We’ve seen movie ads that boldly assert “Best movie ever!” “Captivating!” “… a real gem!” But do our impressions of movies change if those assertions are attributed to high or low credible sources? Past research would suggest they do.Jeongjin Oh, a PR graduate student in the Grady College of Journalism & Mass Communication, attempted to answer that question in her thesis investigation directed by Dr. Bryan Reber. According to Oh, a critic can be seen as an endorser and his/her review as a movie endorsement. The background for her question was centered in third-party endorsement literature and source credibility.
To test her question, Oh showed three groups of students (about 50 per group) a different movie ad with either high-credibility sources (e.g., NY Times), low credibility sources (e.g, National Enquirer), or no source—just quotes. The ad promoted “Mr. Jones,” a fictitious movie. Counter to her expectations, Oh found no differences between the three groups regarding attitudes about the movie and intentions to see it.
Should we throw 50 years of research about source credibility and persuasion out the window based on Oh's results? Probably not. We should consider that young people, like the type tested in this study, are more likely to rely on word-of-mouth when making their movie decisions than the opinion of a typically-much-older movie critic. Overall, the findings do suggest that quotes are more important than who provides them.
Jeongjin Oh (2008). The Impact of Movie Critics’ Quotes Used in Advertisements. Masters Thesis. Grady College, University of Georgia.
