
are overtly shaped like a human or given a human face (i.e. Thomas the Tank), or move in
a humanlike manner with arms and/or legs. Despite the prevalence of these varying
degrees of humanization in marketing communications, research has not explored how
consumers react to them. Prior advertising research shows that consumers develop more
positive attitudes towards the ad when the conclusion in the ad is omitted, forcing con-
sumers to ‘fill in the blanks’ (Kardes, Posavac, and Cronley 2004). As such, it might be the
case that subtle (vs. overt) humanization leads to more positive advertising effects.
In this research, we attempt to fill this gap by investigating two (i.e. subtle vs. overt)
degrees of humanization that trigger the human schema and ultimately anthropomor-
phism. To our knowledge, our research is the first to explore the multidimensional nature
of humanization. Next, we contribute to the advertising literature by uncovering boundary
conditions of the different degrees of humanization. Specifically, our research reveals that
when consumers are cognitively busy that overt humanization becomes a more effective
advertising tactic. We also find that when the ad uses assertive language (i.e. Buy NOW!),
overt humanization also leads to more favourable advertising outcomes compared to its
subtle humanization counterpart. This is because assertive advertising language makes
consumers more cognitively busy and distracts them from the processing of humanized
ad communication.
Overall, our research provides important theoretical and practical implications. First, it
contributes to the advertising literature by establishing the multidimensionality of anthro-
pomorphism resulting in varying consumer advertising performance evaluations. Second,
it sheds lights on specific conditions (i.e. cognitive busyness, assertive language) under
which either subtle or overt humanization performs more effectively.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING 3

Conceptual development
Humanization in marketing communications
Prior research is concordant that humanization generally creates positive outcomes. More
specifically, it increases product likability (Aggarwal and McGill 2007, 2012), brand loyalty
(Chandler and Schwarz 2010), brand attitude (Delbaere, McQuarrie, and Phillips 2011),
and enhances shopping satisfaction (Holzwarth, Janiszewski, and Neumann 2006). Con-
sumers tend to prefer product designs that have anthropomorphic characteristics such as
car grilles that resemble a mouth (Aggarwal and McGill 2007; Keaveney et al. 2012), and
cell phones that are designed to remind consumers of a human face (Landwehr, McGill,
and Herrmann 2011). It was also found that anthropomorphization activates human
schemas towards non-human entities so that people interact with the entity differently
(Aggarwal and McGill 2007). For instance, the more utilitarian the product, the less likely it
is to be anthropomorphized (Huang and Mitchell 2014), and people who feel more power-
ful apply their notions regarding interpersonal power towards humanized entities and
view risk-bearing entities as less threatening (Kim and McGill 2010). More recent research
shows that the use of humanization also facilitates perceptions of brand personality and
leads to more positive affect towards humanized products (Delbaere, McQuarrie, and
Phillips 2011).
Another stream of research shows that the extent to which people humanize non-living
entities depends upon an individual’s tendency to anthropomorphize. Differences in cul-
ture, social norms, social experiences, education, attachment styles, and cognitive reason-
ing provide a basis for individual differences in anthropomorphizing a non-human agent
(Epley, Waytz, and Cacioppo 2007; Aguirre Rodriguez 2014; Gelbrich, Gathke, and West-
john 2012). That is, while some people might anthropomorphize a personal possession,
such as a car, others may not. Some people have a subtle tendency to anthropomorphize
objects across varying categories (i.e. trees, dogs, cars, etc.), while others have a high ten-
dency to anthropomorphize (Waytz, Cacioppo, and Epley 2010). Those with a high ten-
dency to anthropomorphize are more likely to ‘see’ humanness in non-human agents
more often than someone with a low tendency to anthropomorphize.
Additionally, research has also focused on the consequences of individual differences
in anthropomorphism. However, to date, academic research has investigated anthropo-
morphism as unidimensional in nature. What is missing, though, is whether the character-
istics of humanization – the pictures and/or words used – influence consumers’ attitudes
and beliefs. Over the course of four studies, we fill this gap by investigating the multidi-
mensionality of humanization and explore how consumers react to humanized pictures,
advertising copy, and a combination of the two in both non-profit and for-profit contexts.
We also explore how consumers react to varying degrees of the humanization (i.e. subtle
versus overt) that may potentially generate different impacts on advertising and brand
performance.

The multidimensionality of humanization in advertising

Advertisers use various linguistic techniques that are either direct or indirect in nature
(Kardes 1988). Ads that use direct, persuasive language are considered explicit because
the ad claims are straightforward and do not have a double meaning. For example, stating
4 B. REAVEY ET AL.

that ‘Tide gets clothes clean’ is a direct, explicit claim that is easy for the reader to process
(McQuarrie and Mick 1996). On the other hand, ads that use indirect communication or
omit the headline while using pictures tend to be more implicit in nature because they
are indirect and require more information processing from the consumer. For example,
when Tide shows pictures of measuring cups filled with blue sky, the reader is prompted
to draw open-ended conclusions such that the detergent smells fresh or the detergent is
as pleasant as a summer’s day (McQuarrie and Phillips 2005). In this research, we propose
that humanization can be subtle or overt and that consumers react to these degrees dif-
ferently depending upon the context in which the ads are presented and processed.
Firms often overtly anthropomorphize their products or spokes-characters. When mar-
keters use humanization blatantly, the marketing tactic used is overt humanization. For
example, Chia Pets grow ‘hair,’ the Pillsbury Doughboy walks and talks, and the Aflac duck
reminds us that we all need supplemental health insurance. Anthropomorphized spokes-
characters are often preferred by advertisers because copywriters can continue to build
on the character narrative for quite some time (Hosany et al. 2013). For instance, GEICO
has used the Gecko since 1999 during a screen actor’s guild strike (Verhoef et al. 2009).
Despite the success of using anthropomorphized spokes-characters, previous research
finds that consumers prefer more inconspicuous and artistic ads (Delbaere, McQuarrie,
and Phillips 2011). For example, Amazon’s logo with a ‘smiling’ arrow is subtle humaniza-
tion because the arrow only subtly resembles a smiling face.
Furthermore, prior research is consistent in the view that implicit and indirect advertise-
ments trigger the inference-making process. Inference formation occurs when consumers
go through a logic-driven exercise linking the message in the ad and the expected conclu-
sions (Kardes, Posavac, and Cronley 2004). Indirect advertisements do not have the con-
clusions explicitly stated, allowing for consumers to draw their own conclusions about the
claims made in the advertisement (McQuarrie and Phillips 2005). Because the claims are
not explicitly stated and are often multi-layered, consumers must utilize an inductive rea-
soning exercise to process the conclusion of the ad. This inference formation requires the
use of cognitive resources (Kardes 1988; Kardes, Posavac, and Cronley 2004) which is also
consistent with the view that consumers use cognitive resources to interpret the underly-
ing meaning of marketing tactics (Meyers-Levy and Malaviya 1999). The more complicated
the stimuli is, the more cognitive resources are used (Toncar and Munch 2001). Further-
more, prior research indicates that due to greater elaboration, implicit ads are likely to be
more preferred than explicit ads (Kardes 1988; McQuarrie and Phillips 2005).
Bringing these ideas to the framework of our research, we propose that advertisers can
use varying degrees of humanization in advertising campaigns with different expected
consequences. In particular, we expect that overt humanization advertisements are easier
to process and understand because the presentation of the humanization is more blatant,
direct, and automatic, and thus requires fewer cognitive resources to understand. This is
because people easily and automatically perceive non-human entities with human
shapes, human motions, first-person communications, and human smiles as humanlike
(Landwehr, McGill, and Herrmann 2011). For example, people easily and effortlessly per-
ceive even slight movements by geometrical figures in a goal-motivated direction as
humanlike (Schultz et al. 2004). The easier it is to interpret the stimuli, the fewer cognitive
resources used (McQuarrie and Phillips 2005). As such, we suggest that the inferences of
overt humanization will require fewer cognitive resources to process. Conversely, we
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING 5

argue that subtle humanization requires more cognitive resources to understand. This is
because the ad only indirectly implies the presence of mind and other mental capacities
(e.g. emotions), thus, requiring consumers to make an inference that the entity is human-
ized. This is consistent with prior research on mind perception that shows that attending
to others’ minds and making inferences of others’ (including non-human entities’) mental
capacities consumes cognitive resources (Beilock and Carr 2005). Taking these arguments
in consideration, as well as the fact that greater inference making requires greater use of
cognitive resources, which leads to more favourable advertising evaluations, we propose
that subtle humanization leads to more favourable advertising evaluations than overt
humanization and non-humanization advertisements.
H1: Subtle humanization increases the overall positive attitude towards the ad more than
the overt humanization and no-humanization conditions.

Study 1
Method
Participants, design, and procedure
In exchange for extra credit, 127 undergraduates participated in the pen-and-paper study
(46% female; Mage = 21). We manipulated the type of humanization (i.e. overt, subtle, no-
humanization) from a real magazine ad for a faucet from South Africa and named the
brand, ‘Optoma.’ As such, respondents were unlikely to be familiar with the ad; we modi-
fied the ad for purposes of our study. All three conditions used the same picture of the
faucet except that each condition had the degree of humanization altered slightly
(Figure 1(a–c)). Participants were randomly assigned to one of the three conditions
(i.e. overt, subtle, no-humanization).

Measures
Participants rated their overall attitude towards the ad on six items using a semantic dif-
ferential scale (1 = unfavourable, bad, unpleasant, dislike, negative, trivial; 7 = favourable,
good, pleasant, like, positive, unique; a = .88). For the manipulation check, participants
indicated their agreement with five statements on a seven-point scale regarding the
degree of humanization (e.g. ‘The advertisement clearly shows the faucet as if it were a
human,’ ‘The picture of the faucet looks obviously humanlike,’ ‘The marketers intentionally
made you think of the cell phone cover as if it were a human,’ ‘It is obvious that the ad
presents the faucet as if it were a human,’ ‘The ad clearly portrays the faucet as a faucet,
not as a human (reverse code)’; 1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree; a = .87). We also
included several variables that could potentially moderate the relationships between
humanization and advertising outcomes, as prior research suggests. That is, we measured
chronic loneliness which triggers a motivation to connect with others (Epley et al. 2008)
by asking participants to respond to four statements (e.g. ‘How often do you feel that
there is no one you can turn to?,’ ‘How often do you feel isolated from others?’ (1 = never;
7 = always; a = .82). An individual’s tendency to anthropomorphize was gauged with five
items (e.g. ‘To what extent does a television set experience emotions?’ ‘To what extent
does the average robot have consciousness?’; 1 = not at all; 7 = very much; (a = .75);
Waytz, Cacioppo, and Epley 2010).
6 B. REAVEY ET AL.

Figure 1. Subtle, overt, and no-humanization stimuli: Studies 1 and 2.

Results
Manipulation check on the degree of humanization
The results of a one-way ANOVA showed that participants in the overt humanization con-
dition were the most likely to recognize marketing attempts to humanize the product
(Movert = 4.85, SD = 1.32), followed by the subtle humanization condition (Msubtle = 4.20,
SD = 1.63) and no-humanization condition (Mno-human = 3.03, SD = 1.54; F(2, 124) = 15.65,
p < .01). Planned contrasts reveal that respondents in the overt humanization condition
recognized the marketing attempts to humanize the product more than those in the sub-
tle humanization condition (t(124) = 1.99, p < .05). Respondents in the no-humanization
condition also differed significantly from those in the subtle humanization condition
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING 7

(t(124) = ¡3.61, p < .01) and from those in the overt humanization condition (t(124) =
¡5.52, p < .01). The effects of chronic loneliness and a tendency to anthropomorphize
were not significant when tested on attitude towards the ad (p’s > .10). However, when
we tested chronic loneliness and a tendency to anthropomorphize on recognition of
humanization degree, we discovered that there is a significant effect of tendency to
anthropomorphize on recognition of humanization degree (F(1, 122) = 5.25, p < .05), but
that chronic loneliness on recognition of humanization degree was not significant
(p > .10).

Hypothesis testing
Consistent with the findings from prior research, we found a positive effect of humaniza-
tion on the attitude toward the ad. The results of the ANOVA showed that respondents in
both humanized conditions (subtle and overt combined) had a more favourable attitude
towards the ad than respondents in the no-humanization condition (Mhuman = 5.61,
Mno-human = 4.87, F(1, 125) = 19.59, p < .01). Next, we ran a one-way ANOVA with the
humanization level (i.e. overt, subtle, no-humanization) as the independent variable and
the attitude towards the ad as the dependent variable. Consistent with H1, participants
reported the most favourable attitudes towards the ad in the subtle humanization condi-
tion, followed by the ad in the overt humanization condition, and by the ad in the no-
humanization condition (Msubtle = 5.84, Movert = 5.37, Mno-human = 4.87, F(2, 124) = 13.56,
p < .01). Planned contrasts revealed that consumers developed an increased positive atti-
tude towards subtle and overt humanization ads in comparison towards ads with no
humanization, (t(124) = 4.49, p < .01) and that subtle humanization led to an increased
positive ad attitude in comparison towards overt humanization and no humanization
(t(124) = ¡4.52, p < .01). Moreover, consumers have an increased attitude towards the
subtle humanization ad in comparison to the ad with overt humanization (t(124) = ¡2.58,
p < .05).

Discussion
The results of Study 1 are consistent with prior research on anthropomorphism by demon-
strating a positive effect of product humanization on advertising performance. More
importantly, Study 1 shows that consumers’ attitudes towards the ad depend upon the
extent to which an ad contains humanized elements. Consumers favoured ads that used
subtle humanization over ads that used no or overt humanization. There are several possi-
bilities why we saw this result. It is possible that consumers favoured the ad in the subtle
humanization condition because we could have inadvertently manipulated the perceived
artfulness of the ad. It is also possible that the ad in the subtle humanization condition
required more cognitive resources to process the ad’s message because the humanization
was more subtle. Consumers often feel a sense of pride when they figure out the ‘puzzle’
in subtle advertising, but figuring out the puzzle requires the use of more cognitive
resources. It is also possible, then, that we saw these results because of the interaction
between the degree of humanization and the use of cognitive resources. To investigate
further, in Study 2, we examine the varying degrees of humanization by manipulating the
ad copy as opposed to the ad image. We do this to mitigate the perceived artfulness of
the ad consistent across conditions as well as to explore the multidimensionality of using
8 B. REAVEY ET AL.

an anthropomorphization technique in advertising copy. Additionally, we explore the

effect of cognitive busyness on the degree of humanization to see how the use of cogni-
tive resources influences brand performance.

Study 2
Study 1 established that consumers recognize different degrees of humanization in an
advertising image, which in turn, influenced their attitude towards the ad. In Study 2, we
further examine the multidimensionality of humanization by investigating consumers’
intended behaviour by manipulating the humanization in the ad copy. Specifically, we
chose likelihood to donate because prior research shows that advertising plays a crucial
role in soliciting donations (Small and Verrochi 2009). It is also common in non-profit
advertising to use anthropomorphization as a way to solicit donations (Dotson and Hyatt
2008). Animal rescue groups frequently compose donation appeals that use anthropomor-
phization. Previous research on this topic finds that pro-animal attitudes mediate the like-
lihood of animal adoption when the appeal is anthropomorphized (Butterfield, Hill, and
Lord 2012). We extend this research by investigating the effects of the varying degrees of
humanization on likelihood to donate to the rescue.
Furthermore, although Study 1 elaborates on the consequences of the different
degrees of humanization in advertising, it does not provide answers regarding what drives
this effect. Subtle humanization may be preferred by consumers because it requires
greater inference making (with more cognitive resources involved) than overt humaniza-
tion does. By having fewer cognitive resources available, consumers might be less likely
to recognize the subtle humanization because they are cognitively busy. In contrast, overt
humanization is processed with greater ease and does not require many cognitive resour-
ces. As such, when consumers process overt humanization, even in the instances of cogni-
tive busyness, they are still likely to perceive an entity as being humanlike. Examining if
consumers recognize the varying degrees of humanization while multitasking is beneficial
to study to get a better understanding of the level of attention required to influence atti-
tude. Overall, we predict that cognitive busyness – in the form of manipulating memory
load – will mitigate the effects of subtle humanization but will attenuate the effects of
overt humanization. Therefore, when respondents are cognitively busy, we expect overt
humanization to lead to more favourable outcomes, whereas when the respondents are
not cognitively busy, we expect subtle humanization to result in more favourable evalua-
tions. Study 2 examines this possibility.
H2: The degree of humanization on likelihood to donate is moderated by cognitive
resources. That is, when cognitively busy, overt (vs. subtle and no-humanization) humani-
zation leads to a greater likelihood to donate, whereas when not cognitively busy, subtle
(vs. overt and no-humanization) humanization leads to a greater likelihood to donate.

Stimulus development
We manipulate the subtle humanization by endowing a dog with secondary emotions in
the copy of the ad. Emotions such as delight, humiliation, and distress are considered sec-
ondary emotions because they are higher order cognitions that are uniquely human and
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING 9

are not shared with the animal kingdom like primary emotions (i.e. happy, sad, surprise)
(Vaes, Paladino, and Leyens 2002). Using secondary emotions in written copy increases
consumers’ willingness to help (Vaes, Paladino, and Leyens 2002). When respondents read
descriptions of people in need – including secondary emotions – they were more willing
to help this group than the group they perceived as experiencing primary emotions
(Cuddy, Rock, and Norton 2007). That is, subtle humanization was manipulated by using
secondary emotions throughout the ad appeal (e.g. ‘He is optimistic for his forever
home’).We manipulated overt humanization via the use of first-person communication
from a dog (e.g. ‘I am good-looking and playful’). The no-humanization stimulus was writ-
ten in the third person and contained no emotions (Figure 1(d–f)).

Method
Participants, design, and procedure
In exchange for extra credit, 322 undergraduates at a private university in the north-east-
ern United States participated in our pen-and-paper study (56% female; Mage = 21). Partici-
pants were randomly assigned to one of the six conditions. To manipulate cognitive
busyness, we manipulated memory load in a similar manner to previous studies (Shiv and
Fedorikhin 1999; Gilbert and Osborne 1989; Lalwani 2009). The respondents in the cogni-
tively busy condition memorized an eight-digit number, which they then recalled at the
end of the study. Those who were in the cognitively busy condition and did not retain the
number correctly were discarded from the analysis (30), leaving 292 total in the analysis.
Respondents in the non-busy condition did not have to memorize a nine-digit number.
We ran a pre-test to ensure that we successfully manipulated memory load in our experi-
ment among 23 respondents from the same sample pool. Using a seven-point scale, we
asked respondents to rate their agreement to the following statement, ‘This survey was
difficult to complete’ (1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree). Those who were in the
cognitively busy condition reported that completing the survey was more difficult to com-
plete than those who were in the non-busy condition (Mbusy = 3.91, Mnon-busy = 2.58;
t(21) = ¡2.02, p = .056).

Measures
To control for external validity, we kept the ad similar to the copy from a real animal res-
cue website and wrote the ad copy asking respondents to consider adopting the dog in
the picture. In a pre-test of 23 undergraduates of a similar sample, using an open-ended
question, we asked the respondents to provide their sentiments regarding adoption ver-
sus donation for the dog in the advertisement and 76% of respondents indicated that as
undergraduate students, they were not in a position to adopt a dog but could donate to
the animal rescue. Additionally, many of the respondents stated that they wanted to meet
the dog and find out more about why the dog was returned to the shelter, indicating that
the adoption of the dog was a more involved purchase than donating to the animal res-
cue. Because of this, we instead measured the likelihood to donate to the animal rescue
as opposed to likelihood to adopt. We measured likelihood to donate with three state-
ments on a seven-point scale (e.g. ‘If you were to donate to a dog, what is the likelihood
that you would donate to the dog you read about?,’ ‘If you were to donate, how likely is it
that you would consider donating to sponsor the dog you read about?,’ and ‘Even if you
10 B. REAVEY ET AL.

are not planning on donating, how likely is it that you would donate or sponsor the dog
you read about in the future?’; 1 = very unlikely; 7 = very likely (a = .77). Recognition of
humanization degree was measured similarly as in Study 1 (a = .84).

Results
Manipulation check
As intended, participants in the overt humanization condition were the most likely to rec-
ognize the anthropomorphism degree (Movert = 4.35) followed by those in the subtle
humanization condition (Msubtle = 4.02) and those in the no-humanization condition
(Mno-human = 3.79); F(2, 288) = 3.82, p < .05).

Hypothesis testing
We ran a 3 (humanization degree: subtle, overt, no-humanization) x 2 (cognitive busyness:
busy, non-busy) ANOVA where likelihood to donate served as the dependent variable. In
support of H2, the results revealed a main effect of humanization degree on the likelihood
to donate (Mhuman = 4.31, Mno-human = 3.85; F(1, 290) = 7.91, p < .01). There was no main
effect of cognitive resources (F(1, 286) = 1.17, p > .10). Consistent with our expectations,
there was a significant interaction between the degree of humanization and cognitive
busyness (F(2, 286) = 14.44, p < .01). Planned contrasts showed that respondents in the
non-busy condition were more willing to donate when the ad used subtle humanization
compared to overt and no-humanization conditions (F(2, 286) = 8.12, p < .01). Further
planned contrasts revealed that in the non-busy condition, subtle humanization led to
greater willingness to donate than the no-humanization (Msubtle = 4.63 vs. Mno-human =
3.75; F(2, 286) = 8.12, p < .01) or the overt humanization condition (Msubtle = 4.63 vs.
Movert = 4.22; F(2, 286) = 8.12; p = .05). Moreover, the planned contrasts also revealed that
respondents who were cognitively busy who viewed the overt humanization ad were
more willing to donate than those who viewed the subtle and no humanization condi-
tions (F(2, 286) = 11.16, p < .01).

Discussion
The results of Study 2 demonstrate that degree of humanization influences the likelihood
to donate to a charity. This tendency is moderated by cognitive busyness. When consum-
ers are cognitively busy, they report an increased likelihood to donate when they view an
ad that contains overt humanization (compared to subtle and no-humanization). Con-
versely and consistent with Study 1, when consumers are not cognitively busy, consumers
report a higher likelihood to donate when they view an ad that contains subtle humaniza-
tion (vs. overt and no-humanization) ad copy. These findings are consistent with the
premise that subtle humanization requires more cognitive resources to process the ad,
whereas overt humanization is more effortless. As such, when consumers are cognitively
busy, overt humanization leads to more positive outcomes. It is worthwhile to note that
respondents in the subtle humanization conditions in both Studies 1 and 2 recognize the
humanization in the ad to a similar extent (4.20 and 4.02, respectively), despite the fact
that half of the respondents in Study 2 were in the cognitively busy condition. At first
blush, we believe that the reason for this is that the respondents process anthropomorphi-
zation in addition to other elements of the ad simultaneously. It is possible that the other
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING 11

factors in the advertisement (i.e. stylization, content, etc.) distracted the respondent from
recognizing the anthropomorphization. From a conceptual standpoint, it is possible that
the anthropomorphization in text versus a picture form enhances the differences in per-
ception. In Study 3, we will investigate this conceptualization further.
Overall, Study 2 establishes the moderating effect of cognitive busyness on the rela-
tionship between subtle vs. overt humanization on advertising performance. Study 2 also
establishes the possibility that if consumers are busy or distracted by thinking about
something else while viewing the ad that they will not focus on the humanization in the
advertisement. At times, particularly in the non-profit world, the ad copy may contain cer-
tain elements that are likely to induce greater consumer reactance and, as such, require
greater use of cognitive resources as the consumer processes the advertisement. Non-
profit ads tend to include a call-to-action regarding a dire situation in which the audience
is asked to fundraise. These call-to-actions are often very assertive (i.e. ‘Donate NOW!’),
and require a different type of processing for the consumers. Prior research finds that if
the consumer does not have a relationship with the brand that the assertive text is viewed
in a negative context (Zemack-Rugar, Moore, and Fitzsimons 2017). We are interested in
understanding if the positive effects of anthropomorphization outweigh the negative
effects of assertive language. Study 3 investigates the role of assertive language used in
an advertisement as it relates to anthropomorphization.

Study 3
Non-profit donation appeals and commercial product ads frequently include a call-to-
action in their communications, such as ‘Donate today!’ or ‘Hurry! Buy now!’ Advertis-
ing can frequently use assertive language (i.e. ‘Buy NOW!’), defined as an explicit
directive to act in a certain way (Dillard and Lijian 2005). Promotional messages using
assertive language also known as ‘hard sell’ messages, are often sales-oriented and
are viewed as overt enforcements to act (Okazaki, Mueller, and Taylor 2010). In this
regard, consumers view these messages as restricting their freedom since they are
being directed to behave in certain way (Dillard and Lijiang 2005). Furthermore, prior
research indicates that this type of communication often requires greater use of the
consumers’ cognitive resources because they direct consumers’ attention on this call-
to-action (Edwards, Li, and Lee 2002). As such, consumers tend to resist assertive lan-
guage messages because they recognize them as an overt persuasion attempt
(Brehm and Brehm 1981; Zemack-Rugar, Moore, and Fitzsimons 2017). Consumers’
cumulative knowledge and frequent interactions with marketing stimuli make them
adept at recognizing marketing persuasion techniques resulting in greater resistance
to these manipulation attempts (Campbell 1995; Campbell and Kirmani 2000). The
Persuasion Knowledge Model suggests that when consumers recognize that they are
being manipulated, they attempt to cope with these persuasion techniques by cor-
recting their thoughts about the ad in a negative direction (Friestad and Wright
1995). Such cognitive corrections of overt persuasion attempts require the use of
more cognitive resources to cope with the manipulation attempt (Campbell and Kir-
mani 2000). That is, we expect that when consumers view ads with assertive lan-
guage, their attentional resources are directed towards the persuasive aspect of the
ad. As such, they are likely to have fewer cognitive resources available to process
12 B. REAVEY ET AL.

and comprehend the subtle humanization in advertising. In Study 2, we found that

when consumers are cognitively busy that they are more likely persuaded by overt
humanization as opposed to subtle humanization advertisements because it is more
difficult for the consumers to interpret the meaning of the subtle humanization ad.
By a similar token, we believe that when the ad uses assertive language, consumers
will evaluate the ad with overt humanization more favourably than the ad with sub-
tle or no humanization.
Furthermore, we believe that while processing an ad that does not include assertive
language, consumers will have more cognitive resources available because they are not
correcting their thoughts about the persuasion tactic and are more likely to be using their
resources to understand the meaning of the subtle humanization instead. In this instance,
due to greater availability of cognitive resources, consumers are more likely to prefer sub-
tle humanization to overt humanization. Therefore, when the ad does not use assertive
language, subtle humanization (vs. overt humanization) is likely to lead to more favour-
able advertising performance. In the following Studies 3 and 4, we investigate the effect
of the degree of humanization on advertising performance for both for-profit and non-
profit ads. The major goal of non-profit advertising is to elicit donations (Small and Verro-
chi 2009) and the primary objective of for-profit advertising is to enhance brand and ad
attitudes, as well as purchase intentions (Spears and Singh 2004). As we expect the degree
of humanization to influence all variables, respectively, for each type of ads, we posit our
hypotheses for both attitude towards the brand and attitude towards the ad, as well as
the likelihood to donate.
H3: The effect of the degree of humanization on brand and ad attitude and likeli-
hood to donate is moderated by the presence of assertive ad language. That is, in
the presence of assertive language, overt humanization leads to greater brand and
ad attitude, as well as the likelihood to donate compared to subtle and no humaniza-
tion, whereas in the absence of assertive language, subtle humanization leads to a
greater brand and ad attitude, as well as the likelihood to donate compared to overt
and no humanization.

Method
Participants, design, and procedure
In exchange for extra credit, 160 undergraduates at a private north-eastern university par-
ticipated in the study (53% female; Mage = 21). The study used a 3 (the degree of humani-
zation: overt, subtle, no-humanization) x 2 (assertive ad language: present vs. absent)
between-subjects design. The dependent variable was willingness to donate to the res-
cue. We created fictitious ads for a non-profit organization, Rainforest Rescue, whose goal
is to save the rainforest from deforestation. We manipulated overt humanization via first-
person communication from the birds (e.g. ‘We need a home!’). Subtle humanization is
manipulated by inserting secondary emotions throughout the birds’ appeal. The no-
humanization condition is written in the third person and contains no emotions. The
images were the same across three conditions. The assertive language is manipulated by
the presence or absence of a directive to donate (e.g. ‘Donate NOW!’). Respondents were
randomly assigned to one of the six conditions (see Figure 2).
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING 13

Figure 2. Excerpts of Study 3 stimuli.

Measures
Participants rated their likelihood to donate to Rain Forest Rescue using a similar ad
copy as in Study 2. For the manipulation check of humanization degree, we mea-
sured the participants’ degree of humanization recognition using the same scale as
we used in Studies 1 and 2 (a = .84). As the manipulation check on the recognition
14 B. REAVEY ET AL.

of an ulterior motive, we collected respondents’ thought measures after viewing the

advertisement. Following a similar pattern as Campbell and Kirmani (2000), we asked
participants to tell us about any thoughts that occurred to them while they were
viewing the advertisement. We used open thoughts as the manipulation check for
the perception of an ulterior motive due to the presence of assertive language.

Results
Manipulation check
As intended, participants were more likely to view the overt humanization condition
(Movert = 4.48) as greater in the extent of humanization compared to the subtle
humanization (Msubtle = 3.83) and no-humanization (Mno-human = 3.51); (F(2, 157) =
3.76, p < .05) conditions. To test for the perceptions of an ulterior motive, two inde-
pendent researchers coded the entries for the number of suspicious thoughts (i.e.
‘manipulation for donating’). Any discrepancies in coding were handled by the first
author. There was a significant association between the number of suspicious
thoughts mentioned in the presence (vs. absence) of assertive language x2 (1) =
17.11, p < .01. We also ran a 2 (suspicious thoughts: present, absent) x 2 (assertive
language: present, absent) ANOVA and the results reveal a significant main effect on
respondents’ reporting of suspicious thoughts in the presence of assertive language
in comparison to the absence of assertive language (Mpresent = .63 vs. Mabsent = .32, F
(1, 173) = 18.74, p < .05). Thus, the results confirm that the presence of assertive lan-
guage influenced suspicious thoughts of an ulterior motive.
We also wanted to rule out the possibility that ads with assertive language gener-
ated more suspicious thoughts in overt versus subtle humanization ads. We ran a 2
(suspicious thoughts: present, absent) x 2 (degree of humanization: subtle, overt)
ANOVA; we found marginal significance among consumers who found ads that were
overtly humanized more suspicious than subtle humanization conditions (Movert =
.61, Msubtle = .44; p = .06).

Results
In support of H3, a 3 (the degree of humanization: subtle, overt, no-humanization) x
2 (assertive language: present vs. absent) between-subjects ANOVA revealed a signifi-
cant two-way interaction (F(2, 154) = 7.20, p < 01). Planned contrasts showed that
when assertive language was present, respondents were more willing to donate in
the overt humanization condition than in the subtle humanization condition and no-
humanization condition (F(2, 154) = 9.66, p < .01). Further contrast tests revealed
that when assertive language was present, respondents in the overt humanization
condition were more willing to donate than those in the subtle humanization condi-
tion (Movert = 4.84 vs. Msubtle = 3.32; F = 7.20, p < .01) and those in the no-humaniza-
tion condition (Movert = 4.84 vs. Mno-human = 4.08; F = 7.20, p < .05). However,
planned contrasts reveal that in an ad where assertive language was absent, subtle
humanization led to greater willingness to donate compared to overt humanization
and no-humanization conditions (F(2, 154) = 3.41, p < .05).
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING 15

Discussion
Study 3 shows that when an ad uses overt humanization and assertive language (Donate
NOW!) consumers are more willing to donate to the charity compared to ads that contain
subtle and no-humanization tactics. Conversely, we also find that when the ad uses subtle
humanization (vs. overt and no-humanization) and no assertive language, consumers are
more willing to donate to the charity. The results of both Studies 2 and 3 are consistent in
a way that overt humanization (vs. subtle and no-humanization) leads to more favourable
evaluations when consumers are cognitively busy (Study 2) and the ad uses assertive lan-
guage (Study 3). This is because the assertive language ad leaves consumers with fewer
cognitive resources to process the subtle humanization manipulation. Additionally, we
found that the means of suspicious thoughts increase with marginal significance when
the ad contains both overt humanization and assertive language in comparison to ads
that contain subtle humanization and assertive language. We believe the reason for this is
that respondents view the assertive anthropomorphized agent as directing them donate.
It is also possible that the suspicious thoughts occurred because the anthropomorphized
agent was a living and breathing being. In order to investigate this phenomenon further,
we use an inanimate object in a for-profit context in Study 4.

Study 4
In Study 1, we explored the effect of humanization on attitude towards the ad by altering
the picture of the advertisement, whereas in Studies 2 and 3, we examined the multidi-
mensionality of humanization and manipulated the advertising copy of the ad. In addition,
Studies 2 and 3 shed light on the boundary conditions of the humanization effect in the
non-profit sector. To increase the generalizability of this phenomenon and its boundary
conditions, in Study 4, we aim to replicate the humanization effect that we found in Study
3 in the for-profit sector by using a commercial product. In Study 4, we examine the
degrees of humanization on the attitudes towards the brand and the ad, as well as pur-
chase intentions. Consistent with the findings of Study 3, we expected that the degree of
humanization on ad and brand attitudes, as well as purchase intentions, is moderated by
the assertive language used in the ad. Additionally, we manipulate the product picture as
well as the advertising copy to further explore the multidimensionality of humanization.

Stimulus development
With 64% of US adults owning a smartphone (Smith and Page 2015), we opted to create
an ad for a smartphone cover, a product that transcends several age groups. We modelled
our product based on a real product sold on Amazon.com with several modifications to fit
the purpose of our study. We manipulated the degree of humanization by adjusting both
the product image and the advertising copy. We manipulated the subtle humanization
condition by inducing perceptions of emotional and mental capability. Because the cell
phone cover is inanimate, we used both primary and secondary emotions. We included
primary emotions (i.e. happy) as well as secondary emotions (i.e. fearlessly, etc.). The use
of both primary and secondary emotions for an inanimate object should activate the
16 B. REAVEY ET AL.

human schema (Haslam 2006). We also adjusted the product image in each advertisement
by manipulating the degree of humanization.
We created fictitious ads for a flexible cell phone holder that includes a hook to hang
the phone. We manipulated overt humanization via first-person communication from the
phone cover (e.g. ‘I will protect your phone’). We also manipulated the advertisement to
make the product look like it has arms, legs, and a head. Subtle humanization is manipu-
lated by inserting secondary emotions throughout the ad copy (e.g. ‘U-Flexit fearlessly
protects your phone’) and mental capability (‘I will attentively help you navigate’). The

Figure 3. Excerpts of Study 4 stimuli.

 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING 17

picture in the subtle humanization ad was manipulated in a way that does not strongly
elicit perceptions of a human shape; however, it could be viewed as such when facilitated
by the ad copy. The no-humanization condition was written in the third person and con-
tained no emotions. The assertive language was either present (e.g. ‘Hurry! Buy it NOW!’)
or absent from the advertisement, similar to the manipulation in Study 3 (see Figure 3).

Participants, measures, and stimuli

We recruited the participants (n = 158; 61% male; Mage = 34) from the online panel pro-
vider Amazon Mechanical Turk (‘MTurk’). Respondents were paid $1 in exchange for their
participation. We included one attention measure that asked them to recall the brand
name in the advertisement; eight respondents failed to answer the question correctly and
were terminated from the study without pay, leaving us with 150 total respondents. The
study used a 3 (humanization degree: overt, subtle, no-humanization) x 2 (assertive lan-
guage: present vs. not present) between-subjects design. The dependent variables were
attitude towards the ad (Aad), attitude towards the brand (Abrand), and purchase intentions.
Respondents were randomly assigned to one of the six conditions.

Measures
Participants rated attitude towards the ad (Aad) using the same measure as in Study 1 (a =
.96). Attitude towards the brand (Abrand) was measured using a scale adopted from Muehling,
Sprott and Sultan (2014) (1 = bad, dislike very much, unfavourable, worthless, 7 = good, like
very much, favourable, valuable; a = .97). We measured purchase intentions (PI) by asking
them to rate their agreement with two statements on a seven-point scale (e.g. ‘It is likely that
I will buy U-Flexit,’ ‘I would consider purchasing U-Flexit’; 1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly
agree; r = .81). For the manipulation check of the degree of humanization, we used the same
scale as in Studies 1–3 (a = .94). In order to gauge consumers’ suspicion of an ulterior motive,
we asked participants to rate their agreement with the following statement, ‘While I read the
ad, I thought it was pretty obvious that the ad was trying to persuade the customer’
(1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree; a = .73; adapted from Campbell and Kirmani
[2000]). We measured perceived appropriateness of persuasive tactics by asking respondents
to rate their agreement with the item: ‘The way this ad tries to persuade people seems
acceptable to me; 1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree (Campbell 1995). We also adapted
Ahluwalia and Burnkrant (2004) scale on perceived source pressure (1 = not aggressive; 7 =
aggressive) to gauge consumers’ reactions to the persuasive tone of the ad. To rule out the
possibility that the degree of humanization led to the differences in perceived ad complexity,
we asked consumers to rate the degree of complexity of the ad copy (1 = not very complex;
7 = very complex). We also asked consumers to rate the level of complexity and uniqueness
of the product design in the ad (1 = not very complex, not very unique; 7 = very complex,
very unique; r = .39). Additionally, participants rated the realism of the advertisement (1 = not
realistic; 7 = realistic; Puzakova, Kwak, and Bell 2015).

Results
Manipulation checks
First, we found that our manipulation of the degree of humanization was successful
(Movert = 5.40, Msubtle = 2.66, Mno-human = 1.72, F(2, 147) = 133.51, p < .01). Planned
18 B. REAVEY ET AL.

contrasts revealed that respondents recognize the humanized conditions (i.e. subtle and
overt) as more human than the no-humanization condition (t(147) = 11.66, p < .01); they
also view overt humanization more humanlike than subtle humanization (t(147) = 10.95,
p < .01. Next, we tested ulterior motive to determine if consumers could detect the per-
suasive intent of the ad. We found that consumers detect the persuasive intent of the ad
in the presence of assertive language in comparison to the ad where the assertive lan-
guage was absent (Mpresent = 5.22 vs. Mabsent = 4.80; F(1, 147) = 4.04, p < .05). Next, we
tested source appropriateness to determine if the consumer found the source appropriate
to ask for the call-to-action. We found that respondents believe that the source is appro-
priate and there were no statistical differences between the degree of humanization in
the perceptions of the source appropriateness (Msubtle = 5.13, Movert = 5.55, p > .10). We
tested perceived source pressure to determine if consumers felt as if the advertisement
was perceived as aggressive. In the assertive language condition, the results revealed that
consumers were aware of greater source pressure compared to when the ad did not use
assertive language (Mpresent = 2.47 vs. Mabsent = 2.11); F(1, 147) = 2.64, p = .10).

Ruling out alternative explanations

We found that consumers did not find the level of complexity of the ad copy to differ
between the subtle and overt humanization conditions (Movert = 5.38, Msubtle = 5.45;
p > .10). Next, we did not find differences in realism in the ad in the subtle and overt
humanization levels (Movert = 5.15, Msubtle = 5.02; p > .10). Finally, we found that there
were no differences in the product design uniqueness and complexity between the
degrees of humanization (Movert = 2.53, Msubtle = 2.37; p > .10).

Hypotheses testing
The results of the multivariate analysis of variance with brand attitude, ad attitude, and
purchase intentions as the dependent variables showed that the interaction effect
between the degrees of humanization and the ad language was significant (Wilks’
Lambda = .82, F(6, 284) = 5.00, p < .01). The interaction effect was also significant for the
brand attitude and ad attitude (p’s < .05); however, it was marginally significant for the
purchase intentions.

Discussion
The results of Study 4 confirm the pattern of findings observed in Study 3. That is,
when the ad uses assertive language, overt humanization (compared to subtle and
no-humanization) leads to more favourable advertising and brand evaluations, as
well as increase consumers’ purchase intentions. In contrast, when the assertive lan-
guage is absent in the ad, subtle humanization creates more favourable advertising
and brand evaluations, compared to overt and no-humanization. These findings cor-
roborate our overall theoretical premise that different degrees of humanization lead
to distinct advertising performance outcomes and interact with the extent of con-
sumers’ cognitive business. Overall, as in Study 3 with likelihood to donate as the
dependent variable, H3 with brand and advertising attitude as the dependent varia-
bles was also supported.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING 19

General discussion
Anthropomorphized stimuli are frequently used in advertising and other marketing com-
munications with varying degrees of humanization. The degrees range from the less obvi-
ous subtle humanization, such as a ‘smile’ in a car grille to overt humanization, such as a
talking M&M’s character. We find that there are varying degrees of humanization: subtle
humanization and overt humanization. While our results are also concordant with prior
research that shows positive effects of anthropomorphism, we find that consumers react
differently to these degrees of humanization even though prior research has treated these
varying degrees as eliciting the same result. More specifically, Study 1 shows that subtle
humanization increases advertising attitude, compared to subtle and no-humanization.
Next, Study 2 demonstrates that subtle and overt humanization requires the use of differ-
ent degrees of cognitive resources used in processing the ad. Specifically, in Study 2, we
find that as consumers become cognitively busy, they lack enough cognitive resources to
process subtle humanization appeals in advertising. As such, overt humanization leads to
more positive ad performance. In contrast, when consumers are not cognitively busy, the
results resemble those of Study 1. That is, subtle humanization increases ad effectiveness
(i.e. likelihood to donate) compared to overt and no-humanization.
Furthermore, Studies 3 and 4 demonstrate the degree of humanization interacts with
the presence or absence of the assertive advertising language. That is, both Studies 3 and
4 demonstrate that overt humanization (vs. subtle and no-humanization) leads to more
positive advertising outcomes (such as ad and brand attitude, purchase intentions, likeli-
hood to donate to a non-profit) when the ad uses assertive language. These findings occur
because the use of assertive language triggers greater perceptions of the persuasive
intent in the ad which, in turn, consumes cognitive resources. However, when the ad does
not use assertive language, the results are consistent with the findings of Studies 1 and 2
(non-busy condition).
From a theoretical perspective, we add to the anthropomorphization literature by
showing that there are varying degrees of humanization (i.e. overt vs. subtle) that can be
used in an advertising context. These degrees of humanization can both attenuate and
mitigate attitudes depending upon the context in which they are utilized. From a practi-
tioner’s perspective, when consumers are in a position when they are likely to be cogni-
tively busy (i.e. mobile or TV advertisements) and distracted by something else, it is in the
advertisers best interest to use overt anthropomorphism. However, when the consumer is
likely to have display their full attention on the ad (i.e. print advertisement, email), it is in
the advertiser’s best interest to utilize subtle humanization.

Limitations and future research directions

Our work is the first to examine the varying degree of humanization (i.e. subtle vs. overt
humanization). First, our work only examined the effects of subtle and overt humanization
in print ads. Future research might investigate the effects that the varying degrees of
humanization have on more advertising media such as television and radio commercials.
We found that cognitive resources play a significant role when processing the ad and that
if too many cognitive resources are used that the beneficial effects of subtle humaniza-
tion, which was found to be preferred by respondents, diminishes. We speculate that
20 B. REAVEY ET AL.

respondents engage in cognitive correction when processing subtle and overt humaniza-
tion depending upon the degree of cognitive resources available. Future research might
investigate how consumers process humanized ads to see if cognitive corrections occur
during processing fluency.
Second, our work measured likelihood to donate as opposed to measuring actual don-
ations received by a charity. Future research might want to conduct a field experiment
which examines the effects of subtle and overt humanization when used in charity appeal
letters. We find that when respondents recognize persuasion attempts due to the use of
assertive language, overt humanization performs best; when no assertive language is
used then subtle humanization works best. Further investigation might examine when
these two tactics are most effectively used with charity appeals. For instance, the annual
appeal letters that many charities use to solicit donations might work best with assertive
language because consumers’ attention is frequently divided outside of the laboratory.
Finally, future research should continue to explore the boundaries on the degrees of
humanization regarding luxury versus FMCG goods and differences across cultures. It is very
possible that the relationship consumers have with luxury brands versus FMCG goods will
influence the way the product anthropomorphization is received. The level of involvement in
purchasing a luxury brand versus an FMCG good is likely to influence the attenuation effect
of anthropomorphization on brand attitude. Scholars should continue to extend the work of
Gelbrich et. al. (2012) by examining the cultural differences in reaction of the different
degrees of humanization. It is quite possible that individualistic versus collectivistic cultures
will react differently to ads of the different degrees of humanization (i.e. subtle vs. overt). It is
also possible to expect that there will be cultural differences along the power dimension
regarding ads that are anthropomorphized and also contain assertive language. The varying
degrees of humanization occur in advertising every day across the world. We identified two
instances in which the degrees of humanization are influenced (i.e. cognitive busyness and
assertive language) and we welcome future scholars to continue to investigate these differ-
ences and in different contexts.

Acknowledgments
The authors are thankful for the IJA review team for their insightful comments and suggestions. The
authors are also thankful for financial support from LeBow College of Business, Drexel University
and for the Faculty Research Grant supported by Dominican University.

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

Notes on contributors
Brooke Reavey (PhD, Drexel University) is an assistant professor of the Marketing Department at the
Brennan School of Business, Dominican University. Her main research interests include marketing
communications, prosocial behavior, and political marketing. She is also a senior fulbright scholar
who studied nonprofit participation in Romania. Her research has appeared in the International Jour-
nal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, International Journal of Advertising, and Advances in
Consumer Research.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING 21

Marina Puzakova (PhD, Drexel University) is an assistant professor of the Marketing Department at
the College of Business and Economics, Lehigh University. Her main research interests include
branding, consumer inference making, product and brand anthropomorphism and strategic
marketing. Her research has appeared in the Journal of Marketing, International Journal of Research
in Marketing, Journal of Advertising, Journal of Business Research, Journal of Marketing Theory and
Practice, International Journal of Advertising.

Trina Larsen Andras (PhD, University of Texas at Austin) is a professor and head of the Marketing
Department at the LeBow College of Business, Drexel university. Her research has been published in
many journals in her field, including the Harvard Business Review, Journal of the Academy of Market-
ing Science, International Marketing Review and the Journal of International Marketing, among others.

Hyokjin Kwak (PhD, University of Georgia) is a professor of the Marketing Department at the LeBow
College of Business, Drexel University. His research interests include advertising effects, consumer
communications and strategic marketing. He has published in the Journal of Marketing, Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Journal of Advertising Research,
Journal of Advertising, among others.

References
Aggarwal, Pankaj, and Ann L. McGill. 2007. Is that car smiling at me? Schema congruity as a basis for
evaluating anthropomorphized products. Journal of Consumer Research 34, no. 4: 468–79.
Aggarwal, Pankaj, and Ann L. McGill. 2012. When brands seem human, do humans act like brands?
Automatic behavioral priming effects of brand anthropomorphism. Journal of Consumer Research
39, no. 2: 307–23.
Aguirre Rodriguez, Alexandra. 2014. Cultural factors that impact brand personification strategy
effectiveness. Psychology & Marketing 31, no. 1: 70–83.
Ahluwalia, Rohini, and Robert E Burnkrant. 2004. Answering questions about questions: A persuasion
knowledge perspective for understanding the effects of rhetorical questions. Journal of Consumer
Research 31, no. 1: 26–42.
Beilock, Sian L, and Thomas H Carr. 2005. When high-powered people fail working memory and
choking under pressure ‘in math’. Psychological Science 16, no. 2: 101–5.
Brehm, Sharon S, and Jack W Brehm. 1981. Psychological reactance: A theory of freedom and control.
New York: Academic Press.
Butterfield, Max E., Sarah E. Hill, and Charles G. Lord. 2012. Mangy mutt or furry friend? Anthropo-
morphism promotes animal welfare. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 48, no. 4: 957–60.
Campbell, Margaret C. 1995. When attention-getting advertising tactics elicit consumer inferences of
manipulative intent: The importance of balancing benefit and investments. Journal of Consumer
Psychology 4, no. 3: 225–54.
Campbell, Margaret C, and Amna Kirmani. 2000. Consumers’ use of persuasion knowledge: The
effects of accessibility and cognitive capacity on perceptions of an influence agent. The Journal of
Consumer Research 27, no. 1: 69–83.
Chandler, Jesse, and Norbert Schwarz. 2010. Use does not wear ragged the fabric of friendship:
Thinking of objects as alive makes people less willing to replace them. Journal of Consumer Psy-
chology 20, no. 2: 138–45.
Cuddy, Amy J. C., Mindi S. Rock, and Michael I. Norton. 2007. Aid in the aftermath of Hurricane
Katrina: Inferences of secondary emotions and intergroup helping. Group Processes & Intergroup
Relations 10, no. 1: 107–18.
Delbaere, Marjorie, Edward F. McQuarrie, and Barbara J. Phillips. 2011. Personification in advertising.
Journal of Advertising 40, no. 1: 121–30.
Dillard, James Price, and Shen Lijiang. 2005. On the nature of reactance and its role in persuasive
health communication. Communication Monographs 72, no. 2: 144–68.
22 B. REAVEY ET AL.

Dotson, Michael J., and Eva M. Hyatt. 2008. Understanding dog-human companionship. Journal of
Business Research 61, no. 5: 457–66.
Edwards, Steven M, Hairong Li, and Joo-Hyun Lee. 2002. Forced exposure and psychological reac-
tance: Antecedents and consequences of the perceived intrusiveness of pop-up ads. Journal of
Advertising 31, no. 3: 83–95.
Epley, Nicholas, Scott Akalis, Adam Waytz, and John T. Cacioppo. 2008. Creating social connection
through inferential reproduction. Psychological Science 19, no. 2: 114–20.
Epley, Nicholas, Adam Waytz, and John T. Cacioppo. 2007. On seeing human: A three-factor theory of
anthropomorphism. Psychological Review 114, no. 4: 864–86.
Friestad, Marian, and Peter Wright. 1995. Persuasion knowledge: Lay people’s and researchers’
beliefs about the psychology of advertising. Journal of Consumer Research 22, no. 1: 62–74.
Garretson, Judith A., and Scot Burton. 2005. The role of spokes-characters as advertisement and
package cues in integrated marketing communications. Journal of Marketing 69, no. 4: 118–32.
Gelbrich, K., D. Gathke, and S.A. Westjohn. 2012. Anthropomorphism and allegory in advertising
across cultures: Effects on memory and persuasion. Journal of Euromarketing 21: 174–91.
Gilbert, Daniel T, and Randall E Osborne. 1989. Thinking backward: Some curable and incurable con-
sequences of cognitive busyness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 57, no. 6: 940–9.
Haslam, Nick. 2006. Dehumanization: An integrative review. Personality and Social Psychology Review
10, no. 3: 252–64.
Holzwarth, Martin, Chris Janiszewski, and Marcus M. Neumann. 2006. The influence of avatars on
online consumer shopping behavior. Journal of Marketing 70, no. 4: 19–36.
Hosany, Sameer, Girish Prayag, Drew Martin, and Wai-Yee Lee. 2013. Theory and strategies of anthro-
pomorphic brand characters from Peter Rabbit, Mickey Mouse, and Ronald McDonald, to Hello
Kitty. Journal of Marketing Management 29, no. 1-2: 48–68.
Huang, Hazel H, and Vincent Wayne Mitchell. 2014. The role of imagination and brand personifica-
tion in brand relationships. Psychology & Marketing 31, no. 1: 38–47.
Kardes, Frank R. 1988. Spontaneous inference processes in advertising: The effects of conclusion
omission and involvement on persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research 15, no. 2: 225–33.
Kardes, Frank R., Steven S. Posavac, and Maria L. Cronley. 2004. Consumer inference: A review of pro-
cesses, bases, and judgment contexts. Journal of Consumer Psychology 14, no. 3: 230–56.
Keaveney, Susan M., Andreas Herrmann, Rene Befurt, and Jan R. Landwehr. 2012. The eyes have it:
How a car’s face influences consumer categorization and evaluation of product line extensions.
Psychology & Marketing 29, no. 1: 36–51.
Kim, Sara, and Ann L. McGill. 2011. Gaming with Mr. Slot or gaming the slot machine? Power, anthro-
pomorphism, and risk perception. Journal of Consumer Research 38, no. 1: 94–107.
Lalwani, Ashok K. 2009. The distinct influence of cognitive busyness and need for closure on cultural
differences in socially desirable responding. Journal of Consumer Research 36: 305–15.
Landwehr, Jan R., Ann L. McGill, and Andreas Herrmann. 2011. It’s got the look: The effect of friendly
and aggressive facial ‘Expressions on Product Liking and Sales’. Journal of Marketing 75, no. 3:
132–46.
McQuarrie, Edward F., and David Glen Mick. 1996. Figures of rhetoric in advertising language. Journal
of Consumer Research 22, no. 4: 424–38.
McQuarrie, Edward F., and Barbara J. Phillips. 2005. Indirect persuasion in advertising: How consum-
ers process metaphors presented in pictures and words. Journal of Advertising 34, no. 2: 7–20.
Meyers-Levy, Joan, and Prashant Malaviya. 1999. Consumers’ processing of persuasive advertise-
ments: An integrative framework of persuasion theories. The Journal of Marketing 63: 45–60.
Muehling, Darrel D, David E Sprott, and Abdullah J Sultan. 2014. Exploring the boundaries of nostal-
gic advertising effects: A consideration of childhood brand exposure and attachment on consum-
ers’ responses to nostalgia-themed advertisements. Journal of Advertising 43, no. 1: 73–84.
Okazaki, Shintaro, Barbara Mueller, and Charles R Taylor. 2010. Measuring soft-sell versus hard-sell
advertising appeals. Journal of Advertising 39, no. 2: 5–20.
Pashupati, Kartik. 2009. Beavers, bubbles, bees, and moths. Journal of Advertising Research 49, no. 3:
373–93.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING 23

Puzakova, Marina, Hyokjin Kwak, and Joseph F. Rocereto. 2013. When humanizing brands goes
wrong: the detrimental effect of brand anthropomorphization amid product wrongdoings.
Journal of Marketing 77, no. 3: 81–100.
Puzakova, Marina, Hyokjin Kwak, and Monique Bell. 2015. Beyond seeing McDonald’s fiesta menu:
The role of accent in brand sincerity of ethnic products and brands. Journal of Advertising 44,
no. 3: 1–13.
Schultz, Johannes, Hiroshi Imamizu, Mitsuo Kawato, and Chris D Frith. 2004. Activation of the human
superior temporal gyrus during observation of goal attribution by intentional objects. Journal of
Cognitive Neuroscience 16, no. 10: 1695–1705.
Shiv, Baba, and Alexander Fedorikhin. 1999. Heart and mind in conflict: the interplay of affect and
cognition in consumer decision making. Journal of Consumer Research 26, no. 3: 278–92.
Small, Deborah A., and Nicole M. Verrochi. 2009. The face of need: Facial emotion expression on
charity advertisements. Journal of Marketing Research 46, no. 6: 777–87.
Smith, Aaron, and Dana Page. 2015. The smartphone difference. Washington, DC: Pew Research
Center.
Spears, Nancy, and Surendra N Singh. 2004. Measuring attitude toward the brand and purchase
intentions. Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising 26, no. 2: 53–66.
Toncar, Mark, and James Munch. 2001. Consumer responses to tropes in print advertising. Journal of
Advertising 30, no. 1: 55–65.
Vaes, Jeroen, Maria-Paola Paladino, and Jacques-Philippe Leyens. 2002. The lost e-mail: Prosocial
reactions induced by uniquely human emotions. British Journal of Social Psychology 41, no. 4:
521–34.
Verhoef, Peter C., Katherine N. Lemon, A. Parasuraman, Anne Roggeveen, Michael Tsiros, and Leo-
nard A. Schlesinger. 2009. Customer experience creation: Determinants, dynamics and manage-
ment strategies. Journal of Retailing 85, no. 1: 31–41.
Waytz, Adam, John T. Cacioppo, and Nicholas Epley. 2010. Who sees human? The stability and
importance of individual differences in anthropomorphism. Perspectives on Psychological Science
5, no. 3: 219–32.
Zemack-Rugar, Yael, Sarah G Moore, and Gavan J Fitzsimons. 2017. Just do it! Why committed con-
sumers react negatively to assertive ads. Journal of Consumer Psychology 27, no. 3: 287–301.

View publication stats