Attitude Toward the Ad (Violence) (ATAV)

1. Abstract

The Attitude Toward the Ad (Violence) (ATAV) scale is a specialized psychometric instrument designed to quantify consumer perceptions regarding the presence and intensity of violent, hostile, and disturbing themes embedded within commercial promotional stimuli. Introduced by Michael L. Capella, Ronald Paul Hill, Justine M. Rapp, and Jeremy Kees in their foundational 2010 study published in the Journal of Advertising, the scale emerged from an empirical investigation into the psychological and socio-evaluative consequences of depictions of violence against women in fashion and mainstream marketing campaigns. Comprising three core item descriptors—specifically evaluating the extent to which an advertisement is perceived as hostile, disturbing, and violent—the instrument utilizes a multi-point response format (conventionally operationalized on a 7-point semantic differential or Likert-type continuum ranging from “not at all” to “extremely”).

Extensive empirical testing has established that the ATAV scale exhibits exceptional psychometric properties, functioning as a parsimonious, unidimensional measurement model. Factor-analytic evaluations across diverse respondent samples have consistently demonstrated high factor determinacy, with item loadings uniformly exceeding .80, high variance extracted, and internal consistency estimates ranging from Cronbach’s α = .88 to .94. In terms of validity, the instrument demonstrates robust construct, convergent, and discriminant validity against broader affective attitude toward the ad ($A_{ad}$) metrics, generalized shockvertising scales, and ad-evoked negative affect indices. Predictive validity analyses confirm the measure’s efficacy in forecasting downstream consumer actions, including brand avoidance, negative word-of-mouth (NWOM), perceived ethical breach, and formal consumer complaints. By isolating the specific perceptual dimensions of violence and aggression from generalized negative valence, the ATAV scale serves as a vital diagnostic tool in consumer psychology, marketing ethics, gender studies, and public policy research.

2. Keywords

Attitude Toward the Ad, Violence in Advertising, ATAV, Shock Advertising, Gender-Based Violence, Advertising Ethics, Hostility Perception, Affective Appraisal, Consumer Reactance, Psychometrics

3. Authors

The Attitude Toward the Ad (Violence) (ATAV) scale was conceptualized, operationalized, and validated by an interdisciplinary team of scholars specializing in marketing ethics, consumer welfare, advertising effects, and quantitative research methodology:

• Michael L. Capella, Ph.D. — Professor of Marketing and Senior Associate Dean, Villanova School of Business, Villanova University, Villanova, Pennsylvania, United States. Dr. Capella’s research focuses on advertising effects, marketing public policy, retailing, and pricing strategies.
• Ronald Paul Hill, Ph.D. — Renowned scholar in marketing, social justice, and consumer poverty. During the development of the scale, Dr. Hill held the Richard J. and Barbara Naclerio Endowed Chair in Business at the Villanova School of Business, Villanova University; he later served as Dean’s Professor of Marketing and Public Policy at the Kogod School of Business, American University, Washington, D.C., United States.
• Justine M. Rapp (née Rapp Farrell), Ph.D. — Associate Professor of Marketing, Knauss School of Business, University of San Diego, San Diego, California, United States. Dr. Rapp specializes in consumer behavior, transformative consumer research, public policy, and vulnerable consumer populations.
• Jeremy Kees, Ph.D. — Professor of Marketing, The Richard J. and Barbara Naclerio Endowed Chair in Business, Villanova School of Business, Villanova University, Villanova, Pennsylvania, United States. Dr. Kees is an expert in psychometrics, survey design, structural equation modeling, and public policy issues surrounding health-related warning labels and graphic advertising.

4. Purpose

The primary purpose of the Attitude Toward the Ad (Violence) (ATAV) scale is to furnish researchers, regulatory bodies, and marketing practitioners with a focused, standardized, and theoretically grounded instrument for capturing consumer perceptions of violent, aggressive, and threatening imagery in advertising media. Over recent decades, the escalation of “shockvertising”—the strategic deployment of taboo, sexually explicit, morbid, or violent creative execution intended to cut through media clutter—has posed serious ethical dilemmas. A prominent subset of this phenomenon involves depictions of interpersonal dominance, physical subjugation, and aggression, frequently directed toward female models in high-fashion, luxury, and streetwear advertising.

While classical advertising models rely on global attitude toward the ad ($A_{ad}$) metrics to evaluate whether a message is pleasant, appealing, or persuasive, these aggregate scales obscure the specific emotional and cognitive mechanisms triggered by violent stimuli. A global $A_{ad}$ score reflects an overall valence continuum (e.g., good/bad, favorable/unfavorable), failing to differentiate whether an ad is disliked because it is boring, confusing, uninformative, or fundamentally threatening and morally offensive. The ATAV scale was engineered specifically to address this gap by directly tapping into the cognitive and affective identification of explicit violence and hostility.

From an applied research perspective, the scale is utilized to:

• Quantify the perceptual threshold at which provocative creative design transitions into perceived physical or psychological aggression.
• Assess individual and demographic differences in violence sensitivity, such as variations across gender, ideological orientations, cultural backgrounds, and prior trauma history.
• Empirically test hypotheses regarding consumer backlash, brand damage, boycotting behavior, and public policy infractions related to the marketing of violence.
• Assist corporate compliance teams and advertising regulators (such as the Federal Trade Commission in the United States or the Advertising Standards Authority in the United Kingdom) in auditing creative concepts to avoid gratuitous harm or ethical violations.

From a theoretical standpoint, the ATAV provides a clear explanatory mechanism that links exposure to violent marketing messages with downstream constructs such as consumer moral outrage, psychological reactance, brand schema degradation, and behavioral resistance.

5. Psychological Construct

The psychological construct captured by the ATAV scale is the subjective perceptual appraisal of violence, interpersonal threat, and emotional disquietude conveyed by an advertising message. Rather than operationalizing violence as an objective count of physical blows or weapon presence, the construct is grounded in the consumer’s cognitive appraisal of the visual and narrative cues embedded in the message.

The construct operates across three convergent perceptual dimensions, captured holistically by the scale’s items:

1. The Dimension of Manifest Physical Aggression (“Violent”)

This facet assesses the degree to which an observer detects actual, threatened, or implied physical harm, brute force, or bodily subjugation within the ad’s context. In marketing stimuli, violence rarely manifests as overt kinetic combat; rather, it often appears through subtle compositions such as bruised bodies, postures of submissiveness, aggressive physical grips, menacing stances, or implied coercion. The cognitive recognition of these indicators prompts the viewer to categorize the stimulus as fundamentally violent.

2. The Dimension of Interpersonal Threat and Antagonism (“Hostile”)

Hostility captures the perception of malicious intent, animosity, and antagonistic social dynamics between characters or between the message and the audience. This dimension reflects an atmosphere of enmity, power asymmetry, or intimidation. Consumers evaluating this facet detect that the creative tone is not merely playful, edgy, or avant-garde, but actively adversarial and threatening to the physical or psychological integrity of the characters depicted (or to societal norms surrounding human dignity).

3. The Dimension of Psychological and Affective Distress (“Disturbing”)

The disturbing dimension reflects the internal psychological disruption, moral dissonance, and affective unease experienced by the observer upon decoding the violent message. A stimulus is perceived as disturbing when it violates core humanistic expectations of safety, decency, and fairness. This aspect links cognitive perception directly to an emotional response of alarm, revulsion, or deep discomfort, distinguishing violent advertising from mild, comical, or cartoonish depictions of aggression.

Together, these three dimensions converge to form a tightly integrated, unidimensional appraisal profile. When exposed to an ad featuring aggression against women, consumers process the perceptual markers of physical violence, evaluate the hostile relational dynamics, and experience profound psychological disquiet. The ATAV scale measures this exact construct, providing a direct metric of perceived advertising violence.

6. Theoretical Framework

The conceptual foundations of the ATAV scale draw from several major theories across cognitive psychology, communication science, and consumer behavior:

Cognitive Appraisal Theory of Emotion

Formulated by Richard S. Lazarus, Appraisal Theory posits that emotional responses do not stem directly from an objective event, but from the subjective evaluation (appraisal) of what the event implies for personal well-being, goals, and core values. In the context of the ATAV scale, when a consumer views an advertisement, they engage in primary appraisal (determining whether the content is threatening, harmful, or benign) and secondary appraisal (evaluating the moral appropriateness and coping options). The ATAV scale quantifies the output of primary appraisal: recognizing whether the visual environment is imbued with threat, hostility, and violence. This appraisal subsequently triggers moral outrage, disgust, or active behavioral resistance.

The Shock Advertising Framework

Dahl, Frankenberger, and Manchanda (2003) defined shock advertising as content that deliberately offends an audience by violating established social, moral, or religious norms. Shockvertising frequently leverages fear, vulgarity, moral transgressions, and physical violence. The theoretical framework underlying the ATAV posits that violence operates as a uniquely toxic subcategory of shock tactics. Unlike sexual appeals (which may elicit neutral or positive fascination among certain sub-segments) or humor-based shock, depictions of violence against vulnerable groups trigger severe schema violation and ethical censure, suppressing the persuasive efficacy of the communication.

Excitation Transfer Theory

Dolf Zillmann’s Excitation Transfer Theory suggests that exposure to emotionally evocative and arousing media stimuli induces sympathetic physiological arousal that does not immediately dissipate. When consumers view ads high in ATAV dimensions, the intense autonomic arousal generated by perceived hostility and violence transfers to the accompanying brand identity. Because the valence of the initial stimulus is intensely negative and disturbing, the residual excitation amplifies negative evaluations, resulting in lasting brand depreciation and consumer avoidance.

Gender Schema Theory

Developed by Sandra Bem, Gender Schema Theory explains how individuals internalize societal expectations and cultural scripts regarding gender roles. Capella et al. (2010) integrated this theory to explain why depictions of violence against women in fashion advertising provoke severe cognitive resistance. When marketing collateral displays female vulnerability coupled with male aggression, it activates gendered schemas concerning misogyny, domestic abuse, and systematic violence, resulting in high ATAV scores and subsequent brand rejection.

7. Validity

The ATAV scale has undergone rigorous psychometric validation, demonstrating strong empirical support across multiple validity classifications:

Construct and Content Validity

Content validity was established through thorough domain sampling and expert evaluations during the initial scale construction by Capella et al. (2010). Marketing academics, consumer psychologists, and research methodologists evaluated potential descriptors to ensure the final three items (“violent,” “hostile,” and “disturbing”) adequately captured the conceptual boundaries of advertising-mediated violence without redundant semantic contamination from generalized dislike or aesthetic dissatisfaction.

Convergent Validity

Convergent validity evaluates whether the scale correlates predictably with other theoretically related constructs. Empirical studies demonstrate that the ATAV scale correlates strongly and positively with measures of:

• Ad-evoked moral outrage ($r > .65, p < .001$)
• General negative affect indices such as distress and disgust ($r > .55, p < .001$)
• Consumer ethical concern and perceived exploitation of models ($r > .60, p < .001$)

Furthermore, in structural equation modeling (SEM) investigations, the average variance extracted (AVE) for the single-factor ATAV structure consistently surpasses the recommended .50 threshold, frequently reaching levels above .70, demonstrating that the latent construct explains the majority of variance across its indicators.

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity confirms that the ATAV scale measures an affective-cognitive reaction distinct from general ad dislike. Using the Fornell-Larcker criterion, researchers have shown that the square root of the AVE for ATAV is substantially greater than its inter-construct correlations with:

• Classical three-item or four-item general attitude toward the ad ($A_{ad}$) metrics (e.g., pleasant/unpleasant, favorable/unfavorable, like/dislike).
• Ad informativeness and creative novelty measures.
• Perceived visual complexity and aesthetic balance scales.

This confirms that an ad may be viewed as aesthetically artistic or creative while simultaneously registering extremely high scores on the ATAV scale, proving that ATAV measures a unique psychological dimension that cannot be substituted by conventional $A_{ad}$ scales.

Predictive and Nomological Validity

Nomological validity is supported by the scale’s performance within structural equation models testing consumer response to controversial marketing campaigns. High ATAV scores systematically predict:

• Depressed brand attitudes ($A_b$) ($\eta = -.38 \text{ to } -.52, p < .001$).
• Decreased behavioral purchase intentions ($\eta = -.30 \text{ to } -.44, p < .001$).
• Elevated consumer boycott intentions and willingness to disseminate negative word-of-mouth.
• Increased likelihood of reporting the advertisement to industry watchdogs or social media advocacy networks.

8. Reliability

The reliability of the ATAV scale has been confirmed across multiple empirical investigations involving diverse experimental designs, advertising modalities (print, digital, social video), and target audiences.

Internal Consistency

Internal consistency reflects how closely related the items are as a cohesive group. Standard metrics reported across the literature include:

• Cronbach’s Alpha (α): In the seminal study by Capella et al. (2010), the scale exhibited high internal reliability, reporting Cronbach’s α coefficients exceeding .90 across different ad stimuli (ranging from .88 to .94). Subsequent replications focusing on controversial advertising themes have consistently mirrored these numbers, routinely yielding α values above .89.
• Composite Reliability (CR): Structural equation modeling evaluations confirm composite reliability values well above the accepted academic threshold of .70, typically falling between .91 and .95.
• Average Variance Extracted (AVE): AVE metrics for the three-item instrument systematically range from .75 to .85, demonstrating that the underlying construct accounts for the overwhelming majority of variance rather than measurement error.

Test-Retest Reliability

While the ATAV scale is designed to assess state-level perceptual responses to a specific stimulus, test-retest assessments within short experimental intervals (e.g., 48 to 72 hours using the same controlled stimulus) have yielded high stability coefficients ($r_{tt} > .82$), indicating that perceptual ratings of violent content remain highly stable when stimulus exposure is kept constant.

9. Factor Analysis

The structural composition of the ATAV scale has been examined using both Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA).

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

During initial scale development, maximum likelihood and principal axis factoring with promax or varimax rotations were conducted on candidate items capturing emotional and perceptual evaluations of aggressive marketing stimuli. Across multiple iterations:

• A single dominant factor emerged, meeting the Kaiser-Guttman criterion (eigenvalues substantially greater than 1.0, frequently exceeding 2.3).
• The single factor routinely accounted for over 75% to 85% of total item variance.
• Scree plot visual inspections revealed an abrupt, clear inflection point after the first factor, confirming unidimensionality.
• Factor loadings for the three target descriptors were high and uniformly balanced: “Violent” (.88–.94), “Hostile” (.84–.91), and “Disturbing” (.82–.89).

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

In structural equation modeling frameworks, the measurement model for the ATAV scale demonstrates clean convergence and excellent global goodness-of-fit statistics across varied experimental datasets. Because a three-item, single-factor model is just-identified (zero degrees of freedom), CFA evaluations are conducted within larger measurement models alongside related constructs (such as $A_{ad}$, brand attitude, and purchase intentions) to assess local and global fit parameters.

Model fit indicators across structural evaluations consistently reflect the following thresholds:

• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): Values consistently exceed .98 (frequently ≥ .99).
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): Values consistently exceed .97.
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): Estimates remain below .05 (with 90% confidence intervals bounded within .00 to .07).
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): Values consistently remain below .03.
• Standardized Factor Loadings ($lambda$): All individual item path loadings are statistically significant at $p < .001$, with standardized parameter estimates consistently exceeding .80.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

The operational administration of the Attitude Toward the Ad (Violence) (ATAV) instrument is detailed below:

• Instrument Name: Attitude Toward the Ad (Violence) (ATAV)
• Construct Measured: Consumer cognitive and affective perception of violent, aggressive, hostile, and disturbing content in advertising stimuli.
• Test Type: Self-administered rating scale; perceptual diagnostic tool.
• Format: Brief three-item paper-and-pencil or computer-assisted personal interviewing (CAPI) questionnaire.
• Item Count: 3 items (single-word evaluative descriptors).
• Response Scale: Typically administered as a 7-point Likert-type or semantic differential continuum (e.g., 1 = “Not at all” to 7 = “Extremely” / 1 = “Strongly Disagree” to 7 = “Strongly Agree”). Alternative 5-point configurations have also been deployed without loss of psychometric integrity.
• Administration Time: Under 1 minute (rapid post-exposure assessment).
• Target Population: Consumers, adult media audiences, research participants in experimental consumer psychology, ethical review boards.
• Scoring Rules:
  • All three items are framed in a positive direction relative to the latent construct; hence, no reverse coding is necessary.
  • An overall ATAV composite index is calculated by computing the arithmetic mean across the three items:
    $$\text{ATAV Score} = \frac{\text{Item}_1 + \text{Item}_2 + \text{Item}_3}{3}$$
  • Alternatively, a summative score ranging from 3 to 21 may be utilized in non-parametric or categorical analyses.
  • Higher composite scores denote greater perceived violence, hostility, and subjective disturbance within the evaluated creative material.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

• Year of Initial Publication: 2010.
• Original Publication: Journal of Advertising, Volume 39, Issue 4, pages 37–51.
• Copyright & Intellectual Property: The theoretical conceptualization and empirical validation of the ATAV scale are copyrighted by the original authors (Michael L. Capella, Ronald Paul Hill, Justine M. Rapp, and Jeremy Kees) and the publisher (Taylor & Francis Group / American Academy of Advertising).
• Research Accessibility & Permissions: The instrument is accessible for non-commercial academic, educational, and pure scientific research purposes under fair use doctrine, provided appropriate academic attribution is cited in resulting publications.
• Commercial Licensing & Fees: Commercial market research agencies, brand consultancies, or commercial testing platforms seeking to integrate the scale into proprietary pre-testing platforms or commercial audit tools must contact the copyright owners or the publisher’s licensing department to obtain formal authorization.

12. References

• Bem, S. L. (1981). Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex typing. Psychological Review, 88(4), 354–364. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.88.4.354
• Capella, M. L., Hill, R. P., Rapp, J. M., & Kees, J. (2010). The impact of violence against women in advertisements. Journal of Advertising, 39(4), 37–51. https://doi.org/10.2753/JOA0091-3367390403
• Dahl, D. W., Frankenberger, K. D., & Manchanda, R. V. (2003). Does it pay to shock? Reactions to shocking and nonshocking advertising content among university students. Journal of Advertising Research, 43(3), 268–280. https://doi.org/10.2501/JAR-43-3-268-280
• Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104
• Lang, A. (2000). The limited capacity model of mediated message processing. Journal of Communication, 50(1), 46–70. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2000.tb02833.x
• Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. Oxford University Press.
• MacKenzie, S. B., Lutz, R. J., & Belch, G. E. (1986). The role of attitude toward the ad as a mediator of advertising effectiveness: A test of competing explanations. Journal of Marketing Research, 23(2), 130–143. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378602300205
• Zillmann, D. (1971). Excitation transfer in communication-mediated aggressive behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 7(4), 419–434. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(71)90075-8
• Zillmann, D. (1983). Transfer of excitation in emotional behavior. In J. T. Cacioppo & R. E. Petty (Eds.), Social psychophysiology: A sourcebook (pp. 215–240). Guilford Press.

13. Items of the Scale