The original hypothesis says that a hot lady communicator might be better than just a low-aroused girls communicator
Service for it basic theory is actually mixed. The data into the male receivers are supporting from the hypothesis, however the analysis towards ladies receivers are not. You’ll, it lack of feeling through to female was with their inability in order to understand a big change of one’s communicator’s sexiness anywhere between requirements. Regardless of the low-high differences to your girls receivers impression away from sexiness, the fresh sexiness manipulation (naughty and you can low-naughty requirements) performed have an impact on both the males and females; consequently, the information and knowledge for both sexes is actually claimed.
Affect. Analysis of variance (Table 1) performed with the affective component scores indicate significant main effects for the sexiness conditions and the sex of the receivers, and interaction effects between conditions and receivers. The mean scores of the affective attitudinal component are reported in Figure 2. The affective measures of the males were significantly higher (t=2.83, p=.009) for the sexy versus the non-sexy communicator. The affective scores for the females were in the same direction as the males but did not approach significance (t=.71, p=.486).
Cognitive. Analysis of variance (Table 1) indicated the sexiness manipulation caused mixed results for the cognitive attitudinal component. The cognitive component for the sexy conditions was significantly higher (t=2.18, p=.038) for the males than the non-sexy condition. In contrast, the effect was opposite for females, where the cognitive component was significantly lower (t=4.40, p=.000) for the sexy condition than the non-sexy condition. These effects upon the cognitive component are presented in Figure 3.
Conative. The results of the conative attitudinal component are comparable to the cognitive results. The sexiness conditions were not significantly different while the difference between the sexes was significant, resulting in significant interaction effects. The sexy condition produced significantly higher conative measures for the males (t=2.73, p=.011) and significantly lower measures for the females (t=-3.12, p=.004), than the non-sexy condition. The mean scores for the sex of subjects and interaction effects are presented in Figure 4.
The second hypothesis states that the perceived sexiness of the communicator will be negatively correlated for female receivers and positively correlated for male receivers. The data for the males supported this hypothesis while the data for the females did not. The data were analyzed according to sex by using Pearson Product-Moment Correlations. Perceived sexiness and physical attractiveness of the communicator were not correlated for females (Pearson r=-.14, p=.466), but was positively correlated for males (Pearson r=.53, p=.003).
This new aroused and you can low-aroused requirements weren’t significantly some other given that sex of the receivers is actually extreme, ultimately causing significant communication ramifications of the new criteria from the receivers
The third hypothesis states that perceived sexiness of the communicator will be positively correlated with perceived communicator credibility, perceived expensiveness of the product, and recall of copy details. No significant correlations resulted for females. For males, the perceptions of sexiness was significantly correlated with communicator credibility (Pearson r=.49, p=.007), and perceived expensiveness of the product (Pearson r=.65, p=.001), but was not significant for recall (Pearson r=-.32, p=.089).
For men, the newest correlations ranging from sexiness http://www.datingmentor.org/escort/louisville/ and you may communicator cleverness (Pearson roentgen=
The fourth hypothesis states that the perceived sexiness of the communicator will be positively correlated with perceived communicator intelligence, trustworthiness, and expertise. Again, no significant correlations were found for the female receivers. 49, p=.006), trustworthiness (Pearson r=.41, p=.024), and expertise (Pearson r=.63, p=.001) were all significant.
The secondary, empirical, issue of this hypothesis concerning correlations for measures of trustworthiness and expertise with measures of source credibility is confirmed. For female receivers, trustworthiness was highly correlated with source credibility (Pearson r=.99, p=.001), and the correlation of expertise with credibility was also significant (Pearson r=.84, p=.001). Male receivers, almost identical to females, displayed highly significant correlations for source trustworthiness with source credibility (Pearson r=.96, p=.001), and source expertise with source credibility (Pearson r=.83, p=.001).
