Public Opinion Toward Advertising Scale

Abstract

The Public Opinion Toward Advertising Scale (POTA), developed by Richard W. Pollay and Banwari Mittal in 1993, is an established psychometric instrument designed to assess consumer perceptions, evaluations, and ideological beliefs regarding advertising as an institution. Moving beyond unidimensional measures of general advertising sentiment, the POTA operationalizes a dual-level, multidimensional model that separates beliefs about the personal utility of advertising from beliefs about its broader societal and macroeconomic consequences. The instrument contains 27 items evaluated on a 7-point Likert scale, comprising seven foundational belief subscales organized under two higher-order dimensions, alongside two global criterion measures: overall attitude toward advertising in general (Aag) and behavioral support for advertising regulation or restriction.

The first higher-order dimension, Personal Use Beliefs, encompasses three subscales: Product Information (PI; 3 items), Social Role and Image (SRI; 3 items), and Hedonic/Pleasure (HP; 3 items). The second higher-order dimension, Social Effect Beliefs, comprises four subscales: Good for the Economy (GE; 3 items), Materialism (MAT; 4 items), Value Corruption (VC; 3 items), and Falsity/No-Sense (FNS; 3 items). Global evaluative outcomes are captured via Attitude Toward Advertising in General (3 items) and Need for Regulation (2 items). Psychometric evaluations demonstrate robust internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha values typically ranging from .71 to .84 across subscales), confirmed factorial stability across diverse demographic cohorts, and pronounced predictive validity: personal use factors primarily explain affective affinity and individual engagement with advertisements, whereas social effect factors—most notably perceived value corruption and informational falsity—serve as the principal drivers of public criticism and demands for legislative intervention.

Keywords

Public Opinion Toward Advertising, POTA, advertising beliefs, consumer criticism, institutional advertising perception, Personal Use beliefs, Social Effect beliefs, advertising regulation, consumer skepticism, psychometrics, Pollay and Mittal

Authors

The Public Opinion Toward Advertising Scale was conceptualized, developed, and empirically validated by:

• Richard W. Pollay, Ph.D. — Professor Emeritus of Marketing and Curator of the History of Advertising Archives at the Sauder School of Business, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Dr. Pollay is widely recognized for his extensive scholarship on the cultural, social, and psychological impacts of modern advertising, as well as historical analyses of marketing practices.
• Banwari Mittal, Ph.D. — Professor Emeritus of Marketing at the Haile College of Business, Northern Kentucky University, Highland Heights, Kentucky, United States. Dr. Mittal’s research encompasses consumer psychology, value-in-use perspectives, customer relationship management, and structural models of consumer attitudes.

Purpose

Advertising occupies a ubiquitous presence in modern market economies, functioning simultaneously as an informational mechanism, an economic catalyst, an entertainment medium, and a cultural force. Despite its prevalence, consumer sentiment toward advertising has historically been characterized by ambivalence, skepticism, and outright antagonism. Early measurement traditions frequently treated public opinion toward advertising as a simplistic, bipolar affective construct (e.g., favorable versus unfavorable). Such monolithic approaches obscured the underlying cognitive complexity of consumer evaluations: individuals frequently find commercial messages entertaining or practically useful for product discovery while simultaneously condemning the broader commercial establishment for promoting superficial values, encouraging debt-driven consumption, or misleading vulnerable populations.

Pollay and Mittal (1993) developed the POTA to address this theoretical and methodological gap. The primary objective of the instrument is to provide a granular, factorially distinct diagnostic tool capable of disaggregating the specific cognitive drivers of consumer approval, ambivalence, and active criticism. By establishing a taxonomic separation between personal utility (micro-level evaluations) and societal impacts (macro-level evaluations), the scale enables researchers and policymakers to identify which specific cognitive beliefs predict institutional attitudes versus which beliefs precipitate political activism and regulatory support.

The practical applications of the POTA are manifold across academic research, marketing strategy, and public policy:

• Public Policy and Legislative Analysis: Regulatory bodies (such as the Federal Trade Commission) and consumer advocacy organizations utilize the POTA to gauge public tolerance, monitor perceived deceptive practices, and evaluate the demand for statutory constraints on specific media channels or commercial appeals.
• Consumer Market Segmentation: Academic and commercial researchers employ the instrument to identify distinct consumer clusters based on cognitive belief profiles—such as “Enthusiasts” (high personal use, low perceived social harm), “Discontented Critics” (high perceived corruption and falsity), and “Pragmatists” (high perceived economic and informational utility balanced against high awareness of commercial bias).
• Cross-Cultural and Longitudinal Benchmarking: The scale serves as a standardized baseline for comparative cross-national research, assessing how institutional advertising attitudes evolve as developing economies transition toward advanced consumer capitalism, or how macro-cultural values (e.g., individualism versus collectivism) moderate tolerance toward commercial persuasion.
• Media Channel Evaluation: Scholars apply the POTA’s dimensional framework to evaluate consumer responses across emerging digital formats, contrasting traditional print and broadcast media with behavioral targeting, influencer sponsorships, and algorithmic recommendation feeds.

Psychological Construct

The POTA measures consumer mental models of advertising through a hierarchical framework. It establishes that institutional evaluation is not a monolithic perception, but rather a dual-faceted appraisal consisting of Personal Use Beliefs and Social Effect Beliefs, which together govern overall attitudes and regulatory inclinations.

1. Personal Use Beliefs (Micro-Level Evaluations)

Personal Use beliefs capture the instrumental and psychological utility that individual consumers derive from interacting with commercial communications in their daily lives. This domain comprises three distinct subscales:

• Product Information (PI; Items 1–3): Measures the cognitive belief that advertising operates as an efficient, reliable, and functional source of marketplace knowledge. This construct assesses whether consumers perceive advertising as an aid for locating local sales, comparing competitive product features, and keeping abreast of marketplace innovations. High scores indicate an appreciation for the search-cost-reducing capabilities of advertising.
• Social Role and Image (SRI; Items 4–6): Captures the belief that advertising provides symbolic social cues, lifestyle benchmarks, and reference-group norms. Grounded in social identity theory, this dimension evaluates whether consumers use commercial narratives to decipher what peers are consuming and to select goods that reinforce their desired self-concept and social positioning.
• Hedonic/Pleasure (HP; Items 7–9): Assesses the intrinsic aesthetic and entertainment value derived from commercial media. Independent of product utility, this construct reflects sensory pleasure, humor appreciation, and diversionary enjoyment generated by advertising execution, measuring the degree to which commercial content is experienced as engaging or entertaining.

2. Social Effect Beliefs (Macro-Level Evaluations)

Social Effect beliefs capture evaluations of how advertising impacts the aggregate socio-economic fabric, cultural norms, and collective well-being. This domain comprises four distinct subscales:

• Good for Economy (GE; Items 10–12): Reflects macroeconomic beliefs regarding the institutional role of advertising in stimulating aggregate consumer demand, fostering competitive product improvements, supporting employment, and elevating the national standard of living.
• Materialism (MAT; Items 13–16): Evaluates the perceived propensity of advertising to cultivate obsessive material desires, foster consumerist orientations, encourage the acquisition of non-essential luxury items, and drive individuals into competitive consumption spirals or debt.
• Value Corruption (VC; Items 17–19): Assesses ideological concerns regarding the erosion of traditional, familial, and spiritual values. This dimension measures beliefs that commercial messages glorify hedonism, exploit vulnerable groups (such as children and adolescents), and lower broader moral standards within society.
• Falsity/No-Sense (FNS; Items 20–22): Captures cognitive skepticism toward the veracity and intellectual integrity of advertising. It measures perceptions of deceptive claims, pervasive exaggerations, informational vacuums, and the feeling that promotional content insults consumer intelligence.

3. Global Institutional Outcomes

• Attitude Toward Advertising in General (Aag; Items 23–25): A global, affective-cognitive summary judgment reflecting whether advertising, in total, is deemed favorable, beneficial, and acceptable.
• Need for Regulation / Criticism (Items 26–27): Behavioral intentionality and policy support aimed at legally curtailing, censoring, or systematically restricting commercial messaging through government intervention.

Theoretical Framework

The conceptual architecture of the POTA integrates tenets from multiattribute attitude models, cognitive appraisal theory, and the sociology of institutional communication. Chief among its theoretical foundations is the Expectancy-Value Theory articulated by Martin Fishbein and Icek Ajzen (1975). Under the expectancy-value paradigm, an individual’s overall attitude toward an institutional object ($A_{object}$) represents a summative function of the salient beliefs ($b_i$) held regarding the object’s attributes, weighted by the subjective evaluative connotations ($e_i$) linked to those attributes:

A_object = ∑ (b_i × e_i)

Prior to Pollay and Mittal’s work, researchers often aggregated disparate beliefs into indiscriminate indices, neglecting the reality that beliefs operate at distinct systemic levels. Pollay and Mittal demonstrated that beliefs about advertising are cognitively segregated based on their target of impact: micro-level consequences (direct personal benefits accrued during consumption decision-making) versus macro-level consequences (indirect societal shifts occurring across the broader cultural matrix).

This dual-level conceptualization is underpinned by Attribution Theory and the Third-Person Effect (Davison, 1983). Consumers routinely perceive commercial communication through an asymmetric perceptual lens: they view themselves as intelligent, rational actors capable of filtering information, deriving entertainment, and resisting manipulative tactics (driving Personal Use valuations), while simultaneously viewing the broader public as gullible, impressionable, and susceptible to moral decay and materialistic obsessions (driving Social Effect criticisms).

Furthermore, the POTA incorporates institutional theory, positing that modern advertising is not merely an aggregation of individual promotional messages, but an enduring cultural institution on par with religion, formal education, or the press. Consequently, consumer evaluations reflect broader ideological stances regarding market capitalism, individual autonomy, and social welfare.

Validity

Empirical evaluations of the POTA substantiate its construct, convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity across diverse samples and geographic contexts.

Construct and Convergent Validity

In the original validation study involving 376 consumer respondents, Pollay and Mittal (1993) established construct validity through confirmatory factor analysis, demonstrating that items designated to reflect each subscale loaded significantly on their respective latent constructs (standardized parameter estimates typically exceeding .70, $p < .001$). Convergent validity was further corroborated by demonstrating substantial inter-correlations among the conceptually aligned personal utility subscales (PI, SRI, HP) and within the adverse societal subscales (MAT, VC, FNS). When compared against legacy instruments such as Bauer and Greyser’s (1968) foundational advertising indices and Gaski and Etzel’s (1986) Index of Consumer Sentiment Toward Marketing (ICSUM), the POTA subscales converged appropriately with parallel measures of market skepticism and consumer satisfaction.

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity among the seven primary belief constructs was confirmed via nested model comparisons. Constraining the correlation between any two latent belief factors to unity ($phi = 1.0$) resulted in a statistically significant deterioration in chi-square goodness-of-fit ($\Delta\chi^2 > 3.84, p < .05$), indicating that each of the seven dimensions represents a unique cognitive entity. Notably, discriminant validity was rigorously demonstrated between Value Corruption (VC) and Materialism (MAT): while correlated, empirical modeling confirmed that perceived promotion of consumer goods is cognitively distinct from the perceived destruction of ethical values.

Predictive and Criterion-Related Validity

The POTA exhibits strong predictive and criterion validity, resolving the empirical paradox of why individuals who actively use advertising simultaneously demand its restriction. Multiple regression and structural equation modeling (SEM) conducted by Pollay and Mittal (1993) revealed distinct structural trajectories:

• Predictors of Overall Attitude (Aag): Personal Use beliefs accounted for the dominant proportion of variance in general positive attitudes toward advertising ($R^2 = .48$). Specifically, Product Information ($eta = .32$) and Hedonic/Pleasure ($eta = .39$) emerged as the primary positive determinants of whether advertising is viewed favorably as a whole. Among the social dimensions, only Good for the Economy ($eta = .18$) contributed positively to Aag.
• Predictors of Regulatory Demand and Criticism: Conversely, when modeling public support for government regulation and institutional restriction, Personal Use factors yielded negligible explanatory power. Instead, Social Effect beliefs dominated the structural equation ($R^2 = .42$), with Value Corruption ($eta = .38$) and Falsity/No-Sense ($eta = .31$) emerging as the primary drivers of consumer criticism and regulatory demand.

Reliability

The reliability of the POTA has been demonstrated using indices of internal consistency, composite reliability, and temporal stability across a broad body of marketing literature.

Internal Consistency

In the seminal 1993 validation study, Cronbach’s alpha coefficients across the seven belief factors and the two outcome dimensions indicated good to excellent internal consistency:

• Product Information (PI): $lpha = .76$
• Social Role and Image (SRI): $lpha = .75$
• Hedonic/Pleasure (HP): $lpha = .74$
• Good for the Economy (GE): $lpha = .78$
• Materialism (MAT): $lpha = .71$
• Value Corruption (VC): $lpha = .77$
• Falsity/No-Sense (FNS): $lpha = .73$
• Attitude toward Advertising in General (Aag): $lpha = .82$
• Need for Regulation: $lpha = .75$

Subsequent international replications have supported these reliability metrics. Cross-cultural studies conducted in East Asia, Europe, and Latin America have consistently demonstrated composite reliability coefficients ($CR$) ranging between .72 and .86 for the latent belief constructs, affirming that the three-item and four-item subscales maintain adequate measurement precision despite their concise structure.

Test-Retest Stability

Test-retest reliability evaluations over intervals of two to four weeks have yielded stability coefficients ranging from $r = .74$ to $r = .86$, confirming that while attitudes toward specific promotional campaigns are volatile, institutional beliefs regarding the broad social and personal functioning of advertising represent stable cognitive orientations.

Factor Analysis

The factor structure of the POTA was established using a combination of exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).

Exploratory Factor Analysis

During the initial derivation phase, candidate pools of attitudinal items were subjected to principal axis factoring with both orthogonal (Varimax) and oblique (Promax) rotations. The empirical extraction cleanly replicated the hypothesized seven-factor structure. Items exhibited primary factor loadings exceeding .60 on their targeted latent constructs, with cross-loadings remaining below .25 across non-target factors, demonstrating clear factorial simple structure.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Model Fit

Pollay and Mittal (1993) validated the multi-tiered measurement model using maximum likelihood estimation in LISREL. The baseline seven-factor oblique model exhibited satisfactory goodness-of-fit indices:

• Chi-Square / Degrees of Freedom: $\chi^2 / df = 1.84$ ($p < .001$), well below the conservative threshold of 3.0.
• Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI): .91
• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): .93
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): .047 (90% CI: [.041, .054]), demonstrating close model fit.
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): .049

Second-order confirmatory modeling confirmed that the seven primary belief factors resolve into the two higher-order latent constructs: Personal Use (subsuming PI, SRI, and HP) and Social Effects (subsuming GE, MAT, VC, and FNS). Although the second-order model introduces slight parametric constraints, it retains acceptable fit ($ ext{CFI} = .91, ext{RMSEA} = .053$) and provides strong theoretical parsimony for structural path modeling.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Instrument Name: Public Opinion Toward Advertising Scale (POTA)
• Original Authors: Richard W. Pollay and Banwari Mittal (1993)
• Measurement Format: Self-administered paper-and-pencil or digital psychological survey
• Target Population: General consumer populations, adult media consumers, university cohorts, and market demographics
• Total Number of Items: 27 items
• Response Scale: 7-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Slightly Disagree, 4 = Neither Agree nor Disagree / Neutral, 5 = Slightly Agree, 6 = Agree, 7 = Strongly Agree)
• Subscale Breakdown:
  • Personal Use Beliefs:
    • Product Information (PI): Items 1, 2, 3
    • Social Role and Image (SRI): Items 4, 5, 6
    • Hedonic/Pleasure (HP): Items 7, 8, 9
  • Social Effect Beliefs:
    • Good for Economy (GE): Items 10, 11, 12
    • Materialism (MAT): Items 13, 14, 15, 16
    • Value Corruption (VC): Items 17, 18, 19
    • Falsity/No-Sense (FNS): Items 20, 21, 22
  • Overall Evaluative and Policy Outcomes:
    • Attitude toward Advertising in General (Aag): Items 23, 24, 25
    • Need for Regulation / Consumer Criticism: Items 26, 27
• Scoring Guidelines: All items are positively keyed toward the named subscale construct (e.g., higher scores on Falsity reflect higher perceptions of deceptiveness; higher scores on Product Information reflect greater perceived informational utility). Subscale scores are calculated by computing the unweighted arithmetic mean of the constituent items for each dimension. A general Personal Use index can be generated by averaging items 1–9, and a general Social Effect index (accounting for negative valence) can be generated through structural weighting or by analyzing the specific positive (GE) and negative (MAT, VC, FNS) subscales independently. No item inversion or reverse scoring is required when evaluating the subscales as distinct latent constructs.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Public Opinion Toward Advertising Scale was formally introduced and published in the July 1993 issue of the Journal of Marketing (Vol. 57, Iss. 3, pp. 99–114). The scale is accessible for academic, non-commercial research, pedagogical instruction, and scholarly investigations without royalty fees, provided appropriate academic citation is accorded to Pollay and Mittal (1993). Commercial applications, proprietary market research studies, or inclusion in commercial assessment batteries require adherence to intellectual property regulations and permissions administered through the American Marketing Association or Sage Publications (the current publishing steward of the Journal of Marketing).

References

• Andrews, J. C. (1989). The dimensionality of beliefs toward advertising in general. Journal of Advertising, 18(1), 26–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.1989.10673138
• Bauer, R. A., & Greyser, S. A. (1968). Advertising in America: The consumer view. Harvard University Graduate School of Business Administration.
• Davison, W. P. (1983). The third-person effect in communication. Public Opinion Quarterly, 47(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1086/268763
• Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Addison-Wesley.
• Gaski, J. F., & Etzel, M. J. (1986). The index of consumer sentiment toward marketing. Journal of Marketing, 50(3), 71–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224298605000306
• Mittal, B. (1994). Public assessment of TV advertising: Faint praise and harsh criticism. Journal of Advertising Research, 34(1), 35–53.
• Pollay, R. W. (1986). The distorted mirror: Reflections on the unintended consequences of advertising. Journal of Marketing, 50(2), 18–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224298605000202
• Pollay, R. W., & Mittal, B. (1993). Here’s the beef: Factors, determinants, and segments in consumer criticism of advertising. Journal of Marketing, 57(3), 99–114. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299305700307

Items of the Scale