attitude towards advertising: a comparison between ...

Bibliographic Information: de Run, E. C., Ting, H., Jee, T. W. and Lau, S. Y. C. (2013, 20-22 November). Attitude towards Advertising: A Comparison between Marketing and Non-marketing Students at a Private University. Paper presented at the 5th Asia Pacific Marketing and Management Conference (APMMC), Hilton Kuching Hotel, Kuching, Malaysia

ATTITUDE TOWARDS ADVERTISING: A COMPARISON BETWEEN MARKETING AND NON-MARKETING STUDENTS AT A PRIVATE UNIVERSITY

Ernest Cyril de Run* and Hiram Ting Faculty of Economics and Business Universiti Malaysia Sarawak, Kota Samarahan, Malaysia Jee Teck Weng Faculty of Business and Design Swinburne University Technology Sarawak, Kuching, Malaysia Sally Lau Yin Choo Faculty of Economics and Business Universiti Malaysia Sarawak, Kota Samarahan, Malaysia ABSTRACT The purpose of this study is to determine general attitude towards advertising from the perspective of marketing and non-marketing students. Beliefs towards advertising are investigated so as to determine what contributes to attitude and subsequently behavioral intention towards advertising. A quantitative approach by means of questionnaire based survey was administered at a private university. 217 usable copies, whereby 101 are marketing students and 116 are non-marketing students, were collected. Descriptive and inferential analyses were subsequently used. Findings show that there is no significant difference in beliefs, attitude and intention towards advertising among marketing and non-marketing students despite dissimilar educational background. This study therefore articulates the present view of university students about advertising, and its implication to academia and business. Keywords: Advertising, attitude, belief, intention, university student *Corresponding author Prof. Dr. Ernest Cyril de Run (email: [email protected])

1

INTRODUCTION Advertising is an important communication tool in marketing and modern life. It is regarded as an economic and social phenomenon that stimulates societal activities, and affects even personal value and behavior (Pollay & Mittal, 1993). As technology continues to grow rapidly, seen especially in the burgeoning use of internet, young consumers are becoming increasingly aware of various advertisements, thus making the whole matter more intricate than ever before (Purosothuman, 2008; Tai, 2007). This intensifies the interest of researchers and marketing practitioners to further delve into the study of advertising progressively in contemporary setting. While much research has been conducted to investigate public’s attitude towards advertising, studies that seek to understand students’ attitude towards advertising are also on the rise (Dubinsky & Hensel, 1984; Larkin, 1977; Munusamy & Wong, 2007). University students represent a meaningful and substantial segment of the general public, and hence it requires continual attention (Beard, 2003). Therefore this study aims to investigate the present view of university students towards advertising. In particular attitude of marketing and non-marketing students from private university towards advertising is focused on. It is believed that this study will extend knowledge about their attitude towards advertising, and thus provide relevant implication.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE Attitude towards Advertising Large-scale studies of public view about advertising started in the late 1950s (Zanot, 1984) before the first comprehensive academic work on attitude towards advertising by Bauer and Greyser (1968). Since then more studies were conducted to gain insights into the subject matter (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 advertising effectiveness (Greyser & Reece, 1971; Kotler, 1988; Mehta, 2000; Mehta & Purvis, 1995), attitude towards specific advertisement (Lutz, 1985), purchasing behavior (Bush, et al., 1999; Ha, et al., 2011), and social policies (Pollay & Mittal, 1993; Rotzoll, et al., 1986; Wills & Ryans, 1982) Attitude towards advertising is generally defined as a learned predisposition to respond to advertising in a consistently favourable or unfavourable manner (Lutz, 1985; MacKenzie & Lutz, 1989). Such attitude is predicted by beliefs about advertising, which is described as specific statements about the attributes of objects (Brackett & Carr, 2001; Ducoffe, 1996; Pollay & Mittal, 1993; Wang, et al., 2009). While a number of past studies have looked into beliefs about advertising, the seven-factor belief model by Pollay and Mittal (1993) is regarded as one of the most comprehensive works (Korgaonkar, et al., 2001; Munusamy & Wong, 2007; Ramaprasad & Thurwanger, 1998). The model includes two dimensions, namely personal utility factors and socioeconomic factors, and these measures have been validated empirically (Korgaonkar, et al., 2000; Korgaonkar, et al., 2001). Personal utility factors are made up of product information, social image information and hedonic amusement whereas socioeconomic factors are composed of good for economy, materialism, falsity and value corruption. Out of the seven factors, materialism, falsity and value corruption have inverse relationship with attitude. Early studies of university students’ attitude towards advertising have suggested they were largely unfavourable in general (Haller, 1974; Larkin, 1977; Taylor, 1982). In Malaysia, only a handful of studies have been conducted to examine students’ views about advertising and they do not show similar results (De Run & Ting, 2013; 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 in present times (Beard, 2003; Morton, 2002; Munusamy & Wong, 2007; Wolburg & Pokrywcznski, 2002). Moreover, as advertising is an important component in marketing, it becomes more

2

meaningful to understand views about advertising from the perspective of marketing and non-marketing students. Theoretical Consideration Theory of Reasoned Action by Fishbein and Azjen (1980) is adopted as the basis to investigate students’ attitude towards advertising. Based on the theory and past empirical studies, behavior and intention are chiefly influenced by attitude (Farley, et al., 1981; Oliver & Bearden, 1985). Attitude, in turn, is predicted by belief (Brackett & Carr, 2001; Ducoffe, 1996; Wang, et al., 2009). Accordingly the seven-factor belief model by Pollay and Mittal (1993) is adopted and incorporated into the theory to measure students’ belief and attitude towards advertising (Korgaonkar, et al., 2001; Munusamy & Wong, 2007; Ramaprasad & Thurwanger, 1998). Behavioral intention is included to enhance the explanation of attitude (Huang, et al., 2004; Kim & Hunter, 1993).

RESEARCH PROBLEM AND HYPOTHESES It is evident that recent development in economic and technology has changed the landscape of academia and business 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, smartphones 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 the magnitude, studies on attitude of university students towards advertising in Malaysia are found wanting. There is still a huge gap in the knowledge of measurement of students’ beliefs and attitude towards advertising (Munusamy & Wong, 2007; Ramaprasad, 1994). Hence it is mandatory to keep up with the present view of the university students when they are still in their formative years. Furthermore there is an extreme lack of literature on how marketing and non-marketing students perceive advertising. Despite being one of the major components 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 and are therefore crucial to the development of marketing industry (Dubinsky & Hensel, 1984), it is necessary to be able to distinguish them from others. Due to their educational background, it is postulated that marketing students will have different beliefs about advertising when compared to non-marketing students. Hence the following hypothesis is formulated: H1:

Beliefs 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 attitude and intention towards advertising of the two groups of students will also be different; hence the following hypotheses: H2: H3:

Attitude towards advertising between marketing and non-marketing students will be significantly different. Intention towards advertising between marketing and non-marketing students will be significantly different.

METHODOLOGY Students studying at Swinburne University of Technology Sarawak (SUTS) in the year of 2013 constitute the population of the study. The reason for such selection is because SUTS is one of the two largest private universities with its own campus in Sarawak. Notably private universities and higher learning institutions were only formally recognized in Malaysia in 1996 with the enactment of the Private Higher Education Institutions Act (PHEIA) 1996 and some amendments made to the Universities and University Colleges Act (UUCA) 1971 and the Education Act 1961. As such private university can be quite different from public

3

university (Lee, 2004a, 2004b; Wan, 2007), and this is apparent in the university’s clientele (Ahmad & Noran, 1999; Altbach, 2002; Sato, 2007; Wan, 2007). Purposive sampling approach was used to ensure proportionate marketing and non-marketing students were sampled. A self-administered questionnaire based survey was used to collect data. A seven-point Likert scale where 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree was adopted for all items pertaining to beliefs, attitude and intention towards advertising. However all continuous items were randomized to address issues with common method variance. 300 copies were distributed and 217 usable copies were later collected. Data were then keyed-in into SPSS software and cleaned for subsequent analyses. FINDINGS Table 1 shows the demographic details of the 217 respondents sampled at SUTS. Table 1: Respondent Profile Variable Gender Race

University Year

Type of Student

Frequency

Percent

Male Female Malay Chinese Indian Others First year Second year Third year Fourth year Postgraduate level

100 117 12 148 3 54 68 88 53 7 1

46.1 53.9 5.5 68.2 1.4 24.8 31.3 40.6 24.4 3.2 0.5

Marketing Non-marketing

101 116

46.5 53.5

As more than 217 respondents were sampled in the study, normality of data is assumed (Hair, et al., 2006). Besides, any violations of normality or equality of variance that may exist are not going to matter too much when the sample reaches 200 and beyond (Pallant, 2011). Furthermore, with the given sample size, skewness and kurtosis will also not cause any substantial effect on the analysis (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). As such, parametric test as in t-test was used to assess the differences of the variables concerned by the two groups of students. Descriptive and t-test analyses were used to obtain Mean and t-test values for the seven beliefs, attitude and intention towards advertising by marketing and non-marketing students as shown in Table 2. The overall results for all students are also given. In addition, Cronbach’s alpha values for each variable are presented to indicate their reliability scores. As an alpha of 0.50 or greater is acceptable for attitude and preference assessments (Huang, et al., 2012; Tuckman, 1999), all the variables, except for ‘economy’ (advertising is good for economy) and ‘falsity’, are therefore retained. Table 2: Mean and T-test Values by Marketing and Non-marketing Students Overall Variable

Marketing

Non-Marketing

Item Mean

STD

Mean

STD

Mean

STD

CronbachAl pha

Intention

3

4.40

1.11

4.43

1.03

4.37

1.18

0.88

Attitude

2

4.96

0.93

5.01

0.91

4.92

0.94

0.64

4

Overall Variable

Marketing

Non-Marketing

Item Mean

STD

Mean

STD

Mean

STD

CronbachAl pha

Information

3

5.42

0.98

5.39

1.03

5.45

0.92

0.77

Image Role

3

4.35

1.11

4.36

1.00

4.35

1.20

0.74

Hedonism*

3

4.75

1.06

4.62

1.12

4.87

0.99

0.70

Economy

3

4.47

0.79

4.34

0.80

4.58

0.78

0.25

MaterialismR

3

3.48

1.20

3.46

1.18

3.50

1.23

0.68

FalsityR

2

3.75

1.06

3.75

1.09

3.75

1.04

0.49

Corrupted ValueR

2

3.85

1.01

3.86

0.98

3.85

1.03

0.69

* t-test significant at 0.05; R indicates reverse-coded

DISCUSSIONS The findings show that product information and hedonic amusement are two most dominant beliefs shared by both marketing and non-marketing students. Despite agreeing that advertising causes the society to become materialistic and corrupts values especially among the youths, the level of responses is not as strong as what they believe advertising can do in a positive manner. These correspond to the earlier study on students of private higher learning institution in Malaysia (Munusamy & Wong, 2007). This may be due to the fact that private university students today, be it marketing or non-marketing student, are becoming more aware of advertising and varieties of advertisement, thanks to the advent of sophisticated communication devices and internet (Yang, 2000). Perhaps it is also easy to see why, like the students in the U.S., they believe advertising is making them and the society at large more materialistic, such as buying things that they do not really need (Beard, 2003). Based on the t-test results, it is found that only hedonic amusement of advertising is significantly different between marketing and non-marketing students. While there is no significant difference for other beliefs between the two groups, the responses of non-marketing students tend to be stronger than that of marketing students. This refutes past studies that marketing students tends to have stronger responses due to their educational background (Dubinsky & Hensel, 1984; Frazer, 1979). However, as advertising is a social phenomenon which people see everywhere and every day, it also explains why both groups of students share the same beliefs about advertising (De Run & Ting, 2013). Given such conclusion, it is clear that the first hypothesis is not supported. The findings also show that attitudes and intentions towards advertising between marketing and nonmarketing students are not significantly different. Again, this contradicts the findings of a similar study conducted at a public university in Sarawak (De Run & Ting, 2013). Although the earlier study also found both marketing and non-marketing students from public university have favourable attitude and intention towards advertising, they are not the same. This is largely due to their respective education. Having no significant difference in attitude and intention among students in private university seems to suggest that there is no distinctive characteristic about these marketing students. In other words, although non-marketing students know less about advertising doctrinally, they are by no means less aware of advertising. Whether there is any difference in marketing syllabi between public and private universities remains to be seen. However it is known that their educational system may be quite different (Ahmad & Noran, 1999; Altbach, 2002; Sato, 2007; Wan, 2007). Private universities usually provide more lenient pathway to entry, and more flexible selection of courses. As a result, marketing students may end up graduating as management students because they can take management as major subject and marketing as minor subject concurrently. Moreover

5

non-marketing students can also take marketing as their elective course. As the heterogeneity between the two groups of students cannot be assumed, the second and third hypotheses are also not supported.

CONCLUSION There are obvious reasons for understanding students’ attitude towards advertising, and differentiate the view of marketing students from non-marketing students at private university. Despite receiving different types of education, marketing students seem to share similar beliefs, attitude and intention towards advertising with non-marketing students. From the academic point of view, this may be something to look into so as to redefine the value of marketing studies. Otherwise, marketing would simply become an optional subject for students to complete the required unit of studies. From the business perspective, it may well insinuate the reasons why marketing is being commonized in many organizations in Sarawak. Many are still treating marketing as almost a synonym to sales or a mere subset to business in general, thus deprecating it as a discipline and profession in its own right. Such mentality and condition may have prevented organizations in the state to grow and develop further. Despite having students from different states of Malaysia studying at SUTS, most respondents in the study are Sarawakians and of Chinese community. Furthermore, the sample was taken only from a private university. Therefore it would be expedient to conduct nationwide studies on students’ attitude towards advertising, and make comparisons between students from multiple public universities and private universities. The addition of personal values, cultural characteristics and lifestyles in future studies will also enhance the explanation of attitude towards advertising, and from there, attitude towards 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 Ahmad, M. A. & Noran, F. Y. (1999). Business of Higher Education in Malaysia: Development and Prospects in the New Millennium. Paper presented at the ASAIHL Conference on The New Millennium: Business and Higher Education in the Asia-Pacific, Auckland Institute of Technology, New Zealand. Ajzen, I. & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior. London: PrenticeHall. Altbach, P. G. (2002). The Private Sector in Asian Higher Education (Winter ed.). 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. De Run, E. C. & Ting, H. (2013, 25-26 June 2013). Attitude of Marketing and Non-marketing Students towards Advertising. Paper presented at the Global Conference on Business, Economics and Social Sciences, Kuala Lumpur.

6

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. Hair, J. F., Bush, R. P. & Ortinau, D. J. (2006). Marketing Research within a Changing Information Environment (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin. Haller, T. (1974). What students think of advertising? , Journal of Advertising Research, 14 (1), 33-38. 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, 412-422. 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), 331-364. Korgaonkar, P. K., Karson, E. J. & Lund, D. (2000). Hispanics and Direct Marketing Advertising. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 17(2), 137-157. 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. Lee, M. N. N. (2004a). Malaysian Universities: Towards Equality, Accessibility and Quality. In M. N. N. Lee (Ed.), Restructuring Higher Education in Malaysia. Penang: School of Educational Studies, Universiti Sains Malaysia. Lee, M. N. N. (2004b). Private Higher Education in Malaysia: Expansion, Diversification and Consolidation. In M. N. N. Lee (Ed.), Restructuring Higher Education in Malaysia. Penang: School of Educational Studies, Universiti Sains Malaysia. 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.

7

MacKenzie, S. B. & Lutz, R. L. (1989). An Empirical Examination of the Structural Antecedents of Attitude toward the Ad in an Advertising Pretesting Context. Journal of Marketing, 53, 48-65. 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. Pallant, J. (2011). SPSS Survival Manual: A Step by Step Guide to Data Analysis using SPSS (4th ed.). NSW, Australia: Allen & Unwin. 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. Purosothuman, N. P. (2008). Key Determinants of Virtual Store Acceptance among the Malaysians Consumers. Master Degree, Universiti of Malaya. 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: 10.1037/0003-066X.57.12.1013 Rotzoll, K. B., Haefner, J. E. & Sandage, C. H. (1986). Advertising in Contemporary Society. West Chicago, IL: South-Western Publishing Company. Sato, M. (2007). Dilemmas of Public University Reform in Malaysia. Clayton: Monash University Press. 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. Tabachnick, G. G. & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Experimental Designs Using ANOVA. Belmont, CA: Duxbury. 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.

8

Wan, C. D. (2007). Public and Private Higher Education Institutions in Malaysia: Competing, Complementary or Crossbreeds as Education Providers. Kajian Malaysia 25(1), 1-14. 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.

9