ATTITUDE OF MARKETING AND NON-MARKETING STUDENTS TOWARDS ADVERTISING Ernest Cyril de Run* Faculty of Economics and Business Universiti Malaysia Sarawak, Kota Samarahan, Malaysia
[email protected] Hiram Ting Faculty of Economics and Business Universiti Malaysia Sarawak, Kota Samarahan, Malaysia
[email protected] ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study is to determine general attitude towards advertising from the perspective of marketing and non-marketing students. Beliefs of students towards advertising are investigated so as to determine what contributes to attitude and behavioral intention. This allows similarities and differences between the two groups of students to be examined. Quantitative approach by means of questionnaire based survey was administered at a government university. 388 usable copies, 191 were from marketing students and 197 copies non-marketing students, were collected. Descriptive and inferential analyses were subsequently used. Findings show that both groups believe that advertising provides information, pleasure, and is good for economy. They also believe this social phenomenon is causing the society to become more materialistic. However the beliefs pertaining to its image role, hedonic aspect and value to society are what set them apart, with marketing students having stronger responses. As a result attitude and behavioral intention of marketing students towards advertising are also significantly different from non-marketing students. This study therefore articulates students’ present view about advertising, and implication as to how marketing and non-marketing students respond to advertising.
Keywords: Advertising, attitude, belief, intention, marketing, university student
*Corresponding author
1
INTRODUCTION
Advertising is an important component in marketing and of modern life. It is regarded as an essential social phenomenon because it stimulates economic activities, and shapes life-styles and values (Pollay & Mittal, 1993). As technology continues to develop rapidly, consumers are ever more exposed to various advertisements, thus making the whole matter more intricate (Tai, 2007). This has intensified the interest of researchers and marketing practitioners to further delve into the study of advertising in contemporary times. While much research has been dedicated to investigating public’s attitudes toward advertising, the importance of assessing student attitudes toward advertising has also been recognized (Dubinsky & Hensel, 1984; Larkin, 1977; Munusamy & Wong, 2007). University students, in particular, represent a meaningful and substantial segment of the general public, and as such it requires definite attention (Beard, 2003). Therefore this study is set up to investigate the current view of university students towards advertising. More specifically it aims to assess the responses from marketing and non-marketing students. It is believed that a renewed understanding about attitude of the two groups of students towards advertising will be articulated.
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Attitude towards Advertising Large-scale studies of public perception of advertising were first carried out in the late 1950s (Zanot, 1984), followed by the first comprehensive academic work on attitudes toward advertising by Bauer and Greyser (1968), and such work carries on since then (Eze & Lee, 2012; Kwek, et al., 2010; Larkin, 1977; Mittal, 1994; O'Donohoe, 1995; Pollay & Mittal, 1993; Ramaprasad & Thurwanger, 1998; Shavitt, et al., 1998; Yaakop, et al., 2011). Interest in assessing attitude towards advertising is generated and perpetuated by empirical results that underline its effect on the effectiveness of advertising (Greyser & Reece, 1971; Kotler, 1988; Mehta, 2000; Mehta & Purvis, 1995), specific advertisement (Lutz, 1985), purchasing behavior (Bush, et al., 1999; Ha, et al., 2011), and society at large (Pollay & Mittal, 1993; Rotzoll, et al., 1986; Wills & Ryans, 1982) Early studies of university students’ attitudes toward advertising have suggested they were unfavorable and were even quite negative in general (Haller, 1974; Larkin, 1977; Taylor, 1982). In 2
Malaysia, a handful of studies have been conducted to examine students responses towards advertising and the findings have been reported varied (Kwek, et al., 2010; Munusamy & Wong, 2007; Ramaprasad, 1994; Rashid & Sidin, 1987). Since university students make up a substantial percentage in Malaysian population, and they have a sizeable degree of purchasing power and influence now and again, it is of utmost importance to keep close track of their view on the subject matter (Beard, 2003; Morton, 2002; Munusamy & Wong, 2007; Wolburg & Pokrywcznski, 2002).
Theoretical Consideration Theory of Reasoned Action by Fishbein and Azjen (1980) is adopted as the basis to investigating student attitude. Based on the theory and empirical studies, behavior and intention are chiefly influenced by attitude (Farley, et al., 1981; Oliver & Bearden, 1985). Attitude, in turn, is predicted by his belief (Brackett & Carr, 2001; Ducoffe, 1996; Wang, et al., 2009). Accordingly the SevenFactor Belief Model by Pollay and Mittal (1993) is adapted to measure students’ belief and attitude towards advertising (Korgaonkar, et al., 2001; Munusamy & Wong, 2007; Ramaprasad & Thurwanger, 1998). Construct on behavioral intention is also included to enhance the explanatory ability of attitude (Huang, et al., 2004; Kim & Hunter, 1993).
RESEARCH PROBLEM AND HYPOTHESES
With the advances in internet technology, it is evident that the landscape of academia and business has changed to a large extent in a short period of time (Eze & Lee, 2012). University students can see and learn so much in front of their computers and paid TV (Waller & Fam, 2000). Moreover it has been asserted that the experience which a person has and embraces in his young adulthood will likely have permanent effect on him (Holbrook & Schindler, 1994; Rogler, 2002). Notwithstanding its magnitude, the studies on attitude of Malaysian university students towards advertising are still found wanting. Hence it is mandatory to keep up with the present view of the young adults as in university students of this study.
Furthermore there is an extreme lack of literature on how marketing and non-marketing students perceive advertising. Although advertising is one of the major themes in marketing, it remains unclear as to what differentiate marketing students’ belief and attitude towards advertising from others’. As marketing students are a potential source of future advertising or marketing personnel, their view is critical to the development of marketing industry (Dubinsky & Hensel, 1984). 3
Since it is believed that marketing students will have different beliefs about advertising when compared to non-marketing students, the following hypothesis is formulated:
H1: Each belief about advertising between marketing and non-marketing students will be significantly different.
Due to the differences in their beliefs about advertising, it is postulated that the attitude and intention of the two groups of students will also be different; hence the following hypotheses:
H2: The attitude towards advertising between marketing and non-marketing students will be significantly different. H3: The intention towards advertising between marketing and non-marketing students will be significantly different.
METHODOLOGY
Population and Sample Undergraduate and postgraduate students at Universiti Malaysia Sarawak (UNIMAS in short) constitute the population of the study. The reason for such selection is because UNIMAS is the largest university in Sarawak, with student population of about 12,000. Moreover it is one of the government universities in Malaysia, thus the students are from all over the country. Slovin’s formula with 5% margin of error was used to determine the sample size (Sevilla, et al., 1997). Convenient sampling technique was used initially but quota sampling approach was later executed to ensure neither marketing students nor non-marketing students were under-sampled.
Data Collection and Analysis A self-administered questionnaire based survey was used to collect data. 500 copies were distributed at the main library and several lecture theatres on campus, and 388 usable copies, which satisfied the needed sample size, were later collected. Subsequently data were keyed in into SPSS, screened and cleaned for analysis. Aside from that a three-point semantic differential scale for measuring intention where 1 = will consider a marketing job after graduation, 2 = not sure and 3 = will not consider a marketing job, a five-point Likert scale where 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = 4
strongly agree was used. Descriptive analysis and t-test were used to assess responses from the two groups of students.
FINDINGS
Table 1 shows the demographic details of the 388 respondents sampled at UNIMAS. As this study is purposed to assess the attitude of marketing and non-marketing students, quota sampling approach was adopted to ensure the right balance between the two.
Table 1: Respondent Profile Variable Gender Male Female Race Malay Chinese Indian Iban Others University Year First year Second year Third year Fourth year (non-marketing) Master level PhD level Original Sarawak Residing State Sabah Kelantan Selangor Johor Perak Kuala Lumpur Pahang Penang Others Type of Student Marketing Non-marketing
Frequency 101 287 146 151 13 27 51 79 143 126 14 17 9 203 32 27 22 22 22 13 9 9 29 191 197
Percent 26.03 73.97 37.63 38.92 3.35 6.96 13.14 20.36 36.86 32.47 3.61 4.38 2.32 52.32 8.25 6.96 5.67 5.67 5.67 3.35 2.32 2.32 7.47 49.23 50.77
Table 2, in turn, shows the means and t-test values for the seven belief factors, attitude and intention towards advertising by marketing and non-marketing students. The overall results for all students are also given. In addition, Cronbach’s alpha values for each construct are presented to indicate
5
their reliability. As an alpha of 0.50 or greater is acceptable for attitude and preference assessments, all the constructs are therefore retained (Huang, et al., 2012; Tuckman, 1999).
Table 2: Means and t-test Values by Marketing and Non-marketing Students
Mean
STD
Mean
STD
Mean
STD
Reliability (Cronbach Alpha)
Overall Construct
Marketing
Non-Marketing
Item
Intention**
1
1.68
0.67
1.39
0.52
1.95
0.69
--
Attitude**
3
3.76
0.61
3.86
0.59
3.65
0.62
0.70
Information
3
4.12
0.59
4.08
0.60
4.15
0.58
0.70
Image**
3
3.70
0.74
3.88
0.61
3.53
0.81
0.78
Pleasure**
3
3.82
0.65
3.91
0.55
3.74
0.72
0.67
Economy
3
3.74
0.58
3.76
0.55
3.71
0.60
0.56
0.75
2.61
0.84
0.75
0.70
2.87
0.66
0.68
0.71
2.94
0.71
0.69
Materialism 4 2.53 0.80 2.46 (Reversed) Falsity 3 2.88 0.68 2.89 (Reversed) Corrupted Value* 2 2.87 0.71 2.79 (Reversed) * t-test significant at 0.05, ** t-test significant at 0.00
DISCUSSIONS
The findings show that advertising being a source of product information, having hedonic element are the three most dominant beliefs for both marketing and non-marketing students. These correspond to the early study on students of private higher learning institution in Malaysia except that its economic role was rated greater than its hedonic aspect (Munusamy & Wong, 2007). This may be due to the fact that Malaysian students today are more aware of advertising and varieties of advertisement from all over the world, thanks to the advent of sophisticated communication devices and internet (Yang, 2000). On another note, both groups of students also agree strongly that advertising is causing the society to become more materialistic, which supports the earlier findings about the same belief among college students in the U.S. (Beard, 2003).
6
From the viewpoint of the seven beliefs, only image role, hedonic element and value corruption of advertising are found to be significantly different between marketing and non-marketing students. As marketing students learn advertising strategy, and its social and ethical effect on the society, they are more likely to have stronger response to these beliefs than non-marketing students (Dubinsky & Hensel, 1984; Frazer, 1979). However as advertising is a social phenomenon which people see everywhere and every day, it explains why both groups of students share more beliefs about advertising. As such, the first hypothesis is partially accepted.
The findings also show that the attitudes and intentions towards advertising between marketing and non-marketing students are significantly different. Again, being educated in marketing may have direct effect on the students, thus explaining why marketing students’ view is different from others (Dubinsky & Hensel, 1984). It is worthwhile noting that while both groups of students have favorable attitude towards advertising, which corresponds to earlier findings (Munusamy & Wong, 2007), marketing students have more dominant attitude towards advertising, and intention to consider a marketing job after graduation than non-marketing students. This shows it is more likely for marketing students to see career prospective in marketing than other students. Hence, the second and third hypotheses are supported, and thus accepted.
CONCLUSION
There are obvious reasons for assessing student attitude toward advertising, and differentiate the view of marketing students from non-marketing ones. Notwithstanding similarities in general view, three belief factors and attitude towards advertising, and intention to get a marketing job after graduation between the two groups of students are significantly different. From academic point of view, this may be a testament to the importance of marketing study. From the business perspective, as marketing students are a potential source of marketing or advertising recruits, their positive attitude and intention towards advertising are pivotal, not only to the good of businesses, but also to the development of marketing concept and practice in Malaysia.
This study, however, is delimited to UNIMAS in Sarawak. Despite having students from all over Malaysia on campus, most respondents are found to be Sarawakians. In terms of analysis, the findings using t-test are limited to only assessing differences of variables between groups. Regression or structural equation modeling would have given more explanation to interaction 7
between constructs. Furthermore the study uses only belief, attitude and intention, other relevant constructs, such as value, lifestyle and cultural dimensions, would have enhanced the prediction of these constructs. It is therefore necessary for future studies to be conducted in order to have a more comprehensive understanding about students’ view on advertising, and from there, students’ view on specific advertising.
Acknowledgement: This paper is based on research at Universiti Malaysia Sarawak under Faculty Funded Research (Grant no: FPI (F01)/125/2012 (85)). The authors express their gratitude to UNIMAS for sponsoring attendance at the conference.
REFERENCES
Ajzen, I. & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior. London: Prentice-Hall. Bauer, R. A. & Greyser, S. A. (1968). Advertising in American: the Consumer View. Boston, MA: Harvard University. Beard, F. K. (2003). College Student Attitudes toward Advertising's Ethical, Economic, and Social Consequences. Journal of Business Ethics, 48, 217-228. Brackett, L. & Carr, B. (2001). Cyberspace Advertising vs. Other Media: Consumer vs. Mature Student Attitudes. Journal of Advertising Research, 41, 23-32. Bush, A. J., Smith, R. & Martin, C. (1999). The Influence of Consumer Socialization Variables on Attitude toward Advertising: A Comparison of African-Americans and Caucasians. Journal of Advertising, 28(3), 13-24. Dubinsky, A. J. & Hensel, P. J. (1984). Marketing Student Attitudes toward Advertising: Implications for Marketing Education. Journal of Marketing Education, 6(22), 22-26. doi: 10.1177/027347538400600206 Ducoffe, R. (1996). Advertising Value and Advertising on the Web. Journal of Advertising Research, 36(5), 21-35. Eze, U. C. & Lee, C. H. (2012). Consumers' Attitude towards Advertising. International Journal of Business and Management, 7(13), 94-108. Farley, J. U., Lehmann, D. R. & Ryan, M. J. (1981). Generalizing from 'Imperfect Replication'. Journal of Business, 54, 597-610. Frazer, C. F. (1979). Advertising Ethics: The Role of the Educator. Journal of Advertising, 8, 43-46. Greyser, S. A. & Reece, B. B. (1971). Businessmen Look Hard at Advertising. Harvard Business Review, 49, 18-26. Ha, H.-Y., John, J., Janda, S. & Muthaly, S. (2011). The Effects of Advertising Spending on Brand Loyalty in Services. European Journal of Marketing, 45, 673-691. Haller, T. (1974). What students think of advertising? , Journal of Advertising Research, 14 (1), 3338. Holbrook, M. B. & Schindler, R. M. (1994). Age, Sex and Attitude toward the Past as Predictors of Consumers: Aesthetic Tastes for Cultural Products. Journal of Marketing Research, 31, 412422.
8
Huang, E. Y., Lin, S. W. & Huang, T. K. (2012). What Type of Learning Style Leads to Online Participation in the Mixed-mode E-learning Environment? A Study of Software Usage Instruction. Computers & Education, 58 338-349. Huang, J.-H., Lee, B. C. Y. & Ho, S. H. (2004). Consumer Attitude toward Gray Market Goods. International Marketing Review, 21(6), 598-614. doi: 10.1108/02651330410568033 Kim, M.-S. & Hunter, J. E. (1993). Relationships among Attitudes, Behavioral Intentions, and Behavior: A Meta-anaylsis of Past Research, part 2. Communication Research, 20(3), 331364. Korgaonkar, P. K., Silverblatt, R. & O'Leary, B. (2001). Web Advertising and Hispanics. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 18(2), 134-152. Kotler, P. (1988). Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning, and Control. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Eaglewood Cliff. Kwek, C. L., Tan, H. P. & Lau, T. C. (2010). The Determinants of Consumers' Attitude towards Advertising. Canadian Social Science, 6(4), 114-126. Larkin, E. F. (1977). A Factor Analysis of College Student Attitudes toward Advertising. Journal of Advertising, 6(2), 42-46. Lutz, R. J. (1985). Affective and Cognitive Antecedents of Attitude towards Ad: A Conceptual Framework. In L. F. Alwitt & A. A. Mitchell (Eds.), Psychological Processes and Advertising Effects (pp. 45-63). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Mehta, A. (2000). Advertising Attitudes and Advertising Effectiveness. Journal of Advertising Research, 40, 67-72. Mehta, A. & Purvis, S. C. (1995). When Attitudes towards Advertising in General Influence Advertising Success. Paper presented at the Conference of the American Academy of Advertising, Norfolk, VA. Mittal, B. (1994). Public Assessment of TV Advertising: Faint Praise and Harsh Criticism. Journal of Advertising Research, 34(1), 35-53. Morton, L. P. (2002). Segmenting Baby Boomers. Public Relations Quarterly, 46(3), 46-47. Munusamy, J. & Wong, C. H. (2007). Attitude towards Advertising among Students at Private Higher Learning Institutions in Selangor. Unitar E-journal, 3(1), 31-51. O'Donohoe, S. (1995). Attitudes to Advertising: A Review of British and American Research. International Journal of Advertising, 14, 245-261. Oliver, R. L. & Bearden, W. O. (1985). Crossover Effects in the Theory of Reasoned Action: A Moderating Influence Attempt. Journal of Consumer Research, 12, 324-340. Pollay, R. W. & Mittal, B. (1993). Here's the Beef: Factors, Determinants, and Segments in Consumer Criticism of Advertising. Journal of Marketing, 57, 99-114. Ramaprasad, J. (1994). Personalized interactions and generalized beliefs about advertising: the case of Malaysian students. Paper presented at the Conference of the American Academy of Advertising, Athens, GA. Ramaprasad, J. & Thurwanger, M. L. (1998). South Asian Students Attitudes toward and Beliefs about Advertising: Measuring Across Cultures. Paper presented at the AEJMC Annual Conference, Baltimore. Rashid, M. Z. A. & Sidin, S. M. (1987). The Structure of Students' Attitudes Towards Advertising. Paper presented at the Southeast Asia Conference of the Academy of International Business, Kuala Lumpur. Rogler, L. H. (2002). Historical Generations and Psychology: The Case of the Great Depression and World War II. American Psychologist, 57(12), 1013-1023. doi: 10.1037/0003066X.57.12.1013 Rotzoll, K. B., Haefner, J. E. & Sandage, C. H. (1986). Advertising in Contemporary Society. West Chicago, IL: South-Western Publishing Company. 9
Sevilla, C. G., Ochave, J. A., Punsalan, T. G., Regala, B. P. & Uriarte, G. G. (1997). Research Methods (Revised ed.). Q. C., Phil.: Rex Printing Co., Inc. Shavitt, S., Lowrey, P. & Haefner, J. (1998). Public Attitudes toward Advertising: More Favorable Than You Might Think. Journal of Advertising Research, 38(4), 7-22. Tai, S. H. C. (2007). Correlates of Successful Brand Advertising in China. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 19(1), 40-56. Taylor, D. B. (1982). Students Attitudes towards Advertising. Quarterly Review of Marketing, 7(2). Tuckman, B. W. (1999). Conducting Educational Research. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Group. Waller, D. S. & Fam, K.-S. (2000). Cultural Values and Advertising in Malaysia: Views from the Industry. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 12(1), 3-16. Wang, Y., Sun, S., Lei, W. & Toncar, M. (2009). Examining Beliefs and Attitudes toward Online Advertising among Chinese Consumers. Direct Marketing: An International Journal, 3(1), 52-66. Wills, J. R. & Ryans, J. K. (1982). Attitudes toward Advertising: A Multinational Study. Journal of International Business Studies, 13(3), 121-129. Wolburg, J. M. & Pokrywcznski, J. (2002). A Psychographic Analysis of Generation Y College Students. Journal of Advertising Research, 41(5), 33-52. Yaakop, A. Y., Hemsley-Brown, J. & Gilbert, D. C. (2011). Attitudes towards Advertising: Malaysians vs Non-Malaysians. Asian Journal of Business and Management Sciences, 1(2), 77-94. Yang, C.-C. (2000). Taiwanese Students' Attitudes towards and Beliefs about Advertising. Journal of Marketing Communications, 6, 171-183. Zanot, E. (1984). Public Attitudes towards Advertising: The American Experience. International Journal of Advertising, 3(1), 3-15.
10
