Abstract
Advertising effectiveness is often measured by its ability to impact attitudes and purchase intentions among those positively predisposed and negatively predisposed toward the brand. As a consequence, selecting the appropriate appeal is crucial. Information processing theory suggests that the choice should reflect both consumer’s predispositions and their level of involvement. The espoused theories together with prior empirical evidence promoted six sets of hypotheses relating to the comparative effectiveness of rational, emotional, and discrepant appeals. The respective appeals were administered to positively predisposed and negatively predisposed subjects for both high involvement and low involvement products. A MANOVA analysis of the data from a 3×2×2 within-subjects experimental design revealed significant main effect differences in terms of both predisposition and type of appeal.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Agres, S. J. and M. Bernstein. 1984. “Cognitive and Emotional Elements in Persuasion and Advertising,” 92nd Annual Convention of American Psychological Association, Toronto, (August).
——. “Memory Factors in Consumer Choice: A Review”.Journal of Marketing 43 (Spring): 39–42.
Bettman, James R. 1979.An Information Processing Theory of Consumer Choice. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.
Cox, Donald F. 1967.Risk Taking and Information Handling in Consumer Behavior. Boston: Harvard University Press.
Craik, Fergus and Robert S. Lockhard. 1972. “Levels of Processing: A Framework for Memory Research”.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 11 (December): 671–684.
Crocker, J., D. B. Hannat and R. Weber. 1983. “Person Memory and Causal Attributions”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 44 No. 1: 55–66.
Engel, James, Roger Blackwell and Paul Miniard. 1986.Consumer Behavior. New York: Dryden Press, 5th ed.
Freedman, J. L. 1964. “Involvement, Discrepancy and Change”.Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 69 (September): 290–295.
Greenwald, A. 1968. “Cognitive Learning, Cognitive Response to Persuation, and Attitude Change”. inPsychological Foundations of Attitudes. Eds. Greenwald, Brock, and Ostrom. New York: Academic Press.
Hastie, R. L. and P. Kumar. 1979. “Person Memory: Personality Traits as Organizings Principles in Memory for Behaviors”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 37:27–38.
Howard, John and L. Ostlund. 1973.Buyer Behavior: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations. New York: Knopf.
Howard, John and Jagdish Sheth. 1969.The Theory of Buyer Behavior. New York: John Wiley.
Hughes, G. D. and M. L. Ray, eds. 1974.Buyer/Consumer Information Processing. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
Kaas, Klaus P. 1983. “Factors Influencing Consumer Strategies in Information Processing”. inAdvances in Consumer Research Ed. Thomas C. Kinnear. Chicago: Association for Consumer Research: 585–590.
Koeske, G. and W. Crano. 1968. “The Effect of Congruous and Incongruous Source-Statement Combinations upon the Judged Credibility of a Communication”.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 4: 384–399.
Kroeber-Riel, Werner. 1979. “Activation Research: Psychobiological Approaches in Consumer Research”.Journal of Consumer Rasearch 5 (March): 240–250.
Krugman, Herbert E. 1971. “Brain Wave Measures of Media Involvement”.Journal of Advertising Research 11 No. 1 (February) 3–9.
—. 1977. “Memory Without Recall, Exposure With. ut Perception”.Journal of Advertising Research 11 No. 4 (August): 7–12.
Krugman, Herbert E. 1972. “Low Involvement Theory in the Light of New Brain Research.” Paper presented at AMA Advertising Research Conference, New York: American Marketing Association 16–22.
Mason, J. B. and M. L. Mayer. 1972. “Empirical Observations of Consumer Behavior as Related to Goods Classification and Retail Strategy”.Journal of Retailing (Fall): 17–31.
Mizerski, Richard W., J. D. White and J. B. Hunt 1984. “The Use of Emotion in Advertising”, inAmerican Marketing Association Educators Proceedings. Ed. Russell Belk. Chicago:American Marketing Association: 244–248.
Moriarity, Sandra E. 1983. “Getting at the Gut with Appeals to Pathos”Madison Avenue (April): 26–30.
Morin, Christophe. 1983. “An Assessment of the Comparative Effectiveness of Paradoxical Advertising Messages”. Unpublished Masters Thesis. College of Business Administration, Bowling Green State University. Bowling Green, Ohio.
Olshavsky, Richard W. and Donald H. Granbois. 1979. “Consumer Decision Making-Fact or Fiction?”Journal of Consumer Research (September): 93–100.
Olson, J. 1977. “Price as an Informational Cue: Effects on Product Evaluations”, inConsumer and Industrial Buying Behavior. Eds. A. Woodside, J. Sheth, and P. Bennett. New York: North-Holland.
Petty, Richard E., J. T. Cacioppo and D. Schumann 1983. “Central and Peripheral Routes to Advertising Effectiveness: The Molerating Role of Involvement”Journal of Consumer Research 10 (Septembur): 135–146.
Rhine, R. J. and L. J. Severence. 1970. “Ego Involvement, Discrepancy, Source Credibility and Attitude Change”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 53 (October): 175–190.
Robertson, Thomas S. 1976. “Low-Commitment Consumer Behavior”,Journal of Advertising Research 16 No. 2 (April): 19–26
Roselius, Ted. 1971. “Consumer Rankings of Risk Reduction”,Journal of Marketing 35 (June):56–61.
Rothschild, Michael L. 1979. “Advertising Strategies for High and Low Involvement Situations.” inAttitude Research Plays for High Stakes., Eds. Maloney and Silverman. Chicago: American Marketing Association 74–93.
Scott, C. and A. Tybout. 1978. “The Effect of Uncertainty and Incentives on Consumer Response”. Unpublished Manuscripts. Northwestern University, Evanston, Ill.
Sheth, J. and M. Venkatesan. 1968. “Risk Reduction Processes in Repetitive Consumer Behavior”.Journal of Marketing Research 5 (August): 307–310.
Sternthal, Brian and C. Samuel Craig. 1982.Consumer Behavior. An Information Processing Perspective. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Walster, E., E. Aronson, and D. Abrahams. 1966. “On Increasing the Persuasiveness of Low Pretige Communicator”.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 2:325–342.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Holmes, J.H., Crocker, K.E. Predispositions and the comparative effectiveness of rational, emotional and discrepant appeals for both high involvement and low involvement products. JAMS 15, 27–35 (1987). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02721951
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02721951