The impact of cognitive and/or affective processing styles on consumer response to advertising appeals

Abstract As advertisers increasingly seek greater communication effectiveness and new forms of media emerge, psychological differences amongst individuals are becoming essential criteria in the design of advertising appeals. The present study considers whether individuals differ in their propensity to rely on affective, cognitive or both systems to process information. This research suggests that persuasive appeals tend to be more effective when the nature of the appeal matches, rather than mismatches, the individual personality-type preferences for processing information. Results show that informational and informational-emotional advertising appeals, which match consumer's processing style (thinking and thinking-feeling processors, respectively), can generate more positive attitudes toward the brand, purchase intention (PI) and brand choice.

[1]  James M. Munch,et al.  The Effects of Argument Structure and Affective Tagging on Product Attitude Formation , 1993 .

[2]  J. Edell,et al.  The Power of Feelings in Understanding Advertising Effects , 1987 .

[3]  M. Zanna,et al.  Predicting prejudicial attitudes: the importance of affect, cognition and the feeling-belief dimension , 1993 .

[4]  Michel Tuan Pham.  Cue Representation and Selection Effects of Arousal on Persuasion , 1996 .

[5]  Prithviraj Chattopadhyay,et al.  Do Consumers Seek Emotional Situations: the Need For Emotion Scale , 1995 .

[6]  Julie A. Edell,et al.  The Impact of Feelings on Ad-Based Affect and Cognition , 1989 .

[7]  Bernard J. Jaworski,et al.  Information Processing from Advertisements: Toward an Integrative Framework , 1989 .

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

[9]  J. Schibrowsky,et al.  Need For Cognition, Advertisement Viewing Time and Memory For Advertising Stimuli , 1994 .

[10]  J. Cacioppo,et al.  Central and Peripheral Routes to Advertising Effectiveness: The Moderating Role of Involvement , 1983 .

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

[12]  William D. Harris,et al.  Affect Intensity As an Individual Difference Variable in Consumer Response to Advertising Appeals , 1990 .

[13]  R. Batra,et al.  The Role of Mood in Advertising Effectiveness , 1990 .

[14]  Diane M. Mackie,et al.  Processing Rational and Emotional Messages: The Cognitive and Affective Mediation of Persuasion , 1995 .

[15]  Kent B. Monroe,et al.  The effects of need for cognition and trait anxiety on price acceptability , 2001 .

[16]  David A. Aaker,et al.  Warmth in Advertising: Measurement, Impact, and Sequence Effects , 1986 .

[17]  R. Petty,et al.  The Role of the Affective and Cognitive Bases of Attitudes in Susceptibility to Affectively and Cognitively Based Persuasion , 1999 .

[18]  Parthasarathy Krishnamurthy,et al.  Retrospection versus Anticipation: The Role of the Ad under Retrospective and Anticipatory Self-Referencing , 1999 .

[19]  C. F. Kao,et al.  The efficient assessment of need for cognition. , 1984, Journal of personality assessment.

[20]  Amitava Chattopadhyay,et al.  To match or not to match : should advertising appeals match the basis of consumers' attitudes? , 1996 .

[21]  C. Derbaix,et al.  The Impact of Affective Reactions on Attitudes toward the Advertisement and the Brand: A Step toward Ecological Validity , 1995 .

[22]  Steven P. Brown,et al.  Antecedents and Consequences of Attitude toward the Ad: A Meta-analysis , 1992 .

[23]  J. Cacioppo,et al.  The need for cognition. , 1982 .

[24]  Yong Zhang,et al.  Moderating Effects of Need for Cognition on Responses to Positively versus Negatively Framed Advertising Messages , 1999 .

[25]  R. Larsen,et al.  Affect intensity as an individual difference characteristic: A review , 1987 .

[26]  Affect intensity revisited: Individual differences and the communication effects of emotional stimuli , 1999 .

[27]  Ronald E. Goldsmith,et al.  Corporate Credibility's Role in Consumers' Attitudes and Purchase Intentions When a High versus a Low Credibility Endorser Is Used in the Ad , 1999 .

[28]  R. Zajonc,et al.  Affective and Cognitive Factors in Preferences , 1982 .

[29]  D. Moore,et al.  Affect Intensity: An Individual Difference Response to Advertising Appeals , 1995 .

[30]  Yong Zhang,et al.  Responses to Humorous Advertising: The Moderating Effect of Need for Cognition , 1996 .

[31]  T. Ambler,et al.  How Advertising Works: What Do We Really Know? , 1999 .

[32]  Jane Z. Sojka,et al.  Thinking And/Or Feeling: an Examination of Interaction Between Processing Styles , 1997 .

[33]  Priscilla A. Labarbera,et al.  Matching the Message to the Mind: Advertising Imagery and Consumer Processing Styles , 1998 .

[34]  F. Kardes,et al.  The Role of Direction of Comparison, Attribute-Based Processing, and Attitude-Based Processing in Consumer Preference , 1999 .

[35]  V. P. Lessig,et al.  Does Your Ad Have Too Many Pictures? , 2000, Journal of Advertising Research.

[36]  Curtis P. Haugtvedt,et al.  Need for Cognition and Advertising: Understanding the Role of Personality Variables in Consumer Behavior , 1992 .

[37]  Keith S. Coulter,et al.  Influence of Viewing Context on the Determinants of Attitude Toward the Ad and the Brand , 1999 .

[38]  R. Larsen,et al.  Theory and measurement of affect intensity as an individual difference characteristic. , 1984 .