Controversial advertisement executions and involvement on elaborative processing and comprehension

Previous explorations of the effect of controversial/shock appeals in advertising have been confounded by using different advertisements in controversial and non‐controversial execution conditions or by not controlling the influence of attitude toward the advertisement. Therefore, the experiment presented here seeks to determine the effect that a controversial advertisement execution has on elaborative processing and brand message comprehension when potential contaminating influences are held constant in the controversial and non‐controversial execution conditions. Results demonstrate that controversial advertisement executions increase elaboration (i.e. the number of cognitive responses and ratings of elaborative processing) regardless of the level of product involvement. A cross‐over interaction reveals that higher product involvement subjects better comprehend a controversial advertisement execution, but lower product involvement subjects better comprehend a non‐controversial advertisement execution. Comprehension results are consistent with the resource‐matching perspective. The resource‐matching perspective holds that there is an upside‐down U‐shaped relationship between processing outcomes and cognitive resources required to successfully process an advertisement execution, such that information processing is optimized when required resources match the resources that one has made available for advertisement processing. The study did not show any differences in processing controversial advertisement executions across gender or ethnic identity (i.e. Hispanic or non‐Hispanic white).

[1]  B. Sternthal,et al.  Ease of message processing as a moderator of repetition effects in advertising. , 1990 .

[2]  Bernard J. Jaworski,et al.  Enhancing and Measuring Consumers’ Motivation, Opportunity, and Ability to Process Brand Information from Ads , 1991 .

[3]  D. Aaker,et al.  Causes of Irritation in Advertising , 1985 .

[4]  Edward F. McQuarrie,et al.  On Resonance: A Critical Pluralistic Inquiry into Advertising Rhetoric , 1992 .

[5]  David S. Waller,et al.  Advertising Controversial Products in the Asia Pacific: What Makes Them Offensive? , 2003 .

[6]  Robert Rosenthal,et al.  Definition and Interpretation of Interaction Effects , 2001 .

[7]  J. Aaker,et al.  Additivity versus attenuation : the role of culture in the resolution of information incongruity , 1997 .

[8]  Wayne D. Hoyer,et al.  The Comprehension/Miscomprehension of Print Communication: Selected Findings , 1989 .

[9]  Keith Crosier,et al.  Advertising complainants: who and where are they? , 2001 .

[10]  J. Brooks,et al.  Attitudes toward television advertisements for controversial products. , 1987, Journal of health care marketing.

[11]  Nigel Kenneth Pope,et al.  THE EFFECT OF PROVOCATION IN THE FORM OF MILD EROTICA ON ATTITUDE TO THE AD AND CORPORATE IMAGE : Differences Between Cause-Related and Product-Based Advertising , 2004 .

[12]  David S. Waller.  Attitudes towards offensive advertising: an Australian study , 1999 .

[13]  I. Phau,et al.  A Hong Kong view of offensive advertising , 2002 .

[14]  The Ideology of Political Correctness and Its Effect on Brand Strategy , 1994 .

[15]  Joyce M. Wolburg,et al.  A Psychographic Analysis of Generation Y College Students , 2001, Journal of Advertising Research.

[16]  Srinivas Durvasula,et al.  The Effects of Advertising Distinctiveness and Message Content Involvement on Cognitive and Affective Responses to Advertising , 1992 .

[17]  David S. Waller,et al.  The influence of religion on attitudes towards the advertising of controversial products , 2004 .

[18]  Gilbert A. Churchill,et al.  Caution in the Use of Difference Scores in Consumer Research , 1993 .

[19]  Joan Meyers-Levy,et al.  Evaluating persuasion-enhancing techniques from a resource-matching perspective , 1997 .

[20]  David S. Waller,et al.  Advertising of controversial products:a cross‐cultural study , 2005 .

[21]  Paul W. Miniard,et al.  On the Formation and Relationship of Ad and Brand Attitudes: An Experimental and Causal Analysis , 1990 .

[22]  R. Vezina,et al.  Provocation in advertising: A conceptualization and an empirical assessment , 1997 .

[23]  Richard Elliott,et al.  Offensive Advertising, Public Policy, and the Law: The Rulings on the Zagorka Case , 2004 .

[24]  Advertising Sensitive Products , 1995 .

[25]  Daniel C. Bello,et al.  THE COMMUNICATION EFFECTS OF CONTROVERSIAL SEXUAL CONTENT IN TELEVISION PROGRAMS AND COMMERCIALS , 1983 .

[26]  K. Fam,et al.  The influence of religion on attitudes towards the advertising of controversial products , 2004 .

[27]  Bruce A. Huhmann,et al.  Combinatory and Separative Effects of Rhetorical Figures on Consumers' Effort and Focus in Ad Processing , 2002 .

[28]  Rajesh V. Manchanda,et al.  Does It Pay to Shock? Reactions to Shocking and Nonshocking Advertising Content among University Students , 2003 .

[29]  James E. Haefner,et al.  Public Attitudes Toward Advertising: More Favorable Than You Might Think , 1998 .

[30]  David S. Waller.  A Proposed Response Model for Controversial Advertising , 2005 .

[31]  Michael A. Belch,et al.  The Effects of Sexual and Non-Sexual Advertising Appeals and Information Level on Cognitive Processing and Communication Effectiveness , 1990 .

[32]  Richard L. Celsi,et al.  The Role of Involvement in Attention and Comprehension Processes , 1988 .

[33]  R. Plutchik.  Emotion, a psychoevolutionary synthesis , 1980 .

[34]  Michael J. Dotson,et al.  An Exploratory Investigation into the Nature of Offensive Television Advertising , 1990 .

[35]  S. Chaiken,et al.  Promoting systematic processing in low-motivation settings: effect of incongruent information on processing and judgment. , 1991, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[36]  S. Beatty,et al.  Adolescent Influence in Family Decision Making: A Replication with Extension , 1994 .

[37]  Patrick De Pelsmacker,et al.  The Communication Effects of Provocation in Print Advertising , 1996 .

[38]  B. Huhmann.  A Model of the Cognitive and Emotional Processing of Rhetorical Works in Advertising , 2007 .

[39]  C. Allen,et al.  The Mature Brand and Brand Interest: An Alternative Consequence of Ad-Evoked Affect , 1993 .

[40]  Scott B. MacKenzie,et al.  The Role of Attitude toward the Ad as a Mediator of Advertising Effectiveness: A Test of Competing Explanations: , 1986 .

[41]  Michael A. Callow,et al.  The ‘Spanglification’ of Advertising Campaigns in Hispanic Media? A Comparison of Approaches in Spanish‐only and Dual Language Magazines , 2005 .

[42]  Brian Sternthal,et al.  The Effect of Type of Elaboration on Advertisement Processing and Judgment , 1996 .

[43]  R. Kerin,et al.  The Female Role in Advertisements: Some Experimental Evidence , 1977 .