Something seems fishy: mainstream consumer response to drag queen imagery
Source abstract
Abstract
Abstract This study investigates how drag queen imagery in advertising and mainstream consumers’ tolerance towards homosexuality (i.e., drag queens) affect their attitudes towards the advertisement and brand in the context of beauty brand advertising. Based on the social identity theory, this study posits that implicit (vs. explicit) drag queen-themed imagery and consumers holding high tolerance as an in-group of LGBTQ+ cultures (vs. out-group of lower tolerance individuals) would have greater impact on ad attitude and brand attitude independently and together. A web-based experiment reveals that while different imagery types (implicit vs. explicit) in ads do not differentiate attitudes toward ad and brand, consumers’ individual tolerance of the drag queen culture positively affects such responses. Additionally, the ad imagery and consumer tolerance toward drag queens have an interaction effect on brand attitude via ad attitude in the explicit drag queen-themed imagery condition but not in implicit imagery. The results add insight to a growing body of literature on the LGBTQ+ and social identity theory research and benefit marketers with a better understanding of how to manage drag queen-themed advertisements within mainstream media.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Media, Gender, and Advertising · Consumer Behavior in Brand Consumption and Identification · Gender, Feminism, and Media
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (44)
Show source-provided references
1. Åkestam, N., Rosengren, S., & Dahlen, M. (2017). Advertising “like a girl”: Toward a better understanding of “femvertising” and its effects. Psychology & Marketing, 34(8), 795–806.10.1002/mar.21023 ↗
2. Andrews, J. C., & Shimp, T. A. (2018). Advertising, promotion, and other aspects of integrated marketing communications. Boston: Cengage Learning.
3. Angelini, J. R., & Bradley, S. D. (2010). Homosexual imagery in print advertisements: Attended, remembered, but disliked. Journal of homosexuality, 57(4), 485–502.10.1080/00918361003608665 ↗
4. Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 20–39.10.5465/amr.1989.4278999 ↗
5. Balzer, C. (2005). The great drag queen hype: Thoughts on cultural globalisation and autochthony. Paideuma, 51, 111–131.
6. Bellis, R. (2018, March 14). Brands still haven’t figured out how to talk to LGBTQ consumers. Factcompany.com. https://www.fastcompany.com/40543299/brands-still-havent-figured-out-how-to-talk-to-lgbtq-consumers.
7. Bhat, S., Leigh, T. W., & Wardlow, D. L. (1996). The effect of homosexual imagery in advertising on attitude toward the ad. Journal of Homosexuality, 31(1–2), 161–176.10.1300/J082v31n01_10 ↗
8. Bhat, S., Leigh, T. W., & Wardlow, D. L. (1998). The effect of consumer prejudices on ad processing: Heterosexual consumers responses to homosexual imagery in ads. Journal of Advertising, 27(4), 9–28.10.1080/00913367.1998.10673566 ↗
9. Brennan, N., and Gudelunas, D. (Eds.) (2017). RuPaul’s drag race and the shifting visibility of drag culture: the boundaries of reality TV (pp. 231–243). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1007/978-3-319-50618-0_16 ↗
10. CMI Community Marketing and Insight (2019). 13th annual LGBTQ community survey. https://www.communitymarketinginc.com/documents/temp/CMI-13th_LGBTQ_Community_Survey_US_Profile.pdf.
11. Daems, J. (2014). The makeup of RuPaul’s drag race: essays on the queen of reality shows. Jefferson: McFarland and Company.
12. Descubes, I., McNamara, T., & Bryson, D. (2018). Lesbians’ assessments of gay advertising in France: not necessarily a case of ‘La Vie en Rose?’. Journal of Marketing Management, 34(7–8), 639–663.10.1080/0267257X.2018.1474242 ↗
13. Eisend, M. (2019). Gender roles. Journal of Advertising, 48(1), 72–80.10.1080/00913367.2019.1566103 ↗
14. El Hazzouri, M., Main, K. J., & Sinclair, L. (2019). Out of the closet: When moral identity and protestant work ethic improves attitudes toward advertising featuring same-sex couples. Journal of Advertising, 48(2), 1–16.10.1080/00913367.2018.1518736 ↗
15. Fleisher, J. (1996). The Drag Queens of New York: An Illustrated Field Guide. Riverhead Books.
16. Geczy, A., & Karaminas, V. (2013). Queer Style. London: Bloomsbury.10.5040/9781350050723 ↗
17. Gong, Z. H. (2019). Crafting mixed sexual advertisements for mainstream media: examining the impact of homosexual and heterosexual imagery inclusion on advertising effectiveness. Journal of Homosexuality, 11, 1–24.
18. Green, J. (2016). LGBT purchasing power near $1 trillion rivals other minorities. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-20/lgbt-purchasing-power-near-1-trillion-rivals-other-minorities.
19. Gudelunas, D. (2017). Digital extensions, experiential extensions, and hair extensions. In N. Brennan & D. Gudelunas (Eds.), RuPaul’s Drag race and the shifting visibility of drag culture: the boundaries of reality TV (pp. 231–243). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1007/978-3-319-50618-0_16 ↗
20. Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: a regression-based approach. New York: Guilford Press.
21. Hayes, A. F., & Rockwood, N. J. (2017). Regression-based statistical mediation and moderation analysis in clinical research: Observations, recommendations, and implementation. Behaviour research and therapy, 98, 39–57.10.1016/j.brat.2016.11.001 ↗
22. Hester, J.B., and Gibson, R. (2007). Consumer responses to gay-themed imagery in advertising. Advertising and Society Review, 8(2). Retrieved from ProjectMUSEdatabase.10.1353/asr.2007.0039 ↗
23. Hopkins, S. J. (2004). “Let the drag race begin” the rewards of becoming a drag queen. Journal of Homosexuality, 46(3–4), 135–149.10.1300/J082v46n03_08 ↗
24. Kates, S. M. (1999). Making the ad perfectly queer: Marketing “normality” to the gay men’s community. Journal of Advertising, 28(1), 25–37.10.1080/00913367.1999.10673574 ↗
25. Kite, M. E., & Deaux, D. (1986). Attitudes toward homosexuality: assessment and behavioral consequences. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 7(2), 137–162.10.1207/s15324834basp0702_4 ↗
26. Lutz, R.J. (1985). Affective and cognitive antecedents of attitude toward the ad: A conceptual framework. In L.F. Alwitt, A.A. Mitchell (Eds.), Psychological processes and advertising effects: theory, research and application (pp. 45–63). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
27. McCarthy, J. (2018). Majority remains satisfied with acceptance of gays in U.S. https://news.gallup.com/poll/226781/majority-remains-satisfied-acceptance-gays.aspx.
28. Newport, F. (2018). In U.S., estimate of LGBT population rises to 4.5%. https://news.gallup.com/poll/234863/estimate-lgbt-population-rises.aspx.
29. Nölke, A. I. (2018). Making diversity conform? An intersectional, longitudinal analysis of GBT-specific mainstream media advertisements. Journal of Homosexuality, 65(2), 224–255.10.1080/00918369.2017.1314163 ↗
30. Oakenfull, G. K., & Greenlee, T. B. (2005). Queer eye for a gay guy: using market specific symbols in advertising to attract gay consumers without alienating the mainstream. Psychology and Marketing, 22(5), 421–439.10.1002/mar.20066 ↗
31. Oakenfull, G. K., McCarthy, M. S., & Greenlee, T. B. (2008). Targeting a minority without alienating the majority: Advertising to gays and lesbians in mainstream media. Journal of Advertising Research, 48(2), 191–198.10.2501/S0021849908080239 ↗
32. Papaoikonomou, E., Cascon-Pereira, R., & Ryan, G. (2016). Constructing and communicating an ethical consumer identity: a social identity approach. Journal of Consumer Culture, 16(1), 209–231.10.1177/1469540514521080 ↗
33. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effectsin simple mediation models. Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 36(4), 717–731.10.3758/BF03206553 ↗
34. Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42(1), 185–227.10.1080/00273170701341316 ↗
35. Rhodes, C. D., & Stewart, C. O. (2016). Debating LGBT workplace protections in the bible belt: social identities in legislative and media discourse. Journal of Homosexuality, 63(7), 904–924.10.1080/00918369.2015.1116341 ↗
36. Schacht, S. P. (1998). The Multiple Genders of the Court: Issues of Identity and Performance in a Drag Setting. In S. P. Schacht & D. W. Ewing (Eds.), Feminism and men: reconstructing gender relations (pp. 202–224). New York: NYU Press.
37. Sloan, L. and Quan-Haase, A. (Eds.). (2017). The SAGE handbook of social media research methods. Sage Publishing.10.4135/9781473983847 ↗
38. Stevenson, M. R. (1988). Promoting tolerance for homosexuality: An evaluation of intervention strategies. Journal of Sex Research, 25(4), 500–511.10.1080/00224498809551478 ↗
39. Tajfel, H. (1978). Social categorization, social identity, and social comparison. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Differentiation Between Social Groups. London: Academic Press.
40. Turner, J. C., & Tajfel, H. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. Psychology of intergroup relations, 5, 7–24.
41. Tuten, T. L. (2005). The effect of gay-friendly and non-gay-friendly cues on brand attitudes: A comparison of heterosexual and gay/lesbian reactions. Journal of Marketing Management, 21(3–4), 441–461.10.1362/0267257053779073 ↗
42. Um, N. H. (2014). Does gay-themed advertising haunt your brand? The impact of gay themed advertising on young heterosexual consumers. International Journal of Advertising, 33(4), 811–832.10.2501/IJA-33-4-811-832 ↗
43. Um, N. H. (2016). Consumers’ responses to implicit and explicit gay-themed advertising in gay vs mainstream media. Journal of Promotion Management, 22(3), 461–477.10.1080/10496491.2016.1154923 ↗
44. Vicdan, H., & Fırat, A. F. (2015). Evolving desire to experience the social ‘other’: insights from the high-society bazaar. Journal of Consumer Culture, 15(2), 248–276.10.1177/1469540513505605 ↗