Surprisingly, research on name discrimination in advertising is still at an early stage, although all flanking fields have experienced deep and broad research. Discrimination can be evoked through the use of names in advertising. In this article, the reader will learn which factors, such as stereotyping or serving stereotypes, have an influence on the perception in certain name bearers. This work makes a contribution to understanding and working through the problem in more detail. The use of names in advertising, which classify certain names and thus people into groups, may not be suitable if discrimination is to be excluded. The factors and individual interdependencies were only examined in this work in Germany and may therefore be different in other countries and cultures.
Although discrimination is a ubiquitous phenomenon, there is a research gap related to name discrimination in advertising. No company or society can or should ignore the problems associated with discrimination. Discrimination happens when people are treated negatively because of a certain affiliation. This paper addresses the question of whether people can be discriminated against by advertising because of their name and identifies influences through the results of an analysis by means of the „thinking aloud” method.
Theoretical backgrounds
In order to explain discrimination, first rises a reference to the social sciences and the so-called (sociological) inequality research. References show that there are social inequalities (differences) that exist either between individuals and are defined by desired physical or, for example, supposed mental abilities, or by society itself, which acts as a cause in and of itself and only highlights inequalities through the respective order (Hormel and Scherr 2016, p. 299-300). Thereby, inequality is an important term to mention here when speaking of inequality in social and societal esteem as well as the following unequal living conditions or opportunities. It is also important to distinguish between inequality and equality of opportunities. Inequality is defined as people finding advantages or disadvantages in society or lifestyle based on presumed circumstances (money, influence, family, access, privileges, etc.) negatively or positively and not based on peoples own efforts, whereas equality of opportunity is achieved when these circumstances have no influence (Atkinson 2016, p. 18). It should be emphasized here that the equality requirement as a counterpart to inequality and the prohibition of discrimination cannot be separated with human rights and inevitably belongs to it (Fritzsche 2017, p. 4). That justifies, according to Koenig (2005), that people fundamentally possess individual rights of freedom and autonomy through their humanity, which may not be restricted. In addition, this fact also means that there is a human rights protection against discrimination, which results in a prohibition of discrimination (Fritzsche 2017, p. 15). Discrimination, in turn, takes place when members of a group are treated negatively, perceive this treatment as illegitimate, and is based solely on the reason of group membership (Mummendey and Otten 2001). This aforementioned phenomenon can also occur in the context of names. According to Kasof (1993), names can connote, for example, race, gender, age, perceived social class, and other information about social categories, and according to Zhao and Biernat (2017), discrimination can thus occur through names because certain social categories (negative or positive) are associated with them. In simpler terms, discrimination may occur because a person has a certain name that others associate with things in their surroundings, either of good or bad association. The fact that people experience discrimination through their name in diverse countries and regions can be scientifically proven in sufficient quantity (Waburg and Herwartz-Emden 2012, Ahmad 2020, Kaiser 2010, Bonefeld and Dickhäuser 2018). Additionally, it should be noted that discrimination can lead to physical and psychological suffering and effects (Carter et al. 2017, Scherr and Breit 2020). Furthermore, (structural) name discrimination can lead to exclusion and be a problem for those affected from childhood to old age and present itself through social, occupational and educational disadvantages (Dieckmann 2017). Although legislators (e.g., Slovakia and Germany) can present or proclaim guidelines and prohibitions regarding discrimination and there is also an EU directive on equal treatment, the advertising industry commits itself e.g. via EASA (EASA, 2021) to much so-called self-regulation. The advantages and disadvantages of self-regulation in advertising are complex (Junkert 2015). Advertising (ethical as well as moral) moves in the field of tension between consumption and regulation and can refer to both external and self-regulation and is completed by self-imposed codes of ethics of the advertising industry (Haas, Herczeg and Karsay 2015). Nevertheless, self-regulation and codes of conduct are not the same in European countries (Kopp 2016) and are often carried out immanently (advertisers check advertisers) (Dackweiler 2017). Conversely, these findings mean that complaining about advertising is possible both legally and out of court, but it is associated with many burdens and work steps. In concrete terms and by way of example, the German Advertising Council does not explicitly prohibit name discrimination, but it does prohibit the portrayal of a person in a discriminatory or derogatory manner (Werberat 2021).
Although research in the field of discrimination is very advanced and comprehensive results are also available specifically on the topic of name discrimination (Gerhards and Tuppat 2021, Bauer et al. 2021) there is still a research gap. This research gap relates to name discrimination in advertising. The figures and evaluations of the Complaints Statistics 2020 (Werberat 2021) from the „German Advertising Council“ show that discrimination plays a significant role in advertising. Discrimination against the sexes is in first place, and discrimination against groups of people is in second place. Nevertheless, no case of name discrimination can be found from this data, and also online search via e.g., Google Scholar does not yield any results when searching for articles on the topic of „name discrimination in advertising“. Of course, this circumstance does not mean that there is or was no advertising that used names and stereotypes.
Stereotypes represent (cognitive) knowledge about „the character, attributes, and behavior of members of a particular group“ (Hilton and Von Hippel 1996). In the context of group membership, this knowledge is then enriched with feelings by the „mere categorization effect“ (Tajfel 1981) and the stereotypes presented are classified into certain categories. If there is no identification with these categories, this is rejected by the group and enriched by a corresponding behavioral component, resulting in prejudice. Since group membership or identification with a certain group is a key component of discrimination (Branscombe and Wann 1994, Ellemers, Van Rijswijk, Roefs and Simons 1997), the creation or presentation of a stereotype alone can lead to a division of groups and thus to discrimination. Here, it is irrelevant whether the portrayed stereotype is true or untrue. Individuals or groups who correspond to the stereotype will inevitably behave in the same way according to the „self-fulfilling prophecy“, detached from an internal (group/person) or external (society) trigger (Leidig 2007, p. 99-109).
Since the goal of marketing communication is to persuade, ergo persuasive communication, (Schönbach 2009) a reduction of complexity must take place, for which stereotypes are suitable. It should be emphasized here that stereotypes can be both positive and negative (cf. Allport 1954), although in marketing, a potential risk of misinterpretation or reactance against content can be caused or consolidated (Lamont, Swift and Abrams 2015, p. 180-193). Considering the fact that advertising tries to manipulate, is disingenuous in doing so, and assumes that this is presupposed (Luhmann 1996, p. 85), it can be stated that the use of stereotypes, which are usually negatively presented, can lead to discrimination. Since the name is also a category for groups/persons, the presentation of name stereotypes in advertising leads to discrimination. Thus, advertising promotes social division and thus discrimination as a result.
Through our own extensive research, we were able to find some advertising motifs that indicate name discrimination. Thus, the research questions that arise are: a. does name discrimination exist in advertising? b. do people who bear a supposedly discriminatory name feel discriminated against by the advertising in question? c. how do people react in general? and d. are there factors that clearly support discrimination?
Methodology
The method of this work of research is divided into several approaches and multiple steps.
To answer our research questions and beyond the evaluation of scientific sources, the „German Advertising Council“ and the „Federal Anti-Discrimination Agency“ were consulted to find examples of name discrimination in the advertising industry. Since our research efforts had been unsuccessful at that point and the council/agency was also unable to provide any examples („We have not noticed any specific cases of name discrimination in recent years“), we added research activities of our own to find advertising (online, print, posters) that uses names in their messaging of the advertising. Six advertising motifs were identified that showed signs of name discrimination. After following analysis and image semiotics according to Friedrich and Schweppenhäuser (2009), one motif was abandoned, and the remaining five motifs were selected to be leading our investigation by method of talking to people who carry the same name that is used (discriminatorily) in said advertisement defined as discriminating against names.
Here, the method of so-called „thinking aloud“ was used primarily because of its suitability for a. obtaining qualitative results, b. describing media content, messages, and experiences, c. helping methodologically inexperienced people analyze content (speaking out thoughts rather than reflecting) and d. having participants live through a tangible situation, thereby empirically capturing situational and contextual phenomena (Bilandzic 2017). Explicitly, participants were given the task of interpreting „advertising“ while thinking aloud (saying all thoughts aloud). In doing so, participants initially were shown a beverage advertisement („Fanta“ – testimonial) to provide a task and simultaneously familiarize them with the process of thinking aloud. Once the participants’ interpretation was supposedly flattened, the motif was unannouncedly switched to show the (supposedly discriminatory) advertisement with the participant’s name. Afterwards, the participants were asked („please think aloud“) to interpret the advertisement for as long as possible while sharing their thoughts. Overall, ten respondents were interviewed in this procedure, the verbalized data was recorded via video and audio (Zoom), transcribed, and then a deductive-inductive qualitative content analysis was conducted (open coding, categories were predefined and re-formed as needed). Evidence that the method is particularly suitable for approaching the phenomenon of „discrimination“ can be found in the work of Ogden and Russell (2013) (Bilandzic 2017). Furthermore, research by Buber (2007) shows that generating data by addressing a given requirement and articulating both perceptions and feelings, through the survey method can be promising.
Additionally, a control group of five individuals was interviewed using the same technique. These individuals do not bear any of the invented names and are employed within the field of advertising as advertising executives and media designers (producers of advertising materials). These individuals were shown all the advertising materials. Finally, at the end of the digital meetings, all participants (n=15) were asked whether they perceived the particular advertisement (or advertisements) as discriminatory. The rating of the question was „yes“ or „no“ and the verbal explanations were included in the analysis. A critical comment on the method in generally is that persons are not able to verbalize everything they actually think. Furthermore, it cannot be excluded that verbalizing cognitive processes leads to an impairment of the same, hence by „unconscious“ not all cognitive processes can be addressed and also „thinking aloud“ cannot exclude the danger of socially desired answers (Sandmann 2013).
(A describing example from the selection of advertising used: a (supposedly wealthy) person is shown, as well as a premium car and the Sixth brand and its car-sharing service. The slogan is: drive like a Justus, pay like a Kevin).
Results
The research questions are to be answered with the insights gained from the interviews and the resulting five categories. Initially, these are derived solely from the interviews with the name bearers; the insights of the advertising experts are incorporated supplementarily. The five categories emerging from the different codes are defined as such: stereotype, niveau, discrimination, untrue and past. The main question of the research is evaluated directly at this stage – „does name discrimination exist in advertising?“. The answer to this question is unequivocal and states clearly participants perceived the displayed advertisements as discriminatory. All participants, regardless of bearing the name or being advertising experts, perceived the respective advertisements, related to themselves or to others, as discriminatory („…that’s why it’s discriminatory, of course, for everyone who holds that name.“, „…it simply drags the name through the mud, as I would say, and stirs up these clichés repeatedly, well, therefore, it’ s discriminatory in that sense.“, „I also find it discriminatory regarding me because I’m being stigmatized…“, „For me, it’s always this subject of „East“ and I must justify myself.“, „When I read my name and see something like that, I feel discriminated.”).
One exception occurred in the advertisements. It was the only advertisement that made use of a name in the logo („Dirty Ronny“) – the participants did not perceive this name usage nor the advertisement as discriminatory, even though they had experienced issues (discrimination) with their name earlier on. Nevertheless, it may be stated unequivocally the existence of name discrimination in advertising. This observation is backed up by using the categories of stereotype, niveau and past, as well as by considering how the subjects reacted. The presented advertisement operates with clichés and stereotypes and thus discriminates additionally („Yes, this classic „Don’t do children“, yes, that is just been always like this, yes, Chantal from the East or she does porn“, „And of course just again such a typical Chantal, so made up and simply doesn’t look like a business woman“, „…simply also so typical Chantal, so made up and just doesn’t look like a career woman.“, „…simply also that Kevin is then formulated here in a derogatory way or a cliché is being served…“, „somehow the stereotypes of these names are also being served.“, „That is already very blatant, already very cliché-like.“, „So to use such a name for such a cliché, …also to advertise with it, I find already violent.“). It appears to be exactly this perpetuation with existing name clichés in society that triggers the discrimination. Moreover, old negative experiences are retrieved or stirred up by past experiences of the participants („…for example, I used to get beaten up a lot because of my name.“, „Well, that’s just the way it is, you grew up with the name and actually often got such sayings…“, „I’m depicted as lower class.“). It seems that certain „levels“ in advertising (appearance, impression, etc.) have an additional negative effect („housewife from the East and you look old.“, „Super badly done.“, „…but it’s not just the name that’s mentioned, it’s also somehow depicted.“, „yes, it’s also a bit sexist, I think.“, „it’s actually advertising for a drink, it’s not in the foreground at all, …, it’s just in the foreground, yes, this saying or this joke behind it.“).
Both the participants as well as the advertising experts responded negatively, concerned and perplexed to the advertising. Strikingly, and referring to the „Untrue“ category, the study participants often believed it was a fake advertisement or assumed that the advertisement had been (artificially) created particularly for them („…but it looks rather fake to me, so it’s almost like a gag, by someone, hmm, find themselves funny broadcasting company.“, „…everything in the picture is totally contradictory, I would say…“, „I thought the ad was customized to my name. It’s not real.“, „…it’s made up, isn’t it?“, „…is this real advertising? Did it really come that way?“). Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the participants would not consider it possible such discrimination in advertising is or was actually used in reality. A first interpretation and description of possible factors influencing name discrimination in advertising follows at this point. One potential factor might be the horns effect (i.e., a negative halo), which influences names being associated with negative labels and reinforced by people with low critical engagement, leading to generalized negative judgments (Sundar, Kardes and Noseworthy 2014). Whether this mode of operation is good when advertisers want to attract attention and there is a risk that attitudes towards the advertiser will deteriorate if the advertising message predominantly arouses negative emotions (Klimin and Tikhonov 2016) is questionable at this point. Other psychological aspects are also assumed to affect name discrimination in advertising, such as when biases and prejudices between people are pivotal. More so different norms and values, as well as ultimately different power structures of people and institutions which all can lead to negative and discriminatory messages or behaviors. However, these factors need to be examined specifically on name discrimination in advertising and in subsequent studies for reliable conclusions to be drawn. Herein, this thesis lays a first groundwork and raises further questions, such as the „(local, regional, national) affiliation“ and „perpetuation“ of name discrimination in advertising.
Conclusion
All the research questions from the beginning of the article, find answers here to some extent. In summary, name discrimination already exists in advertising. Triggered by the use and dissemination of stereotypes (factor), prejudices against people with certain names are built up, which ultimately leads to the emergence of discrimination, especially name discrimination. Based on the research findings, name discrimination was perceived by participants independently of any personal correlation of the stereotypes presented – people, with certain names clearly feel discriminated against by advertising messages that negatively use their own name. In general, people react to the advertisements shown with negative feelings or negative descriptions and show perplexity. Furthermore, the participants of the study often could not believe that such an advertisement really existed and showed doubtfulness. Whether the reactions would be the same or similar in a natural encounter with the advertising material/motifs cannot be answered here and reaches a scientific limitation. Further limitations of the results are the low number of interviews (sampling), which means that the results may not be representative enough, and the interpretation of the results is also based on subjective statements and views of the participants. In addition, there was a lack of current literature on the topic under study, which precluded comparisons and enrichments. Nevertheless, evidence suggests that name discrimination is socially present and that the use of stereotypes in advertising also serves as a catalyst for the emergence of new prejudices and thus new forms of discrimination. In this context, however, a regulatory authority would not be an obstacle to the dissemination of stereotypical discriminatory content. Conversely, this means that there is a threshold of tolerance for discrimination in society as a whole. Further research should further investigate, question or build on the questions posed and answers found.
Literatúra/List of References
- Ahmad, A., 2020. When the name matters: An experimental investigation of ethnic discrimination in the Finnish labor market. In: Sociological Inquiry. 2020, 90, 468-496. ISSN 1475-682X.
- Allport, G. W., 1954. The nature of prejudice. Cambridge: Perseus Books, 1954. ISBN 9780201001792.
- Atkinson, A. B., 2016. Ungleichheit. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta, 2016, p. 18. ISBN 978-3-608-94905-6.
- Bauer, G., Kechaja, M., Engelmann, S. and Haug, L., 2021. Diskriminierung und Antidiskriminierung. Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag, 2021. ISBN 9783839450819.
- Bilandzic, H., 2017. Lautes Denken. In: Mikos, L. and Wegener, C. (eds.) Qualitative Medienforschung. Stuttgart: Utb, 2017, p. 406-413. ISBN 9783825286477.
- Bonefeld, M., Dickhäuser, O., 2018. (Biased) grading of students’ performance: Students’ names, performance level, and implicit attitudes. In: Frontiers in Psychology. 2018, 9, 481. ISSN 1664-1078.
- Branscombe, N. R., Wann, D. L., 1994. Collective self-esteem consequences of outgroup derogation when a valued social identity is on trial. In: European Journal of Social Psychology. 1994, 24, 641-657. ISSN 1099-0992.
- Buber, R., 2007. Denke-Laut-Protokolle. In: Buber, R. and Holzmüller H.H. (eds) Qualitative Marktforschung. Wiesbaden: Gabler, 2007, p. 555-568. ISBN 978-3-8349-0229-0.
- Carter, R. T., Lau, M. Y., Johnson, V. and Kirkinis, K., 2017. Racial discrimination and health outcomes among racial/ethnic minorities: A meta‐analytic review. In: Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development. 2017, 45, 232-259. ISSN 0883-8534.
- Dackweiler, R. M., 2017. EU-Gleichstellungspolitik als Ressource für feministische Kämpfe gegen sexistische Werbung? In: Kritische Justiz. 2017, 50(3), 297-309. ISSN 0023-4834.
- Deutscher Werberat, 2021. Werberat bilanziert das Jahr 2020. [online]. [cit. 2021-05-30]. Available at: <https://www.werberat.de/werberat-bilanziert-das-jahr-2020-burger-nutzen-auch-corona-zeiten-engagiert-den-werberat>
- Deutscher Werberat, 2021. Herabwürdigung / Diskriminierung. 2021. [online]. [cit. 2021–06–28]. Available at: <https://www.werberat.de/werbekodex/herabwuerdigung-diskriminierung>
- Dieckmann, J., 2017. Was ist Diskriminierung? Über illegitime Ungleichbehandlung, Demokratie und Sand im Getriebe. In: Wissen schafft Demokratie. 2017, 1(1), 150-167. ISSN 2512-9716.
- EASA, 2021. What we do. [online]. [cit. 2021-06-28]. Available at: <https://www.easa-alliance.org/about-easa/what-we-do>
- Ellemers, N., Van Rijswijk, W., Roefs, M. and Simons, C., 1997. Bias in intergroup perceptions: Balancing group identity with social reality. In: Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 1997, 23, 186-198. ISSN 0146-1672.
- Friedrich, T. and Schweppenhäuser, G., 2009. Bildsemiotik – Grundlagen und exemplarische Analysen visueller Kommunikation. Basel, Boston, Berlin: Brinkhäuser, 2009, p. 3-23. ISBN 978-3-0346-0111-5.
- Fritzsche, K. P., 2017. Handbuch Diskriminierung. Wiesbaden: Springer, 2017, p. 4. ISBN 978-3-658-10976-9.
- Gerhards, J. and Tuppat, J., 2021. Immigrants’ first names and perceived discrimination: A contribution to understanding the integration paradox. In: European Sociological Review. 2021, 37, 121-135. ISSN 0266-7215.
- Haas, H., Herczeg, P. and Karsay, K., 2015. Werbung – Ethik – Moral. In: Siegert G., Wirth W., Weber P., Lischka J. (eds) Handbuch Werbeforschung. Wiesbaden: Springer VS, 2015, p. 57-76. ISBN 978-3-531-17426-6.
- Hilton, J. L., and Von Hippel, W., 1996. Stereotypes. In: Annual Review of Psychology. 1996, 47(1), 237-271. eISSN 1545-2085.
- Hormel, U. and Scherr, A., 2016. Ungleichheiten und Diskriminierung. In: Scherr A. (eds) Soziologische Basics. Wiesbaden: Springer VS, 2016, p. 299-308. ISBN 978-3-658-11928-7.
- Junkert, C., 2015. Die Bedeutung der Selbstregulation für die Wirkung von Werbung. Saarbrücken: VDM Verlag, 2015. ISBN 9783639487046.
- Kaiser, A., 2010. „Kevin ist kein Name, sondern eine Diagnose!“ Der Vorname in der Grundschule–Klangwort, Modewort oder Reizwort. In: Die Grundschulzeitschrift. 2010, 24, 26-29. ISSN 0340-8469.
- Kasof, J., 1993. Sex bias in the naming of stimulus persons. In: Psychological Bulletin. 1993, 113(1), 140-163. ISSN 1939-1455.
- Kopp, P., 2016. Selbstkontrolle durch Verhaltenskodizes im europäischen und deutschen Lauterkeitsrecht. Münster: Lit Verlag, 2016. ISBN 9783643135837.
- Koenig, M., 2005. Menschenrechte. Frankfurt/New York: Campus, 2005, p. 12. ISBN 9783593371863.
- Lamont, R. A., Swift, H. J. and Abrams, D., 2015. A review and meta-analysis of age- based stereotype threat: Negative stereotypes, not facts, do the damage. In: Psychology and Aging. 2015, 30(1), 180-193. ISSN 0882-7974.
- Leidig, S., 2007. Vorurteile, selbsterfüllende Prophezeiungen und Lösungen. In Demografischer Wandel in Unternehmen. Wiesbaden: Gabler, 2007, p. 99-109. ISBN 978-3-8349-0493-5.
- Luhmann, N., 1996. Die Realität der Massenmedien. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag/VS Verlag, 1996. ISBN 978-3-663-01103-3.
- Mummendey, A. and Otten, S., 2001. Aversive discrimination. In: Brown, R. and Gaertner, S. (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Intergroup processes. Hoboken/New Jersey: Blackwell, 2001, p. 112-132. ISBN 978-0-470-69270-7.
- Ogden, J. and Russell, S., 2013. How black women make sense of „white“ and „black“ fashion magazines: a qualitative think aloud study. In: Journal of Health Psychology. 2013, 18(12). ISSN 1461-7277.
- Sandmann, A., 2014. Lautes Denken – die Analyse von Denk-, Lern- und Problemlöseprozessen. In: Krüger, D., Parchmann, I., Schecker, H. (eds) Methoden in der naturwissenschaftsdidaktischen Forschung. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer Spektrum, 2014, p. 179-188. ISBN 978-3-642-37826-3.
- Scherr, A. and Breit, H., 2020. Erfolgreiche Bewältigung von Diskriminierung. In: Genkova, P., Riecken, A. (eds) Handbuch Migration und Erfolg. Wiesbaden: Springer, 2020, p. 83-106. ISBN 978-3-658-18406-3.
- Schönbach, K., 2009. Verkaufen, Flirten, Führen. Persuasive Kommunikation – ein Überblick. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften/Springer, 2009. ISBN 978-3-658-11478-7.
- Sundar, A., Kardes, F. and Noseworthy, T., 2014. Inferences on negative labels and the horns effect. NA – advances in consumer research, association for consumer research. 2014, 42, p. 377-380. [online]. [cit. 2021-05-30]. Available at: <https://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/1017020/volumes/v42/NA-42>
- Tajfel, H., 1981. Human groups and social categories. Studies in social psychology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1981. ISBN 0521280737.
- aburg, W. and Herwartz-Emden, L., 2012. Geschlecht(erforschung) in der Interkulturellen Pädagogig. In: Kampshoff, M. und Wiepcke, C. (eds) Handbuch Geschlechterforschung und Fachdidaktik. Wiesbaden: Springer VS, 2012, p. 477. ISBN 978-3-531-18222-3.
- Zhao, X. and Biernat, M., 2017. „Welcome to the U.S.” but „change your name”? Adopting Anglo names and discrimination. In: Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 2017, 70, 59-68. ISSN 0022-1031.
Kľúčové slová/Key words
discrimination, advertising, stereotypes, thinking aloud
diskriminácia, reklama, stereotypy, myslenie nahlasJEL klasifikácia/JEL Classification
M31, M37, J15
Résumé
Diskriminácia mien – vybrané atribúty vychádzajúce z nemeckej reklamnej praxe
Prekvapivo je výskum diskriminácie mien v reklame stále v ranom štádiu, hoci všetky blízke oblasti prešli hlbokým a detailným výskumom. Diskrimináciu je možné vyvolať použitím mien v reklame. V tomto článku sa čitateľ dozvie, ktoré faktory, ako napríklad stereotypizácia alebo ponúkanie stereotypov, majú vplyv na vnímanie u niektorých nositeľov mien. Tento príspevok prispieva k podrobnejšiemu porozumeniu a spracovaniu problému. Používanie mien v reklame, ktoré zaraďujú určité mená a tým aj ľudí do skupín, nemusí byť vhodné, ak sa má vylúčiť diskriminácia. Faktory a jednotlivé vzájomné závislosti boli v tejto práci skúmané iba v podmienkach Nemecka, preto môžu byť v iných krajinách a kultúrach odlišné.Recenzované/Reviewed
11. June 2021 / 15. June 2021