Contextual Priming and Applicability: Implications for Ad Attitude and Brand Evaluations

Prior research has found that advertising contextual information can affect how consumers evaluate the target ad as well as the brand. This study extends the existing research by investigating how the immediate and longterm effects of contextual priming on ad attitudes and brand evaluations may differ due to the low or high applicability of the contexts to the advertised brand. Results in the first experiment revealed significant interactions between context and applicability, while results from the second experiment indicated that, after a delay, context had significant main effects on ad attitude and brand evaluations regardless of the applicability levels. These findings have both theoretical and managerial implications.

[1]  J. Bargh,et al.  Nature of Priming Effects on Categorization , 1985 .

[2]  Ken Sacharin.  Attention!: How to Interrupt, Yell, Whisper, and Touch Consumers , 2000 .

[3]  Brian Sternthal,et al.  A Two-Factor Explanation of Assimilation and Contrast Effects , 1993 .

[4]  W. S. Rholes,et al.  Category accessibility and impression formation , 1977 .

[5]  Alice M. Tybout,et al.  Context Effects at Encoding and Judgment in Consumption Settings: The Role of Cognitive Resources , 1997 .

[6]  Heather M. Claypool,et al.  A Meta-Analysis of Priming Effects on Impression Formation Supporting a General Model of Informational Biases , 2004, Personality and social psychology review : an official journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.

[7]  Youjae Yi.  Cognitive and affective priming effects of the context for print advertisements , 1990 .

[8]  E. Higgins,et al.  Accessibility and Applicability: Some "Activation Rules" Influencing Judgment , 1995 .

[9]  T. K. Srull,et al.  Category accessibility: Some theoretical and empirical issues concerning the processing of social stimulus information , 1981 .

[10]  Jaideep Sengupta,et al.  All Cues Are Not Created Equal: Obtaining Attitude Persistence under Low-Involvement Conditions , 1997 .

[11]  Gilbert A. Churchill,et al.  The Impact of Physically Attractive Models on Advertising Evaluations , 1977 .

[12]  Scott B. MacKenzie,et al.  An Empirical Examination of the Structural Antecedents of Attitude toward the Ad in an Advertising Pretesting Context , 1989 .

[13]  Randi Priluck Grossman,et al.  The Persistence of Classically Conditioned Brand Attitudes , 1998 .

[14]  J. W. Hutchinson,et al.  The Effects of Ad Affect on Advertising Effectiveness , 1983 .

[15]  Tahi J. Gnepa,et al.  Comparative advertising in magazines: nature, frequency, and a test of the "underdog" hypothesis , 1993 .

[16]  Youjae Yi,et al.  Contextual Priming Effects in Print Advertisements: The Moderating Role of Prior Knowledge , 1993 .

[17]  Robert E. Smith.  Integrating Information from Advertising and Trial: Processes and Effects on Consumer Response to Product Information , 1993 .

[18]  Bernd H. Schmitt.  Contextual priming of visual information in advertisements , 1994 .

[19]  Youjae Yi.  The Effects of Contextual Priming in Print Advertisements , 1990 .

[20]  Stephen J. Hoch,et al.  Ambiguity, Processing Strategy, and Advertising-Evidence Interactions , 1989 .

[21]  E. Higgins.  Knowledge activation: Accessibility, applicability, and salience. , 1996 .

[22]  Jean Perrien,et al.  Advertisers and the Factual Content of Advertising , 1985 .

[23]  I. Ajzen,et al.  Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research , 1977 .

[24]  Robert E. Smith,et al.  Consumer Processing of Product Trial and the Influence of Prior Advertising: A Structural Modeling Approach , 1998 .

[25]  Robert S. Wyer,et al.  Social Comprehension and Judgment: The Role of Situation Models, Narratives, and Implicit Theories , 2003 .

[26]  A. Cooper,et al.  Consequences of Priming : Judgment and Behavior , 2004 .

[27]  Darrel D. Muehling,et al.  Advertising's Immediate and Delayed Influence on Brand Attitudes: Considerations across Message-Involvement Levels , 1988 .

[28]  C. Wee,et al.  Comparative Advertising: a Review With Implications For Further Research , 1983 .

[29]  J. M. Olson,et al.  Involvement and persuasion: Evidence for different types of involvement , 1995 .

[30]  Leonard L. Martin,et al.  Beyond accessibility: The role of processing objectives in judgment , 1992 .

[31]  Calvin P. Duncan,et al.  Effects of Humor in a Radio Advertising Experiment , 1985 .

[32]  Amitava Chattopadhyay,et al.  Does Attitude toward the Ad Endure? The Moderating Effects of Attention and Delay , 1992 .

[33]  Mary Frances Luce,et al.  Understanding the Effects of Process-Focused versus Outcome-Focused Thought in Response to Advertising , 2004 .

[34]  Dan Chamberlin.  Attention!(How to Interrupt, Yell, Whisper, and Touch Consumers) , 2001 .