<%BANNER%>

Emotional Response to Beauty

xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20110320_AAAACO INGEST_TIME 2011-03-20T14:16:37Z PACKAGE UFE0009421_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 1053954 DFID F20110320_AABIUH ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH huckeba_j_Page_35.tif GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
abcb58f03f7b12acc5d712be912737a6
SHA-1
6f9295d8263053e3093f4f3c52b07dcb5975ce48
3674 F20110320_AABJGC huckeba_j_Page_61thm.jpg
305fe6d47e0391a15f26ccd28c7a9309
93a9d79e0a69c4f3d3cf6fb71223097dfe88dd09
50743 F20110320_AABIZE huckeba_j_Page_44.jpg
44a3d250375df41f20874be08f43b8e5
7799dfd1dd0066f96d20231941579f52603ea523
22186 F20110320_AABJBE huckeba_j_Page_25.QC.jpg
4bac579d41d0aeee755b3086315e73fc
f9d893fb80dad9c1aaef12b4e53ac178dc94a89d
7405 F20110320_AABJLA huckeba_j_Page_37thm.jpg
1d3950932dda38b94567d6b932280f77
ad691bc68c0acd5633bd67594b5d5d59464dca94
16293 F20110320_AABIUI huckeba_j_Page_41.QC.jpg
5c11dcfebf40bcb77f1284c4b3944516
4b3578960a639fc0ba971c27e1a6eaa9c0292e1d
4488 F20110320_AABJGD huckeba_j_Page_30thm.jpg
53cd8929866fd5b97187397c7b28cb57
7527402ce000eca1cd6b8883dcc3ced064a0728f
53903 F20110320_AABIZF huckeba_j_Page_23.jpg
533bdf0f398d49976cccfc0ea3a4973e
684cecf1a40dc0eb9ee6fa0bfd91f7aed9797276
5063 F20110320_AABJBF huckeba_j_Page_52thm.jpg
7e72aaf51cb2a6b1c7ac3027c157f78b
650f83236d51b72eeb2babb1e6961c8b03de97cd
4870 F20110320_AABJLB huckeba_j_Page_39thm.jpg
df1d5b87612fb92c3ab368a057e5ddfd
06055c7a2c178da42fde63ada79f209b042cd247
48976 F20110320_AABIUJ huckeba_j_Page_41.jp2
0cd0a64c02f3200405680fa7a2eaac1f
b04f1ade96bf88e38e1eaad1c17ec8ac09c31cd8
6358 F20110320_AABIZG huckeba_j_Page_22thm.jpg
b6342038d80cd043ffc3dec7b88bb88e
b9c8f300516f2cfe66c4f8bff64479c8134a7794
71572 F20110320_AABJBG huckeba_j_Page_59.jpg
be5ba4740d1a2f02a173238ab59f04ba
50cd545f12b6abf12cf7d81d8235d2f12c09f1b5
4722 F20110320_AABJLC huckeba_j_Page_40thm.jpg
0bfbf3316d7f0b8d938c86392e3dce25
ea33af991d7324553ddee1db934b2788f71fed74
6736 F20110320_AABIUK huckeba_j_Page_21thm.jpg
d27d952c607481b8d396383034d96707
11979e4cabb239bcd2aa4280cd037adaedff6813
25960 F20110320_AABJGE huckeba_j_Page_36.pro
202606e74c58c7b46305216010111ab6
931d97d4ba6c319955937dc0ef765023a99e9e66
F20110320_AABIZH huckeba_j_Page_60.tif
b7fb67f66c58d2ca6db9bf0e137775f0
148d153aa7b788bddf2cfbd0c136118a0cdcf0e1
46087 F20110320_AABJBH huckeba_j_Page_08.jpg
1d18811b3ebf13bb2ab3856782454632
1ba5db134e275ca477b4e040015ca49b1310c2e2
4676 F20110320_AABJLD huckeba_j_Page_43thm.jpg
383397a3475c8655d729b2e337071d75
5753062f854f6ecffa1293f0dda0c79c576a86da
F20110320_AABIUL huckeba_j_Page_65.tif
111dadd8d4a27b23659e5f70301899b2
fbe80805db1bd00d9f3bc78b29674f5538b125d5
25271604 F20110320_AABJGF huckeba_j_Page_53.tif
1b8ca85527ea53147fd0844e1bd36da1
7ffeef502342688a5aab350419282521de313125
26305 F20110320_AABIZI huckeba_j_Page_04.jpg
a55957321669825fcd8e66c533e2d170
8561370ef1de89c2582ba91c6db13b5470021211
F20110320_AABJBI huckeba_j_Page_29.tif
4987cd76abae453c7927b78a9de67249
44f7e0723ef9d395e6c8c52cf2635f9f4bf7aa74
6405 F20110320_AABJLE huckeba_j_Page_60thm.jpg
dfc2fadb2095c244e62d659ebeb725dc
dc5e7f8f13f6b79f2f480d292d91044de46e5886
71702 F20110320_AABIUM huckeba_j_Page_16.jpg
f2557dc54344328c95704ffa19d8d23e
4677b17c6c03d298f196ad8e42da60cf29a93760
51724 F20110320_AABJGG huckeba_j_Page_39.jpg
80c0a748a3be01965a62ba5811782688
496d55a7e44303271aea885814921973fb0c0990
37442 F20110320_AABIZJ huckeba_j_Page_09.pro
d07a54a6de1cc1b8f21c8613b838ab9a
2c98e0baf74fa764957fbbb24e85fec2d2d3cc58
22933 F20110320_AABJBJ huckeba_j_Page_20.QC.jpg
5a919522c623a32d759eb199108b3eb8
04a595757c6b274f6dd4b2f0d34a40c16591867e
1454269 F20110320_AABJLF huckeba_j.pdf
09fdc83d2874df745341513656e7b120
17c263651d0a1eb032d140098edcc9ffe4c8caee
16399 F20110320_AABIUN huckeba_j_Page_53.QC.jpg
fce5df581245238bafa969ed279e566b
a5313850095872f06ace635dbf5251c210ab33eb
F20110320_AABJGH huckeba_j_Page_31.tif
dddb18ae39251cce077f345a449c8d9b
c4c0e35fbf117916b7feb034c4f9b8e4a8a23316
3230 F20110320_AABIZK huckeba_j_Page_40.txt
5f4e0c2ec602c9f5db5a939f964f5d77
5d4233ef141e252ebe5c62f7865e4152317641e4
1864 F20110320_AABJBK huckeba_j_Page_12.txt
bba7382890def642905132b3ee6d0768
ad7173105aaaca7398d97c99d276c56ecdff1296
77253 F20110320_AABJLG UFE0009421_00001.mets FULL
f644cd12e5b61fcb3fbbae681fabec89
8fa3b5127132f256bf126e9677566c2a6fc9ee2a
21972 F20110320_AABIUO huckeba_j_Page_22.QC.jpg
58e226fe6bc681a76677e7d91fde7a70
66fb3e1ebb1f903a6089388c8aae517bed0b22d6
30789 F20110320_AABJGI huckeba_j_Page_44.pro
9e4ea5921ecf1c1857f35ece7df30d6c
88e1baff1ba1c5b6d14ff7969e519bb2a92dabcf
49294 F20110320_AABIZL huckeba_j_Page_16.pro
5415e4a81260bcb5cc92c9ce28736fa4
61ec44c197534761a122215b81b8f15bf75af8e7
47027 F20110320_AABJBL huckeba_j_Page_18.pro
637c11d12427ea07f2a1ed42862d88d2
38d184e9330f397adc85e1a4baeda82ca534334a
56437 F20110320_AABIUP huckeba_j_Page_05.jpg
edf61c40b7603557488031f5d6e6a2ce
d28466b8862c727f879d08c2ae4cd01cdff9bcba
2057 F20110320_AABJGJ huckeba_j_Page_56thm.jpg
631b6bcc40492462e0fac6dfee8ebd79
cbe26ae9c74dea6eb7d6090544f4a2f0bfa1104b
2009 F20110320_AABIZM huckeba_j_Page_29.txt
74c16b33096ef07766c281b3a6b8cbb1
8883e50b31c31e6a2410ca38be6535c18f226b60
5234 F20110320_AABJBM huckeba_j_Page_53thm.jpg
d0359e5e25773d1032d0f3f67f2548d1
031a95c6df3645266082b0492f3c003263b900fc
49906 F20110320_AABIUQ huckeba_j_Page_45.jpg
b3612d5f83337b21056cf64a296474a6
97bcfd2fce3905c886b44636a2ac88ff3d9564ca
F20110320_AABJGK huckeba_j_Page_08.tif
aba72323857caa2a65e6345d3cb3a5c9
11f82237bd9c2ee8c258c32cd273be7974c17ee1
29338 F20110320_AABIZN huckeba_j_Page_40.pro
c8b5c4ff5885238dbba2eeb5e6b17446
2a6e122dd68ebb7bf19224db65cd20500d39a359
35605 F20110320_AABJBN huckeba_j_Page_23.pro
225ad8ad5ecbb5e0439f47557ed694a3
2c4b759e2c7ed50fcb870ed90290cc23df498b76
614331 F20110320_AABIUR huckeba_j_Page_53.jp2
11591f9ffc9f1fa68ddd9c57a3e2a638
fea38124955f2291972d5aa2f199e6238e70c568
62017 F20110320_AABJGL huckeba_j_Page_55.jpg
89ebaa45c4ef28a97a810cdfac253077
ba85649f2b811f6bf2c75980c2fdafde6a0f845d
1238 F20110320_AABIZO huckeba_j_Page_48.txt
13cb70aaf538bbdda09d329bbb97e4d8
dd14a5c00c65ad8cde02f6dfc32018ca0a876efb
83139 F20110320_AABJBO huckeba_j_Page_09.jp2
fd2d12350731a7bf805f49532a1b7266
89ca922f4b888a10eb33a55f65c0234ac1ade012
6246 F20110320_AABIUS huckeba_j_Page_20thm.jpg
0ef9ba9cc00888e51cf7f924a4788ea7
33eb9fe9150dc7d6ee2bc4fcde09ab508eb4781d
65747 F20110320_AABJGM huckeba_j_Page_12.jpg
a7e2f95ee5722896470659e3e6bdf6f3
c813dcc706118ac7fe6916bbd2a36c3ce6ee71b9
F20110320_AABIZP huckeba_j_Page_63.tif
448822a9b422d81434c2ba015c064821
43090d5fd0d281b2a5b8e00244e0639c00309460
50056 F20110320_AABJBP huckeba_j_Page_14.pro
cd8a6d56bd301cc831f919827e5cf287
4a68aca1c58ee88e5dfc96f867e09844f5b353ef
52409 F20110320_AABJGN huckeba_j_Page_39.jp2
d5cb9465246cd1ed0dc127a044bfa746
72a6697e3043fb07633571946e91162fba9ecff5
6087 F20110320_AABIZQ huckeba_j_Page_18thm.jpg
73753678bc39a1714664f7a2b62a1def
cba638b18ac5b67f7cfe9cd13e9d5e3b1cd5c271
70049 F20110320_AABJBQ huckeba_j_Page_33.jpg
c6cd259b154e94f5b90362864ca08cc7
b0bdac245f5e906cf52f0735cb52483c59818e0b
16286 F20110320_AABIUT huckeba_j_Page_43.QC.jpg
0548c27e61fca8088d28ddacb5b16bbf
e71f81a7883012df6e413e5dc78f17efa2e64fec
46739 F20110320_AABJGO huckeba_j_Page_52.jpg
369ab3de0f31a0405bd815fd87f12b21
2052b2f5d7b4cf184987f2503fe891047a516dd8
64806 F20110320_AABIZR huckeba_j_Page_10.jpg
ad1b9451826e70b00de9b85bb6194fb1
59e48de8c938463fcfe1ed6ba5ad625bf4ea6c39
F20110320_AABJBR huckeba_j_Page_34.tif
943e81c56f289dcc916b4db842641df2
4fbb3581cc62314b0c596fd936269d5bdf334695
F20110320_AABIUU huckeba_j_Page_24.tif
ff1dd781ba6168d43f2ee9ae48f12b99
cc28a41e8ac7f09edb4007175955f66b0e0fa17e
21038 F20110320_AABJGP huckeba_j_Page_12.QC.jpg
90f4318f1fdfee7b24e3dba1d143bf29
35c2e22ba3d0f65bcb80a54d2d947a1a55b44052
2722 F20110320_AABIZS huckeba_j_Page_04thm.jpg
ffd1e04a6088ef51da4219b4b4720d0e
174d817959fec062497b069999dbae86245dba29
5978 F20110320_AABJBS huckeba_j_Page_26thm.jpg
b7827354b41d6af0b2b6ae082bf27070
0ecd79b05f4e720ba5942cf03fc90cc69b0c10a1
5037 F20110320_AABJGQ huckeba_j_Page_09thm.jpg
ece96f1d94bb9b001e83434a0da70ee5
88417394d48fe570a01797c59afb296094b7df47
8547 F20110320_AABIZT huckeba_j_Page_11.QC.jpg
d3db61809cb0a7a3d2989b843c7d294e
b615f80dfced4ad9828c6a9c2c6ec5af97b7ac08
5696 F20110320_AABJBT huckeba_j_Page_35thm.jpg
37d0eec440a7025ac1ea825425340bbf
243d007acf1a4c678029ad3717e63416fd27c298
36006 F20110320_AABIUV huckeba_j_Page_38.pro
09a8feb6e186090ee9aa52521965197f
5030e4b07d4b894906f8c9a5d5175604328c20e6
49509 F20110320_AABJGR huckeba_j_Page_33.pro
b42e845ab827e4dd95b321ffabd5dc7b
be29b96c354532ce5ebad40cc00074807252abea
17763 F20110320_AABIZU huckeba_j_Page_38.QC.jpg
421f8eebff6ab3cfab53123a1e057b6c
70bba066aa3dfe9c6c66d1d43b9f269a689a5e13
16713 F20110320_AABJBU huckeba_j_Page_36.QC.jpg
149ce418b63f3ec359d4d39093e136dd
fd0144506c7aeb343392baf7dd488bd5221e03dd
17416 F20110320_AABIUW huckeba_j_Page_24.QC.jpg
a8dd033451e1f03b795eb8c7176fdbf8
4fcd709d7a83c75a612deb337e6b08d6a415126d
735 F20110320_AABJGS huckeba_j_Page_34.txt
0a8d914d83389f29c4d854002d7e03ab
d282c8519efa9d0bfade3428c04199f7acb3395d
20729 F20110320_AABIZV huckeba_j_Page_47.QC.jpg
6c805b39bc256dad285fd4ffb0b12d7c
b2fa5f75954fee48bae3aafe16e9460aa2927351
2146 F20110320_AABJBV huckeba_j_Page_17.txt
6664d35da386f15a861057cfea36a433
6bd34d82161e1d12d17aaa8313b6255af1a96207
839329 F20110320_AABIUX huckeba_j_Page_26.jp2
0035a9a766abcec1473740a162ef8e93
25c8b657549d36188a5897b001df1223d6a771a7
1215 F20110320_AABJGT huckeba_j_Page_08.txt
2f72bf9322d69e25a03874733eec60d1
24bb97a82fb5543ecf227f65f84c13aeabb8b465
F20110320_AABIZW huckeba_j_Page_05.tif
f1649b413e7ded232830191e1ea6ce00
95cf5da722fa5fdf5d27c1192150cb731b608aac
1051950 F20110320_AABJBW huckeba_j_Page_28.jp2
df1019bee4fcac3200e7be29d907caeb
4248d19b7a70418c5eea95ad9f1f4a06d94095c4
F20110320_AABIUY huckeba_j_Page_46thm.jpg
436f7060787e1ec4c8a16c48760f313d
23871a8c88498056c6326697484d56538a6b536f
385 F20110320_AABJGU huckeba_j_Page_01.txt
ce0130b4f72d4714f1c6645b839c182a
e04a15c9e3191d476fc85567b10c6045c337e266
51861 F20110320_AABIZX huckeba_j_Page_57.jpg
fce236a39f4170123c916b5e66ecf18d
6c7f6b0580f7ac0f1398fd9916d8187127c26380
68397 F20110320_AABJBX huckeba_j_Page_30.jp2
1f603df979ea3f922bae1864dac80ed1
2f077fc4ffb1bbb90c5ca840f124e9bbe41933a4
1811 F20110320_AABIUZ huckeba_j_Page_25.txt
9fa727c0cfab7ce54b6d9cf097f6f592
0876b5be30cb9db6def724088c60809cd4f058f9
30740 F20110320_AABJGV huckeba_j_Page_34.jpg
f0a0fca042091c9757f90bd9e238c1ce
40077d859a1ae19543b0b3c8be4ae563e06fcbee
F20110320_AABJBY huckeba_j_Page_02.tif
10babda50ebb8095121031b3d4ea6e57
3bd19af8e6f1b6db679aa81b29e106541221c26b
62514 F20110320_AABJGW huckeba_j_Page_05.pro
ff4756638ef5938b2c45e09aa198893d
a67883ba8878fa89e3466de770135f20fff6b93e
F20110320_AABIXA huckeba_j_Page_44.tif
d0fc5dc07798ee94a7a2e08262768271
97dea1005b42e5fb8e99e85b43e29529d8bfe760
109350 F20110320_AABIZY huckeba_j_Page_59.jp2
7c6d4efc83bd92b20c3adaf5157cf289
3031b94d2fc65e506de882b6c39584b2b99d8306
41033 F20110320_AABJBZ huckeba_j_Page_54.pro
d9bb27a6e4e52bb496dc74b5e0235c7c
4182b56c72c04719679c55fe089e71a75a2c600b
16325 F20110320_AABJGX huckeba_j_Page_40.QC.jpg
a8eb0e5f190fc6b7fe21699e312a6162
c392ba23b8f05b1c8ee36dec399b4b65e260450a
109686 F20110320_AABIXB huckeba_j_Page_16.jp2
afb5fcefa83a0b9ab2b6b9d5e09f0973
34847067f17863971e07cd2b4722c3dd2a5abced
8361 F20110320_AABIZZ huckeba_j_Page_65.QC.jpg
7239da1962ffb610ffc46f9f19f95b66
5d0bf2a0b55fdf77247bb480e9bc643fcbbe4666
44107 F20110320_AABJGY huckeba_j_Page_10.pro
fc5f3b926f460c0fd2f2439a123852b3
30385b6947ffd2c7e423acc8b6e01fb20d909e0c
36654 F20110320_AABIXC huckeba_j_Page_28.pro
51287340cee6f80b2c3d321597350543
b9d3a68fc87db5c2c0eb28b1b953f3206a048e29
49974 F20110320_AABJEA huckeba_j_Page_40.jpg
5cb14c516c6795a71fe779772572a109
18bae9493f200301e65e9c6e8849b5f36e58e509
38016 F20110320_AABJGZ huckeba_j_Page_35.pro
4a62ef5e4f1cba7441aa9e5a8f944884
eb607fe6b007094cff04cbaf2c72b696707d7255
7023 F20110320_AABIXD huckeba_j_Page_63thm.jpg
2c49d99090c7e001528423c6530b3562
8d1e400aa9505735341058cfe51517702735ba6f
28733 F20110320_AABJEB huckeba_j_Page_08.pro
7ab1bb7924b02938f4645e768503d261
c3e0b3a163037ed6fbcf566a5252cf29728f9826
5062 F20110320_AABIXE huckeba_j_Page_57thm.jpg
2b48c841c07944b8f6b1dc9c7a701be0
9059410331b446af1f15334a97bea29b42f21b70
17856 F20110320_AABIXF huckeba_j_Page_09.QC.jpg
154d121ae8fd3f9e8e6ab236871b357a
ae792d4fdea8a62ad7e3f22252c6dc575fe1e9f6
28014 F20110320_AABJJA huckeba_j_Page_51.pro
8a4cf0f1895726a57d73d146444ae123
5d405f358b9b1cf89115d8e1c876b7b1cda7ce09
19824 F20110320_AABJEC huckeba_j_Page_31.QC.jpg
4be9a394ad8d46fa54413e46bcbb521b
a4f3e79868891aac6c61a2bac9501fd148943b75
7006 F20110320_AABJJB huckeba_j_Page_56.pro
7f3ec01325eab58872db11a085c14de7
267440930828aa8ac56aea820a517b9245649329
107871 F20110320_AABIXG huckeba_j_Page_33.jp2
54d9874813f4c13d77fcd4a0bb763885
81d7fa6d2e41d874a2b05633803077c3c64e0adb
1739 F20110320_AABJED huckeba_j_Page_58.txt
6784f2488c012fe1182f8e20aab61328
31888d34af2f4475bc6e7b3b535fda8b6b8da174
60609 F20110320_AABJJC huckeba_j_Page_63.pro
e79a956fee5af74b267d41f3ed50ad7c
654976c3bc69d5878b4637780a2915c485b89a7b
80818 F20110320_AABIXH huckeba_j_Page_23.jp2
119cbc269058d282d79e57bf368e9dbe
d8190cc2c1b5ac403ce6eaa0be74508e78a14863
51346 F20110320_AABJEE huckeba_j_Page_15.pro
0632fe72e893b628e7938ec23c66a9b2
abb9d0e7598718f0e58b4f71875a877df83f3c6b
41010 F20110320_AABJJD huckeba_j_Page_64.pro
d4e881c76742539771f385e63e4b020a
621cac97d3d5e4960fa42cbe1f938e068d4be282
1982 F20110320_AABIXI huckeba_j_Page_20.txt
ff77a33e584c1ad5dc0c5b2c6b6da3d5
14cba3b3238e75245f3e4c076575fb58f3be2234
45550 F20110320_AABJEF huckeba_j_Page_06.jpg
0bf07bfa6dca35ef997236e4576afc24
bb2c29a700da3793c3d0a9db4c4dfc439dfa6aa2
10326 F20110320_AABJJE huckeba_j_Page_02.jpg
3c2716434ca2de39cf55ecacd6fafef9
81cc4e5e189ab8c923e27b5535b2b61e8a50be5d
76433 F20110320_AABIXJ huckeba_j_Page_57.jp2
d48a75b7b5dd9ceecc63dfea89ca0637
e85f2a83274df36b300eb1ea425039d41de9bd94
F20110320_AABJEG huckeba_j_Page_38.tif
bd02346b2b166ad4689224b0e3ccf26b
15920dbc9ad3cd74cd16aec962b7fac271ec0be3
3300 F20110320_AABJJF huckeba_j_Page_02.QC.jpg
e8df7fcd029d6c6b31ab6da7c18322de
583ea04d810b99f334a42a5b069b52506a9ac89f
F20110320_AABIXK huckeba_j_Page_43.txt
41fc2cc309d59383df5fdbc4d5aa6e5e
9e220be7baabd10bc09a753576776bc7ec219777
57958 F20110320_AABJEH huckeba_j_Page_35.jpg
4f2be399e92ce54d833c0eee64cd606c
0c8642f6563d00c5c3f0afd7eef772790a3fe886
25225 F20110320_AABJJG huckeba_j_Page_11.jpg
46bf95bb395d3511262b9c3ea3b9de05
bd0f7cff5924da1b516d33fb575e776722b578a2
68808 F20110320_AABIXL huckeba_j_Page_13.jpg
43a70a403749357e1132b4a51b4292ce
956a83bceb3c52fcbde4b99b13b818c24ac5c8a4
30722 F20110320_AABJEI huckeba_j_Page_42.pro
f2af6db31c75f9779bcb2db0d5a8d54f
a68e63059e765e034b16c834e261fe1a4dde8fca
4076 F20110320_AABIXM huckeba_j_Page_05thm.jpg
1451f3f6e003356a4a822b8a3b929909
48527861a1c29cc29fdffc3d9caaf103c9a6f87c
50854 F20110320_AABJEJ huckeba_j_Page_62.pro
c17190988dde34a8c773d639bab295ea
bd85b0e17d78c8806d47a0c1699a4501a9c0d30a
22318 F20110320_AABJJH huckeba_j_Page_13.QC.jpg
f3a88061dbdd1e7dd21aba48a701a604
f0bdca2ba94c36fe5723607b4f67420a87e0d6a8
46029 F20110320_AABIXN huckeba_j_Page_22.pro
c87f0bba12a7571491529ca58c6e4b6a
5dcfc98aeca32ad0ca3a92eba4cb528cd8c0e03a
66703 F20110320_AABJEK huckeba_j_Page_18.jpg
ae0d94980f9984f1a0179e0bd9f7fb93
c36be9eb2e03c678608b5ff4d8685d888c79cd93
24132 F20110320_AABJJI huckeba_j_Page_15.QC.jpg
ddbb1b7e77cea6b157f1b84e527a4138
23bd7f35e0957ec741c14cf4e34268d86c239119
1051683 F20110320_AABIXO huckeba_j_Page_24.jp2
784bc42a91345946c29f01937747fd27
702d4105dc3f6917626b1a58559e9abb6cdfaf7a
49962 F20110320_AABJEL huckeba_j_Page_59.pro
b22f8094b1a9bed7a7afc732c8b5944e
129e03aedabda25e648e916800d2c4ca48bd5862
13622 F20110320_AABJJJ huckeba_j_Page_27.QC.jpg
6bb12778cd01615145918d7e539ed198
ad32bab09e75d439ef31025ccea79bce80962832
103821 F20110320_AABIXP huckeba_j_Page_18.jp2
7605c9771ff7f7ae1808354e9585257f
76a0bd7eef0217025f4a555d11f23f94e7851738
5618 F20110320_AABJEM huckeba_j_Page_02.jp2
6e71cbdc3fcbbbacb5d516aab28c0147
b10e7dd43108ce5a72e235973c435e06c16c84ba
63013 F20110320_AABJJK huckeba_j_Page_28.jpg
0aa2d12e96658a73819099d8927144f9
9633b12f6fa55dcd1395222a678fdd9391ee5f90
4732 F20110320_AABIXQ huckeba_j_Page_42thm.jpg
7b08ff457f39e81a4eefad0fdccf058d
37eecc1308013193449509850a464504847640fc
21859 F20110320_AABJEN huckeba_j_Page_26.QC.jpg
decbe15b18d64c13908d27a463006515
b47b428e052c0fc7fff6e32181131530e13a05ab
46717 F20110320_AABJJL huckeba_j_Page_30.jpg
b92d9701681395e7b9b75cf1959b74a6
9fe16e93fafe821fbdc83a72d85f6d0444f12855
F20110320_AABIXR huckeba_j_Page_20.tif
50496e346cdb8ba2958858c7f5876b05
6ef970d19490eeedbe5a6446b7ab4248cc5657ea
F20110320_AABJEO huckeba_j_Page_13.tif
06c8e2a9d4c1bb9d8b825dafa6a32cc9
f26df368b9f00df4cc8372f33e7d0064ba90953a
60680 F20110320_AABJJM huckeba_j_Page_31.jpg
5e3cf874c6ac0cbe78abd53d9be42a98
62fd71363a2173d79d28844feae069751f28c457
16442 F20110320_AABJEP huckeba_j_Page_44.QC.jpg
3669e0c4670d4377e8404b8b49598599
d813c629200a9c80c95b29b84ce153014941ce41
F20110320_AABIXS huckeba_j_Page_52.tif
89730788f540eeb9f634b7162ef050fd
2da72a62978d7e004db8d2ac67ae3ca4f5c9eaca
23059 F20110320_AABJJN huckeba_j_Page_32.QC.jpg
4bfa3992a67a1147a94f4dbf589e9680
cde43ff6108dc7aae45c17675da02511aba24a3d
948 F20110320_AABJEQ huckeba_j_Page_61.txt
a2e94ed2f41ff5da2d927a3aef5892a1
a1c592be0bcc885132f2f96c586103c48403f11e
3270 F20110320_AABIXT huckeba_j_Page_44.txt
aef00b6d87a951fc4d68c7669f904cea
f72eabfe8cc40ced3db5d720f6e956bec05a8ae4
23197 F20110320_AABJJO huckeba_j_Page_33.QC.jpg
68a97cf202b69d976d7d8e622c4ae175
51b997260a9af96960be6bdec473b3bf2beaf696
2765 F20110320_AABJER huckeba_j_Page_11thm.jpg
e40a224705b59d914ad4ce4b3499efbc
d48e16016e4166924ee5e41520d0a8e8a26de54b
1429 F20110320_AABIXU huckeba_j_Page_57.txt
4d4971a8429cbaa3cf9151946b7e1410
6e55ce781c957421b7983561467cfeb51d1a14bc
18992 F20110320_AABJJP huckeba_j_Page_35.QC.jpg
fc2a7b289d7a3223f747a30b5c410577
5d1524935cac8b8ba8d3022e4572f2938c81fc1d
66447 F20110320_AABJES huckeba_j_Page_19.jpg
3377277ef0d197136cfd878f833e77b1
e8e537f9e5a863d134d81524eb067d6b2cf9f0b6
33001 F20110320_AABIXV huckeba_j_Page_57.pro
b24dbbb1f0a705f1694095d27fe3c905
3624186434ebd306c251639589d321cbc4f22415
24221 F20110320_AABJJQ huckeba_j_Page_37.QC.jpg
a0dbac72dfe25dbb28d6aaf54ef886b8
b018ce964f06a4f3edfecfff948b4e908c70e6d6
6258 F20110320_AABJET huckeba_j_Page_32thm.jpg
cfc028396051cc62a1afe0fcb2d68106
b7b9607ec3b2a6058d5d6e0af70dce914729e66b
49873 F20110320_AABJJR huckeba_j_Page_43.jpg
8849b671ea29fcb16f53197ee73028dd
749b242cb3e2e06e7dde05cf01468c4837b52ead
23757 F20110320_AABJEU huckeba_j_Page_29.QC.jpg
03f04af959d04db5262ffaf9d2301c92
254cd751b86774fcdd229617c6c2e8605dc0a01c
52337 F20110320_AABIXW huckeba_j_Page_21.pro
521557229c3e6951da158e7caa8b0ad7
e997e4f2145702afc58c24f682250a7b882e3613
70372 F20110320_AABJJS huckeba_j_Page_50.jpg
1f82786650e41caa86516f65e97c772f
e15d0c1be262d5b538cd18f926b4a1a266c1c134
F20110320_AABJEV huckeba_j_Page_14.tif
8236fed253d51314d194971146721d9e
b892fc46b23c44639e73da02ea007ca104997111
F20110320_AABIXX huckeba_j_Page_49.tif
58ae2a5a7e850c56e32ecafbb21ba564
3d2aa01833b0cfd9fcd52c2a22caf93bdbb7c1bc
48586 F20110320_AABJJT huckeba_j_Page_51.jpg
6f83ff677779e84d39a043d89f4fbf4a
dbf214d96e797cd84f9f438f5bca929f95fc25ba
48572 F20110320_AABJEW huckeba_j_Page_40.jp2
0c773c4299d3d026432d7ccd71caf706
268d6b06e73bb5970e76a81e4431f132e82b6fa3
74494 F20110320_AABIVA huckeba_j_Page_21.jpg
a43d43f74dcadfd6143b35888da3664f
eb9f370cd69a48b82571b05fb364045c846369e4
1269 F20110320_AABIXY huckeba_j_Page_30.txt
eda3c9f1c022b82636919161eff6292c
3c1f8269e2041c1bcf49c91211407f59c1d9998a
50257 F20110320_AABJJU huckeba_j_Page_53.jpg
c3b8ba7241bf7114bdc9b4e45e4a128b
f7a54594032ed5a848f751ceee8d3676f9ce7038
F20110320_AABJEX huckeba_j_Page_30.tif
212f88973d827bdad08f476442dbad1e
0b3f96432d4636381a4cf413e6547f2849e27568
50747 F20110320_AABIVB huckeba_j_Page_42.jp2
255ea93913caaec96f1bd9b204455766
3a9e4a080e08338d045df567e6738f2cbf9222ca
6093 F20110320_AABIXZ huckeba_j_Page_47thm.jpg
9138903897d81e7248b15205dfc00b8e
d676b268a7054edf28684031f13e9969e06d1633
61748 F20110320_AABJJV huckeba_j_Page_54.jpg
ef9ff10aee019a43cca4330431f5aec8
1bc78310ec30791cfecb8b2d68c3b6e51d0e4286
15738 F20110320_AABJEY huckeba_j_Page_52.QC.jpg
6fdf0cf4db75953b615b1a712b936486
7a567ee613c5f28c45b36841eb6575bf56b46706
20384 F20110320_AABIVC huckeba_j_Page_01.jpg
93f3660132584c62e927a5057e41be0d
cd6893fecc3051c95cb70f3911f1720243e7506f
18185 F20110320_AABJJW huckeba_j_Page_55.QC.jpg
ec2ae4a27ac09388097411f6be43fc32
fdd35ef28cf31895585aa0f94932288206e43945
1977 F20110320_AABJCA huckeba_j_Page_32.txt
faaee0a3a4a9274bf950e6828346e6af
e1505b40b34dae4f2f28b17406ef20a1ac108368
1051912 F20110320_AABJEZ huckeba_j_Page_08.jp2
86c5bcf520e163e100003a97d70f7f56
86d691909f512d8e22d92c0ca1b79aaa6851c6b1
24680 F20110320_AABIVD huckeba_j_Page_21.QC.jpg
4bd557ea6f52a164f372b5b54ce44d4e
700c77a12a02de893b446a37f98a62ea766092a9
17186 F20110320_AABJJX huckeba_j_Page_57.QC.jpg
e84e45719816a8394ae56d8eb3d97e31
51c909e43f2ed489d5059758dac961d98af6b884
10171 F20110320_AABJCB huckeba_j_Page_34.QC.jpg
1343b1109cb3a2828126ea174f10ef03
b5671fe3160578eb9cd41b4b6f6c1da4319e2595
92589 F20110320_AABIVE huckeba_j_Page_64.jp2
a9781a035175455ae4dac6d2ac48a42f
7636ca1ac0059acf09c86885c4fa7d386021bcf9
21380 F20110320_AABJJY huckeba_j_Page_58.QC.jpg
8118fbce37ca1825a95e41a137fef285
068a7bf980200cc7a668fc10f89f69eaed76ef25
16292 F20110320_AABJCC huckeba_j_Page_46.QC.jpg
f099da80ae2de6ec9d17aa581cbe5939
9f07075cb77022580165de27bcf57501d1ea785c
90800 F20110320_AABIVF huckeba_j_Page_31.jp2
62a86bd377941a097149e6ef1f440210
aa87573d91a942e5c227152bb452e09d640a20cb
111251 F20110320_AABJHA huckeba_j_Page_15.jp2
67c2e4e9ab6934188d1351284a2e225a
172ddbb19af97082ab35bdc9f559a6863fec367c
23300 F20110320_AABJJZ huckeba_j_Page_59.QC.jpg
24a8501958ff26782169fafbf5ec78e1
cb9a2b6d2448e3d9ed69a7b3f08cc3ed99385cd0
6368 F20110320_AABJCD huckeba_j_Page_01.QC.jpg
9fa53737f5ba71449b340c965b25c12f
59a201ca3a9a8b4b1078979fff879b52d307a4c6
101105 F20110320_AABIVG huckeba_j_Page_19.jp2
e38175afcbb932ebcce90728af7ce7e9
0629b8b70977f2bcf5c25ffcc5dfb1c1947d0377
108790 F20110320_AABJHB huckeba_j_Page_14.jp2
29efa2412cfe6f47be062f6b662f8a46
fb8076784a8bcbff1451a5fe7bf6d7319ff90a6b
1626 F20110320_AABJCE huckeba_j_Page_35.txt
527bfd7e3f528fa9aae735fe3ba13c3c
fcfc521c8b517afb7ded2f4d57ec9837b560893a
106380 F20110320_AABIVH huckeba_j_Page_13.jp2
243a23645b07f9bb859d89dde19638c0
688ef031cec15a759442aa4742947c6b2e8c3f03
106773 F20110320_AABJHC UFE0009421_00001.xml
0759baa2cc2367892ba566d206cd8816
3f5a1ee4fedfd112b9d56295cfe5b3c131a0b8ae
109733 F20110320_AABJCF huckeba_j_Page_29.jp2
ed94c68e6f411b36a3ce0cf679221828
428ebb4f12bd8d1de98970831d7efe466e9a45d6
531969 F20110320_AABIVI huckeba_j_Page_52.jp2
6e3ae363bb6273ebec1cf90336ce35b6
f627eb40f1e11c0b329943aae2f616e168ac325d
13076 F20110320_AABJCG huckeba_j_Page_11.pro
a1f0aef7de31b9ec719b9b185bfa50c9
bf5b4c0f210a9b1ec2676846c80c411139f7d71a
F20110320_AABIVJ huckeba_j_Page_22.tif
b57492c9415e38fe6bbc8676ae309d45
124e66ed1c23f19a2d8167702be8965a823ddfec
17232 F20110320_AABJCH huckeba_j_Page_39.QC.jpg
c3640d28e4ca92df4cf08caec45ab5cc
28fa1591449e9541782a13f61eaea64d183c9f45
59659 F20110320_AABIVK huckeba_j_Page_24.jpg
972e419d49305fe13f079e6774700be2
33d88212edee1966b3de97c1c6b1e2e7770f8d15
F20110320_AABJCI huckeba_j_Page_32.tif
b39b6d41977c0dda0c287fdf5e37e01d
eebf7fb2598e0af039c45d69f414a9e2c3f8bcf4
F20110320_AABIVL huckeba_j_Page_41.tif
7b3c12a2d99dffbbc64359709a7d6957
c9349d6c5d6d80a16f535e2f5763acf42838d04a
F20110320_AABJHF huckeba_j_Page_04.tif
1d7d900758a8ff244d910ee8e5c7cd7d
e36d24031526fa15cda39e1e7b8727c6fa6b252c
1539 F20110320_AABJCJ huckeba_j_Page_28.txt
f4f1985758abce48faf5e422130484a8
f8ef1228f68e9a346b0001b99934c82f9c640998
21409 F20110320_AABIVM huckeba_j_Page_18.QC.jpg
9fbb51bb2e1c512645e0dd2b76650b92
2f3acb5d133b50ffe44cc369b5614fa945211844
F20110320_AABJHG huckeba_j_Page_10.tif
e8a9c580f6eb373594b2f7f66dca1b96
45400694462f0e1dc8578e91b3c3441ad43185cc
48973 F20110320_AABJCK huckeba_j_Page_32.pro
c4ca728995f8e8f1e4fc881c648573f7
a499fd6c74a4a3cc711fdfe5db0090973f2523da
6407 F20110320_AABIVN huckeba_j_Page_16thm.jpg
123b0dafdc19f2b59721af9cf3eddb78
ea1c3b5771658101e5800689117f5517b11514fe
F20110320_AABJHH huckeba_j_Page_12.tif
57fb05be04d94444971bea9fe5f8b5e9
4d3abbf1247ba7eda969f8c5d794e7d0719571fa
4693 F20110320_AABJCL huckeba_j_Page_41thm.jpg
e6d52eedecb132aa524d65c8b74a68f7
8e7b1ba0761c5fbf302dd02fa102190a483010c8
1910 F20110320_AABIVO huckeba_j_Page_50.txt
f7ab02f8db7555ede9d29b15a59dd466
8e0f566a7f6f07e913671faa131e8dd56214305a
F20110320_AABJHI huckeba_j_Page_15.tif
f378f3dc0fa15f648531853b1478ea0a
6fe7ad3fac8595672443c5136c25d985e89db866
F20110320_AABJCM huckeba_j_Page_47.tif
7cc6562576f143ceaf922dce9a81f295
9f003562fc23292dc1b12c7c2916c4e4fd63c6bf
56785 F20110320_AABIVP huckeba_j_Page_49.pro
9fe31475ded5ad622eb6a8476af3bf4a
37af18e7b6bb5b0b313d82ca7b8699d3e71596b6
F20110320_AABJHJ huckeba_j_Page_16.tif
bccc6f82cfaaeb23999336e6ab79c1ff
ce1eb36ff1b652dda51141a44472bcd6f76bd067
66862 F20110320_AABJCN huckeba_j_Page_25.jpg
8b29e2ef50fe47ecd9097279e35b4acc
94b1884220782b68af0612e732f8ed833caf8540
5553 F20110320_AABIVQ huckeba_j_Page_24thm.jpg
9bbdef26b0a389308cf563b86edb7684
26d29922085ef5059598db6f56e8cef2a3cf1ed0
F20110320_AABJHK huckeba_j_Page_17.tif
9481979e062ab03d9fde445882ecce62
2dce155ef47aa8011bb877ef43609c853b2f1805
1687 F20110320_AABJCO huckeba_j_Page_64.txt
efe511a3ebc1cb028ab5b15e7c96d97b
e0a8880c997e2a4cb8a5ef35b4093fe140061f0a
82120 F20110320_AABIVR huckeba_j_Page_38.jp2
7c1781943e1c6917a83ec0064d438a98
e15ab97e0d8f8d0b6ac8e0830359a5defbf0e838
F20110320_AABJHL huckeba_j_Page_19.tif
d11aa1b86b0f43c4de897fafcb76f304
212863b8142532829718cd643619a8504a33f030
5450 F20110320_AABJCP huckeba_j_Page_48thm.jpg
73bb48ab59376bfa9b864ec7ac6cc0b4
e2d3c393cab976065d722c58ec3965e4164dc98e
12726 F20110320_AABIVS huckeba_j_Page_65.pro
f1dcd2e766c1eb944b3cbc60154c9e92
625b8c1d45f5fdecec9bbce521c6f3d9adc3b6d6
F20110320_AABJHM huckeba_j_Page_21.tif
b9d3bda6d76291ecc0444b7754015cb3
5a17e7ec5c1abacd971a7906e5a7489d337b8071
51540 F20110320_AABJCQ huckeba_j_Page_07.jpg
d5c79708eea2de091bbfb4da03b5f8e8
0d29cbf413f2a5cc59ac34d36d05b071e1419333
F20110320_AABIVT huckeba_j_Page_46.tif
4e4d4440d131772a7f38b51af5facdda
fc21becb5a03500a9ae15725cff45c5ecd2b4ebf
F20110320_AABJHN huckeba_j_Page_26.tif
2a6668cd581431a40c941669716334a9
0f7504d00be248c42b3c97f1ab0c9147caec5dac
1051873 F20110320_AABJCR huckeba_j_Page_37.jp2
3e43f3bad1cecef5bf421a934576ff3f
a41e3f6a4d570731845b83b147a8a4599e7dcd6c
F20110320_AABJHO huckeba_j_Page_27.tif
09c70fcec5a2dc3dc2772207e33ad9e0
e71ff6e354fe0b64d247ee33c3236a894e6b39e6
15104 F20110320_AABJCS huckeba_j_Page_05.QC.jpg
9e2124ef6da39d51ab3163d0210bbf86
bd85ec9ca007d57bbca9ce2ba553061a15ddf44f
45563 F20110320_AABIVU huckeba_j_Page_06.pro
83f8c69e670411d67b8a318c0a749a1a
865af6239d1df6e9b980e1875de5fe8bd1905c07
F20110320_AABJHP huckeba_j_Page_39.tif
6dd6ade36b2cb103d8b2684ce59a292f
be96500febfa1c854c8631e8ba589ae3da8af40e
43932 F20110320_AABJCT huckeba_j_Page_58.pro
b849921111719b9f3593034e96699e08
2df592212e643c15f2678c3cc330f3c765810fa6
108571 F20110320_AABIVV huckeba_j_Page_20.jp2
a6e7b8396357e48959de5cbff0d12d16
8542f2f761b4aeb26f787eadff1fc2601f5da179
F20110320_AABJHQ huckeba_j_Page_40.tif
51b5f7fba50ee12c01caa0f35d5b2b73
019cb5511ec57950d0618acf24821544cbbe817b
106601 F20110320_AABJCU huckeba_j_Page_60.jp2
9cd1e4af09051b28ad2c10e4eef5a1ae
cbf0051e7f826d61fe3e812408a55a08671ba246
1980 F20110320_AABIVW huckeba_j_Page_14.txt
0a15809e23ed33bcba4e3ef4e82e3516
952a0cb56f2017dcd1824d9be2b88c1a5b8069d9
F20110320_AABJHR huckeba_j_Page_48.tif
5f4c36638f52162dd53ca2bd92facd28
8e48e0ca89ac305f69da8f1a4ad4adace44e68e5
6630 F20110320_AABIVX huckeba_j_Page_17thm.jpg
e75d6f7807702128ebdd9bae0b09cad3
54e3369f60bc564537c255035b662faea06c80e8
F20110320_AABJHS huckeba_j_Page_51.tif
2a4e50301ac733e34a6262f285312c52
33fb8996499fce09217af0fb02fc7dd2f0d2035c
F20110320_AABJCV huckeba_j_Page_45.txt
59cacc9eeebfeba29ae7a81bf4fd8879
c3c2bac14dafa41115ab55f30539096861add34c
F20110320_AABIVY huckeba_j_Page_43.tif
4680dd607f0fbabded554c3d337fcdf3
21ab2aaf62ae91826d93aaa76349d42f5a55168f
F20110320_AABJHT huckeba_j_Page_54.tif
5a4881758ce30db329d3bdef19b6e6fd
7a229e7ef14a25251b3f4ba12d4297e3160741bb
54069 F20110320_AABJCW huckeba_j_Page_36.jp2
8d627f8a0cede135bf84907d39036bc1
5fcf2e78561b059d5cdf02eab115956a0684c255
1676 F20110320_AABIVZ huckeba_j_Page_09.txt
9c8321e609ea0d58221b668a88a8cab5
aa3f51534e63df473f758a4032e26f3484b80512
F20110320_AABJHU huckeba_j_Page_56.tif
d872db0fa1f5c29d9ce2e7d5e157e779
03f6d73bd437f73d13d7799fece023a36152fea8
5702 F20110320_AABJCX huckeba_j_Page_31thm.jpg
0f5c9ea9c83f978e3341a2ee91a0ba6d
9b1cfac1190d9a60c164737c6dc7dd9d21f13c58
F20110320_AABJHV huckeba_j_Page_62.tif
7a2a5feb14ef67dde69ddbdeee4daf9c
84c01a571834e026a64f732df2e4df0212127fa6
4903 F20110320_AABJCY huckeba_j_Page_23thm.jpg
3aead42b190e118c558c253e7ec7b26b
07a9fcc049fe6ccc3b5993800d5ac2de6b63616e
111 F20110320_AABJHW huckeba_j_Page_02.txt
fd4014c107fe918651cf7e03e3318bc3
3f32afeef5de0dd1e8e8b877f4abb5b698e066cd
30540 F20110320_AABIYA huckeba_j_Page_52.pro
7e0f595601b333e48ab83169b9695896
44862f1e82ac5c8d90327c55007bdd1ae79512ec
4724 F20110320_AABJAA huckeba_j_Page_44thm.jpg
f7abcc06e5484b398acbd608702ec26c
702e05943fcb7fa30628bfcfead8e0ea09e62e75
383 F20110320_AABJCZ huckeba_j_Page_03.txt
818763649dc3730a9f58c8bafc58f839
36fa19446c37d4a0fcb5097957abb7671770eeac
2664 F20110320_AABJHX huckeba_j_Page_05.txt
e3e703028c3e22ee4b0b192aefa976a9
1f5b152b07570eda1bfc4ec7dac719520e586553
F20110320_AABIYB huckeba_j_Page_07.tif
def9d926da81677fb174b16cac12cb6e
56849e7ac25fdf6122d12f98ba7a90c59d6f347c
1423 F20110320_AABJAB huckeba_j_Page_23.txt
0d0a15767ca4807eee0ebe8e94f2e9b6
0c4448418e882c21f563ce52a1b0bd29d2f052f4
8743 F20110320_AABJFA huckeba_j_Page_04.QC.jpg
f71ade456493ccd3fb511263fcd0224f
785e970290a60d011fa639292ead5f6d11da4064
1852 F20110320_AABJHY huckeba_j_Page_06.txt
6a9ecf7eeff887d79a20a0a5432256d9
bd77c8ec439d06375a0f84c9a37f305c44afd2c0
1382 F20110320_AABIYC huckeba_j_Page_02thm.jpg
3d062e2e5d5d94d89caf8e60c04faa9a
e04b2963e2dea0b696b60a54210953c237ded9b7
31546 F20110320_AABJAC huckeba_j_Page_39.pro
1a4beb09d21714de2ee03428ec875b29
9822cb9854c385933d0779af39fe426832ae0005
F20110320_AABJFB huckeba_j_Page_11.tif
4f34e32c5e6703213b575d2dd0a00678
d97951d1494ba7e4d6c70853eb90a06adbdab842
566 F20110320_AABJHZ huckeba_j_Page_11.txt
a42517fa73b9a3559f83b5758db25455
24e1d39c80b88f2ca2dcaa441230b56f747230ef
2457 F20110320_AABIYD huckeba_j_Page_63.txt
79731eb58ea328584b618fc6c718dd0b
d5cf3dce520a9d49782108c128a56b811437191b
4995 F20110320_AABJAD huckeba_j_Page_64thm.jpg
161f1615120309132de6c5101c69bc8e
5d59b58c7ca1e1b930766897fc4be42295bd89bf
73130 F20110320_AABJFC huckeba_j_Page_37.jpg
464c38b02fcb3f2cb0eb4c324fa59e3b
d8bc52918ef472d38f9d69fcec889b0d8f9f6ac2
36328 F20110320_AABIYE huckeba_j_Page_07.pro
91535490210c26db83ec60eae2f182d2
cf775d0be1b16740dc388fe459b0723eba26d3c8
64259 F20110320_AABJAE huckeba_j_Page_58.jpg
adab0e19f76ca855234b6872ed06c1fd
9691a5d0d56bef3b536f03af6b70fe93bd12a104
18434 F20110320_AABJKA huckeba_j_Page_64.QC.jpg
28fcb9388f0b9f399d4bd33d17144487
64c38d56b427e13eab942667d9a7f1f62e315340
21834 F20110320_AABIYF huckeba_j_Page_19.QC.jpg
14feed083026dca76525fbd4bbe3246d
192ef621c31a7a0a5a1047e41935a2c3fa923c18
71063 F20110320_AABJAF huckeba_j_Page_29.jpg
330f95ef2edd9a161099b9b538bdee69
94e569ad587f2bf05ae71042ce18f296406d7e63
25559 F20110320_AABJKB huckeba_j_Page_65.jpg
3f1f04437e027a37b96e39bb80e4a745
d22ea033eb73a98834672107edf84666c2a32986
2031 F20110320_AABJFD huckeba_j_Page_15.txt
c452ee4f92b50335cebe55b54151e5da
1ff3522ce1e63965e707317b1f5b5a44877d40a6
3198 F20110320_AABIYG huckeba_j_Page_41.txt
fbb2a7ea522ae0d79acf8441dfa331b3
b28eef20084946b5f5d8ff38c784c204d1f8862c
41105 F20110320_AABJAG huckeba_j_Page_47.pro
4bcf74d77a26a21281b5db8cde5c4ac6
ee21b18f1154b3bf458f67cae104597a074385b4
1051983 F20110320_AABJKC huckeba_j_Page_06.jp2
873b9677561d21b4c52885394f80d6c5
693618b828230d31756d89c96914170f57b3a061
48899 F20110320_AABJFE huckeba_j_Page_46.jp2
8c7c4d3ce8ccd7f08ba8b29c6ad75bec
ab27c5d797833e6800b256771ef6608495fade80
1945 F20110320_AABIYH huckeba_j_Page_16.txt
65231ac934f325065731577ef450649b
b33b95dc5497aa1eeb48775b2dc73ff438a4022a
F20110320_AABJAH huckeba_j_Page_25.tif
75decfeff8f472b5c5dd5c73e577470e
29f2a6aadd9c11f15ead0154f70336fd0219d716
33070 F20110320_AABJKD huckeba_j_Page_11.jp2
1a4a464cd1bdb3d5404f626de5e20088
b27ef5142da01020ae665415de3fca5519501ffe
1861 F20110320_AABJFF huckeba_j_Page_18.txt
8d6a90bf29c576219a9dbcddd5224dd9
38976308c8d38f548d0ddaa135e48fdb758ee534
16918 F20110320_AABIYI huckeba_j_Page_56.jpg
5deae0226b345fff5625794e360f5bf0
ca79ced50a26a1391d3a125c6cd6835a702d077c
F20110320_AABJAI huckeba_j_Page_64.tif
acec2479683aad577bdce4be418b9def
27eabc20b18847f87f6eaa95775461fc2123856a
97844 F20110320_AABJKE huckeba_j_Page_12.jp2
11a517e46012ba045439c02ad8fbb974
83a66f60a54699f195dd794c244c8d7910af0978
32923 F20110320_AABJFG huckeba_j_Page_04.jp2
7a7de3b85a4cb35849bafb25e3928107
0f90c158b468a903c5f13b2019758859746767ec
22790 F20110320_AABIYJ huckeba_j_Page_50.QC.jpg
b05fab8a2d5ccf35519540ffedbc2134
22e587d935dfb1ede57ce1c9b29ce4ddc2287f1d
73185 F20110320_AABJAJ huckeba_j_Page_15.jpg
61e49d1a7eda6a2b137d14220633963a
077d8287b9a61012d048c6c322615e1ca2870163
114950 F20110320_AABJKF huckeba_j_Page_17.jp2
955183c39e765763a99cff2b522ee1b9
91719d429d885795dc01ea2d39526eae0dbd31a1
92610 F20110320_AABJFH huckeba_j_Page_54.jp2
3ad1f5e47a78bf7209576ed9673f21b8
e913d2d3fbfc4d4545510c0358571f956cbe62d9
1966 F20110320_AABIYK huckeba_j_Page_59.txt
edaaed538841a4d9368be1a3ff6f40a0
5c74f7291e3f945bd20140147e3ef76a43b6fa2b
74739 F20110320_AABJAK huckeba_j_Page_62.jpg
72f9705818dece451cf219fc5ef6635d
b9f80f82aab3c79ce31ced675a99749f0b0c6316
113903 F20110320_AABJKG huckeba_j_Page_21.jp2
26eb462e11656581bc2824ca27da7b7a
d276aa3bf55382d3c04bce0963c911b3106ad2be
17360 F20110320_AABJFI huckeba_j_Page_48.QC.jpg
2cc71714ba865671b0e2a076f8372ed3
f8c907b4499a422571fb4fd19346b33c7f44c2a9
555 F20110320_AABIYL huckeba_j_Page_65.txt
6d416faf581e40f00b4db69363a070d9
677eb6f8ee8c810385c7349166e630947d815383
28928 F20110320_AABJAL huckeba_j_Page_45.pro
ae8c3cd37a3bf0d59207fe95dacd33d3
19d0a274eec925c454e29df3a0ce1ceb9d837619
391170 F20110320_AABJKH huckeba_j_Page_27.jp2
b1f9122c8ed7a0e41fd06f25eca0805b
0d6f18d694baf2821c352f63ecbce8e52fe36c60
1514 F20110320_AABJFJ huckeba_j_Page_07.txt
e622af87b365009381bfa5fd3f3159ef
c7c1c2a311acb261408e02bd786226e6c1a07938
22838 F20110320_AABIYM huckeba_j_Page_60.QC.jpg
4c09408e0e71a1e69404898caaab9c6d
e62ddb279a2b07e0847b92b690fe03fb6e3dc5c5
5021 F20110320_AABJAM huckeba_j_Page_38thm.jpg
b119c4b818f4cc63ac27b2d6a6e6b243
917fa39b734e8bc67bea7481aacc5f03f73e49b1
111527 F20110320_AABITP huckeba_j_Page_62.jp2
1c4b956d8e48a45555a5653f6b5adede
9d0d6b57d4e27c2d4de256f5125a039ab4651917
16507 F20110320_AABJFK huckeba_j_Page_42.QC.jpg
368562dc2943b666faea75d9c1b8eaef
0b491b04ed7acc33ea028789c958d35cc23c63c2
3276 F20110320_AABIYN huckeba_j_Page_42.txt
7f583cf1fc72bee4c08c0ff2ca28d571
a44e9d7c78fe7e58e954edabc17d216297cc792b
6461 F20110320_AABJAN huckeba_j_Page_59thm.jpg
51e5edff2e5da36b1bd9c455eaefea5d
839e8fc8f35035271d43a6940077116814b02805
2691 F20110320_AABITQ huckeba_j_Page_65thm.jpg
8dfaa490e056df28a8fcc6ed2bc766a8
36e97f9cfbfa16a7ecaf09ce09aadcff5ddab94a
41816 F20110320_AABJKI huckeba_j_Page_34.jp2
4fa557089152b3652026ffdcef9faf12
79c270ad2a7d94ef4e26c9c6ab98134b871a52c7
29443 F20110320_AABJFL huckeba_j_Page_30.pro
adb830c411a520cadb939ae17138d905
5c16ad2557fbe43b0e7304e998016d3e16d521a2
102893 F20110320_AABIYO huckeba_j_Page_25.jp2
58c6fd73d98955723a4298e1a0994e0e
24edcbcbff6933d39a7b040d3c4adead0002da1b
12318 F20110320_AABJAO huckeba_j_Page_61.QC.jpg
1899e92bc25a99cf095c604cf0145e1d
5457b2eef24d8ff056470e64aa8ecf08f5766548
F20110320_AABITR huckeba_j_Page_46.txt
381562e28f034f7772040117252b332e
5fd24633af1af3302f699f28d964e04335623c16
49081 F20110320_AABJKJ huckeba_j_Page_43.jp2
8d559cad47145f5722646f2900cee00c
9f910a899abdd4884cc22b6cc18439d815eff015
47735 F20110320_AABJFM huckeba_j_Page_36.jpg
1d286efd7b49add0b2874a7390220eae
2763070f5237187809a34f1947c73ba4ae7e121e
20531 F20110320_AABIYP huckeba_j_Page_54.QC.jpg
061951778cec45c296897483d03374a1
5b967f1fabe8168909dbea262ecedd2df6fd9125
21971 F20110320_AABJAP huckeba_j_Page_62.QC.jpg
d6993a9465d3453804db57868c3541b1
1d88bbd1bc769f4b953c2e477f4ec0a1d012b1d4
84529 F20110320_AABJKK huckeba_j_Page_47.jp2
d4bc241b4c9316c51ec3ba5c97855ae7
f75255b6fa80b6fdd8fda6e83f6f54b198466a60
F20110320_AABJFN huckeba_j_Page_45.tif
39db022261dcfb4ad65c9bb9ce72b415
a3f1feebbfb7109a842ee2fd2edf01c2d55e967b
F20110320_AABIYQ huckeba_j_Page_09.tif
eb5c7f4b5046f6a03e1f8a4afe8b1039
f111cb291baf9601e23009c7c37e0703ba0dd3fc
1820 F20110320_AABJAQ huckeba_j_Page_10.txt
6d6ca75239a819958b5959dc8dcdb325
0ff175c320914416e640a0fded49bf5af7f69bf1
16306 F20110320_AABITS huckeba_j_Page_51.QC.jpg
627d3ece652e6bb771072325ca2a7d6b
03428d20b3267f20d0b3eca3e42d422fdc9d103b
106191 F20110320_AABJKL huckeba_j_Page_50.jp2
817ee7bd11555f32740d4d4f5fd487b4
706876067e9a40906e03db5550bdcca67e64e80e
2218 F20110320_AABJFO huckeba_j_Page_51.txt
8316d660929cb998ec2347a7db945eec
81e59c1b529c9c6aa1ffeba74bc02a9d91c3f5cf
67789 F20110320_AABIYR huckeba_j_Page_22.jpg
5075be03294827c1081e02b85eca808e
e3b678c7bd8a8f44f71a1159789b34d9cdad1510
56803 F20110320_AABJAR huckeba_j_Page_09.jpg
a839694a4408dd8417fe355f7ae928d8
f74600cfb6a4df6267e1c77f789022b925792ffe
23231 F20110320_AABITT huckeba_j_Page_17.QC.jpg
d14b29cd11574f4e32e72e3edeeadb84
db47b2ccf323a2553f0c6c7f972d03f8116bf4d3
529943 F20110320_AABJKM huckeba_j_Page_51.jp2
df05c9a20d392aec4bcef00dfe72c293
f434fb066dad5adf2c6d50c50cdc12bbef686bc4
71331 F20110320_AABJFP huckeba_j_Page_14.jpg
45917e2414621be594936b80624cd102
8c5e65f866e0f4e5b740c272ddfae81a8f9c9406
6209 F20110320_AABIYS huckeba_j_Page_58thm.jpg
93234d0d62f7b33037d456cf8b66e99c
27db587b943132aecc0064118422dda4a01e2033
F20110320_AABJAS huckeba_j_Page_23.tif
facf15ed7c7d74b43193df16c470b4f6
aff11d129ef3e2f215726856a156d622b84d25e6
23334 F20110320_AABITU huckeba_j_Page_14.QC.jpg
8b4d206ddb0c07474070e9bfa4cf839e
5173d31e6c41e1737a4a5171324e4d33b4f91844
757651 F20110320_AABJKN huckeba_j_Page_55.jp2
e3a5ea4d4b8cf4ac8bbb86a80af05884
6828e878c2b244e083bf768999939c722b510bbd
579 F20110320_AABJFQ huckeba_j_Page_04.txt
1fd7e9485dca0314ac3fdbee9ef633ec
e723c02b9247d1502ca9c9f113db0dc528412575
48415 F20110320_AABIYT huckeba_j_Page_60.pro
98e1c0ac2037d9c26f6e0db829b24808
2386bb01feb65aec71c5548579d7e5852cc290b5
6377 F20110320_AABJAT huckeba_j_Page_13thm.jpg
307c8b38966875049a3e4216163714b3
99ad2bcc9cd300c92816dd229c99b6c269821289
19806 F20110320_AABITV huckeba_j_Page_28.QC.jpg
e9a1a14b0c5e663ec9526b09e1b5a44d
16ca2438a3c889c08828a9e114ce529a90c363aa
98919 F20110320_AABJKO huckeba_j_Page_58.jp2
8648add8ffbe1d5e3946f2598e82e858
410b2b08cb551d7bda0d67b8a0fd2d795aeaf04f
1409 F20110320_AABIYU huckeba_j_Page_36.txt
a820d7d6a060e85c4a0539fc2afa6b1f
3568d03a558e7554a4b88ad9fc7bfc7691b70511
1722 F20110320_AABJAU huckeba_j_Page_55.txt
8db7539fead8400cf5068ef35cf2481e
77a28cfaabf074995b0d07e1cb61881cd4864ca4
F20110320_AABITW huckeba_j_Page_28.tif
840832b6f17b487e0c78e4815c0eb89f
76448254702661493550206d06cbdfe54c2a3fca
64134 F20110320_AABJFR huckeba_j_Page_64.jpg
2294fad01b586e6ab380fdb4329b5b1d
7b7a1bd80283ad69a17a334e115c4d364cf92192
52010 F20110320_AABJKP huckeba_j_Page_61.jp2
b570484d07fa8d6fc026a1b7868f3102
99cda533d2ae7f6df16222d4c51f85589dbe3d50
6419 F20110320_AABIYV huckeba_j_Page_50thm.jpg
088c11c7997f9e4ebb026168ac3930cf
44c25fa5128dd09923a0ed1a2923e6f07b6fc531
F20110320_AABJAV huckeba_j_Page_06.tif
810fdaf4eabe7bcbeab8ce309584570b
3d5a2fce5f40e3881bf97f1eede74f55842d8a86
F20110320_AABITX huckeba_j_Page_50.tif
ead5391132ad0c1a558990945d06f7c2
51527b17bce6e3e595621bc6c4fe632382897fea
F20110320_AABJFS huckeba_j_Page_58.tif
188d576991909ab66f31c9f686e13441
de1c5c8f3d01e14baa98baab359f1f0b8a0aabbc
2143 F20110320_AABJKQ huckeba_j_Page_01thm.jpg
f2c9738281d1d24985264c1078ddf483
6a43cfdc2a6f05b0f6458cfb78a30b3cd65eea92
5033 F20110320_AABIYW huckeba_j_Page_55thm.jpg
6cbee960ee98c553311a7f3a74ee1144
a417e6bfb78d7403ad4c11a537f4eb06cb4fb668
1947 F20110320_AABJAW huckeba_j_Page_13.txt
da8ecadaf364b10ff4fb405dc082765d
dfe6ea77a34a2d09e127bbb3393c5e2cf879a34f
F20110320_AABITY huckeba_j_Page_01.tif
f75de21560ef7fca608194681a567964
bce6edfbecda9f9f4d8c07ae69bb2efd18394e11
33085 F20110320_AABJFT huckeba_j_Page_53.pro
39e27fd641c2a5717c35af3ba765bf18
c7d8fae6d691f984be4ece47456a8a3658b62ab4
3406 F20110320_AABJKR huckeba_j_Page_06thm.jpg
9bc4b0f2c286e7ca59968e832eb9f60c
7987fd8719266badbbe1541ef961d57539d5bfd4
107302 F20110320_AABJAX huckeba_j_Page_49.jp2
e32f90e4e0a5b9c1e55d38be45d40c16
7a5c47fb2ad0dd396a9cf2fa4e64b82eca1b7b48
74778 F20110320_AABITZ huckeba_j_Page_17.jpg
0bd67dfd4ad700beca083cba4abf5456
514aabfc8b5c1f3fafe67d31afbe01866fa798c2
49800 F20110320_AABJFU huckeba_j_Page_46.jpg
073ffd118070e7420ede09204c4476b2
87945c7cea57d7e1e3444db286c6d5c271d086b8
4030 F20110320_AABJKS huckeba_j_Page_07thm.jpg
2bf40505c05f4571d9ab165445c00968
be56e18f95202973db2794bd035f1e335fbd9d53
77470 F20110320_AABIYX huckeba_j_Page_49.jpg
e0dca96534d9d369493f5ac0e24a41b3
5a6123ca2888cbb0ed5ff3a8d39d8108f3093387
F20110320_AABJAY huckeba_j_Page_36.tif
f8366f364546dc4d054d2ce3524ac00c
b710e9be4ee7990d94a60b047baf216c5dd1f874
7402 F20110320_AABJFV huckeba_j_Page_03.pro
005ee864b8337963151f72fdf986698b
d2d34c85d534c1c0eb948c2c6fb7e996315d89dc
5981 F20110320_AABJKT huckeba_j_Page_10thm.jpg
3a91703c2b5e5a45752e5bd69811dbd4
5533f1b12bde91782aec8cd84ac2f4c5faba3010
29271 F20110320_AABIYY huckeba_j_Page_41.pro
53fe7024755ef2d6c7b1cf24988d0a9b
4b72a3ba57fc039d8c77c1600bd480547e977ab0
1890 F20110320_AABJAZ huckeba_j_Page_03thm.jpg
df33b140fc3673cdb24476c744f8e816
910a0249342a27d9dd71801bab03b44786f53fb4
1849 F20110320_AABJFW huckeba_j_Page_19.txt
b35b1192e97e0a7b45d01b3b4fa0e81b
3878c45ba3dfe82e4f96927f63bbaa5daf85ea76
2069 F20110320_AABIWA huckeba_j_Page_27.txt
5aa528b3eb851657ec6a290e57b7f5a9
96ae13b5b5bda3ba1022bfb27ade4662dd4407a1
5877 F20110320_AABJKU huckeba_j_Page_12thm.jpg
161aeb80247fa8798f9b73407a185466
95e421c734d9d453f8a2ca62241f5dd511e2ec87
24224 F20110320_AABIYZ huckeba_j_Page_49.QC.jpg
fc977ef74eb43d1d0af4a455529abbdf
07c97fa73332dee12c075de41ed950fcc75d983a
12038 F20110320_AABJFX huckeba_j_Page_06.QC.jpg
7332a23bfdc01ad4de468c9adf5df33e
3396cf5a0eb27d4ee050cb69c7097d7ea538db6d
F20110320_AABIWB huckeba_j_Page_42.tif
9eee08d64cf34b1fa948c911a7b84e77
a86ab4d45ce6e49879b47aea681a23b2b2e1e787
6236 F20110320_AABJKV huckeba_j_Page_19thm.jpg
ccc37396f3eefd375dd84e2e97a82e88
f705b2fd954d3d7a28a04e51b3e07eccfa14ee08
3806 F20110320_AABJDA huckeba_j_Page_37.pro
4a7a673566e09e49736c78b3cad8239c
3b501808d1e7c5461b8567215f115463eff46c2b
25158 F20110320_AABJFY huckeba_j_Page_63.QC.jpg
c36fd85c407530d80bdbfef606ec3180
ed405e1029ef9e8c82b97f361f980524c99ce2bc
20302 F20110320_AABIWC huckeba_j_Page_01.jp2
bd4a6eba4499248fb27ce248d0acc091
a4c668283611fe5ae21f7a339fb0d9be91f9054b
6188 F20110320_AABJKW huckeba_j_Page_25thm.jpg
484adc299a7d18618157de34bb0fdd96
5819a76b5f3fbaa9512708170262147a0223c539
5824 F20110320_AABJFZ huckeba_j_Page_56.QC.jpg
aa84d111b33bc87e5f5ce024d116649a
c720d74ec176b4a98d00759b0318ac162c93a37d
102828 F20110320_AABIWD huckeba_j_Page_22.jp2
93f0339d766e00a626255e75b2aacf59
3d2ac5cbe8f21c12f2ea601e9726235ddb9a4555
5842 F20110320_AABJKX huckeba_j_Page_28thm.jpg
c2ca66122395196cbb0ad6e4773ad4a1
60755683cc28412099e620a33a143f4ae5970a44
15497 F20110320_AABJDB huckeba_j_Page_30.QC.jpg
3b6dab09ce20b488f0a815455b03fdbe
ce5c017eca5b3c9632bb04f90b0693783855bc14
5219 F20110320_AABIWE huckeba_j_Page_03.QC.jpg
1939fc3b4a0a06e0fc7c87eb0f2999e2
7628caf5e079a848d9026253a66766165334eea6
6607 F20110320_AABJKY huckeba_j_Page_29thm.jpg
56f4a502371c92d541c19561813de74d
d60c954ebca476d2f87fd1ffb12bf20401ce855b
2073 F20110320_AABJIA huckeba_j_Page_21.txt
608f678c7b6a8d160584e8a0f57af334
f7b19ef72e432f2ade3fd2c7ff94ecdba2c97e44
F20110320_AABJDC huckeba_j_Page_57.tif
9723f99813a6876a83e8ef06f615836e
8a6efcb7fe806f6924029da479833c08a93a67fc
107822 F20110320_AABIWF huckeba_j_Page_32.jp2
2ab39b15f6282fcff8258c5e0689eac9
28688d84d17decf706f85843788a2a118637f66a
4789 F20110320_AABJKZ huckeba_j_Page_36thm.jpg
3a1e790cbbc0f74385d4e278566ade65
c4430d967fbb63be81c67e68021c73cda2df3566
1827 F20110320_AABJIB huckeba_j_Page_22.txt
249e18c0e0c5e6df86e4207cb9f85b77
23c430676e3e173d4296b680007d067f4793036b
17604 F20110320_AABJDD huckeba_j_Page_03.jpg
6c6f5b43677c2b55ea0060f191d11924
a122075e151fcdbb6ee8013c7fe2013b3cde6b2a
F20110320_AABIWG huckeba_j_Page_61.tif
621edd1933d288efcfacd612d7b55932
dde2ec8e774f600256afcb734f63ec24cfbe1cd7
842 F20110320_AABJIC huckeba_j_Page_24.txt
4a2ff1938619bb679ffd9ca4a6d739e0
37f56de93a7708ebb5525fc56348b8d7a2dbe252
30917 F20110320_AABJDE huckeba_j_Page_65.jp2
986b8ec9d48929b85e0f0052b6431955
8c0dfe5d8ee67337001b7e8a0c16c5bfa20b151e
F20110320_AABIWH huckeba_j_Page_60.txt
ee2ab391f4f285aef0c92099624b0bf7
781c1d8a931b6abd27421141b26e8ed2bf6d9774
1220 F20110320_AABJID huckeba_j_Page_26.txt
b718c61c6a9095978c76767867e78fde
17817fb60b6f7f57895a5e28d947f1fc5128e9fe
13474 F20110320_AABJDF huckeba_j_Page_08.QC.jpg
6716b51d1a40acf89f1b0654bbc3a56f
f0383df0d22dd025decbcb79c176965eab841981
3239 F20110320_AABIWI huckeba_j_Page_34thm.jpg
a37077fc823f6d3e5867684f97a2a4c7
5c56d882e06ce6534d3ba9b3da1e59e1ae297bd0
1699 F20110320_AABJIE huckeba_j_Page_31.txt
52c70c7c43513bf0eb56e3c477ed522b
a21460a88de6cb70422215526dcd943f5dd31f66
22760 F20110320_AABJDG huckeba_j_Page_61.pro
1172d26e0adb776f935b11b94e06a811
1d1186f297cfeed982ef802d19c80d503899d8c1
87887 F20110320_AABIWJ huckeba_j_Page_63.jpg
e0ba54a6373b1ed2fcc56ef066cbfd2c
296f1478c2a7358d1ecc0e67362d0d13357db468
F20110320_AABJIF huckeba_j_Page_33.txt
5390fd3bcb230223ee3bdd147ca51619
ad5b4b6627ced2d63a5853c923717642f1031ea8
36861 F20110320_AABJDH huckeba_j_Page_61.jpg
f04c08ae1679736fbb67665cfb90df31
cd1eba81774341d26352e9244309cb835b2d4b10
17691 F20110320_AABIWK huckeba_j_Page_03.jp2
ae5a4fe15126ff44c178aab28d173543
fd611fb5b9a9885b639a0e0c13cc8f2418b04d2f
1051968 F20110320_AABJDI huckeba_j_Page_05.jp2
76b4629710772784cf6d15f105d75ebd
41e8ffaa4d584fa8cf76d4ee15d5dbb11ba21da1
F20110320_AABIWL huckeba_j_Page_37.tif
5c69c76966f781937c792c994ac948a6
f6653fb5fcfb5da462b7378e961dddefd4b495a2
171 F20110320_AABJIG huckeba_j_Page_37.txt
8bf80c0b54b5b0e0c11bc7bf02845cc8
5a39bb25391051fdd02a9ce85942f2f88c91788d
F20110320_AABJDJ huckeba_j_Page_54thm.jpg
5190e5ffe00e2afba8c8288ca7b03a9f
4ce3ea4073adaa5c15e71f68ae81f93fa0203232
F20110320_AABIWM huckeba_j_Page_59.tif
520d3ef01cd2e31d6258aebaf9b719f5
05b23d5e24e05445c6f82bded5b892386eb06dad
1455 F20110320_AABJIH huckeba_j_Page_38.txt
a6349a2e7f30bf91f4e58c6891288c33
86255812493535b5a830a3c7a9baa37dee91d22d
F20110320_AABJDK huckeba_j_Page_18.tif
3ffef12024270f0cda4941791af03f9f
1e677e7c161fb176a9edf9291cdb6a6fadab2033
5385 F20110320_AABIWN huckeba_j_Page_51thm.jpg
c8516af4ea534926363ea86fdecccbe5
be52530fb0a990c32b180a45dde9444f3d02b54e
3125 F20110320_AABJII huckeba_j_Page_39.txt
f3d79f4991b460c3a3fab80968ded195
1569209ee1d7cf814660ec2fc13a15dbe127c1d0
37715 F20110320_AABJDL huckeba_j_Page_55.pro
79ea5f1ba8f4541cf92acc0e11235067
41ea5960a31b59969c09be3a68bf7bee6ea2ba30
85900 F20110320_AABIWO huckeba_j_Page_35.jp2
1f4f65b8d3f06f6b676fa90d203e9b62
31e393bc1416ac5f57f4dd5154c26f90e02ff841
2387 F20110320_AABJIJ huckeba_j_Page_47.txt
44d15e01e731d847102f766dbff9c5ce
5ba33bb16b8f0bcc5939eb682bdaf5da6beeaec0
71592 F20110320_AABJDM huckeba_j_Page_32.jpg
9330840a31d90aca411b84e4597c1cce
1ef14abe82b79e419a09026ffa9ed0c826988ffb
50816 F20110320_AABIWP huckeba_j_Page_44.jp2
56731c079750a9d80c6da37709e13601
67e355b3787c2193c69f00322ce6cd22278ea85b
2339 F20110320_AABJIK huckeba_j_Page_52.txt
651aa6f2a0303e50cc745d2b06cfce99
1a87100f418794bd6aa4cbecbe5ed926684803b2
16528 F20110320_AABJDN huckeba_j_Page_23.QC.jpg
3c4f97219610a98e10e7bdd6ed3da4fb
e9491fb4e504a3e53b4de4898e1b45d06fb552f2
6818 F20110320_AABIWQ huckeba_j_Page_01.pro
7d216eb8164dca384047efa8a9096d5c
862686539d185c5c2ba31af81aff2cb31b995913
1646 F20110320_AABJIL huckeba_j_Page_54.txt
9244b83862c57625ed2cfe489e314813
b1c2014cf29997c4c29188d765ad411a0ba1e7ee
2067 F20110320_AABJDO huckeba_j_Page_62.txt
727d6f2dfab391373cbdcb28733ea611
c4388bea8f0cc04535547ef3c64182b48cbeb1ae
63989 F20110320_AABIWR huckeba_j_Page_47.jpg
5de67a5375c8051834b18f2804651842
474d519c34bc5b095488182e6731d2b33df92149
320 F20110320_AABJIM huckeba_j_Page_56.txt
7f15f817b6498b1c8e625e87f946306b
472e9f3988d45719fdca209e74b29a895c0a8d86
1051975 F20110320_AABJDP huckeba_j_Page_07.jp2
625c750e0c702c1b26acfc7a54f99424
e511d7343466975581668b00b1a38565c469a552
2649 F20110320_AABIWS huckeba_j_Page_53.txt
21e31c48d2eeadcd1e3bdf02bc92a299
b1e94b0e42ba1125c021c8575cc56cbbb06fa7c6
50662 F20110320_AABJDQ huckeba_j_Page_42.jpg
58e9a520967d43e752502c4f93c2ce2e
47aba091831581d9145e500311f210e35ff3d145
69632 F20110320_AABIWT huckeba_j_Page_60.jpg
ef245e3d5e0c60d4390bf317fe74d690
0461e02d973c9b39773211238cdd08820ea50e5e
1200 F20110320_AABJIN huckeba_j_Page_02.pro
ab21220d01e3dd07a6cf5d2447be69d4
9fc157014ac4ee4b70fa98e4ca8acbba61f0fa8a
133210 F20110320_AABJDR huckeba_j_Page_63.jp2
ad2cb10bae650b3f5cf723b5db07166f
1b7e9272385ba804aa69788094ce48e83c58038e
F20110320_AABIWU huckeba_j_Page_03.tif
a43b781e8ddbf2f0fac7b1f7f00c28f5
9db73324396f028c07e21c00c6e9f9f4f5d545be
49061 F20110320_AABJIO huckeba_j_Page_13.pro
fc8901a56f3cb94d9f1398fb033c6da7
af0ae327a8eed57b03b1f19f9ad4fa7fb1f0c5a7
52848 F20110320_AABJDS huckeba_j_Page_48.jpg
ad695c33e492cccf3d9fe4e107514ac2
75f32af382785c4429e57cb98708734606d7eeaa
53513 F20110320_AABJIP huckeba_j_Page_17.pro
e14df430301afca552525d76682a1bb3
c8b3e82df75edbd7ffc8179f3b1fac643fccd5b8
49242 F20110320_AABJDT huckeba_j_Page_45.jp2
6844e22a092b9d24af9d0df746d368c2
857f10bc35b434283941be4dbd172d843db6c7a6
5940 F20110320_AABIWV huckeba_j_Page_62thm.jpg
d282d72ba7fe5428ef1d1a896593d144
7d4a223aebcdfff14f92282ac3861b0bd9682443
45915 F20110320_AABJIQ huckeba_j_Page_19.pro
27ebec0efeb50b32fe2df7d0f40f668c
d28262cf9fcac15cab5a308f47a7035f1f84c5b6
4643 F20110320_AABJDU huckeba_j_Page_27thm.jpg
b24028c2e1015d64d3ec6b36ec3bd3cc
d5ec621ba08c34c2617ac8a91566cd167c7ed2cc
4690 F20110320_AABIWW huckeba_j_Page_45thm.jpg
91076278c99131bd50894a7acf39dbba
e94832a5644bb4c217047e4c0f7e8e9e2821565b
49462 F20110320_AABJIR huckeba_j_Page_20.pro
8c1f860af28d794b44287c4225c3ff23
87faaac4a259b3d60b86f380c4af5631aadbe473
16298 F20110320_AABJDV huckeba_j_Page_45.QC.jpg
e5986450708942cebfe20f659c923697
a026b74ef651869e3883e6b00cc5fc1f085e439b
6497 F20110320_AABIWX huckeba_j_Page_14thm.jpg
2a00b45ddb6fffe5f6cd55ad24125253
d89c4e3cf3b507bf2d46a9766eb03db429c51dd0
21246 F20110320_AABJIS huckeba_j_Page_24.pro
868d77dba0a80ce8c51240051edf30c7
7b8fcdadf4e2809bb189f650441c42504d3e8f95
6546 F20110320_AABJDW huckeba_j_Page_33thm.jpg
e3e60670b172cbb35a8f0066af1abd80
aa79b72070c3527dcd702ecfecf9af5c62f3b46c
70137 F20110320_AABIUA huckeba_j_Page_20.jpg
4cfe3d58e198d79bd52a987486bf9f33
fcfad0bcd8b2f845b18c771627c4678b610555b6
14807 F20110320_AABIWY huckeba_j_Page_07.QC.jpg
794832b0cc989d79d19970c7fbacf22e
5cc334812ddeb8d0162284d794c4c248bff833fc
45053 F20110320_AABJIT huckeba_j_Page_25.pro
046b0330cf669b1a5d9cecd4ace37433
47553e9ab907848a4a6cbc66cd0013b7a04157aa
97686 F20110320_AABJDX huckeba_j_Page_10.jp2
3024a19cd69c52874fd9ee98b951a4c1
38cfbdea2761cc0e857f16240cb1658d4d6baa94
44602 F20110320_AABIUB huckeba_j_Page_12.pro
4a5fa9079871425d7906c67dc4466afe
7f02d79270fce41d996e6be71a802956192cfaa7
776581 F20110320_AABIWZ huckeba_j_Page_48.jp2
8835cce5d9149f12b55822819a57b94c
f6652ce43092e2b0d6ceb399ade8160e16d86502
28557 F20110320_AABJIU huckeba_j_Page_26.pro
bfe066b1399512deeca0a9184a4ca8c1
06fc10b0ad42eb1dd8bd062a80f7c56fe5b7712b
23958 F20110320_AABJDY huckeba_j_Page_27.pro
ec44f2c22833a817cacc5539e6e58de8
55acf0e2e617a73334e920251b1c645514623781
3855 F20110320_AABIUC huckeba_j_Page_08thm.jpg
cfa8289ff347a1ccaa766f4b6c269fdf
841196776a67cfa706ee83f6fc7cf78b059d7049
50275 F20110320_AABJIV huckeba_j_Page_29.pro
4cc11c36e9411b3d5b41cdd20e26a7b2
02f06f29232c2af92cab7e51102d37cf84b5eb8f
23385 F20110320_AABJDZ huckeba_j_Page_16.QC.jpg
3813689bd8236ff07a83d460928901cd
3384b7de6a8eb40ba137dd7051bdd7765ec2bcb1
6735 F20110320_AABIUD huckeba_j_Page_15thm.jpg
66bd1cadd36520d1fd79cb85e39ad99f
cb121c5cb86f18edca74dc1f260b5e548f243d7e
29290 F20110320_AABJIW huckeba_j_Page_43.pro
470d6cbbcee6ea7dcf2e006399da45ff
0fb09793c8b7529a762f3d5e145a39e5d8dbfb0e
21113 F20110320_AABIZA huckeba_j_Page_10.QC.jpg
89e1281386540c53257129061b0ea18f
753c1f151c83b2c4517072064c393bd0abae19ba
38698 F20110320_AABJBA huckeba_j_Page_27.jpg
961b8cbbea89da04a3582b478e3ba7bb
0c1db286a530c2ee04457bcaa036b305c5543d22
F20110320_AABIUE huckeba_j_Page_33.tif
33553348ff2baf0f5471eb07a6451a47
6c16ab1e14fa1e443db3bb901b34e284a101cc32
29283 F20110320_AABJIX huckeba_j_Page_46.pro
17f70fa3076ded4cf650c9f0b973b737
cc0a0df32605ed069f6b759c1a6e01efa1a2aeb4
13350 F20110320_AABIZB huckeba_j_Page_04.pro
a2c711ba12f2bda7cacd8c1d65f72b10
f5bd67e6efc1ff092b33db04cd28a3a60bd7abd7
F20110320_AABJBB huckeba_j_Page_49.txt
bf8922813c4eb1137f3ef354325c157e
7e7c9ce248e46f0fd1ad63b1c0125af062d00915
55825 F20110320_AABIUF huckeba_j_Page_38.jpg
582f5e202c8ff4974a8cc5ce55b77674
924f26ffce8470478e2c6926ab54a22f9fe111f7
18294 F20110320_AABJGA huckeba_j_Page_34.pro
61662229d816885e164cee2299d1672d
869449ccbd955eb5386365b1410081e414f88b3e
23156 F20110320_AABJIY huckeba_j_Page_48.pro
ac7d52776e8fef23381833741db44eb4
24abbab57ec4d83e57354b134828406818ea0dfc
8423998 F20110320_AABIZC huckeba_j_Page_55.tif
4b82337a0bd4285f2a2a789017f6dbf2
5ff32cf2b6b367f143d837f7009c154c2997673d
6477 F20110320_AABJBC huckeba_j_Page_49thm.jpg
4be7ef58c53bd59ce31116077962d28f
4cf218367b60c94bc73fc1f40da24b347b173181
40229 F20110320_AABIUG huckeba_j_Page_31.pro
26da2629e4188d71a376eced14a377e9
02e03b09b623050e8e23340b516a3d4d69c7d8ab
49895 F20110320_AABJGB huckeba_j_Page_41.jpg
f998bdf8bd6ab26ace82549616445b36
cf99ab91e8e7e92c5cec181e32479d70f6e7e589
48199 F20110320_AABJIZ huckeba_j_Page_50.pro
221a64e69d03b9ee0ce1f28a74d4cdb9
b6f61ad4e901d0fc011ee462d6ed75dcbc145c5e
65682 F20110320_AABIZD huckeba_j_Page_26.jpg
21922dd4ed1189339b16e7508c00af9b
e6b6af8df0016246ce35c0a645701c43a3f36a8b
18760 F20110320_AABJBD huckeba_j_Page_56.jp2
e7d8d48333286889477c1b44f3776948
22ae25272d7d3fcc6626ec60e386fdd340a7e83b



PAGE 1

EMOTIONAL RESPONSE TO BEAUTY By JENNIFER HUCKEBA A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ADVERTISING UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2005

PAGE 2

Copyright 2005 by Jennifer Huckeba

PAGE 3

This thesis is dedicated to my parents, Le urise Phillips and Jerre Steve Huckeba, and my stepfather, Ken Phillips, for their love and continued support throughout life and my academic career. And to my boyfriend, Chri s Pattillo, for his continued patience and reassurance.

PAGE 4

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank Alaina Rodriguez and Julia Thomasthis project would not have been possible without their help and continued encouragement. Academically, I would like to thank two of my committee membersDr. John Sutherland for sharing his fatherly advice and guidance, and Dr. Robyn Goodman for her patience. I truly appreciate the help that Dr. Jim Geason, Patrick Reaves, Jody Hedge, and James Albury offered to methis project would not have completed in time without them. iv

PAGE 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................................iv LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................vii LIST OF FIGURES .........................................................................................................viii ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................................ix CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE.......................................................................................3 Attractiveness and Persuasion......................................................................................3 Attractive Models Effect on the Perceptions of Advertising in Women.............6 Why Women Use Cosmetics........................................................................................8 Types of Spokespeople...............................................................................................10 Celebrity Endorsers....................................................................................................11 The Beauty Match Up Hypothesis and the Six Types of Beauty...............................12 Using AdSAM to Measure Emotional Response....................................................16 Need for Present Research..........................................................................................20 Research Questions.....................................................................................................21 Conclusion..................................................................................................................21 Hypothesis:..........................................................................................................21 3 METHODOLOGY.....................................................................................................22 Research Design and Stimuli......................................................................................22 Subjects and Questionnaires.......................................................................................23 Test One...............................................................................................................24 Test Two..............................................................................................................24 v

PAGE 6

4 RESULTS...................................................................................................................26 R1: What are the Strongest and Weakest Examples for Each of the Six Types of Beauty?..................................................................................................................26 R2: How Many Types of Beauty are Present in the Data?........................................29 R3: Which are the Strongest, Weakest, and Middle Examples for Each of the New Types of Beauty?...........................................................................................38 5 DISCUSSION.............................................................................................................48 Conclusions.................................................................................................................48 Hypothesis and Research Question One..............................................................48 Research Question Two.......................................................................................48 Research Question Three.....................................................................................49 Research Question Four......................................................................................49 This Studys Possible Effects on the Industry.....................................................51 Limitations..................................................................................................................51 Future Research..........................................................................................................52 LIST OF REFERENCES...................................................................................................53 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.............................................................................................56 vi

PAGE 7

LIST OF TABLES Table page 4-1 Best examples of beauty types according to agree versus disagree respondent ratings.......................................................................................................................27 4-2 Worst examples of beauty types according to agree versus disagree respondent ratings.......................................................................................................................27 4-3 A grid of the photographs of each model corresponding to their numbers in the sets of photographs...................................................................................................28 4-4 Varimax rotated component matrix factor loadings for each of the 42 models.......30 4-5 Strongest, weakest, and middle model examples for sensual/sexual and young feminine....................................................................................................................39 4-6 Pleasure, arousal, and dominance scores for the strong, weak, and middle scoring models for sensual/sexual and young feminine...........................................40 4-11 AdSAM prominent emotional index table showing respondents feeling towards the strongest young feminine model, C1....................................................46 4-12 AdSAM prominent emotional index table showing respondents feeling towards the strongest sensual/sexual model, SK2....................................................46 vii

PAGE 8

LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2-1 Prototypes of beauty dimensions elicited from fashion editors...............................15 2-2 Example of the self assessment manikin used in AdSAM testing. Row one represents pleasure, row two represents arousal and row three represents dominance................................................................................................................17 2-3 Example of AdSAM scores graphed on a scale of pleasure and arousal..............19 2-4 Pleasure and arousal scale used to graph AdSAM scores.....................................19 4-1 Strong, middle, and weak examples of models for young feminine emotional response means graphed on a scale or pleasure and arousal....................................42 4-2 Strong, middle, and weak examples of models for sensual/sexual emotional response means graphed on a scale or pleasure and arousal....................................43 4-3 Strong, middle, and weak examples of models for sensual/sexual and young feminine emotional response means graphed on a scale or pleasure and arousal....44 viii

PAGE 9

Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Advertising EMOTIONAL RESPONSE TO BEAUTY By Jennifer Huckeba May 2005 Chair: Jon Morris Major Department: Journalism and Communications It has been said that advertisers believe that the beautiful are credible. Personal attractiveness is important persuasion because there is a tendency to consistently attribute more positive qualities to people who are physically attractive rather than unattractive. The current study attempts to continue the research of Michael Solomon, Richard Ashmore, and Laura C. Longo's study "The Beauty Match-Up Hypothesis: Congruence Between Types of Beauty and Product Images in Advertising," Journal of Advertising (21), 23-24. This study continues the previous research first by testing the six dimensions of beauty using factor analyses, then by measuring emotional responses to the pre-determined beauty types. This research goes one step further than the previous study by using a factor analysis to combine the types of beauty into two opposite dimensionssensual/sexual and young feminine. Additionally, the present study attempts to measure the emotional responses of college females to models so that we may better understand which images of models most effectively appeal to them in advertising. ix

PAGE 10

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Advertisers believe the beautiful are credible (Joseph, 1982). The increasing use of attractive models as a persuasion method can be found in advertisements for nearly every item that may have an influence on a women's appearance. Many studies link the way a woman feels about her body to the effectiveness of attractiveness as a persuasion method (Zinkhan and Hong, 1991; Hanson and Hill, 1994). Women who are less confident about their bodies may respond more positively to ads that feature physically attractive endorsers (Hanson, Hill and Stephens, 1994). Certain types of beauty are more appropriately paired with one product or brand, than with another (Solomon, Ashmore and Longo, 1992). The Beauty Match-up Hypothesis theorized that people have theories of beauty that influence their emotional responses to models in advertising (Solomon, Ashmore and Longo, 1992). For example, attractive people vary in exactly how they are attractive and different types of attractiveness may be best matched with different products (Solomon, Ashmore and Longo, 1992). The Beauty Match-up Hypothesis study divided beauty into types based on facial features, appearance of age, attire (if applicable), and flaws (Solomon, Ashmore and Longo, 1992). The types are: Classic Beauty/Feminine, Cute, Sex Kitten, Sensual/Exotic, Trendy, and Girl-Next-Door (Solomon, Ashmore and Longo, 1992). Studies have determined that attractiveness can persuade women to buy products, but they fail to explore how women feel about the models they are shown in the advertisements and if they prefer one type of beauty to another (Solomon, Ashmore and 1

PAGE 11

2 Longo, 1992; Joseph, 1982). To further research and knowledge surrounding attractiveness as a persuasion method to women, women's emotional responses models should be studied. Continuing the research of Solomon, Ashmore, and Longo by measuring women's emotional responses to numerous models will lead to a better understanding of how women feel about the images they encounter in advertising, in addition to showing us how to more successfully attract women to numerous products (1992).

PAGE 12

CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE Attractiveness and Persuasion According to The Physical Attractiveness Phenomena, no objective or absolute answer exists for the question of who is physically attractive or what determines physical attractiveness (Patzer, 1985, 187). Because of this, the truth-of-consensus method is often used to measure physical attractiveness (Patzer, 1985). This method is based on the premise that judgments of physical attractiveness are necessarily subjective, and that such judgments are formed through gestalt principles of person perception rather than single characteristics (Patzer, 1985, 187). In the truth-of consensus method, if numerous judges rate a stimulus person as high or low in physical attractiveness, then the stimulus person represents that level of physical attractiveness (Patzer, 1985). The present study asks subjects not to rate the physical attractiveness of a stimulus person, but to judge the type of attractiveness. It may be suggested that the principles behind the truth-of-consensus method may also apply to deciphering type of beauty if they are an accredited form of measuring level of attractiveness. It is a thought that physical attractiveness are worldly and evolutionary. Many physical characteristics have evolved in specific ways that make a given animal attractive to another (Sarwer, Magee, and Clark, 2004, 29). Clear skin, bright eyes, and lustrous hair are the beauty characteristics of youthfulness, pathogen resistance, symmetry, body ratios, and averageness (Sarwer, Magee, and Clark, 2004). These features are desired by men and women the world over (Sarwer, Magee, and Clark, 2004, 29). 3

PAGE 13

4 The results of Patzers study suggest that as communicator attractiveness increases, persuasive communication effectiveness increases (Patzer, 1985). Low, moderate, and high communicator physical attractiveness produce negative, neutral, and positive effectiveness, respectively (Patzer, 1985, 187). Source attractiveness becomes critical to persuasive impact to the extent that the receiver is motivated to enhance sense of self, social reputation, or gratifying role relationships by identifying with admired sources and interjecting their attitudes (McGuire, 1985, 264). These findings suggest that persuasion occurs through the compliance process when the receiver wants to get a reward or avoid a punishment from a powerful source (McGuire, 1985, 266). According to an article entitled "The Credibility of Physically Attractive Communicators: A Review," advertisers believe that the beautiful are credible and that physically attractive sources can contribute to a communications effectiveness (Joseph, 1982). Personal attractiveness is an important and pervasive source of influence in a variety of interpersonal situations . [there is the] presence of a physical attractiveness stereotypea tendency to consistently attribute more positive qualities to people who are physically attractive rather than unattractive (Joseph, 1982, 16). Other research results coincide by stating that attractive people are likely to be viewed as more sensitive, kind, sociable, interesting, outgoing, strong, poised, and exciting than less attractive people (Bertolissi, Lind and Perlini, 1999, 1). American females who dislike their bodies may respond more positively to products in ads that feature physically attractive (thin) female endorsers, when compared to women who are satisfied with their body types (Hanson, and Hill, 1994).

PAGE 14

5 When the product has little to do with appearance, the model may be more credible if less or unattractive (Baker and Churchill, 1977). The results suggest that in trying to sell a nonromantically-oriented product to males, an unattractive female model may be more persuasive in creating eventual product purchase than an attractive model (Baker and Churchill, 1977, 553). Baker and Churchill used a seven-point Likert scale to have subjects determine how attractive or unattractive they believed each model was. The results suggest that the sex and physical attractiveness of an ad model do influence peoples evaluations of aesthetic qualities of an advertisement and therefore seem to be important determinants of the attention-getting value of the ad and the subjects liking of the ad (Baker and Churchill, 1977, 553). Automobile manufacturers are just one of many who use attractiveness as a persuasive measure. Ford Motor Company uses models at auto shows to spin on the turntables with automakers latest models . Although some auto show models are basically decorative, many narrate technical scripts and are expected to be informed about the vehicles they promote (Stroud, 1990, S-2). Car companies choose carefully which type of model they want representing their cars (Stroud, 1990). Mazda employed California-looking blond, blue-eyed, young, perky talent dressed informally in long jackets and yellow walking shorts to promote its sporty Miata convertible [in 1989]. . Chrysler narrator/models tend to be tall, classy and very mid-American but are as approachable as the girl next door (Stroud, 1990, S-2). Numerous cosmetics companies also carefully choose models to convey a specific image. To Elizabeth Arden, beauty is a glamorous, Grace Kelly-esque woman. Chanel sees it as the dark-haired, serene Carole Bouquet and Este Lauder as the foreign,

PAGE 15

6 perfectly gorgeous Paulina Porizkova (Wells, 1989, 46). The article also states that consistent among all is a reliance on the model to telegraph a precise message about the company (Wells, 1989, 46). Attractive Models Effect on the Perceptions of Advertising in Women The media can be a powerful and persuasive tool in influencing young viewers self-images (Parker, 2000). High levels of identification and realism can enhance the power of the media and shape college students sexual attitudes and assumptions (Ward, Gorvine, and Cytron-Walker, 2002). One of the reasons that the attractiveness of models in the media can have a positive effect on the credibility of advertising is self-concept. Ideal self concept is the reference point in which actual self is compared. If there is a gap between them, an individual strives to achieve the ideal state. In this respect, ideal self is a motive force driving and individual upward (Zinkhan and Hong, 1991, 348). Therefore, if an individual views an advertisement featuring a model that she views to be better in some way than her, she is more likely to purchase that item (Zinkhan and Hong, 1991). Self concept is a promising variable for explaining the effectiveness of various promotional strategies. Specifically, promotional efforts may be more effective if they are directed toward establishing a product image congruent with a consumers own self-concept, compared to non-matching appeals, may lead consumers to subsequent behaviors favorable to the product advertised (Zinkhan and Hong, 1991). Zinkhan and Hongs research efforts suggest that when a product is consumed primarily in private, the consumer is less concerned about what others think about them consuming the product (1991). In this situation, the main consideration is the degree to which the product is satisfactory in the eyes of the individual consuming the product (Zinkhan and Hong,

PAGE 16

7 1991). Thus, products congruent with ideal self would evoke low buying intention when the gap between product image and the present state of self is excessive (Zinkhan and Hong, 1991, 352). According to the Social-Comparison Theory, people may compare themselves to others for reasons other than self-evaluation (Martin and Kennedy, 1993). The tendency of female preadolescents and adolescents to compare themselves to models in ads increases, and this tendency is greater for those with lower self-perceptions of physical attractiveness and/or lower self-esteem (Martin and Kennedy, 1993, 526). Self-improvement prompts upward comparisons with others (Martin and Gentry, 1997). Girls are likely to view their bodies as objects, allowing physical appearance to determine how they, and others, judge their overall value as a person (Martin and Gentry, 1997). According to the Social-Comparison Theory, people may compare themselves to others for reasons other than self-evaluation (Martin and Kennedy, 1993). The tendency is greater for those with lower self-perceptions of physical attractiveness and/or lower self-esteem to compare themselves to models in ads (Martin and Gentry, 1997, 20). This may be true because the more someone wants to become a member of a group (i.e. supermodels), the more important it becomes for the individual to compare herself to that group (Festinger, personal communication with Goodman). Yet, when women are exposed to a highly attractive model for an extended period of time, as a result of comparison, evaluations of both the model and the model as a spokesperson may be affected negatively because of model derogation (Bower, 2001). Another study found that after viewing attractive models, women rated average women as less attractive (Richins, 1991). Images of highly attractive individuals can cause

PAGE 17

8 viewers to rate the attractiveness of more ordinary others lower than they would otherwise (Richins, 1991, 81). Highly attractive models are best when paired with enhancing, attractiveness-related products, yet normally attractive models may be better in ads for problem-solving products (Bower and Landreth, 2001). Richins also argues that the temporary dissatisfaction among individuals with themselves may be beneficial if it stimulates consumers to buy to improve their appearance, eventually enhancing satisfaction (Richins, 1991). Research generally, although not always, finds that ads with attractive models are more effective than those with less attractive models or without models (Richins, 1991, 82.) Why Women Use Cosmetics In order to better understand how models with different types of beauty affect the perceptions, and possibly purchase intentions, of women through advertising we need a better understanding of one industry primarily targeted toward women. Makeup use by women may be attributed to fulfilling a need to feel attractive in addition to enhancing feelings of well being (Bloch and Richins, 1992). Adornments can be divided into three different categories by the way they affect the attractiveness in terms of physical characteristics: Remedies are adornments used to remove or significantly alter a mutable attribute that is thought to be unsatisfactory by others or the self (i.e. appetite suppressants, hair coloring). Camouflages are adornments that conceal or downplay innate physical characteristics the consumer is unable to change (i.e. the skillful application of cosmetics). Enhancers are adornments that enhance or draw attention to innate physical characteristics that are viewed positively (i.e. makeup that accentuates a persons pleasing eye color) (Bloch and Richins, 1992, 5-6). Because adornments serve to enhance ones appearance, it follows that heavy users of adornments place greater importance on physical appearance than do light users.

PAGE 18

9 Certain personality traits may be associated with a greater emphasis on appearance, and thus on adornment use (Bloch and Richins, 1992, 7). Remedies, camouflages and enhancers can enhance the self-image of the consumer (Bloch and Richins, 1992). For example, women may have an increase in self-esteem after using cosmetics if they are prone to acne, because cosmetics can help camouflage or conceal the problem (Bloch and Richins, 1992). Cosmetics, and other adornment, use may also be increased short-term in the context of situational self-image (Bloch and Richins, 1992). A woman who typically used few adornments may be motivated by a special party to significantly increase her usage level (Bloch and Richins, 1992, 8). As previously mentioned, the ideal self-concept is another reason women may use cosmetics. If there is a gap between the consumers ideal self-concept and actual self-concept, an individual will strive to achieve the ideal state (Zinkhan and Hong, 1991). This may include more adornment use. It is possible that consumers who perceive themselves to be inherently unattractive will rely heavily on adornments as compensatory tools . In the context of attractiveness, adornment usage would be highest among persons with strong desires to be attractive couples with a sense that adornments are part of being attractive and self-doubts concerning current attractiveness (Bloch and Richins, 1992, 8-9). It is this way that adornment marketing may actually decrease consumer satisfaction. Adornment advertising often features models that approach some societal consensus of perfection. For example, YSL cosmetics, whose target market is affluent older women, uses 16-year-old models to demonstrate a completely wrinkle-free ideal in

PAGE 19

10 its advertisements (Bloch and Richins, 1992, 11). This study suggests that repeated exposure to extremely attractive models in advertising and other mediums may influence consumers perceptions of what constitutes an acceptable physical appearance (Bloch and Richins, 1992). In a study entitled "Physical Attractiveness and Personality Among American College Students," Cash and Smith found that more attractive women have a tendency to infer that their own appearance, rather than other enduring personal assets, causes males overtures (Cash and Smith, 1982, 189). Physical attractiveness per se affects perceptions of mental health by both peers and professionals (Cash and Smith, 1982, 184). Types of Spokespeople The current study will use of mix of familiar celebrities and unrecognized models. To fully understand the subjects responses to both types of endorsers, we must first review the literature surrounding different types of endorsement. A study conducted by Friedman and Friedman divided endorsers into three types: the celebrity, the professional (or recognized) expert and the typical consumer (Friedman and Freidman, 1979). This study used vacuum cleaner, cookies and costume jewelry ads to test the effectiveness of the different types of endorsers for each of the products. Results of the study found costume jewelry yielded the most positive response when paired with the celebrity endorser, vacuum cleaner with expert and cookies with the typical consumer (Friedman and Friedman, 1979). If brand-name and advertisement recall are most desirable, advertisers should use a celebrity. If, on the other hand, believability of the endorsement, overall attitude toward the advertised product, and

PAGE 20

11 initial intent to purchase the advertised product are desired, the type of endorser should be considered more carefully (Friedman and Friedman, 1979). According to "Product Matchup Key to Effective Star Presentations," Stars will shine brightest as advertising endorsers if adpeople take care to match their personalities with products and copy (Forkhan, 1980, 42). In the study, McCollum/Speilman & Co. collected data from hundreds of celebrity commercial tests over a span of 12 years (Forkhan, 1980). Results of the study suggest that veteran actors and athletes scored the highest while younger actors preformed very poorly. Comedians also emerged as quite risky endorsers (Forkhan, 1980, 42). The main advice M/S/C execs offered was to decide [first] on what youre going to say about a product . and then find the personality to fit it (Forkhan, 1980, 42). Although there are exceptions, M/S/C believes that non-entertainment personalities (ranging from ex-astronauts to corporate executives), have a limited appeal and effectiveness (Forkhan, 1980). Celebrity Endorsers For an attractiveness-related product, use of a physically attractive spokesperson celebrity (Tom Selleck) was observed to significantly enhance spokesperson credibility and attitude toward an ad, relative to use of a physically unattractive celebrity (Telly Savalas) (Kamins, 1990). Kamins used 89 graduate students from a major west-coast university to study advertiser believability and credibility, spokesperson believability and credibility, expectancy-value brand attitude, attitude toward the ad and purchaser intention (Kamins, 1990). Results of the study implied an interaction effect between celebrity attractiveness and product type, suggesting that for the product which is attractiveness related (i.e. luxury car), the attractive celebrity outperformed the

PAGE 21

12 unattractive celebrity, and for the product which was unrelated to attractiveness (i.e. home computer), celebrity attractiveness had no significant impact (Kamins, 1990). Conformity of identification of a celebrity could foster an attractiveness effect similar to arousal altering information processing in advertisements (Kahle and Homer, 1985). Sometimes an attractive model may lure readers into an advertisement, in effect increasing the ads involvement by transforming it into a source of information about that adaptive topic, sexuality (Kahle and Homer, 1985, 959). The study also found that the extent to which the model exudes sexuality, and thus arousal, has a catalytic effect on information processing (Kahle and Homer, 1985). The celebrity endorser can be defined as any individual who enjoys public recognition and who uses this recognition on behalf of a consumer good by appearing with it in an advertisement (McCracken, 1989, 310). This research suggests that the effectiveness of celebrity endorsers stems from cultural meanings that surround that rather than psychological meanings, as suggested by the source credibility and source attractiveness models (McCracken, 1989). The effectiveness of the endorser depends, in part, upon the meanings he or she brings to the endorsement process. . Distinctions of status, class, gender, and age, as well as personality and lifestyle type, are represented in the pool of available celebrities . . (McCracken, 1989, 312). The Beauty Match Up Hypothesis and the Six Types of Beauty According to "The Beauty Match-Up Hypothesis: Congruence Between Types of Beauty and Product Images in Advertising," certain beauty ideals are more appropriate when paired with specific products rather than others (Solomon, Ashmore and Longo, 1992). The Beauty Match-Up Hypothesis suggests that people have implicit theories of beauty that influence responses to models in advertising (Solomon, Ashmore and

PAGE 22

13 Longo, 1992, 24). According to this study, an implicit theory of beauty is a hypothetical construct that compromises beliefs about various types of good looks, including what physical and other features define each type, and how the types are related one to another and inferences about what personal qualities (i.e. traits and lifestyles) go with each type (Solomon, Ashmore and Longo, 1992). This study suggests that attractive people vary in exactly how they are attractive (Solomon, Ashmore and Longo, 1992). The Beauty Match-Up Hypothesis attempts to divide attractive female models in to categories of beauty and match up each type of beauty with an appropriate product. A model whose type of beauty and associated image matched the product with which it is paired will provide a coherent message, which, if consistent with the consumers desired self-image, may enhance acceptance of the advertisement (Solomon, Ashmore and Longo, 1992, 24). To divide photographs of attractive models into categories of beauty, Solomon, Ashmore and Longo elicited the help of fashion and beauty editors. These cultural gatekeepers are instrumental in framing standards of beauty by virtue of the models they choose (over literally thousands of other aspirants) to adorn their pages (Solomon, Ashmore and Longo, 1992, 24). Solomon further explained the idea of cultural, or imagery gatekeepers in an article entitled "Building Up and Breaking Down". Solomon believes that these gatekeepers are pivotal in determining the eventual market success or failure of many symbolic products (Solomon, 1988, 339). Much like casting a part, gatekeepers such as publishers, journal editors and retail buyers determine the future path of symbolic

PAGE 23

14 vehicles (Solomon, 1988). In this case, we may assume that the symbolic products are models and the products they represent. In Solomon, Ashmore and Longos study, the participants were given a set of photographs of models employed by major agencies and asked to sort the models photos based on similarity of looks (Solomon, Ashmore and Longo, 1992). The interviews were transcribed, and terms were chosen that appeared to be common across informants and represented a range of probable subtypes (Solomon, Ashmore and Longo, 1992, 26). The descriptors were: Sensual, Cute, Exotic, Girl-Next-Door, Feminine, Sex-Kitten, Trendy and Classic Beauty (Solomon, Ashmore and Longo, 1992). See Figure 2-4 for photographs pf the Prototypes of Beauty Dimensions from Solomon, Ashmore and Longos study. According to the study, the types of beauty may be described as follows: Classic Beauty, as perfect physical, especially facial, features Cute, as child-like physical features and/or attire Sex-Kitten and Sensual both are sexual looks, but the former is more overt and youthful Girl-Next-Door, denoting a natural, unmade-up appearance and simple attire Exotic, non-Caucasian; Feminine, a soft and/or romantic look Trendy, an offbeat look, perhaps flawed or asymmetrical, in contrast to a Classic Beauty type (Solomon, Ashmore and Longo, 1992, 25).

PAGE 24

15 Figure 2-1: Prototypes of Beauty Dimensions Elicited from Fashion Editors Then participants were asked to rate the congruence between each models look and specific perfumes and magazines. For each perfume and magazine, subjects were asked to indicate on a three-point scale whether she would cast that model in an advertisement for that brand (Solomon, Ashmore and Longo, 1992). Three of the perfumes showed a clear and strong match-up with one beauty typeChanel positively with Classic Beauty/Feminine, Poison negatively with Girl-Next-Door and White Linen positively with Girl-Next-Door and negatively with Trendy (Solomon, Ashmore and Longo, 1992). Additionally, the magazine Cosmopolitan matched up

PAGE 25

16 closely with Sex-Kitten (Solomon, Ashmore and Longo, 1992). These data suggest that advertisers have successfully articulated a well-differentiated position for both the magazine and the three perfume brands discussed (Solomon, Ashmore and Longo, 1992, 31). Future work needs to explore the types of beauty and product match-ups distinguished by audience members to whom advertising is targeted, and how the associations of these decoders correspond with those obtained from the culture gatekeepers, or encoders, examined here (Solomon, Ashmore and Longo, 1992, 33). Additionally, the magazine Cosmopolitan matched up closely with Sex Kitten (Solomon, Ashmore and Longo, 1992). The present study will add to Solomon, Ashmore and Longos work by exploring college females emotional responses to the beauty types. Additionally, the present study will explore the subjects responses not to products such as perfume or magazines, but to cosmetics brands as a whole. Using AdSAM to Measure Emotional Response To study the emotional responses of college females to models, we use AdSAM, a non-verbal pictorial method of measuring emotional responses to communication stimuli (Morris, Woo, Geason and Kim, 2002). AdSAM uses a database of 232 emotional adjectives such as love and fear to gain insight and diagnose the relationships among attitude, cognition, brand interest, and purchase intention (Morris, Woo, Geason and Kim, 2002, 8; Morris 1996). SAM, or Self-Assessment Manikin, is used to measure the respondents responses to each item based on a nine-point scale for each of the three dimensions of emotionpleasure, arousal, and dominance, or PAD (Morris, Woo and Cho, 2003).

PAGE 26

17 Figure 2-2: Example of the Self Assessment Manikin Used in AdSAM Testing. Row one represents pleasure, row two represents arousal and row three represents dominance. The Self-Assessment Manikin visually assesses each PAD dimension with a graphic character arrayed along a continuous nine-point scale. The first row of figures is the pleasure scale, which ranges from a smiling, happy face to a frowning, unhappy face. The second row is the arousal scale, which ranges from extremely calm with eyes closed to extremely excited with eyes open and elevated eyebrows. The third row, the dominance dimension, represents changes in control with changes in the size of SAM: from a large figure indicating maximum control in the situation to a tiny figure which indicates being under control (Morris and Pai, 1997, 186, personal communication with Morris). See figure 2-1. AdSAM is thought to be the best way to measure emotional responses because it has proven to reliably and accurately assess human emotions (McMullen and Morris,

PAGE 27

18 2004). SAM may be used to evaluate feelings or other promotional tools or for the brands itself (Morris, 1995, 67). ArousalPleasurecrushedinsecuregloomyangryirritatednonchalantprovocativeaggressivealoofanxiousblaseboldboredcheerfulchildlikecynicaldeceiveddisappointeddisbelievingdisgusteddispleasedfearfulhappykindquietly indignantrejectedrelaxedsadskepticalstartledstimulatedsuspicioustemptedterrifiedthankfultroubledunemotionalvictoriouswarmwearywholesomepoliteserenematuremodestCopyright 1996-2003 AdSAM Marketing, LLC.All rights reserved.AdSAMPerceptual Map TM

PAGE 28

19 Figure 2-3: Example of AdSAM Scores Graphed on a Scale of Pleasure and Arousal. Respondents are asked to choose the manikin in each of the three rows (representing the three dimensions of emotion, PAD) that best represents how they feel. Results can be translated into a PAD score for each item tested which can then be graphed on a scale of pleasure and arousal (Morris, 1995). See figures 2-2 and 2-3. The PAD ratings may be used to evaluate the advertisers success in reaching the desired levels of response or goals or may be compared to other ad scores (Morris, 1995, 65-66). Figure 2-4: Pleasure and Arousal Scale Used to Graph AdSAM Scores. Emotional response is a powerful predictor of intention and brand attitude, and given the diagnostic capabilities that are missing in other measures of affect (Aad), it is a valuable tool for strategic planning, message testing and brand tracking (Morris, Woo and Cho, 2003, 30). In previous research, AdSAM has been used to test emotional responses cross-culturally because it requires little or no verbal communication. For example, AdSAM was recently used to test the reliability and validity of the Internet as a cross-cultural

PAGE 29

20 platform of data gathering for marketing communications. Although AdSAM will not necessarily be used as a cross-cultural measure in the current study, it will be beneficial to use because much of the bias associated with verbal methods of measurement will be eliminated (Morris, Woo and Cho, 2003). A problem inherent in verbal measures of emotional response is the lack of universally accepted adjectives. It is difficult to design an instrument that contains words that share the same meaning when translated from language to language (Morris and Pai, 1997, 186). Yet, the non-verbal measure, SAM, has been shown to be a reliable method for measuring the three dimensions of affectpleasure, dominance and arousal (Morris and Pai, 1997). SAM is also an appropriate measure for the current study because the respondents mental activity prompted by the emotional cues in commercials occurs very rapidly and often subconsciously, making it difficult for people to verbally report their responses (Morris and Waine, 2004, 160). AdSAMs nine-point scale will make it easy for respondents to accurately respond to each item (Morris and Pai 1997, personal communication with Morris). Need for Present Research Although a great deal of research exists addressing women in advertising, attractiveness in advertising, emotional response to advertising, the use of spokespeople in advertising, and persuasion in advertising, very little research exists concerning use of different types of beauty in advertising and the affect of using one type over another onto a brand. The present study attempts to continue the research of Solomon, Ashmore, and Longo and is the next step in bridging the gap in attractiveness research in advertising so that we may have a better understanding of how women, particularly women in college, feel about the models they encounter in advertising.

PAGE 30

21 Research Questions The previous study matched the beauty types, negatively and positively, with products including magazines and perfumes. The current study attempts to go one step by measuring respondents emotional responses to these types so that they may be tested with tested with brand names in future research. In addition, the current study has chosen the respondents group of college females, rather than cultural gatekeepers, to attempt to understand one of the possible target audiences of cosmetics brands companies. Conclusion Using the research and knowledge of the preceding studies, the following prediction is made concerning the outcome of the current study: Hypothesis: The subjects categorization of the models will be consistent with the six dimensions of beauty as determined in the Solomon, Ashmore, and Longo study (1992). The current study also attempts to answer the following questions: What are the strongest and weakest examples for each of the six dimensions of beauty? What will the emotional responses of college females be to the models showing the different types of beauty?

PAGE 31

CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY Solomon, Ashmore, and Longo's Beauty Match-Up Hypothesis used fashion experts and editors to divide numerous black-and-white photographs of women into categories, or dimensions, of beauty. The all-women subjects used by Solomon, Ashmore, and Longo in their study were asked to describe why the women were categorized as such and the subjects, although interviewed separately, agreed on many accounts in their description (1992). It is suspected that the same physical traits used by subjects to categorize the photographs in 1992 will be used by subjects in 2004, despite the difference in subject groups (this study uses college students rather than fashion experts and editors). Therefore, the primary purpose of this study is to determine if these models will be divided into the same categories. Thus the following hypothesis: Hypothesis: The subjects categorization of the models will be consistent with the six dimensions of beauty as determined in the Solomon, Ashmore, and Longo study (1992). Research Design and Stimuli The photographs for the current study were gathered from numerous fashion magazines such as Vogue, Cosmopolitan, Cosmopolitan Style, In Style, and Allure no older than one year. They were chosen according to the beauty dimension criteria set forth by Solomon, Ashmore, and Longo as explained in the literature review (1992). Just as with the Beauty Match-Up study done by Solomon, Ashmore and Longo, photographs additionally abided by the following: 22

PAGE 32

23 only above-the-waist or full-body shots no visible product logos or brand names the models are pictured alone in the photo (without other people or animals) no pictures deviate markedly from the modal size no color photographs, only clothed models and only photographs of sufficiently high quality (26). In this study, AdSAM was used to measure the emotional responses of the participants so that we may better understand how the subjects feel about the models. AdSAM uses a graphic character (SAM, Self-Assessment Manikin), representing pleasure, dominance, and arousal, to measure the emotional reactions of individuals (Morris, 1995). In the current study, arousal refers to the degree to which respondents have strong feelings towards the models, not necessarily in a sexual manner (i.e. disgust). Pleasure refers to the degree to which respondents enjoyed or likes the appearance of the models. AdSAM is non-verbal, completely visual, accurate, and effective in assessing motivation, consistency in feelings, and level of empowerment in addition to identifying emotional drivers of perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors (Morris, Woo, and Cho, 2003; Morris, 1995). To use AdSAM, subjects simply choose the graphic character (SAM) in each row that best identifies how she feels (Morris, Woo, and Cho, 2003). AdSAM emotional response scores can then be used to create perceptual maps, where the results are scatter-plotted to be analyzed for consistency and similarity (Morris, 1995). Subjects and Questionnaires The participants in this study were a convenience sample taken from classes in the College of Journalism and Communications at the University of Florida. Only females were allowed to participate. A total of 258 participated in the study. Subjects were awarded with extra credit for participation in the study.

PAGE 33

24 There were a total of six versions of the questionnaires. Instructions were read to the participants by the principal investigator and were also be included at the top of each section of the packet for reference. The informed consent document was attached to the front of each packet and a third party collected the separated informed consent forms from the participants upon completion so that the principal investigator would not know the names of the participants. Table 3-1 shows the demographics of the respondents. Test One Test one subjects were given packets containing models photographs and space below to mark responses using a five-point Likert scale, ranging from completely agree to completely disagree to rate each photograph on each of the six pre-established dimensions of beauty (Solomon, Ashmore, Longo, 1992). Subjects were asked to evaluate the model as pictured (ignoring anything else they may know about the model) (Solomon, Ashmore, and Longo, 1992). To eliminate bias, there were three different versions of the questionnaire, each version containing a different set of models. Test Two Test two subjects were given the same packets of models' photographs as the first. This time, the subjects will be using AdSAM to give their emotional responses to each of the photographs. AdSAM uses a scale of pleasure, dominance and arousal to determine emotional responses to the stimuli without introducing verbal bias into the experiment. As with test one, there were three different versions of the questionnaire, each version containing a different set of models. Version one in this test had the same set of models as version one in the first test. The same goes for versions two in both tests and versions three. Each version had 14 models. The version one tests consisted of photographs cf1, c1, g1, se1, sk1, t1, cf2, c2,

PAGE 34

25 g2, se2, sk2, t2, cf3, and c3. Version two tests consisted of g3, se3, sk3, t3, cf4, c4, g4, se4, sk4, t4, cf5, c5, g5, and se5. Version three tests consisted of sk5, t5, cf6, c6, g6, se6, sk6, t6, cf7, c7, g7, se7, sk7, and t7. Models were presented to respondents in the questionnaires in the orders above. To randomize the questionnaires, first they were put in to piles based on test type and version. Second, the test one versions were pulled from their piles in a random order and placed into one combined pile for test one. The same was done for test two. This way, respondents were less likely to have the version, thus the same set of models, as someone sitting next to them was.

PAGE 35

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS R1: What are the Strongest and Weakest Examples for Each of the Six Types of Beauty? First, a basic frequency analysis for each of the 42 models was conducted to determine the strongest and weakest examples of each type of beauty based on the respondents evaluation of each model on a 5-point Likert scale. Because only the first test required respondents to evaluate each model based on type of beauty, N=131, each of the three versions of test one contained 14 models, so each model was evaluated by between 43 and 46 respondents. Tables 4-1 and 4-2 show the best and worst (respectively) examples for each of the six pre-determined dimensions of beauty based on the results of test one. In order to avoid analysis of small groups, completely agree and agree responses were combined into one category while disagree and completely disagree responses were combined into another. Table 4-3 shows a grid containing the photographs of each model corresponding to their numbers in the sets of photographs. Notice that the worst examples for Cute, Trendy, Classic/Feminine, and Girl-Next-Door were the same photographt7. Similarly, the worst examples for Sex Kitten and Sensual Exotic were photograph c2. Again, Sensual and Exotic are grouped opposite of Girl-Next-Door, Cute, and Classic/Feminine. This shows that the determinants developed by Solomon, Ashmore, and Longo exist, but are not pure. 26

PAGE 36

27 Table 4-1: Best examples of beauty types according to agree versus disagree respondent ratings. Beauty Type Photograph Number N Percentage that Agreed Mean Cute c6 43 97.7% 1.6047 Trendy g5 46 91.3% 1.6087 Classic/Feminine c6 43 97.7% 1.6279 Sex Kitten sk6 43 93% 1.7209 Girl-Next-Door c7 43 100% 1.6744 Sensual/Exotic se1 44 86.4% 1.7955 Table 4-2: Worst examples of beauty types according to agree versus disagree respondent ratings. Beauty Type Photograph Number N Percentage that Disagreed Mean Cute t7 43 65.1% 3.6047 Trendy t7 43 53.5% 3.2558 Classic/Feminine t7 43 58.1% 3.4419 Sex Kitten c2 44 72.7% 3.8636 Girl-Next-Door t7 43 86% 3.8372 Sensual/Exotic c2 44 81.8% 4.0000

PAGE 37

28 Table 4-3: A grid of the photographs of each model corresponding to their numbers in the sets of photographs. NUMBER CLASSIC FEM CUTE GIRL NEXT DOOR SENSUAL EXOTIC SEX KITTEN TRENDY 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

PAGE 38

29 R2: How Many Types of Beauty are Present in the Data? It is not clear how Solomon, Ashmore, and Longo combined beauty types in their study so in order to find pure beauty types in the current study, a factor analysis for each model was conducted. This determined how many types of beauty were present in the models photographs, according to the respondents. All but two (se5 and cf4) of the factor analyses results were significant. The Varimax Rotated Component Matrixes from the factor analyses revealed that several variables repeatedly correlated with the factorsSex Kitten and Sensual/Exotic were the variables that appeared most together in a component. Second, the variables Classic/Feminine, Cute, and Girl-Next-Door appeared together, usually opposite to the component in which Sex Kitten and Sensual/Exotic belonged to. Trendy appeared equally with both sets of variables. Ambiguous variables were not included in the table because they did not clearly belong to one component or another (cross-loaded). Thus, the variable Trendy is not included in the table because it did not clearly fit with any combination of variables. Table 4-4 shows the factor loadings for each models that determined the two new pure beauty typesSex Kitten and Sensual/Exotic, renamed Sexual/Sensual and Girl-Next-Door, Cute, and Classic/Feminine, renamed Young Feminine.

PAGE 39

30 Table 4-4: Varimax Rotated Component Matrix factor loadings for each of the 42 models. Model N P Question F1 F2 F3 Trendy .443 .309 Classic/ Feminine .832 .006 Sex Kitten .169 .766 Girl-Next-Door .649 -.435 Sensual/ Exotic -.019 .771 cf1 43 .001 Cute .612 .376 Trendy .356 .180 Classic/ feminine .719 -.122 Sex Kitten -.082 -.773 Girl-Next-Door .764 -.155 Sensual/ Exotic -.098 .801 c1 44 .005 Cute .692 .498 Trendy .595 .397 Classic/ Feminine .458 .728 Sex Kitten .858 -.033 Girl-Next-Door -.413 .656 Sensual/ Exotic .844 -.121 g1 44 .000 Cute -.009 .576 Trendy .674 .199 Classic/ Feminine .633 .428 Sex Kitten .124 .691 Girl-Next-Door .801 -.215 Sensual/ Exotic .003 .868 se1 44 .000 Cute .846 .114 Trendy .724 .169 Classic/ Feminine .719 .372 Sex Kitten .859 -.133 Girl-Next-Door .021 .868 Sensual/ Exotic .857 -.067 sk1 44 .000 Cute .064 .872

PAGE 40

31 Table 4-4. Continued Model N P Question F1 F2 F3 Trendy .635 .259 Classic/ Feminine .730 .144 Sex Kitten .753 -.113 Girl-Next-Door -.209 .794 Sensual/ Exotic .771 -.377 t1 44 .000 Cute .270 .789 Trendy .758 .284 Classic/ Feminine .636 .245 Sex Kitten .073 .875 Girl-Next-Door .725 -.132 Sensual/ Exotic .085 .909 cf2 44 .000 Cute .780 .003 Trendy .386 .469 Classic/ Feminine .696 .240 Sex Kitten -.077 .867 Girl-Next-Door .864 -.149 Sensual/ Exotic -.110 .900 c2 44 .000 Cute .885 -.171 Trendy .550 .533 Classic/ Feminine .794 .222 Sex Kitten -.006 .916 Girl-Next-Door .881 -.170 Sensual/ Exotic -.012 .826 g2 44 .000 Cute .811 -.010 Trendy .594 .375 Classic/ Feminine .280 .767 Sex Kitten .881 .042 Girl-Next-Door -.175 .711 Sensual/ Exotic .927 -.106 se2 44 .000 Cute .103 .878

PAGE 41

32 Table 4-4. Continued Model N P Question F1 F2 F3 Trendy .591 .291 Classic/ Feminine .737 .011 Sex Kitten .040 .924 Girl-Next-Door .561 -.310 Sensual/ Exotic .025 .904 sk2 44 .000 Cute .862 .054 Trendy .043 .871 Classic/ Feminine .766 .319 Sex Kitten .702 .259 Girl-Next-Door .878 -.009 Sensual/ Exotic .312 .753 t2 44 .000 Cute .820 .149 Trendy .686 .284 Classic/ Feminine .285 .779 Sex Kitten .928 .083 Girl-Next-Door .102 .822 Sensual/ Exotic .886 .006 cf3 44 .000 Cute -.012 .812 Trendy .572 .067 Classic/ Feminine .733 .179 Sex Kitten .076 .871 Girl-Next-Door .778 -.212 Sensual/ Exotic .094 .900 c3 44 .000 Cute .647 .214 Trendy .581 .337 Classic/ Feminine .604 .537 Sex Kitten .692 -.414 Girl-Next-Door -.094 .744 Sensual/ Exotic .820 .048 g3 46 .000 Cute .215 .802

PAGE 42

33 Table 4-4. Continued Model N P Question F1 F2 F3 Trendy .134 -.456 Classic/ Feminine .647 .019 Sex Kitten .702 -.198 Girl-Next-Door .082 .864 Sensual/ Exotic .818 -.292 se3 46 .000 Cute .699 .370 Trendy .567 .438 Classic/ Feminine .485 .690 Sex Kitten .857 .060 Girl-Next-Door -.119 .791 Sensual/ Exotic .830 .023 sk3 46 .000 Cute .191 .853 Trendy .147 .508 Classic/ Feminine .663 .326 Sex Kitten -.127 .842 Girl-Next-Door .808 -.231 Sensual/ Exotic .004 .770 t3 46 .000 Cute .829 .046 Trendy .403 .555 .420 Classic/ Feminine -.081 .836 -.129 Sex Kitten .768 -.403 .037 Girl-Next-Door .085 -.185 .690 Sensual/ Exotic .827 .230 .009 cf4 46 .272 Cute -.045 .117 .746 Trendy .762 .002 Classic/ Feminine .788 .095 Sex Kitten .010 .914 Girl-Next-Door .753 .056 Sensual/ Exotic .082 .914 c4 46 .000 Cute .628 .004

PAGE 43

34 Table 4-4. Continued Model N P Question F1 F2 F3 Trendy .704 .180 Classic/ Feminine .347 .750 Sex Kitten .877 .136 Girl-Next-Door -.109 .817 Sensual/ Exotic .860 .042 g4 46 .000 Cute .249 .868 Trendy .697 .316 Classic/ Feminine .653 .305 Sex Kitten .784 -.017 Girl-Next-Door .166 .773 Sensual/ Exotic .839 -.148 se4 46 .000 Cute -.032 .828 Trendy .687 .032 Classic/ Feminine .721 .033 Sex Kitten .495 .333 Girl-Next-Door -.129 .852 Sensual/ Exotic .823 .093 sk4 45 .003 Cute .345 .633 Trendy .217 .430 Classic/ Feminine .656 .371 Sex Kitten -.101 .824 Girl-Next-Door .832 -.084 Sensual/ Exotic .176 .774 t4 46 .001 Cute .787 .166 Trendy .708 .439 Classic/ Feminine .689 -.012 Sex Kitten .053 .899 Girl-Next-Door .691 .006 Sensual/ Exotic .023 .830 cf5 46 .000 Cute .760 .022

PAGE 44

35 Table 4-4. Continued Model N P Question F1 F2 F3 Trendy .037 .768 Classic/ Feminine .866 .142 Sex Kitten -.059 .877 Girl-Next-Door .922 -.007 Sensual/ Exotic .224 .645 c5 46 .000 Cute .887 .087 Trendy .773 Classic/ Feminine .831 Sex Kitten .698 Girl-Next-Door .671 Sensual/ Exotic .770 g5 46 .000 Cute .818 Trendy -.018 .833 .202 Classic/ Feminine .152 .646 -.588 Sex Kitten .075 .156 .834 Girl-Next-Door .720 .074 -.004 Sensual/ Exotic -.666 .345 .149 se5 46 .524 Cute .613 .277 .292 Trendy .807 .026 Classic/ Feminine .490 .533 Sex Kitten .686 .104 Girl-Next-Door .137 .690 Sensual/ Exotic .720 .210 sk5 43 .001 Cute .024 .821 Trendy .799 .228 -.236 Classic/ Feminine .145 .875 .092 Sex Kitten .676 -.081 .585 Girl-Next-Door -.187 .268 .865 Sensual/ Exotic .792 -.010 -.019 t5 43 .000 Cute -.019 .855 .127

PAGE 45

36 Table 4-4. Continued Model N P Question F1 F2 F3 Trendy .720 .344 Classic/ Feminine .856 .138 Sex Kitten -.006 .726 Girl-Next-Door .657 -.309 Sensual/ Exotic .118 .879 cf6 43 .000 Cute .831 .032 Trendy .562 .274 Classic/ Feminine .722 .267 Sex Kitten .109 .936 Girl-Next-Door .743 -.159 Sensual/ Exotic .026 .931 c6 43 .000 Cute .852 -.020 Trendy .706 .179 Classic/ Feminine .748 .264 Sex Kitten .268 .775 Girl-Next-Door .809 -.208 Sensual/ Exotic .007 .880 g6 43 .000 Cute .644 .237 Trendy .606 .273 Classic/ Feminine .121 .796 Sex Kitten .797 -.187 Girl-Next-Door -.014 .887 Sensual/ Exotic .845 .196 se6 43 .000 Cute .483 .539 Trendy .620 .460 Classic/ Feminine .093 .828 Sex Kitten .920 .168 Girl-Next-Door .172 .859 Sensual/ Exotic .867 .114 sk6 43 .000 Cute .455 .627

PAGE 46

37 Table 4-4. Continued Model N P Question F1 F2 F3 Trendy .816 .283 Classic/ Feminine .268 .752 Sex Kitten .776 .080 Girl-Next-Door .028 .742 Sensual/ Exotic .878 .114 t6 43 .000 Cute .172 .858 Trendy .525 .412 Classic/ Feminine .765 .300 Sex Kitten .095 .874 Girl-Next-Door .858 -.119 Sensual/ Exotic .135 .907 cf7 43 .000 Cute .763 .161 Trendy -.080 .713 Classic/ Feminine .851 .112 Sex Kitten .124 .837 Girl-Next-Door .897 .011 Sensual/ Exotic .200 .868 c7 43 .000 Cute .885 .091 Trendy .743 .186 Classic/ Feminine .431 .684 Sex Kitten .867 -.031 Girl-Next-Door -.212 .815 Sensual/ Exotic .807 -.146 g7 43 .000 Cute .006 .885 Trendy .660 .505 Classic/ Feminine .661 .415 Sex Kitten .863 .041 Girl-Next-Door -.044 .860 Sensual/ Exotic .859 -.021 se7 43 .000 Cute .229 .780

PAGE 47

38 Table 4-4. Continued Model N P Question F1 F2 F3 Trendy .573 .530 Classic/ Feminine .779 .282 Sex Kitten .549 .225 Girl-Next-Door .142 .781 Sensual/ Exotic .884 -.043 sk7 43 .000 Cute .141 .823 Trendy .564 .038 Classic/ Feminine .810 .066 Sex Kitten -.055 .921 Girl-Next-Door .627 .324 Sensual/ Exotic .366 .629 t7 43 .000 Cute .901 .131 The variables Sensual/Exotic and Sex Kitten were combined into one type of beauty (renamed Sensual/Sexual) based on the results of the factor analyses. Although occurring less frequently than the Sensual/Sexual combination, the factor analyses also showed that the variables Cute, Girl-Next-Door, and Classic/Feminine should also be combined into one type (named Young/Feminine). R3: Which are the Strongest, Weakest, and Middle Examples for Each of the New Types of Beauty? Now that the number of beauty types present in the research has been determined using factor analysis, it is important to conduct a General Linear Model Repeated Measures test. This will determine the strongest and weakest models for the two types. Strong, weak, and middle examples were chosen for each of the two types of beauty based on their estimated marginal means. Table 4-5 shows the model that is the strongest example for each type, the weakest example of each type, and the model closest to the grand mean for each type. The grand means were found by calculating the overall

PAGE 48

39 mean for each of the two types of beauty. The table clearly shows that the opposite of Sensual/Sexual is Young Feminine. The Repeated Measures Analysis also showed significant differences in the respondents evaluations to the two new types of beauty in addition to significant differences between strong, weak, and middle examples of models. Table 4-5: Strongest, weakest, and middle model examples for Sensual/Sexual and Young Feminine. SENSUAL/SEXUAL (SE + SK) YOUNG FEMININE (CF + C + G) Mean Score Photograph Mean Score Photograph Strongest Lowest mean score. 1.721 SK2 1.636 C1 Middle Score closest to the grand mean score. 2.825 (Grand Mean for SS = 2.825) G6 2.525 (Grand Mean for YF = 2.525) SK4 Weakest Highest mean score. 3.930 C2 3.628 T7

PAGE 49

40 R4: What are the Emotional Responses of College Women to Models? In order to examine the emotional responses of the subjects to the photographs of the models, we used AdSAM as described in the Literature Review and Methodology sections of this study. Table 4-6 shows the Pleasure, Arousal, and Dominance scores for the Strong, Weak, and Middle scoring models for the new types of beauty. Table 4-6: Pleasure, Arousal, and Dominance scores for the Strong, Weak, and Middle scoring models for Sensual/Sexual and Young Feminine. 95% Confidence Interval Group Beauty Type Emotional Response Mean Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound Pleasure 7.564 .266 7.037 8.091 Arousal 5.615 .305 5.011 6.220 Young Feminine Dominance 5.872 .334 5.210 6.534 Pleasure 4.103 .265 3.579 4.627 Arousal 3.615 .295 3.032 4.199 Strong Sensual/ Sexual Dominance 4.769 .333 4.111 5.428 Pleasure 4.976 .257 4.468 5.484 Arousal 4.762 .294 4.179 5.344 Young Feminine Dominance 5.357 .322 4.719 5.995 Pleasure 5.810 .255 5.305 6.315 Arousal 4.452 .284 3.890 5.015 Middle Sensual/ Sexual Dominance 5.690 .321 5.056 6.325 Pleasure 4.077 .266 3.550 4.604 Arousal 2.795 .305 2.190 3.399 Young Feminine Dominance 6.513 .334 5.851 7.175 Pleasure 5.410 .265 4.886 5.934 Arousal 3.692 .295 3.109 4.276 Weak Sensual/ Sexual Dominance 5.769 .333 5.111 6.428 p=.000 In the table, we see equal pleasure and dominance scores for Young Feminine. Arousal scores varied from 5.615 (strong model) to 2.795 (weak model). This means that the respondents, who were all women, were not very aroused by the photos they evaluated. The dominance score for the weakest model was significantly higher than the other two scores. This shows us that dominance, in this case, may have not been a positive reaction of the respondents. Pleasure scores in this table are higher, especially for the strongest model.

PAGE 50

41 The table shows much lower pleasure and arousal scores for Sensual/Sexual than for Young Feminine. The pleasure scores for the weak and middle models were the same, but significantly lower for the strongest model. This means that women did not have pleasure in viewing these photographs. The scores for both beauty types showed significant differences from one type to another. Figures 4-1 and 4-2 show the means graphed on a scale of pleasure and arousal. The mean for the strongest model for Young Feminine resides in the upper right-hand quadrant (the most positive) near adjectives such as bold, warm, and mature. Meanwhile, the mean for the strongest Sensual/Sexual model resides in the lower left-hand quadrant (the most negative) near adjectives such as skeptical, blas, and unemotional. This suggests that respondents felt much more positively about the Young Feminine type than the Sensual/Sexual type. Notice that the weak example lays almost exactly opposite to the strongest example for Young Feminine on the graph. Also notice that the Sensual/ Sexual plots are close to the midpoint while the Young Feminine plots reach from the upper right-hand quadrant to the lower-left. In Figure 4-3, we see the strong, middle, and weak examples of models for both types of beauty graphed on a scale of pleasure and arousal. Dominance is represented in the graphs by the size of the plot marks. AdSAM Prominent Emotional Index tables showed a strong difference between the emotions that respondents felt towards C1, the strongest Young Feminine model, and the middle and weakest feminine models (SK4 and T7, respectively). Table 4-11 shows that 38 percent of respondents indicated that they felt appreciative, 26 percent felt grateful, and 26 percent felt amused by the strongest Young Feminine model.

PAGE 51

42 ArousalPleasurecrushedinsecuregloomyangryirritatednonchalantprovocativeaggressivealoofanxiousblaseboldboredcheerfulchildlikecynicaldeceiveddisappointeddisbelievingdisgusteddispleasedfearfulhappykindquietly indignantrejectedrelaxedsadskepticalstartledstimulatedsuspicioustemptedterrifiedthankfultroubledunemotionalvictoriouswarmwearywholesomepoliteserenematuremodestCopyright 1996-2003 AdSAM Marketing, LLC. All rights reserved. AdSAM Perceptual Map TMPleasure Arousal and Dominance scores Young Feminine (cf+ c+ g) s m w Young Feminine (cf+ c+ g) C1 StrongestYoung Feminine (cf+ c+ g) SK4 MiddleYoung Feminine (cf+ c+ g) T7 Weakest m s w Figure 4-1: Strong, middle, and weak examples of models for Young Feminine emotional response means graphed on a scale or pleasure and arousal.

PAGE 52

43 ArousalPleasurecrushedinsecuregloomyangryirritatednonchalantprovocativeaggressivealoofanxiousblaseboldboredcheerfulchildlikecynicaldeceiveddisappointeddisbelievingdisgusteddispleasedfearfulhappykindquietly indignantrejectedrelaxedsadskepticalstartledstimulatedsuspicioustemptedterrifiedthankfultroubledunemotionalvictoriouswarmwearywholesomepoliteserenematuremodestCopyright 1996-2003 AdSAM Marketing, LLC. All rights reserved. AdSAM Perceptual Map TMPleasure Arousal and Dominance scores Sexual/ Sensual (se + sk) s m w Sexual/ Sensual (se + sk) SK2 StrongestSexual/ Sensual (se + sk) G6 MiddleSexual/ Sensual (se + sk) C2 Weakest s m w Figure 4-2: Strong, middle, and weak examples of models for Sensual/Sexual emotional response means graphed on a scale or pleasure and arousal.

PAGE 53

44 ArousalPleasurecrushedinsecuregloomyangryirritatednonchalantprovocativeaggressivealoofanxiousblaseboldboredcheerfulchildlikecynicaldeceiveddisappointeddisbelievingdisgusteddispleasedfearfulhappykindquietly indignantrejectedrelaxedsadskepticalstartledstimulatedsuspicioustemptedterrifiedthankfultroubledunemotionalvictoriouswarmwearywholesomepoliteserenematuremodestCopyright 1996-2003 AdSAM Marketing, LLC. All rights reserved. AdSAM Perceptual Map TMPleasure, Arousal and Dominance scores yfs yfm yfw sss ssm ssw Young Feminine (cf+ c+ g) C1 StrongestYoung Feminine (cf+ c+ g) SK4 MiddleYoung Feminine (cf+ c+ g) T7 WeakestSexual/ Sensual (se + sk) SK2 StrongestSexual/ Sensual (se + sk) G6 MiddleSexual/ Sensual (se + sk) C2 Weakest yfm yfs yfw sss ssm ssw Figure 4-3: Strong, middle, and weak examples of models for Sensual/Sexual and Young Feminine emotional response means graphed on a scale or pleasure and arousal.

PAGE 54

45 For the strongest and weakest Young Feminine models, respondents indicated that they felt unimpressed (14 percent, 58 percent), unconcerned (19 percent, 56 percent), uninterested (19 percent, 51 percent), and nonchalant (26 percent, 56 percent). AdSAM Prominent Emotional Index tables showed a strong difference between the emotions that respondents felt towards C1, the strongest Young Feminine model, and the middle and weakest feminine models (SK4 and T7, respectively). Table 4-11 shows that 38 percent of respondents indicated that they felt appreciative, 26 percent felt grateful, and 26 percent felt amused by the strongest Young Feminine model. For the strongest and weakest Young Feminine models, respondents indicated that they felt unimpressed (14 percent, 58 percent), unconcerned (19 percent, 56 percent), uninterested (19 percent, 51 percent), and nonchalant (26 percent, 56 percent). Respondents indicated that they felt uninterested, unconcerned, unimpressed, and nonchalant towards the models. The adjectives for the middle model, G6, were somewhat more positive than those for the other two models, including soft hearted, sensitive, and logical. Table 4-12 shows the AdSAM Prominent Emotional Index table for the strongest Sensual/Sexual model, SK2. Overall, the adjectives listed for the Sensual/Sexual models were much more negative then those listed for the Young Feminine Models. This reaffirms that respondents had more positive emotional responses to the models in the Young Feminine category than the Sensual/Sexual category.

PAGE 55

46 Table 4-11: AdSAM Prominent Emotional Index table showing respondents feeling towards the strongest Young Feminine model, C1. AdSAM Prominent Emotion Index Young Feminine (cf+ c+ g) C1 Strongest Adjective Percent of Mentions appreciative 38% grateful 26% amused 26% protected 23% soft hearted (t) 23% impressed 21% cooperative 21% awed 21% surprised 18% joyful 15% Table 4-12: AdSAM Prominent Emotional Index table showing respondents feeling towards the strongest Sensual/Sexual model, SK2. AdSAM Prominent Emotion Index Sexual/ Sensual (se + sk) SK2 Strongest Adjective Percent of Mentions uninterested 28% unconcerned 28% unimpressed 23% indifferent 23% nonchalant 23% listless 21% sluggish 18% bored 18% unexcited 18% meek 15% Hypothesis Testing Hypothesis: The subjects categorization of the models will be consistent with the six dimensions of beauty as determined in the Solomon, Ashmore, and Longo study (1992). Although prior research suggested that the girl-next door types were similar to the cute types, it did not combine them into one group. Nor did it combine sensual/exotic

PAGE 56

47 with sex kitten (though they were also suggested as being very similar). This research goes one step further than the previous study by using a factor analysis to combine the types of beauty into two opposite dimensionssensual/sexual and young feminine.

PAGE 57

CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION Conclusions Hypothesis and Research Question One H: The subjects categorization of the models will be consistent with the six dimensions of beauty as determined in the Solomon, Ashmore, and Longo study (1992). R1: What are the strongest and weakest examples for each of the six types of beauty? After conducting Basic Frequency analyses, it became obvious that the magazine editors that Solomon, Ashmore, and Longo used to conduct their study viewed models differently than the college females who responded to the current study. This difference caused overlap in the frequency tests and helped us to produce two pure types of beautySensual/Sexual and Young Feminine. The knowledge of this difference in response may be useful to companies because it shows a clear difference in opinions from the women who choose the models for fashion magazines and the women who may view them. Research Question Two R2: How many types of beauty are present in the data? In this study we found two contrasting types of beautySensual/Sexual and Young Feminine. This continues the precedence set forth by Solomon, Ashmore, and Longo (1992) by continuing to combine types. These findings supports the previous study in the 48

PAGE 58

49 sense that the frequency analyses showed that the dimensions existed, yet disputed it because the dimensions were not pure. Research Question Three R3: Which are the strongest, weakest, and middle examples for each of the new types of beauty? The strongest, weakest, and middle examples for each type of beauty clearly showed that the opposite of Young Feminine is Sensual/Sexual. This neither disputes nor supports previous research because previous research did not test the relationships between these two types. This knowledge may be beneficial to companies because it will help them to create advertisements that feature precisely the image they wish to portray to women. Research Question Four R4: What are the emotional responses of college women to models? Respondents indicated that they felt more pleased in viewing the strongest Young Feminine model, C1, and had equal arousal and dominance for the strongest and middle models. Surprisingly, the weakest Young Feminine photo, T7, showed more dominance. As pleasure and arousal scores decreased in the photographs, dominance increased. The highest dominance score in the weakest Young Feminine model may be justified by the respondents feelings of domination over that model, as in feeling better or better looking than she looks. The respondents consistently indicated Sensual/Sexual little arousal coupled with slightly increasing pleasure. The pleasure score for the strongest Sensual/Sexual model was significantly lower than the pleasure score for the strongest young feminine model. These findings suggest, surprisingly, that although the respondents felt a model resided

PAGE 59

50 strongly in the Sensual/Sexual category, they had very little or no pleasure or arousal in viewing her. Also, these models aroused respondents very little. This implies a clear difference between viewed attractiveness and sexiness in the respondents. It is the opinion of the researcher that the definition of sexy may have been altered over time by the media through sexually provocative images named by them to be sexy. Over time, society, namely women, may have adopted the definition of sexy not to mean attractive in a sexual way, but to mean overly sexual and not attractive. Others may argue that the respondents may have scored the Sensual/Sexual images lower than the Young Feminine models because they feel jealous of the model and unable to achieve to look themselves. This idea may be discounted because the models chosen for the Young Feminine category exhibited nearly the same body types as the Sensual/Sexual models and, arguably, the same amount of beauty potential. The main differences between the strongest Sensual/Sexual model and the strongest Young Feminine model are clothing, position, and expression. Through this research it is evident that many advertisers may have been mislead in using more sexual models to attract women to their products. It may be a common misconception that women may be attracted to a product if an overly sexual and provocative model endorses itthat they may look at the model and somehow desire to be like her and therefore purchase the product. While previous research suggests that a women is more likely to purchase a product if she is unhappy with her own body and desires to be more like the endorser, this study shows that the model should not be Sensual/Sexual. Advertisers should, rather, be using models in the Young Feminine category to appeal to women, as women showed more pleasure in viewing these models.

PAGE 60

51 Through this, it can be assumed that women desire to be more like the Young Feminine models, and in turn, will purchase the products they endorse more readily than they would a product endorsed by a more overtly sexual model. This Studys Possible Effects on the Industry This research is the first step in an entirely new approach to advertising to women: advertising to women using models women like and wish to be like. The results of this study may be useful to companies (such as cosmetics and clothing) that wish to target educated females. Through this research, we learned that companies should be cautious when choosing a model to represent a brand. Models who are photographed in sexy and provocative ways may overwhelm consumers and consumers may transfer the negative feelings they have toward the models representation onto the brand. Companies who wish to elicit feelings of boldness, triumph, energy, victory, protection, and appreciation may want to use only models in the Young Feminine category to target college females. Limitations Although there were numerous significant findings in this study, there are some limitations that need to be mentioned. First, the validity may be questioned because respondents were a convenient sample taken from two classes taught with the same professor in a large southeastern university (restricted by place and time). Second, because the sample consisted of only students, the study was limited to an age range of 17 to 26. Third, the study may contain non-response error because some of the students may have chosen not to answer some of the questions. Fourth, the photographs used may have introduced some bias as some showed only the models face, while others showed what the model was wearing. Fifth, the characteristics listed by Solomon, Ashmore, and

PAGE 61

52 Longo made it difficult for the researcher in this study to choose models who exemplified the six types of beauty for the study accurately (1992). Future Research Future research should attempt to test the emotional responses of multiple respondent groups to numerous combinations of brands paired with models in the two beauty categories. It should further test models and brands that are trendy (as trendy did not clearly fit into either type of beauty). Additionally, tests should be conducted to determine whether models that are more clothed relegate a difference in emotional response than models that are more scantily clad. Future research testing this should be constant in using clothed, unclothed, or photographs only showing models faces. Future research should also use a sample not limited by age or education, and if possible, time and place.

PAGE 62

LIST OF REFERENCES Baker, Michael J. and Gilbert A. Churchill, Jr. (1977), "The Impact of Physically Attractive Models on Advertising Evaluations," Journal of Marketing Research, 14 (November), 538-555. Bertolissi, Susan, David L. Lind, and Arthur H. Perlini (1999)., "The effects of women's age and physical appearance on attractiveness and social desirability ," Journal of Social Psychology, 139 (3), 343-354. Bloch, Peter H. and Marsha L. Richins (1992), "You Look 'Mahvelous': The Pursuit of Beauty and the Marketing Concept," Psychology Marketing (January), 3-15. Bower, Amanda B. (2001), Highly Attractive Models in Advertising and the Women Who Loathe Them: The Implications of Negative Affect for Spokesperson Effectiveness, Journal of Advertising, 3 (Fall), 51-63. Bower, Amanda B. and Stacy Landreth (2001), Is Beauty Best? Highly Versus Normally Attractive Models in Advertising, Journal of Advertising, 1 (Spring), 1-12. Cash, Thomas F. and Everett Smith (1982), "Physical Attractiveness and Personalit Among American College Students," Journal of Psychology, 111, 183-191. Cunningham, Michael R. (1981), "Sociobiology as a Supplementary Paradigm for Social Psychology Research," in Review of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol.2, ed. Ladd Wheeler, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 69-106. Festinger, Leon, A Theory of Social Comparison, 118-138. Photocopy obtained from Dr. J Robyn Goodman, Assistant Professor, Journalism and Communications, University of Florida. Forkan, J. (1980), "Product Matchup Key to Effective Star Presentations," Advertising Age, 51 (October 6), 42. Friedman, Hershey H. and Linda Friedman (1979), "Endorser Effectiveness by Product Type," Journal of Advertising Research, 19 (October), 63-71. Hanson, Cynthia, and Ronald P. Hill. (1994), "The beauty myth and female consumers: the controversial role of advertising," Journal of Consumer Affairs, 28 (57), 10-23. 53

PAGE 63

54 Joseph, W. Benoy (1982), "The Credibility of Physically Attractive Communicators: A Review," Journal of Advertising, 11 (3), 15-24. Kahle, Lynn R. and Pamela M. Homer (1985), "Physically Attractiveness of the Celebrity Endorser: A Social Adaptation Perspective," Journal of Consumer Research, 11 (March), 954-961. Kamins, Michael A. (1990), "An Investigation into the 'Match-Up' Hypothesis in Celebrity Advertising: When Beauty May be Only Skin Deep," Journal of Advertising, 19 (1), 4-13. Martin, Mary C. and James W. Gentry (1997), Stuck in the Model Trap: The Effects of Beautiful Models in Ads of Female Pre-Adolescents and Adolescents, Journal of Advertising, 2 (Summer), 19-33 Martin, Mary C. and Patricia F. Kennedy (1993), Advertising and Social Comparison: Consequences for Female Preadolescents and Adolescents, Psychology & Marketing, 6 (November/December), 513-530. McCracken, Grant (1989), "Who is the Celebrity Endorser? Cultural Foundations of the Endorsement Process," Journal of Consumer Research, 16 (December), 310-321. McGuire, William J. (1985), "Attitudes and Attitude Change," in The Handbook of Social Psychology, eds. Gardner Lindzey and Elliott Aronson, vol 2, 3rd ed., New York: Random House, 233-346. Morris, Jon D. (1995), "Observations: SAM: The Self-Assessment Manikin. An Efficient Cross-Cultural Measurement of Emotional Response," Journal of Advertising Research, (November/December), 63-68. Morris, Jon D., Chongmoo Woo, and Chang-Hoan Cho (2003), "Internet Measures of Advertising Effects: A Global Issue," Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, vol. 25 (1), 25-43. Morris, Jon D., Chongmoo Woo, James A. Geason, and Jooyoung Kim (2002), "The Power of Affect: Predicting Intention," Journal of Advertising Research, (June), 7-17. Morris, Jon D. and Fei-wen Pai (1997), "Fit For the Global Future," Where East Meets West, 132-205. Photocopy obtained from Dr. Jon Morris, Professor, Journalism and Communications, University of Florida. Parker, Dorthy Davis (2000), Thinking Critically about the Message of the Media: Female Images and Roles, Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences (April), 3261. Patzer, Gordon L. (1985), The Physical Attractiveness Phenomena, New York: Plenum.

PAGE 64

55 Richins, Marsha L. (1991), "Social Comparison and the Idealized Images of Advertising," Journal of Consumer Research, 18 (June), 71-83. Sarwer, David B., Leanne Magee, and Vicki Clark (2004), Physical Appearance and Cosmetic Medical Treatments: Physiological and Socio-cultural Influences, Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology, 2, 29-30. Solomon, Michael R. (1989), "Building Up and Breaking Down: The Impact of Cultural Sorting on Symbolic Consumption," in Research in Consumer Behavior, Vol. 3., ed. Elizabeth C. Hirschman, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 325-351. Solomon., Michael R., Ashmore, Richard D., and Laura C. Longo (1992), "The beauty Match-up Hypothesis: Congruence Between Types of Beauty and Product Images in Advertising," Journal of Advertising (21), 23-34. Stroud, Ruth (1990), "At Up to $250 a Day, They're Show Narrators, Not Models," Advertising Age, January 22, S-2. Ward, Monique L., Benjamin Gorvine, and Adena Cytron-Walker (2002), Would That Really Happen? Adolescents Perceptions of Sexual Relationships According to Prime-time Television, Sexual Teens, Sexual Media: Investigating Medias Influence on Adolescent Sexuality, (xiv), 308. Wells, Linda (1989), "Face Value," New York Times Magazine, Part 2 (February 26), 46 (3). Zinkhan, George M. and Jae W. Hong (1991), "Self Concept and Advertising Effectiveness: A Conceptual Model of Congruency, Conspicuousness, and Response Mode," in eds. Rebecca H. Holman and Michael R. Solomon, Advances in Consumer Research, vol. 18, Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 348-354.

PAGE 65

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Jennifer Huckeba was born on April 5, 1981, and was raised in Orlando, Florida. She graduated from William R. Boone High School in 1999 and continued her education at the University of Florida with a major in public relations. Upon graduation in 2003, Jennifer continued her academic career at the University of Florida with a Master of Advertising. After graduation, Jennifer plans to pursue a career in public relations and advertising in North Florida. 56


Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0009421/00001

Material Information

Title: Emotional Response to Beauty
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0009421:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0009421/00001

Material Information

Title: Emotional Response to Beauty
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0009421:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text












EMOTIONAL RESPONSE TO BEAUTY


By

JENNIFER HUCKEBA
















A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF ADVERTISING

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2005

































Copyright 2005

by

Jennifer Huckeba



































This thesis is dedicated to my parents, Leurise Phillips and Jerre Steve Huckeba, and my
stepfather, Ken Phillips, for their love and continued support throughout life and my
academic career. And to my boyfriend, Chris Pattillo, for his continued patience and
reassurance.















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank Alaina Rodriguez and Julia Thomas-this project would not

have been possible without their help and continued encouragement. Academically, I

would like to thank two of my committee members-Dr. John Sutherland for sharing his

fatherly advice and guidance, and Dr. Robyn Goodman for her patience. I truly

appreciate the help that Dr. Jim Geason, Patrick Reaves, Jody Hedge, and James Albury

offered to me-this project would not have completed in time without them.
















TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S ................................................................................................. iv

LIST OF TABLES ............... ............................... ... .................. vii

LIST OF FIGURES .............................................. ........ ...... ........... .. viii

ABSTRACT .............. ................. .......... .............. ix

CHAPTER

1 IN TRODU CTION ................................................. ...... .................

2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE ......................................................... .............. 3

A attractiveness and Persuasion ............................................... ........................... 3
Attractive Models' Effect on the Perceptions of Advertising in Women .............6
W hy W om en U se Cosm etics ......................................................... ............... 8
Types of Spokespeople ......... ..... ........ .. .. ......... ................. .. 10
Celebrity Endorsers ..................... .... .. ... .. .. .. ........ .... ...... ... .... 11
The Beauty Match Up Hypothesis and the Six Types of Beauty ............................12
Using AdSAM to Measure Emotional Response .......................................... 16
N eed for Present Research......................................................... ............... 20
R research Q u estion s........... .................................................. ...... .... .. .. ........ 2 1
C conclusion ...................................................................................................... ....... 2 1
H y p o th e sis : ......................................................................................2 1

3 M E T H O D O L O G Y ............................................................................ ................... 22

R research D esign and Stim uli ......................................................................... ... ... 22
Subjects and Q questionnaires .......................................................................... .. .... 23
T e st O n e ...................................................... ................ 2 4
T est T w o ...................................... ............................... ................ 2 4









v









4 R E S U L T S .......................................................... ................ 2 6

R1: What are the Strongest and Weakest Examples for Each of the Six Types of
B eauty? ............... ......... ..... ........ ... ........................................... 26
R2: How Many Types of Beauty are Present in the Data? .....................................29
R3: Which are the Strongest, Weakest, and Middle Examples for Each of the
N ew T y p es of B eauty ? ......... ................. ...........................................................3 8

5 DISCU SSION ........... .......... ...... .. ......... ............ ... ..... 48

C o n c lu sio n s...................... ..... ..... ..................................................... ............. 4 8
Hypothesis and Research Question One................................... ............... 48
R research Q u estion T w o ............................................................ .....................4 8
R research Q question Three.......................................................... ............... 49
Research Question Four ................................................................. 49
This Study's Possible Effects on the Industry...............................................51
L im stations ............................................................... .... ..... ........ 51
F future R research ........................................................................52

L IST O F R EFER EN CE S ............................................................................ ..............53

B IO G R A PH IC A L SK E TCH ..................................................................... ..................56
















LIST OF TABLES


Table p

4-1 Best examples of beauty types according to agree versus disagree respondent
rating s. .............................................................................. 2 7

4-2 Worst examples of beauty types according to agree versus disagree respondent
rating s. .............................................................................. 2 7

4-3 A grid of the photographs of each model corresponding to their numbers in the
sets of photographs .................................................... ... .. ........ .... 28

4-4 Varimax rotated component matrix factor loadings for each of the 42 models.......30

4-5 Strongest, weakest, and middle model examples for sensual/sexual and young
fem in in e ............................................... ................... .......................3 9

4-6 Pleasure, arousal, and dominance scores for the strong, weak, and middle
scoring models for sensual/sexual and young feminine ............. ................40

4-11 AdSAM prominent emotional index table showing respondents' feeling
towards the strongest young feminine model, C. ................................................46

4-12 AdSAM prominent emotional index table showing respondents' feeling
towards the strongest sensual/sexual model, SK2............................................. 46
















LIST OF FIGURES


Figure p

2-1 Prototypes of beauty dimensions elicited from fashion editors ............................15

2-2 Example of the self assessment manikin used in AdSAM testing. Row one
represents pleasure, row two represents arousal and row three represents
dom in an ce. ........................................................ ................. 17

2-3 Example of AdSAM scores graphed on a scale of pleasure and arousal .............19

2-4 Pleasure and arousal scale used to graph AdSAM scores...............................19

4-1 Strong, middle, and weak examples of models for young feminine emotional
response means graphed on a scale or pleasure and arousal.................................42

4-2 Strong, middle, and weak examples of models for sensual/sexual emotional
response means graphed on a scale or pleasure and arousal.................................43

4-3 Strong, middle, and weak examples of models for sensual/sexual and young
feminine emotional response means graphed on a scale or pleasure and arousal....44















Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Advertising

EMOTIONAL RESPONSE TO BEAUTY

By

Jennifer Huckeba

May 2005

Chair: Jon Morris
Major Department: Journalism and Communications

It has been said that advertisers believe that the beautiful are credible. Personal

attractiveness is important persuasion because there is a tendency to consistently attribute

more positive qualities to people who are physically attractive rather than unattractive.

The current study attempts to continue the research of Michael Solomon, Richard

Ashmore, and Laura C. Longo's study "The Beauty Match-Up Hypothesis: Congruence

Between Types of Beauty and Product Images in Advertising," Journal of Advertising

(21), 23-24. This study continues the previous research first by testing the six

dimensions of beauty using factor analyses, then by measuring emotional responses to the

pre-determined beauty types.

This research goes one step further than the previous study by using a factor

analysis to combine the types of beauty into two opposite dimensions-sensual/sexual

and young feminine. Additionally, the present study attempts to measure the emotional

responses of college females to models so that we may better understand which images of

models most effectively appeal to them in advertising.














CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Advertisers believe the beautiful are credible (Joseph, 1982). The increasing use of

attractive models as a persuasion method can be found in advertisements for nearly every

item that may have an influence on a women's appearance.

Many studies link the way a woman feels about her body to the effectiveness of

attractiveness as a persuasion method (Zinkhan and Hong, 1991; Hanson and Hill, 1994).

Women who are less confident about their bodies may respond more positively to ads

that feature physically attractive endorsers (Hanson, Hill and Stephens, 1994).

Certain types of beauty are more appropriately paired with one product or brand,

than with another (Solomon, Ashmore and Longo, 1992). The Beauty Match-up

Hypothesis theorized that people have theories of beauty that influence their emotional

responses to models in advertising (Solomon, Ashmore and Longo, 1992). For example,

attractive people vary in exactly how they are attractive and different types of

attractiveness may be best matched with different products (Solomon, Ashmore and

Longo, 1992). The Beauty Match-up Hypothesis study divided beauty into types based

on facial features, appearance of age, attire (if applicable), and flaws (Solomon, Ashmore

and Longo, 1992). The types are: Classic Beauty/Feminine, Cute, Sex Kitten,

Sensual/Exotic, Trendy, and Girl-Next-Door (Solomon, Ashmore and Longo, 1992).

Studies have determined that attractiveness can persuade women to buy products,

but they fail to explore how women feel about the models they are shown in the

advertisements and if they prefer one type of beauty to another (Solomon, Ashmore and






2


Longo, 1992; Joseph, 1982). To further research and knowledge surrounding

attractiveness as a persuasion method to women, women's emotional responses models

should be studied.

Continuing the research of Solomon, Ashmore, and Longo by measuring women's

emotional responses to numerous models will lead to a better understanding of how

women feel about the images they encounter in advertising, in addition to showing us

how to more successfully attract women to numerous products (1992).














CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Attractiveness and Persuasion

According to The Physical Attractiveness Phenomena, "no objective or absolute

answer exists for the question of who is physically attractive or what determines physical

attractiveness" (Patzer, 1985, 187). Because of this, the truth-of-consensus method is

often used to measure physical attractiveness (Patzer, 1985). "This method is based on

the premise that judgments of physical attractiveness are necessarily subjective, and that

such judgments are formed through gestalt principles of person perception rather than

single characteristics" (Patzer, 1985, 187). In the truth-of-consensus method, if

numerous judges rate a stimulus person as high or low in physical attractiveness, then the

stimulus person represents that level of physical attractiveness (Patzer, 1985).

The present study asks subjects not to rate the physical attractiveness of a stimulus

person, but to judge the type of attractiveness. It may be suggested that the principles

behind the truth-of-consensus method may also apply to deciphering type of beauty if

they are an accredited form of measuring level of attractiveness.

It is a thought that physical attractiveness are worldly and evolutionary. "Many

physical characteristics have evolved in specific ways that make a given animal attractive

to another" (Sarwer, Magee, and Clark, 2004, 29). Clear skin, bright eyes, and lustrous

hair are the beauty characteristics of youthfulness, pathogen resistance, symmetry, body

ratios, and averageness (Sarwer, Magee, and Clark, 2004). "These features are desired by

men and women the world over" (Sarwer, Magee, and Clark, 2004, 29).









The results of Patzer's study suggest that as communicator attractiveness increases,

persuasive communication effectiveness increases (Patzer, 1985). "Low, moderate, and

high communicator physical attractiveness produce negative, neutral, and positive

effectiveness, respectively" (Patzer, 1985, 187).

"Source attractiveness becomes critical to persuasive impact to the extent that the

receiver is motivated to enhance sense of self, social reputation, or gratifying role

relationships by identifying with admired sources and interjecting their attitudes"

(McGuire, 1985, 264). These findings suggest that "persuasion occurs through the

compliance process when the receiver wants to get a reward or avoid a punishment from

a powerful source" (McGuire, 1985, 266).

According to an article entitled "The Credibility of Physically Attractive

Communicators: A Review," advertisers believe that the beautiful are credible and that

physically attractive sources can contribute to a communication's effectiveness (Joseph,

1982). "Personal attractiveness is an important and pervasive source of influence in a

variety of interpersonal situations [there is the] presence of a physical attractiveness

stereotype-a tendency to consistently attribute more positive qualities to people who are

physically attractive rather than unattractive" (Joseph, 1982, 16).

Other research results coincide by stating that attractive people are likely to be

viewed "as more sensitive, kind, sociable, interesting, outgoing, strong, poised, and

exciting than less attractive people" (Bertolissi, Lind and Perlini, 1999, 1). American

females who dislike their bodies may respond more positively to products in ads that

feature physically attractive (thin) female endorsers, when compared to women who are

satisfied with their body types (Hanson, and Hill, 1994).









When the product has little to do with appearance, the model may be more credible

if less or unattractive (Baker and Churchill, 1977). "The results suggest that in trying to

sell a nonromantically-oriented product to males, an unattractive female model may be

more persuasive in creating eventual product purchase than an attractive model" (Baker

and Churchill, 1977, 553). Baker and Churchill used a seven-point Likert scale to have

subjects determine how attractive or unattractive they believed each model was. "The

results suggest that the sex and physical attractiveness of an ad model do influence

peoples' evaluations of aesthetic qualities of an advertisement and therefore seem to be

important determinants of the attention-getting value of the ad and the subjects' liking of

the ad" (Baker and Churchill, 1977, 553).

Automobile manufacturers are just one of many who use attractiveness as a

persuasive measure. Ford Motor Company uses models at auto shows to "spin on the

turntables with automakers' latest models Although some auto show models are

basically decorative, many narrate technical scripts and are expected to be informed

about the vehicles they promote" (Stroud, 1990, S-2). Car companies choose carefully

which type of model they want representing their cars (Stroud, 1990). "Mazda employed

'California-looking' blond, blue-eyed, young, perky talent dressed informally in long

jackets and yellow walking shorts to promote its sporty Miata convertible [in 1989]...

Chrysler narrator/models tend to be 'tall, classy and very mid-American' but are as

approachable as the girl next door" (Stroud, 1990, S-2).

Numerous cosmetics companies also carefully choose models to convey a specific

image. "To Elizabeth Arden, beauty is a glamorous, Grace Kelly-esque woman. Chanel

sees it as the dark-haired, serene Carole Bouquet and Estee Lauder as the foreign,









perfectly gorgeous Paulina Porizkova" (Wells, 1989, 46). The article also states that

"consistent among all is a reliance on the model to telegraph a precise message about the

company" (Wells, 1989, 46).

Attractive Models' Effect on the Perceptions of Advertising in Women

The media can be a powerful and persuasive tool in influencing young viewers'

self-images (Parker, 2000). High levels of identification and realism can enhance the

power of the media and shape college students' sexual attitudes and assumptions (Ward,

Gorvine, and Cytron-Walker, 2002).

One of the reasons that the attractiveness of models in the media can have a

positive effect on the credibility of advertising is self-concept. "Ideal self concept is the

reference point in which actual self is compared. If there is a gap between them, an

individual strives to achieve the ideal state. In this respect, ideal self is a motive force

driving and individual upward" (Zinkhan and Hong, 1991, 348). Therefore, if an

individual views an advertisement featuring a model that she views to be better in some

way than her, she is more likely to purchase that item (Zinkhan and Hong, 1991).

"Self concept is a promising variable for explaining the effectiveness of various

promotional strategies. Specifically, promotional efforts may be more effective if they

are directed toward establishing a product image congruent with a consumer's own self-

concept, compared to non-matching appeals, may lead consumers to subsequent

behaviors favorable to the product advertised" (Zinkhan and Hong, 1991). Zinkhan and

Hong's research efforts suggest that when a product is consumed primarily in private, the

consumer is less concerned about what others think about them consuming the product

(1991). In this situation, the main consideration is the degree to which the product is

satisfactory in the eyes of the individual consuming the product (Zinkhan and Hong,









1991). "Thus, products congruent with ideal self would evoke low buying intention

when the gap between product image and the present state of self is excessive" (Zinkhan

and Hong, 1991, 352).

According to the Social-Comparison Theory, people may compare themselves to

others for reasons other than self-evaluation (Martin and Kennedy, 1993). "The tendency

of female preadolescents and adolescents to compare themselves to models in ads

increases, and this tendency is greater for those with lower self-perceptions of physical

attractiveness and/or lower self-esteem" (Martin and Kennedy, 1993, 526). Self-

improvement prompts upward comparisons with others (Martin and Gentry, 1997).

Girls are likely to view their bodies as objects, allowing physical appearance to

determine how they, and others, judge their overall value as a person (Martin and Gentry,

1997). According to the Social-Comparison Theory, people may compare themselves to

others for reasons other than self-evaluation (Martin and Kennedy, 1993). "The tendency

is greater for those with lower self-perceptions of physical attractiveness and/or lower

self-esteem to compare themselves to models in ads" (Martin and Gentry, 1997, 20).

This may be true because the more someone wants to become a member of a group (i.e.

supermodels), the more important it becomes for the individual to compare herself to that

group (Festinger, personal communication with Goodman).

Yet, when women are exposed to a highly attractive model for an extended period

of time, as a result of comparison, evaluations of both the model and the model as a

spokesperson may be affected negatively because of model derogation (Bower, 2001).

Another study found that after viewing attractive models, women rated average women

as less attractive (Richins, 1991). "Images of highly attractive individuals can cause









viewers to rate the attractiveness of more ordinary others lower than they would

otherwise" (Richins, 1991, 81). Highly attractive models are best when paired with

enhancing, attractiveness-related products, yet normally attractive models may be better

in ads for problem-solving products (Bower and Landreth, 2001).

Richins also argues that the temporary dissatisfaction among individuals with

themselves may be beneficial if it stimulates consumers to buy to improve their

appearance, eventually enhancing satisfaction (Richins, 1991). "Research generally,

although not always, finds that ads with attractive models are more effective than those

with less attractive models or without models" (Richins, 1991, 82.)

Why Women Use Cosmetics

In order to better understand how models with different types of beauty affect the

perceptions, and possibly purchase intentions, of women through advertising we need a

better understanding of one industry primarily targeted toward women. Makeup use by

women may be attributed to fulfilling a need to feel attractive in addition to enhancing

feelings of well being (Bloch and Richins, 1992). Adornments can be divided into three

different categories by the way they affect the attractiveness in terms of physical

characteristics:

SRemedies are adornments used to remove or significantly alter a mutable attribute that
is thought to be unsatisfactory by others or the self (i.e. appetite suppressants, hair
coloring).
SCamouflages are adornments that conceal or downplay innate physical characteristics
the consumer is unable to change (i.e. the skillful application of cosmetics).
SEnhancers are adornments that enhance or draw attention to innate physical
characteristics that are viewed positively (i.e. makeup that accentuates a person's
pleasing eye color) (Bloch and Richins, 1992, 5-6).


"Because adornments serve to enhance one's appearance, it follows that heavy

users of adornments place greater importance on physical appearance than do light users.









Certain personality traits may be associated with a greater emphasis on appearance, and

thus on adornment use" (Bloch and Richins, 1992, 7). Remedies, camouflages and

enhancers can enhance the self-image of the consumer (Bloch and Richins, 1992). For

example, women may have an increase in self-esteem after using cosmetics if they are

prone to acne, because cosmetics can help camouflage or conceal the problem (Bloch and

Richins, 1992).

Cosmetics, and other adornment, use may also be increased short-term in the

context of situational self-image (Bloch and Richins, 1992). "A woman who typically

used few adornments may be motivated by a special party to significantly increase her

usage level" (Bloch and Richins, 1992, 8).

As previously mentioned, the ideal self-concept is another reason women may use

cosmetics. If there is a gap between the consumer's ideal self-concept and actual self-

concept, an individual will strive to achieve the ideal state (Zinkhan and Hong, 1991).

This may include more adornment use. "It is possible that consumers who perceive

themselves to be inherently unattractive will rely heavily on adornments as compensatory

tools ... In the context of attractiveness, adornment usage would be highest among

persons with strong desires to be attractive couples with a sense that adornments are part

of being attractive and self-doubts concerning current attractiveness" (Bloch and Richins,

1992, 8-9).

It is this way that adornment marketing may actually decrease consumer

satisfaction. "Adornment advertising often features models that approach some societal

consensus of perfection. For example, YSL cosmetics, whose target market is affluent

older women, uses 16-year-old models to demonstrate a completely wrinkle-free ideal in









its advertisements" (Bloch and Richins, 1992, 11). This study suggests that repeated

exposure to extremely attractive models in advertising and other mediums may influence

consumers' perceptions of what constitutes an acceptable physical appearance (Bloch and

Richins, 1992).

In a study entitled "Physical Attractiveness and Personality Among American

College Students," Cash and Smith found that more attractive women have a tendency to

infer that their own appearance, rather than other enduring personal assets, causes males'

overtures (Cash and Smith, 1982, 189). "Physical attractiveness per se affects

perceptions of mental health by both peers and professionals" (Cash and Smith, 1982,

184).

Types of Spokespeople

The current study will use of mix of familiar celebrities and unrecognized models.

To fully understand the subjects' responses to both types of endorsers, we must first

review the literature surrounding different types of endorsement.

A study conducted by Friedman and Friedman divided endorsers into three types:

the celebrity, the professional (or recognized) expert and the typical consumer (Friedman

and Freidman, 1979). This study used vacuum cleaner, cookies and costume jewelry ads

to test the effectiveness of the different types of endorsers for each of the products.

Results of the study found costume jewelry yielded the most positive response when

paired with the celebrity endorser, vacuum cleaner with expert and cookies with the

typical consumer (Friedman and Friedman, 1979). "If brand-name and advertisement

recall are most desirable, advertisers should use a celebrity. If, on the other hand,

believability of the endorsement, overall attitude toward the advertised product, and









initial intent to purchase the advertised product are desired, the type of endorser should

be considered more carefully" (Friedman and Friedman, 1979).

According to "Product Matchup Key to Effective Star Presentations," Stars will

shine brightest as advertising endorsers if adpeople take care to match their personalities

with products and copy" (Forkhan, 1980, 42). In the study, McCollum/Speilman & Co.

collected data from hundreds of celebrity commercial tests over a span of 12 years

(Forkhan, 1980). Results of the study suggest that veteran actors and athletes scored the

highest while younger actors preformed very poorly. Comedians also emerged as "quite

risky endorsers" (Forkhan, 1980, 42). "The main advice M/S/C execs offered was to

decide [first] on what you're going to say about a product and then find the

personality to fit it" (Forkhan, 1980, 42). Although there are exceptions, M/S/C believes

that non-entertainment personalities (ranging from ex-astronauts to corporate executives),

have a limited appeal and effectiveness (Forkhan, 1980).

Celebrity Endorsers

For an attractiveness-related product, use of a physically attractive spokesperson

celebrity (Tom Selleck) was observed to significantly enhance spokesperson credibility

and attitude toward an ad, relative to use of a physically unattractive celebrity (Telly

Savalas) (Kamins, 1990). Kamins used 89 graduate students from a major west-coast

university to study advertiser believability and credibility, spokesperson believability and

credibility, expectancy-value brand attitude, attitude toward the ad and purchaser

intention (Kamins, 1990). Results of the study implied an interaction effect between

celebrity attractiveness and product type, suggesting that for the product which is

attractiveness related (i.e. luxury car), the attractive celebrity outperformed the









unattractive celebrity, and for the product which was unrelated to attractiveness (i.e.

home computer), celebrity attractiveness had no significant impact (Kamins, 1990).

Conformity of identification of a celebrity could foster an attractiveness effect

similar to arousal altering information processing in advertisements (Kahle and Homer,

1985). "Sometimes an attractive model may lure readers into an advertisement, in effect

increasing the ad's involvement by transforming it into a source of information about that

adaptive topic, sexuality" (Kahle and Homer, 1985, 959). The study also found that the

extent to which the model exudes sexuality, and thus arousal, has a catalytic effect on

information processing (Kahle and Homer, 1985).

The celebrity endorser can be defined as "any individual who enjoys public

recognition and who uses this recognition on behalf of a consumer good by appearing

with it in an advertisement" (McCracken, 1989, 310). This research suggests that the

effectiveness of celebrity endorsers stems from cultural meanings that surround that

rather than psychological meanings, as suggested by the source credibility and source

attractiveness models (McCracken, 1989). "The effectiveness of the endorser depends, in

part, upon the meanings he or she brings to the endorsement process... Distinctions of

status, class, gender, and age, as well as personality and lifestyle type, are represented in

the pool of available celebrities ." (McCracken, 1989, 312).

The Beauty Match Up Hypothesis and the Six Types of Beauty

According to "The Beauty Match-Up Hypothesis: Congruence Between Types of

Beauty and Product Images in Advertising," certain beauty ideals are more appropriate

when paired with specific products rather than others (Solomon, Ashmore and Longo,

1992). "The Beauty Match-Up Hypothesis suggests that people have implicit theories of

beauty that influence responses to models in advertising" (Solomon, Ashmore and









Longo, 1992, 24). According to this study, an implicit theory of beauty is a hypothetical

construct that compromises beliefs about various types of good looks, including what

physical and other features define each type, and how the types are related one to another

and inferences about what personal qualities (i.e. traits and lifestyles) go with each type

(Solomon, Ashmore and Longo, 1992).

This study suggests that attractive people vary in exactly how they are attractive

(Solomon, Ashmore and Longo, 1992). The Beauty Match-Up Hypothesis attempts to

divide attractive female models in to categories of beauty and match up each type of

beauty with an appropriate product. "A model whose type of beauty and associated

image matched the product with which it is paired will provide a coherent message,

which, if consistent with the consumers' desired self-image, may enhance acceptance of

the advertisement" (Solomon, Ashmore and Longo, 1992, 24).

To divide photographs of attractive models into categories of beauty, Solomon,

Ashmore and Longo elicited the help of fashion and beauty editors. "These cultural

gatekeepers are instrumental in framing standards of beauty by virtue of the models they

choose (over literally thousands of other aspirants) to adorn their pages" (Solomon,

Ashmore and Longo, 1992, 24).

Solomon further explained the idea of cultural, or imagery gatekeepers in an article

entitled "Building Up and Breaking Down". Solomon believes that these gatekeepers

"are pivotal in determining the eventual market success or failure of many symbolic

products" (Solomon, 1988, 339). Much like casting a part, gatekeepers such as

publishers, journal editors and retail buyers determine the future path of symbolic









vehicles (Solomon, 1988). In this case, we may assume that the symbolic products are

models and the products they represent.

In Solomon, Ashmore and Longo's study, the participants were given a set of

photographs of models employed by major agencies and asked to sort the models' photos

based on similarity of looks (Solomon, Ashmore and Longo, 1992). "The interviews

were transcribed, and terms were chosen that appeared to be common across informants

and represented a range of probable subtypes" (Solomon, Ashmore and Longo, 1992, 26).

The descriptors were: Sensual, Cute, Exotic, Girl-Next-Door, Feminine, Sex-Kitten,

Trendy and Classic Beauty (Solomon, Ashmore and Longo, 1992). See Figure 2-4 for

photographs pf the Prototypes of Beauty Dimensions from Solomon, Ashmore and

Longo's study.

According to the study, the types of beauty may be described as follows:

SClassic Beauty, as perfect physical, especially facial, features
> Cute, as child-like physical features and/or attire
SSex-Kitten and Sensual both are sexual looks, but the former is more overt and
youthful Girl-Next-Door, denoting a natural, unmade-up appearance and simple attire
SExotic, non-Caucasian; Feminine, a soft and/or romantic look
STrendy, an offbeat look, perhaps flawed or asymmetrical, in contrast to a Classic
Beauty type (Solomon, Ashmore and Longo, 1992, 25).











CLASSIC BEAUTYFEMININE
I


CUTE


GImL NEXT DOOR


TRENDY


Figure 2-1: Prototypes of Beauty Dimensions Elicited from Fashion Editors

Then participants were asked to rate the congruence between each model's look

and specific perfumes and magazines. For each perfume and magazine, subjects were

asked to indicate on a three-point scale whether she would cast that model in an

advertisement for that brand (Solomon, Ashmore and Longo, 1992).

Three of the perfumes showed a clear and strong match-up with one beauty type-

Chanel positively with Classic Beauty/Feminine, Poison negatively with Girl-Next-Door

and White Linen positively with Girl-Next-Door and negatively with Trendy (Solomon,

Ashmore and Longo, 1992). Additionally, the magazine Cosmopolitan matched up









closely with Sex-Kitten (Solomon, Ashmore and Longo, 1992). "These data suggest that

advertisers have successfully articulated a well-differentiated position for both the

magazine and the three perfume brands discussed" (Solomon, Ashmore and Longo, 1992,

31).

"Future work needs to explore the types of beauty and product match-ups

distinguished by audience members to whom advertising is targeted, and how the

associations of these decoders correspond with those obtained from the culture

gatekeepers, or encoders, examined here" (Solomon, Ashmore and Longo, 1992, 33).

Additionally, the magazine Cosmopolitan matched up closely with Sex Kitten (Solomon,

Ashmore and Longo, 1992). The present study will add to Solomon, Ashmore and

Longo's work by exploring college females' emotional responses to the beauty types.

Additionally, the present study will explore the subject's responses not to products such

as perfume or magazines, but to cosmetics brands as a whole.

Using AdSAM to Measure Emotional Response

To study the emotional responses of college females to models, we use AdSAM,

a non-verbal pictorial method of measuring emotional responses to communication

stimuli (Morris, Woo, Geason and Kim, 2002). AdSAM uses a database of 232

emotional adjectives such as love and fear "to gain insight and diagnose the relationships

among attitude, cognition, brand interest, and purchase intention" (Morris, Woo, Geason

and Kim, 2002, 8; Morris 1996).

SAM, or Self-Assessment Manikin, is used to measure the respondents' responses

to each item based on a nine-point scale for each of the three dimensions of emotion-

pleasure, arousal, and dominance, or PAD (Morris, Woo and Cho, 2003).




















00 0o 000 00





000 0000 00

Figure 2-2: Example of the Self Assessment Manikin Used in AdSAM Testing. Row
one represents pleasure, row two represents arousal and row three represents
dominance.

"The Self-Assessment Manikin visually assesses each PAD dimension with a

graphic character arrayed along a continuous nine-point scale. The first row of figures is

the pleasure scale, which ranges from a smiling, happy face to a frowning, unhappy face.

The second row is the arousal scale, which ranges from extremely calm with eyes closed

to extremely excited with eyes open and elevated eyebrows. The third row, the

dominance dimension, represents changes in control with changes in the size of SAM:

from a large figure indicating maximum control in the situation to a tiny figure which

indicates being under control" (Morris and Pai, 1997, 186, personal communication with

Morris). See figure 2-1.

AdSAM is thought to be the best way to measure emotional responses because it

has proven to reliably and accurately assess human emotions (McMullen and Morris,








18



2004). "SAM may be used to evaluate feelings or other promotional tools or for the


brands itself' (Morris, 1995, 67).


AdSAM, Perceptual Map,


-rA

ADSAI


ictorlous
happy cheerful
kind


polite thankful warm stimulated

rela> ed bold
m iture

childlike

provocativE
serene wholeso ie
modo.

te pted
a( aggressive
L.- nor chalant

Caloof
a) anxious
Quietly indignant

unemotional cy ical startled
--------- --------- ---------s~~b ke p tiu a ---------------------
bored sus vicious
blase disbelieving
irrta ed
displeased eaiful
w ary
disgusted angry
glo my disappoint, d troubled

insecure
te rrlfied
decei ed
sad
reject d crushed

Aro jsal








Figure 2-3: Example of AdSAM Scores Graphed on a Scale of Pleasure and Arousal.

Respondents are asked to choose the manikin in each of the three rows

(representing the three dimensions of emotion, PAD) that best represents how they feel.

Results can be translated into a PAD score for each item tested which can then be

graphed on a scale of pleasure and arousal (Morris, 1995). See figures 2-2 and 2-3.

"The PAD ratings may be used to evaluate the advertiser's success in reaching the

desired levels of response or goals or may be compared to other ad scores" (Morris, 1995,

65-66).




High Pleasure High Pleasure
Low Arousal High Arousal




Low Pleasure Low Pleasure
Low Arousal High Arousal



Figure 2-4: Pleasure and Arousal Scale Used to Graph AdSAM Scores.

"Emotional response is a powerful predictor of intention and brand attitude, and

given the diagnostic capabilities that are missing in other measures of affect (Aad), it is a

valuable tool for strategic planning, message testing and brand tracking" (Morris, Woo

and Cho, 2003, 30).

In previous research, AdSAM has been used to test emotional responses cross-

culturally because it requires little or no verbal communication. For example, AdSAM

was recently used to test the reliability and validity of the Internet as a cross-cultural









platform of data gathering for marketing communications. Although AdSAM will not

necessarily be used as a cross-cultural measure in the current study, it will be beneficial

to use because much of the bias associated with verbal methods of measurement will be

eliminated (Morris, Woo and Cho, 2003). "A problem inherent in verbal measures of

emotional response is the lack of universally accepted adjectives. It is difficult to design

an instrument that contains words that share the same meaning when translated from

language to language" (Morris and Pai, 1997, 186). Yet, the non-verbal measure, SAM,

has been shown to be a reliable method for measuring the three dimensions of affect-

pleasure, dominance and arousal (Morris and Pai, 1997).

SAM is also an appropriate measure for the current study because the respondents'

"mental activity prompted by the emotional cues in commercials occurs very rapidly and

often subconsciously, making it difficult for people to verbally report their responses"

(Morris and Waine, 2004, 160). AdSAM's nine-point scale will make it easy for

respondents to accurately respond to each item (Morris and Pai 1997, personal

communication with Morris).

Need for Present Research

Although a great deal of research exists addressing women in advertising,

attractiveness in advertising, emotional response to advertising, the use of spokespeople

in advertising, and persuasion in advertising, very little research exists concerning use of

different types of beauty in advertising and the affect of using one type over another onto

a brand. The present study attempts to continue the research of Solomon, Ashmore, and

Longo and is the next step in bridging the gap in attractiveness research in advertising so

that we may have a better understanding of how women, particularly women in college,

feel about the models they encounter in advertising.









Research Questions

The previous study matched the beauty types, negatively and positively, with

products including magazines and perfumes. The current study attempts to go one step

by measuring respondents' emotional responses to these types so that they may be tested

with tested with brand names in future research. In addition, the current study has

chosen the respondents group of college females, rather than cultural gatekeepers, to

attempt to understand one of the possible target audiences of cosmetics brands

companies.

Conclusion

Using the research and knowledge of the preceding studies, the following

prediction is made concerning the outcome of the current study:

Hypothesis:


The subjects' categorization of the models will be consistent with the six

dimensions of beauty as determined in the Solomon, Ashmore, and Longo study (1992).

The current study also attempts to answer the following questions:

SWhat are the strongest and weakest examples for each of the six dimensions of
beauty?
SWhat will the emotional responses of college females be to the models showing the
different types of beauty?














CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY

Solomon, Ashmore, and Longo's Beauty Match-Up Hypothesis used fashion

experts and editors to divide numerous black-and-white photographs of women into

categories, or dimensions, of beauty. The all-women subjects used by Solomon,

Ashmore, and Longo in their study were asked to describe why the women were

categorized as such and the subjects, although interviewed separately, agreed on many

accounts in their description (1992). It is suspected that the same physical traits used by

subjects to categorize the photographs in 1992 will be used by subjects in 2004, despite

the difference in subject groups (this study uses college students rather than fashion

experts and editors). Therefore, the primary purpose of this study is to determine if these

models will be divided into the same categories. Thus the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis:

The subjects' categorization of the models will be consistent with the six

dimensions of beauty as determined in the Solomon, Ashmore, and Longo study (1992).

Research Design and Stimuli

The photographs for the current study were gathered from numerous fashion

magazines such as Vogue, Cosmopolitan, Cosmopolitan Style, In Style, and Allure no

older than one year. They were chosen according to the beauty dimension criteria set

forth by Solomon, Ashmore, and Longo as explained in the literature review (1992). Just

as with the Beauty Match-Up study done by Solomon, Ashmore and Longo, photographs

additionally abided by the following:









Only above-the-waist or full-body shots
Sno visible product logos or brand names
Sthe models are pictured alone in the photo (without other people or animals)
Sno pictures deviate markedly from the modal size
no color photographs, only clothed models and only photographs of sufficiently high
quality (26).


In this study, AdSAM was used to measure the emotional responses of the

participants so that we may better understand how the subjects feel about the models.

AdSAM uses a graphic character (SAM, Self-Assessment Manikin), representing

pleasure, dominance, and arousal, to measure the emotional reactions of individuals

(Morris, 1995). In the current study, arousal refers to the degree to which respondents

have strong feelings towards the models, not necessarily in a sexual manner (i.e. disgust).

Pleasure refers to the degree to which respondents enjoyed or likes the appearance of the

models.

AdSAM is non-verbal, completely visual, accurate, and effective in assessing

motivation, consistency in feelings, and level of empowerment in addition to identifying

emotional drivers of perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors (Morris, Woo, and Cho, 2003;

Morris, 1995). To use AdSAM, subjects simply choose the graphic character (SAM) in

each row that best identifies how she feels (Morris, Woo, and Cho, 2003). AdSAM

emotional response scores can then be used to create perceptual maps, where the results

are scatter-plotted to be analyzed for consistency and similarity (Morris, 1995).

Subjects and Questionnaires

The participants in this study were a convenience sample taken from classes in the

College of Journalism and Communications at the University of Florida. Only females

were allowed to participate. A total of 258 participated in the study. Subjects were

awarded with extra credit for participation in the study.









There were a total of six versions of the questionnaires. Instructions were read to

the participants by the principal investigator and were also be included at the top of each

section of the packet for reference. The informed consent document was attached to the

front of each packet and a third party collected the separated informed consent forms

from the participants upon completion so that the principal investigator would not know

the names of the participants. Table 3-1 shows the demographics of the respondents.

Test One

Test one subjects were given packets containing models' photographs and space

below to mark responses using a five-point Likert scale, ranging from "completely agree"

to "completely disagree" to rate each photograph on each of the six pre-established

dimensions of beauty (Solomon, Ashmore, Longo, 1992). Subjects were asked to

evaluate the model as pictured (ignoring anything else they may know about the model)

(Solomon, Ashmore, and Longo, 1992). To eliminate bias, there were three different

versions of the questionnaire, each version containing a different set of models.

Test Two

Test two subjects were given the same packets of models' photographs as the first.

This time, the subjects will be using AdSAM to give their emotional responses to each

of the photographs. AdSAM uses a scale of pleasure, dominance and arousal to

determine emotional responses to the stimuli without introducing verbal bias into the

experiment. As with test one, there were three different versions of the questionnaire,

each version containing a different set of models.

Version one in this test had the same set of models as version one in the first test.

The same goes for versions two in both tests and versions three. Each version had 14

models. The version one tests consisted of photographs cfl, cl, gl, sel, ski, tl, cf2, c2,









g2, se2, sk2, t2, cf3, and c3. Version two tests consisted of g3, se3, sk3, t3, cf4, c4, g4,

se4, sk4, t4, cf5, c5, g5, and se5. Version three tests consisted of sk5, t5, cf6, c6, g6, se6,

sk6, t6, cf7, c7, g7, se7, sk7, and t7. Models were presented to respondents in the

questionnaires in the orders above.

To randomize the questionnaires, first they were put in to piles based on test type

and version. Second, the test one versions were pulled from their piles in a random order

and placed into one combined pile for test one. The same was done for test two. This

way, respondents were less likely to have the version, thus the same set of models, as

someone sitting next to them was.














CHAPTER 4
RESULTS

R1: What are the Strongest and Weakest Examples for Each of the Six Types of
Beauty?

First, a basic frequency analysis for each of the 42 models was conducted to

determine the strongest and weakest examples of each type of beauty based on the

respondents' evaluation of each model on a 5-point Likert scale. Because only the first

test required respondents to evaluate each model based on type of beauty, N=131, each of

the three versions of test one contained 14 models, so each model was evaluated by

between 43 and 46 respondents.

Tables 4-1 and 4-2 show the best and worst (respectively) examples for each of the

six pre-determined dimensions of beauty based on the results of test one. In order to

avoid analysis of small groups, "completely agree" and "agree" responses were combined

into one category while "disagree" and "completely disagree" responses were combined

into another. Table 4-3 shows a grid containing the photographs of each model

corresponding to their numbers in the sets of photographs.

Notice that the worst examples for Cute, Trendy, Classic/Feminine, and Girl-Next-

Door were the same photograph-t7. Similarly, the worst examples for Sex Kitten and

Sensual Exotic were photograph c2. Again, Sensual and Exotic are grouped opposite of

Girl-Next-Door, Cute, and Classic/Feminine. This shows that the determinants

developed by Solomon, Ashmore, and Longo exist, but are not pure.









Table 4-1: Best examples of beauty types according to agree versus disagree respondent
ratings.
Beauty Type Photograph N Percentage that Mean
Number Agreed

Cute c6 43 97.7% 1.6047

Trendy g5 46 91.3% 1.6087

Classic/Feminine c6 43 97.7% 1.6279

Sex Kitten sk6 43 93% 1.7209

Girl-Next-Door c7 43 100% 1.6744

Sensual/Exotic sel 44 86.4% 1.7955


Table 4-2: Worst examples of beauty types according to agree versus disagree respondent
ratings.
Beauty Type Photograph N Percentage that Mean
Number Disagreed

Cute t7 43 65.1% 3.6047

Trendy t7 43 53.5% 3.2558

Classic/Feminine t7 43 58.1% 3.4419

Sex Kitten c2 44 72.7% 3.8636

Girl-Next-Door t7 43 86% 3.8372

Sensual/Exotic c2 44 81.8% 4.0000







Table 4-3: A grid of the photographs of each model corresponding to their numbers in the


OF


I


I r


'-\


,a
8
9ii c









R2: How Many Types of Beauty are Present in the Data?

It is not clear how Solomon, Ashmore, and Longo combined beauty types in their

study so in order to find pure beauty types in the current study, a factor analysis for each

model was conducted. This determined how many types of beauty were present in the

models' photographs, according to the respondents. All but two (se5 and cf4) of the

factor analyses results were significant.

The Varimax Rotated Component Matrixes from the factor analyses revealed that

several variables repeatedly correlated with the factors-Sex Kitten and Sensual/Exotic

were the variables that appeared most together in a component. Second, the variables

Classic/Feminine, Cute, and Girl-Next-Door appeared together, usually opposite to the

component in which Sex Kitten and Sensual/Exotic belonged to. Trendy appeared

equally with both sets of variables. Ambiguous variables were not included in the table

because they did not clearly belong to one component or another (cross-loaded). Thus,

the variable Trendy is not included in the table because it did not clearly fit with any

combination of variables. Table 4-4 shows the factor loadings for each models that

determined the two new pure beauty types-Sex Kitten and Sensual/Exotic, renamed

"Sexual/Sensual" and Girl-Next-Door, Cute, and Classic/Feminine, renamed "Young

Feminine."











Table 4-4: Varimax Rotated Component Matrix factor
models


loadings for each of the 42


Model N P Question F1 F2 F3
cfl 43 .001 Trendy .443 .309
Classic/
Feminine .832 .006
Sex Kitten .169 .766
Girl-Next-
Door .649 -.435
Sensual!
Exotic -.019 .771
Cute .612 .376
cl 44 .005 Trendy .356 .180
Classic/
feminine .719 -.122
Sex Kitten -.082 -.773
Girl-Next-
Door .764 -.155
Sensual!
Exotic -.098 .801
Cute .692 .498
gl 44 .000 Trendy .595 .397
Classic/
Feminine .458 .728
Sex Kitten .858 -.033
Girl-Next-
Door -.413 .656
Sensual!
Exotic .844 -.121
Cute -.009 .576
sel 44 .000 Trendy .674 .199
Classic/
Feminine .633 .428
Sex Kitten .124 .691
Girl-Next-
Door .801 -.215
Sensual/
Exotic .003 .868
Cute .846 .114
ski 44 .000 Trendy .724 .169
Classic/
Feminine .719 .372
Sex Kitten .859 -.133
Girl-Next-
Door .021 .868
Sensual!
Exotic .857 -.067
Cute .064 .872











Table 4-4. Continued
Model N P Question F1 F2 F3
tl 44 .000 Trendy .635 .259
Classic/
Feminine .730 .144
Sex Kitten .753 -.113
Girl-Next-
Door -.209 .794
Sensual/
Exotic .771 -.377
Cute .270 .789
cf2 44 .000 Trendy .758 .284
Classic/
Feminine .636 .245
Sex Kitten .073 .875
Girl-Next-
Door .725 -.132
Sensual/
Exotic .085 .909
Cute .780 .003
c2 44 .000 Trendy .386 .469
Classic/
Feminine .696 .240
Sex Kitten -.077 .867
Girl-Next-
Door .864 -.149
Sensual/
Exotic -.110 .900
Cute .885 -.171
g2 44 .000 Trendy .550 .533
Classic/
Feminine .794 .222
Sex Kitten -.006 .916
Girl-Next-
Door .881 -.170
Sensual/
Exotic -.012 .826
Cute .811 -.010
se2 44 .000 Trendy .594 .375
Classic/
Feminine .280 .767
Sex Kitten .881 .042
Girl-Next-
Door -.175 .711
Sensual/
Exotic .927 -.106
Cute .103 .878











Table 4-4. Continued
Model N P Question F1 F2 F3
sk2 44 .000 Trendy .591 .291
Classic/
Feminine .737 .011
Sex Kitten .040 .924
Girl-Next-
Door .561 -.310
Sensual/
Exotic .025 .904
Cute .862 .054
t2 44 .000 Trendy .043 .871
Classic/
Feminine .766 .319
Sex Kitten .702 .259
Girl-Next-
Door .878 -.009
Sensual/
Exotic .312 .753
Cute .820 .149
cf3 44 .000 Trendy .686 .284
Classic/
Feminine .285 .779
Sex Kitten .928 .083
Girl-Next-
Door .102 .822
Sensual/
Exotic .886 .006
Cute -.012 .812
c3 44 .000 Trendy .572 .067
Classic/
Feminine .733 .179
Sex Kitten .076 .871
Girl-Next-
Door .778 -.212
Sensual/
Exotic .094 .900
Cute .647 .214
g3 46 .000 Trendy .581 .337
Classic/
Feminine .604 .537
Sex Kitten .692 -.414
Girl-Next-
Door -.094 .744
Sensual/
Exotic .820 .048
Cute .215 .802











Table 4-4. Continued
Model N P Question F1 F2 F3
se3 46 .000 Trendy .134 -.456
Classic/
Feminine .647 .019
Sex Kitten .702 -.198
Girl-Next-
Door .082 .864
Sensual/
Exotic .818 -.292
Cute .699 .370
sk3 46 .000 Trendy .567 .438
Classic/
Feminine .485 .690
Sex Kitten .857 .060
Girl-Next-
Door -.119 .791
Sensual/
Exotic .830 .023
Cute .191 .853
t3 46 .000 Trendy .147 .508
Classic/
Feminine .663 .326
Sex Kitten -.127 .842
Girl-Next-
Door .808 -.231
Sensual/
Exotic .004 .770
Cute .829 .046
cf4 46 .272 Trendy .403 .555 .420
Classic/
Feminine -.081 .836 -.129
Sex Kitten .768 -.403 .037
Girl-Next-
Door .085 -.185 .690
Sensual/
Exotic .827 .230 .009
Cute -.045 .117 .746
c4 46 .000 Trendy .762 .002
Classic/
Feminine .788 .095
Sex Kitten .010 .914
Girl-Next-
Door .753 .056
Sensual/
Exotic .082 .914
Cute .628 .004











Table 4-4. Continued
Model N P Question F1 F2 F3
g4 46 .000 Trendy .704 .180
Classic/
Feminine .347 .750
Sex Kitten .877 .136
Girl-Next-
Door -.109 .817
Sensual/
Exotic .860 .042
Cute .249 .868
se4 46 .000 Trendy .697 .316
Classic/
Feminine .653 .305
Sex Kitten .784 -.017
Girl-Next-
Door .166 .773
Sensual/
Exotic .839 -.148
Cute -.032 .828
sk4 45 .003 Trendy .687 .032
Classic/
Feminine .721 .033
Sex Kitten .495 .333
Girl-Next-
Door -.129 .852
Sensual/
Exotic .823 .093
Cute .345 .633
t4 46 .001 Trendy .217 .430
Classic/
Feminine .656 .371
Sex Kitten -.101 .824
Girl-Next-
Door .832 -.084
Sensual/
Exotic .176 .774
Cute .787 .166
cf5 46 .000 Trendy .708 .439
Classic/
Feminine .689 -.012
Sex Kitten .053 .899
Girl-Next-
Door .691 .006
Sensual/
Exotic .023 .830
Cute .760 .022











Table 4-4. Continued
Model N P Question F1 F2 F3
c5 46 .000 Trendy .037 .768
Classic/
Feminine .866 .142
Sex Kitten -.059 .877
Girl-Next-
Door .922 -.007
Sensual/
Exotic .224 .645
Cute .887 .087
g5 46 .000 Trendy .773
Classic/
Feminine .831
Sex Kitten .698
Girl-Next-
Door .671
Sensual/
Exotic .770
Cute .818
se5 46 .524 Trendy -.018 .833 .202
Classic/
Feminine .152 .646 -.588
Sex Kitten .075 .156 .834
Girl-Next-
Door .720 .074 -.004
Sensual/
Exotic -.666 .345 .149
Cute .613 .277 .292
sk5 43 .001 Trendy .807 .026
Classic/
Feminine .490 .533
Sex Kitten .686 .104
Girl-Next-
Door .137 .690
Sensual/
Exotic .720 .210
Cute .024 .821
t5 43 .000 Trendy .799 .228 -.236
Classic/
Feminine .145 .875 .092
Sex Kitten .676 -.081 .585
Girl-Next-
Door -.187 .268 .865
Sensual/
Exotic .792 -.010 -.019
Cute -.019 .855 .127











Table 4-4. Continued
Model N P Question F1 F2 F3
cf6 43 .000 Trendy .720 .344
Classic/
Feminine .856 .138
Sex Kitten -.006 .726
Girl-Next-
Door .657 -.309
Sensual/
Exotic .118 .879
Cute .831 .032
c6 43 .000 Trendy .562 .274
Classic/
Feminine .722 .267
Sex Kitten .109 .936
Girl-Next-
Door .743 -.159
Sensual/
Exotic .026 .931
Cute .852 -.020
g6 43 .000 Trendy .706 .179
Classic/
Feminine .748 .264
Sex Kitten .268 .775
Girl-Next-
Door .809 -.208
Sensual/
Exotic .007 .880
Cute .644 .237
se6 43 .000 Trendy .606 .273
Classic/
Feminine .121 .796
Sex Kitten .797 -.187
Girl-Next-
Door -.014 .887
Sensual/
Exotic .845 .196
Cute .483 .539
sk6 43 .000 Trendy .620 .460
Classic/
Feminine .093 .828
Sex Kitten .920 .168
Girl-Next-
Door .172 .859
Sensual/
Exotic .867 .114
Cute .455 .627











Table 4-4. Continued
Model N P Question F1 F2 F3
t6 43 .000 Trendy .816 .283
Classic/
Feminine .268 .752
Sex Kitten .776 .080
Girl-Next-
Door .028 .742
Sensual/
Exotic .878 .114
Cute .172 .858
cf7 43 .000 Trendy .525 .412
Classic/
Feminine .765 .300
Sex Kitten .095 .874
Girl-Next-
Door .858 -.119
Sensual!
Exotic .135 .907
Cute .763 .161
c7 43 .000 Trendy -.080 .713
Classic/
Feminine .851 .112
Sex Kitten .124 .837
Girl-Next-
Door .897 .011
Sensual/
Exotic .200 .868
Cute .885 .091
g7 43 .000 Trendy .743 .186
Classic/
Feminine .431 .684
Sex Kitten .867 -.031
Girl-Next-
Door -.212 .815
Sensual/
Exotic .807 -.146
Cute .006 .885
se7 43 .000 Trendy .660 .505
Classic/
Feminine .661 .415
Sex Kitten .863 .041
Girl-Next-
Door -.044 .860
Sensual!
Exotic .859 -.021
Cute .229 .780










Table 4-4. Continued
Model N P Question F1 F2 F3
sk7 43 .000 Trendy .573 .530
Classic/
Feminine .779 .282
Sex Kitten .549 .225
Girl-Next-
Door .142 .781
Sensual/
Exotic .884 -.043
Cute .141 .823
t7 43 .000 Trendy .564 .038
Classic/
Feminine .810 .066
Sex Kitten -.055 .921
Girl-Next-
Door .627 .324
Sensual/
Exotic .366 .629
Cute .901 .131

The variables Sensual/Exotic and Sex Kitten were combined into one type of

beauty (renamed Sensual/Sexual) based on the results of the factor analyses. Although

occurring less frequently than the Sensual/Sexual combination, the factor analyses also

showed that the variables Cute, Girl-Next-Door, and Classic/Feminine should also be

combined into one type (named Young/Feminine).

R3: Which are the Strongest, Weakest, and Middle Examples for Each of the New
Types of Beauty?

Now that the number of beauty types present in the research has been determined

using factor analysis, it is important to conduct a General Linear Model Repeated

Measures test. This will determine the strongest and weakest models for the two types.

Strong, weak, and middle examples were chosen for each of the two types of

beauty based on their estimated marginal means. Table 4-5 shows the model that is the

strongest example for each type, the weakest example of each type, and the model closest

to the grand mean for each type. The grand means were found by calculating the overall









mean for each of the two types of beauty. The table clearly shows that the opposite of

Sensual/Sexual is Young Feminine. The Repeated Measures Analysis also showed

significant differences in the respondents' evaluations to the two new types of beauty in

addition to significant differences between strong, weak, and middle examples of models.

Table 4-5: Strongest, weakest, and middle model examples for Sensual/Sexual and
Young Feminine.


SENSUAL/SEXUAL
(SE + SK)


Mean Score


Photograph


YOUNG FEMININE
(CF + C + G)


Mean Score


Photograph


Strongest 1.721 1.636
Lowest mean
score.


SK2 Cl




Middle 2.825 2.525 -
Score closest to
the grand mean
score. (Grand Mean (Grand Mean
for SS = 2.825) G6 for YF = 2.525) SK4






Weakest 3.930 3.628
Highest mean
score.

T7
C2










R4: What are the Emotional Responses of College Women to Models?

In order to examine the emotional responses of the subjects to the photographs of

the models, we used AdSAM as described in the Literature Review and Methodology

sections of this study. Table 4-6 shows the Pleasure, Arousal, and Dominance scores for

the Strong, Weak, and Middle scoring models for the new types of beauty.

Table 4-6: Pleasure, Arousal, and Dominance scores for the Strong, Weak, and Middle
scoring models for Sensual/Sexual and Young Feminine.

Group Beauty Emotional Mean Std. 95% Confidence Interval
Type Response Error Lower Bound Upper Bound

Strong Young Pleasure 7.564 .266 7.037 8.091
Feminine Arousal 5.615 .305 5.011 6.220
Dominance 5.872 .334 5.210 6.534
Sensual/ Pleasure 4.103 .265 3.579 4.627
Sexual Arousal 3.615 .295 3.032 4.199
Dominance 4.769 .333 4.111 5.428
Middle Young Pleasure 4.976 .257 4.468 5.484
Feminine Arousal 4.762 .294 4.179 5.344
Dominance 5.357 .322 4.719 5.995
Sensual/ Pleasure 5.810 .255 5.305 6.315
Sexual Arousal 4.452 .284 3.890 5.015
Dominance 5.690 .321 5.056 6.325
Weak Young Pleasure 4.077 .266 3.550 4.604
Feminine Arousal 2.795 .305 2.190 3.399
Dominance 6.513 .334 5.851 7.175
Sensual/ Pleasure 5.410 .265 4.886 5.934
Sexual Arousal 3.692 .295 3.109 4.276
Dominance 5.769 .333 5.111 6.428
p=.000

In the table, we see equal pleasure and dominance scores for Young Feminine.

Arousal scores varied from 5.615 (strong model) to 2.795 (weak model). This means that

the respondents, who were all women, were not very aroused by the photos they

evaluated. The dominance score for the weakest model was significantly higher than the

other two scores. This shows us that dominance, in this case, may have not been a

positive reaction of the respondents. Pleasure scores in this table are higher, especially for

the strongest model.









The table shows much lower pleasure and arousal scores for Sensual/Sexual than

for Young Feminine. The pleasure scores for the weak and middle models were the

same, but significantly lower for the strongest model. This means that women did not

have pleasure in viewing these photographs. The scores for both beauty types showed

significant differences from one type to another.

Figures 4-1 and 4-2 show the means graphed on a scale of pleasure and arousal.

The mean for the strongest model for Young Feminine resides in the upper right-hand

quadrant (the most positive) near adjectives such as bold, warm, and mature. Meanwhile,

the mean for the strongest Sensual/Sexual model resides in the lower left-hand quadrant

(the most negative) near adjectives such as skeptical, blase, and unemotional.

This suggests that respondents felt much more positively about the Young

Feminine type than the Sensual/Sexual type. Notice that the weak example lays almost

exactly opposite to the strongest example for Young Feminine on the graph. Also notice

that the Sensual/ Sexual plots are close to the midpoint while the Young Feminine plots

reach from the upper right-hand quadrant to the lower-left. In Figure 4-3, we see the

strong, middle, and weak examples of models for both types of beauty graphed on a scale

of pleasure and arousal. Dominance is represented in the graphs by the size of the plot

marks.

AdSAM Prominent Emotional Index tables showed a strong difference between

the emotions that respondents felt towards C1, the strongest Young Feminine model, and

the middle and weakest feminine models (SK4 and T7, respectively). Table 4-11 shows

that 38 percent of respondents indicated that they felt appreciative, 26 percent felt

grateful, and 26 percent felt amused by the strongest Young Feminine model.



















-SAM
ADSAM


AdSA M Perceptual Map,


ictorlous
happy cheerful
kind


polte thankful warm stimulated
relaxed bold
m iture

childlike

provocativE
serene wholesol ie


tempted
( aggressive
L. nor chalant

aloof
a o anxious
Quietly indignant

un motional cy ical startled
skeptical
bored sus vicious
0 blase disbelieving
irrita ed
displeased ,u
w ary
disgusted angry
gloc my disappoint d troubled

inse cure
te rrlfied
decei ed
sad
rejected crushed

Aro jsal


Pleasure Arousal and Dominance scores
Young Feminine (cf+ c+ g)


SYoung Feminine (cf+ c+ g) C1 Strongest
SYoung Feminine (cf+ c+ g) SK4 Middle
SYoung Feminine (cf+ c+ g) T7 Weakest


Figure 4-1: Strong, middle, and weak examples of models for Young Feminine emotional
response means graphed on a scale or pleasure and arousal.

















ADSAM
ADSAM


AdSAM, Perceptual Map,


ictorlous
happy cheerful
kind

thankful warm
polite thankful warm stimulated

relaxed bold
m iture

childlike

provocativE
serene wholeso ie


tempted
Sm aggressive
L-. nor chalant

0 aloof
a, anxious
Quietly indignant

unemotional cy ical startled

bored sus iclous
blase disbelieving
irrita ed
displeased ,ul
w ary
disgusted angry
glo my disappoint d troubled

inse cure
te rrlfied
decei ed
sad
reject d crushed

Aro jsal


Pleasure Arousal and Dominance scores
Sexual/ Sensual (se + sk)


* Sexual/ Sensual (se + sk) SK2 Strongest
m Sexual/ Sensual (se + sk) G6 Middle
* Sexual/ Sensual (se + sk) C2 Weakest


Copyright @1996 2003 AdSAM Marketing, LLC All rights reserve


Figure 4-2: Strong, middle, and weak examples of models for Sensual/Sexual emotional
response means graphed on a scale or pleasure and arousal.
















ASAM
ADSAM


AdSA M Perceptual Map


ictorlous
happy cheerful
kind

thankful warm
polite thankful warm stimulated

relaxed bold
m iture

childlike

provocativE
serene wholeso ie
mode-

tenpted
ssm
Sssm aggressive
L. nor chalant

alooff
( r anxious
Quietly indignant

un motional cy ical ;tartled


bored sus iclous
0 blase disbelieving
irrita ed
jispleased
w ary
disgusted angry
glo my disappoint d troubled

insecure
t_ rrlfied


sad
reject


crushec


deceked


Aro sal __
SYoung Feminine (cf+ c+ g) Cl Strongest
t Young Feminine (cf+ c+ g) SK4 Middle
Pleasure, Arousal and Dominance scores Young Feminine (cf+ c+ g) T7 Weakest
Sexual/ Sensual (se + sk) SK2 Strongest
ssm Sexual/ Sensual (se + sk) G6 Middle
Sexual/ Sensual (se + sk) C2 Weakest


Copyright @1996 2003 AdSAM Marketing, LLC All rights reserved


Figure 4-3: Strong, middle, and weak examples of models for Sensual/Sexual and Young
Feminine emotional response means graphed on a scale or pleasure and
arousal.









For the strongest and weakest Young Feminine models, respondents indicated that they

felt unimpressed (14 percent, 58 percent), unconcerned (19 percent, 56 percent),

uninterested (19 percent, 51 percent), and nonchalant (26 percent, 56 percent).

AdSAM Prominent Emotional Index tables showed a strong difference between

the emotions that respondents felt towards C1, the strongest Young Feminine model, and

the middle and weakest feminine models (SK4 and T7, respectively). Table 4-11 shows

that 38 percent of respondents indicated that they felt appreciative, 26 percent felt

grateful, and 26 percent felt amused by the strongest Young Feminine model. For the

strongest and weakest Young Feminine models, respondents indicated that they felt

unimpressed (14 percent, 58 percent), unconcerned (19 percent, 56 percent), uninterested

(19 percent, 51 percent), and nonchalant (26 percent, 56 percent).

Respondents indicated that they felt uninterested, unconcerned, unimpressed, and

nonchalant towards the models. The adjectives for the middle model, G6, were

somewhat more positive than those for the other two models, including soft hearted,

sensitive, and logical. Table 4-12 shows the AdSAM Prominent Emotional Index table

for the strongest Sensual/Sexual model, SK2.

Overall, the adjectives listed for the Sensual/Sexual models were much more

negative then those listed for the Young Feminine Models. This reaffirms that

respondents had more positive emotional responses to the models in the Young Feminine

category than the Sensual/Sexual category.










Table 4-11: AdSAM Prominent Emotional Index table showing respondents' feeling
towards the strongest Young Feminine model, Cl.
AdSAM Prominent Emotion Index,
Young Feminine (cf+ c+ g) Cl Strongest


Adjective Percent of Mentions
appreciative 38%
grateful 26%
amused 26%
protected 23%
soft hearted (t) 23%
impressed 21%
cooperative 21%
awed 21%
surprised 18%
joyful 15%


Table 4-12: AdSAM Prominent Emotional Index table showing respondents' feeling
towards the strongest Sensual/Sexual model, SK2.
AdSAM Prominent Emotion Index,
Sexual/ Sensual (se + sk) SK2
Strongest


Adjective Percent of Mentions
uninterested 28%
unconcerned 28%
unimpressed 23%
indifferent 23%
nonchalant 23%
listless 21%
sluggish 18%
bored 18%
unexcited 18%
meek 15%


Hypothesis Testing

Hypothesis: The subjects' categorization of the models will be consistent with the

six dimensions of beauty as determined in the Solomon, Ashmore, and Longo study

(1992).

Although prior research suggested that the girl-next door types were similar to the

cute types, it did not combine them into one group. Nor did it combine sensual/exotic






47


with sex kitten (though they were also suggested as being very similar). This research

goes one step further than the previous study by using a factor analysis to combine the

types of beauty into two opposite dimensions-sensual/sexual and young feminine.














CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION

Conclusions

Hypothesis and Research Question One


H: The subjects' categorization of the models will be consistent with the six

dimensions of beauty as determined in the Solomon, Ashmore, and Longo study (1992).

R1: What are the strongest and weakest examples for each of the six types of beauty?

After conducting Basic Frequency analyses, it became obvious that the magazine

editors that Solomon, Ashmore, and Longo used to conduct their study viewed models

differently than the college females who responded to the current study. This difference

caused overlap in the frequency tests and helped us to produce two pure types of

beauty-Sensual/Sexual and Young Feminine. The knowledge of this difference in

response may be useful to companies because it shows a clear difference in opinions from

the women who choose the models for fashion magazines and the women who may view

them.

Research Question Two

R2: How many types of beauty are present in the data?

In this study we found two contrasting types of beauty-Sensual/Sexual and Young

Feminine. This continues the precedence set forth by Solomon, Ashmore, and Longo

(1992) by continuing to combine types. These findings supports the previous study in the









sense that the frequency analyses showed that the dimensions existed, yet disputed it

because the dimensions were not pure.

Research Question Three

R3: Which are the strongest, weakest, and middle examples for each of the new types of

beauty?

The strongest, weakest, and middle examples for each type of beauty clearly

showed that the opposite of Young Feminine is Sensual/Sexual. This neither disputes nor

supports previous research because previous research did not test the relationships

between these two types. This knowledge may be beneficial to companies because it will

help them to create advertisements that feature precisely the image they wish to portray to

women.

Research Question Four

R4: What are the emotional responses of college women to models?

Respondents indicated that they felt more pleased in viewing the strongest Young

Feminine model, C1, and had equal arousal and dominance for the strongest and middle

models. Surprisingly, the weakest Young Feminine photo, T7, showed more dominance.

As pleasure and arousal scores decreased in the photographs, dominance increased. The

highest dominance score in the weakest Young Feminine model may be justified by the

respondents' feelings of domination over that model, as in feeling better or better looking

than she looks.

The respondents consistently indicated Sensual/Sexual little arousal coupled with

slightly increasing pleasure. The pleasure score for the strongest Sensual/Sexual model

was significantly lower than the pleasure score for the strongest young feminine model.

These findings suggest, surprisingly, that although the respondents felt a model resided









strongly in the Sensual/Sexual category, they had very little or no pleasure or arousal in

viewing her. Also, these models aroused respondents very little. This implies a clear

difference between viewed attractiveness and sexiness in the respondents.

It is the opinion of the researcher that the definition of sexy may have been altered

over time by the media through sexually provocative images named by them to be sexy.

Over time, society, namely women, may have adopted the definition of sexy not to mean

attractive in a sexual way, but to mean overly sexual and not attractive. Others may argue

that the respondents may have scored the Sensual/Sexual images lower than the Young

Feminine models because they feel jealous of the model and unable to achieve to look

themselves. This idea may be discounted because the models chosen for the Young

Feminine category exhibited nearly the same body types as the Sensual/Sexual models

and, arguably, the same amount of beauty potential. The main differences between the

strongest Sensual/Sexual model and the strongest Young Feminine model are clothing,

position, and expression.

Through this research it is evident that many advertisers may have been mislead in

using more sexual models to attract women to their products. It may be a common

misconception that women may be attracted to a product if an overly sexual and

provocative model endorses it-that they may look at the model and somehow desire to

be like her and therefore purchase the product. While previous research suggests that a

women is more likely to purchase a product if she is unhappy with her own body and

desires to be more like the endorser, this study shows that the model should not be

Sensual/Sexual. Advertisers should, rather, be using models in the Young Feminine

category to appeal to women, as women showed more pleasure in viewing these models.









Through this, it can be assumed that women desire to be more like the Young Feminine

models, and in turn, will purchase the products they endorse more readily than they

would a product endorsed by a more overtly sexual model.

This Study's Possible Effects on the Industry

This research is the first step in an entirely new approach to advertising to women:

advertising to women using models women like and wish to be like. The results of this

study may be useful to companies (such as cosmetics and clothing) that wish to target

educated females. Through this research, we learned that companies should be cautious

when choosing a model to represent a brand. Models who are photographed in sexy and

provocative ways may overwhelm consumers and consumers may transfer the negative

feelings they have toward the model's representation onto the brand. Companies who

wish to elicit feelings of boldness, triumph, energy, victory, protection, and appreciation

may want to use only models in the Young Feminine category to target college females.

Limitations

Although there were numerous significant findings in this study, there are some

limitations that need to be mentioned. First, the validity may be questioned because

respondents were a convenient sample taken from two classes taught with the same

professor in a large southeastern university (restricted by place and time). Second,

because the sample consisted of only students, the study was limited to an age range of

17 to 26. Third, the study may contain non-response error because some of the students

may have chosen not to answer some of the questions. Fourth, the photographs used may

have introduced some bias as some showed only the model's face, while others showed

what the model was wearing. Fifth, the characteristics listed by Solomon, Ashmore, and









Longo made it difficult for the researcher in this study to choose models who exemplified

the six types of beauty for the study accurately (1992).

Future Research

Future research should attempt to test the emotional responses of multiple

respondent groups to numerous combinations of brands paired with models in the two

beauty categories. It should further test models and brands that are trendy (as trendy did

not clearly fit into either type of beauty). Additionally, tests should be conducted to

determine whether models that are more clothed relegate a difference in emotional

response than models that are more scantily clad. Future research testing this should be

constant in using clothed, unclothed, or photographs only showing model's faces. Future

research should also use a sample not limited by age or education, and if possible, time

and place.















LIST OF REFERENCES


Baker, Michael J. and Gilbert A. Churchill, Jr. (1977), "The Impact of Physically
Attractive Models on Advertising Evaluations," Journal ofMarketing Research, 14
(November), 538-555.

Bertolissi, Susan, David L. Lind, and Arthur H. Perlini (1999)., "The effects of women's
age and physical appearance on attractiveness and social desirability ," Journal of
Social Psychology, 139 (3), 343-354.

Bloch, Peter H. and Marsha L. Richins (1992), "You Look 'Mahvelous': The Pursuit of
Beauty and the Marketing Concept," Psychology Marketing (January), 3-15.

Bower, Amanda B. (2001), "Highly Attractive Models in Advertising and the Women
Who Loathe Them: The Implications of Negative Affect for Spokesperson
Effectiveness," Journal ofAdvertising, 3 (Fall), 51-63.

Bower, Amanda B. and Stacy Landreth (2001), "Is Beauty Best? Highly Versus
Normally Attractive Models in Advertising," Journal ofAdvertising, 1 (Spring), 1-
12.

Cash, Thomas F. and Everett Smith (1982), "Physical Attractiveness and Personalit
Among American College Students," Journal ofPsychology, 111, 183-191.

Cunningham, Michael R. (1981), "Sociobiology as a Supplementary Paradigm for Social
Psychology Research," in Review ofPersonality and Social Psychology, Vol.2, ed.
Ladd Wheeler, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 69-106.

Festinger, Leon, "A Theory of Social Comparison," 118-138. Photocopy obtained from
Dr. J Robyn Goodman, Assistant Professor, Journalism and Communications,
University of Florida.

Forkan, J. (1980), "Product Matchup Key to Effective Star Presentations," Advertising
Age, 51 (October 6), 42.

Friedman, Hershey H. and Linda Friedman (1979), "Endorser Effectiveness by Product
Type," Journal of Advertising Research, 19 (October), 63-71.

Hanson, Cynthia, and Ronald P. Hill. (1994), "The beauty myth and female consumers:
the controversial role of advertising," Journal of Consumer Affairs, 28 (57), 10-23.









Joseph, W. Benoy (1982), "The Credibility of Physically Attractive Communicators: A
Review," Journal ofAdvertising, 11 (3), 15-24.

Kahle, Lynn R. and Pamela M. Homer (1985), "Physically Attractiveness of the Celebrity
Endorser: A Social Adaptation Perspective," Journal of Consumer Research, 11
(March), 954-961.

Kamins, Michael A. (1990), "An Investigation into the 'Match-Up' Hypothesis in
Celebrity Advertising: When Beauty May be Only Skin Deep," Journal of
Advertising, 19 (1), 4-13.

Martin, Mary C. and James W. Gentry (1997), "Stuck in the Model Trap: The Effects of
Beautiful Models in Ads of Female Pre-Adolescents and Adolescents," Journal of
Advertising, 2 (Summer), 19-33

Martin, Mary C. and Patricia F. Kennedy (1993), "Advertising and Social Comparison:
Consequences for Female Preadolescents and Adolescents," Psychology &
Marketing, 6 (November/December), 513-530.

McCracken, Grant (1989), "Who is the Celebrity Endorser? Cultural Foundations of the
Endorsement Process," Journal of Consumer Research, 16 (December), 310-321.

McGuire, William J. (1985), "Attitudes and Attitude Change," in The Handbook of Social
Psychology, eds. Gardner Lindzey and Elliott Aronson, vol 2, 3rd ed., New York:
Random House, 233-346.

Morris, Jon D. (1995), "Observations: SAM: The Self-Assessment Manikin. An Efficient
Cross-Cultural Measurement of Emotional Response," Journal ofAdvertising
Research, (November/December), 63-68.

Morris, Jon D., Chongmoo Woo, and Chang-Hoan Cho (2003), "Internet Measures of
Advertising Effects: A Global Issue," Journal of Current Issues and Research in
Advertising, vol. 25 (1), 25-43.

Morris, Jon D., Chongmoo Woo, James A. Geason, and Jooyoung Kim (2002), "The
Power of Affect: Predicting Intention," Journal ofAdvertising Research, (June), 7-
17.

Morris, Jon D. and Fei-wen Pai (1997), "Fit For the Global Future," Where East Meets
West, 132-205. Photocopy obtained from Dr. Jon Morris, Professor, Journalism and
Communications, University of Florida.

Parker, Dorthy Davis (2000), "Thinking Critically about the Message of the Media:
Female Images and Roles," Dissertation Abstracts International Section A:
Humanities and Social Sciences (April), 3261.

Patzer, Gordon L. (1985), The PhysicalAttractiveness Phenomena, New York: Plenum.









Richins, Marsha L. (1991), "Social Comparison and the Idealized Images of
Advertising," Journal of Consumer Research, 18 (June), 71-83.

Sarwer, David B., Leanne Magee, and Vicki Clark (2004), "Physical Appearance and
Cosmetic Medical Treatments: Physiological and Socio-cultural Influences,"
Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology, 2, 29-30.

Solomon, Michael R. (1989), "Building Up and Breaking Down: The Impact of Cultural
Sorting on Symbolic Consumption," in Research in Consumer Behavior, Vol. 3.,
ed. Elizabeth C. Hirschman, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 325-351.

Solomon., Michael R., Ashmore, Richard D., and Laura C. Longo (1992), "The beauty
Match-up Hypothesis: Congruence Between Types of Beauty and Product Images
in Advertising," Journal of Advertising (21), 23-34.

Stroud, Ruth (1990), "At Up to $250 a Day, They're Show Narrators, Not Models,"
Advertising Age, January 22, S-2.

Ward, Monique L., Benjamin Gorvine, and Adena Cytron-Walker (2002), "Would That
Really Happen? Adolescents' Perceptions of Sexual Relationships According to
Prime-time Television," Sexual Teens, Sexual Media: Investigating Media's
Influence on Adolescent Sexuality, (xiv), 308.

Wells, Linda (1989), "Face Value," New York Times Magazine, Part 2 (February 26), 46
(3).

Zinkhan, George M. and Jae W. Hong (1991), "Self Concept and Advertising
Effectiveness: A Conceptual Model of Congruency, Conspicuousness, and
Response Mode," in eds. Rebecca H. Holman and Michael R. Solomon, Advances
in Consumer Research, vol. 18, Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research,
348-354.















BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Jennifer Huckeba was born on April 5, 1981, and was raised in Orlando, Florida.

She graduated from William R. Boone High School in 1999 and continued her education

at the University of Florida with a major in public relations. Upon graduation in 2003,

Jennifer continued her academic career at the University of Florida with a Master of

Advertising. After graduation, Jennifer plans to pursue a career in public relations and

advertising in North Florida.