The R e 1 a t ion s hip B p t wee n A d At_ tit u d e
<'l
n d Bra n dIn t
An Honors Thesis (HONRS 499)
by
Christina D.
~o~eph. D.
/~heS]SDJ.
Camp
BroKn_.-~
_.. _or
C-~·-- ~----- .-------Ball State University
Muncie.
!vi a;',
IndianA
1991
_.
E"
r
E"
st
Table of Contents
Abstract
Introduction
Literature Review
Hierarchy of Effects Model
Hypotheses
Experiment
Factor Analysis
Reliability and Validity
Frequency Tab]ps
Test of Hypotheses
Conclusions
Djscussion and Recommendations
Bihliography
Sample Questionnaire
3
4
6
8
9
10
11
J6
18
28
31
32
33
The Relationship Between Ad Attitude and Brand Interest
Much research has studied the relationship between ad
attitllc1e and br-aw:l attitude.
included another
variable--
have been dr'rl\<in.
~onrlusions
drives brand
interest
hypothesized) Rnd that
interest.
response.
all
Recent stlldies
of
hB\'f'
brand interest,
'This
study sho,,'s
although very few
that nd attitude
(not brand attitude as has previously been
therE'
which
fall
are
sP\pral
into
the
ronstrurts
of hrand
category of cognitive
-
Introduction
Milch time and effort has hf'pn Pllt
affects
attitude
premise,
br<lnri
attitlJd,,::,
been
famillnrity.
While some research
relationship
between
INTEREST,
It is
it
has
in this
needs to be done.
If an
:=tnd,
ha~
attitude
ad
been
for
scanty
and
majoC'
studying ad
HS
products
hOh' ad
that
with
such
added,
.qttitude
brand
and
Keeping
nttitude.
various twists have
into stlldying just.
with
varying
involving the
been
brand att i tude.
and RR.';;\T,
resu 1 1.8
not
hav('
arrl) ()f brand interest thAt
been
fllrther u'search
as this arl?C'I can be of much use to advertisers.
advprtiser knows whether ad attit'lde drives hrand interest
if this is the case,
interest,
then he
then
or she
)-::nows
the
constructs
of brand
can morl? efficiently stimulate beand
interest in the consumer.
Upon r")mpleting our reC:l?arch,
determine
l!lLel'('si,
whether
and
('2)
ad
attitude
to hI?
does,
in
f<lct,
able to
dri'l/e
(1)
brand
aetermi ne tn,'> constructs of brand interest.
For this study. we chose our ads using the folloKing matrix:
TYPE OF !\D
- - - - - - - - - - - _ ... _--- _._._-
_._._-
._-"
-------.
(highi
TNVOLVEMENT
( 101"")
FORD,
Corp Tmage
FORD,
TEXACO, rorp Image
TEXACO, octnne
(imFtgej
Our pllrpose
for
relationship between
llsjng
A
of a.ds (imar;e or benefi t)
(highorloH).
-
Cougar
(m",areness)
tids
matri:;
is
to
oetermitJe the
nnd brand interest for different
type~
a.nri for di fferi ng purr-hase invol vemen1
S
6
Li! £'T 'Jc:rc.l1 r .~ .. Bp:xL,: h'
ea r 1 i pr,
30 attitudp
m1lCh resen rc h has been done i nvo 1 vi n:,?:
effects on
have specifically
addressed this
same conclusions.
Evidence
be
a
f f'2 C
by
t (c'd
themselves
1985).
(Gardner,
jssup arrive
indicates that
(:{ t t i
con S 11 mer's
Studies which
branri attitude.
i 11 rl e s t 0
at basically
brand attitudes "may
w Cl r d i. 11 fe' a d v e r t
". st udy hy Dr.
thf~
j
s pm e n t s
Larry Gresham and Dr.
Terence Himp also sllpporic; this philosophy st8ting,
1"es1.11 ts shmv
that affect generated by TV commercials influellce attitude toward
(1985).
the advertised hrand"
Many other variables have been added to the ad attitude
and
brand
nttitude
indicates
brand
attitudes
toward
attitudes
For example,
may
be
set,
by
(Gardner,
attitude
eval'1ation
"recent evidence
Affected
the
study regarding ad
brAnd
constrll(·t.
affecting
"feryl
Pau la
brand
GR rdner
consumers
1985).
attituoe
In her
under a
(] 985) hypot.hes:i
Zl?d
that ads could be evaluated by a brand set or by a
non-brand set
(1. e.
ShE'
eva1 q'lti ne:
that A
the ad ".illSt for its Ol·in sake").
f'lno orand
attitude are
positively related
CCHIC
J uded
toward the
advertised hrand under hoth brand and non-brand set conditions.
Another research study put "l<l attitude and orand f'lttitude in
a Classical
proposed
conciitionin£': pr'rsper'ti\e
that
an
advertisP<l
hrAnd
(GreshAm,
m~¥
] 985 ) .
elicit.
GreshAm
f'lfter repeated
7
pairing
an
~dth
affective
affectively-valenced
response
the
as
(1d
the same
advertisement,
The results, however,
itself."
failed to Frove his classical conditioning theory.
\fusic's affect
been
studied
familiarity
as
(Kim,
cm brand fltt] tude
welJ,
a long
~'i
th
aff~"ctitlg
or
importance
however,
in
hrA.nd
1988).
the area
!'fachleit~
ad attitucip does
study that
or nothing to drive brand attitude when dealing with
familiar brands.
-
1986) has
'orand attitude and brand interest.
and Kent (1988) determined in their
very little
the
1988) and ad repetition (Machlelt,
Very little work has been done,
attitud.::::
(Park.
format i on
hardly scratch
They mention brand
the surface,
brand interest and
never
interest briefly,
using only
identifying
on p
the
bu t
the;'
Cluestion devoted to
constructs
of brand
interest.
Sm~th
~nd
Swinyard (1988) probe much deeper into the suhject
of identifying the constructs of brand
these
cons cructs
responses
toward
responses
as
as
being
an
ad.
being
10wer
toward the Fld.
between
awareness,
these
In order
]ower
to clarify
They identify
beliefs, or cognitive
interest,
at t_emrt
used the following flow chart:
-
Jevel
identifieri
curiosity/uncertainty.
relationship
interest.
]ev01
"lower
these
cognitive
expectati0ns,
to
sho",
rt
and
positive
flnd attitude
level beljefs", we
-
8
Awareness
Cognitive Stage
Knowledge
Likine:
Affective St,age
Prpference
Conviction
Purchase
Behavior Stage
Lm-.ler
level
cognitive zone.
mentioned
responses
Cll
are
beliefs
As
used
by
all
Smith
interest.
ri os i ty /uncertainty and
purchase
,'esponses
jn~entions
varying ad types.
---,
Swinyard
awareness,
on
fall
into thE'
(1988)
the
and
cognitivE'
expect.ations,
and
I-.le ,d 11 at t.empt to det.ermine these are
the constructs of brand interest.
cognitive
&
which
concentrate
earlier,
of
those
affpct
in cases
brand
We will also explain how these
attitude,
of varying
ad
attitude,
Rnd
product involvement and
-
9
Hypotheses
Based on
and
findings
previous research
brand
we
interest.
in
h~r
hegan
developing
the
following
hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1
Ad
attitude
attitude,
very
does
little
elf'
n0thing
to drive hrand
insteAri driving branri interest.
Hypothesis 2
Tn high involvement,
attitude do","_
less to
benefit aels
dri\c brand interest.
hi gh involvement purchase products,
They are.
(upper right nf matri"),
This is bl?CallSe in
c'onsumers are
not as affected by the ad
therefore,
Ad
rno 1'1':-'
r'C( L i
(I
ni.d.•
itself.
Hypothesis 3
involvement,
is a more
si~nifjcant
int~erest~
because
low
im~ge
~ri~
(lower left of matrix)
relationship between ad attitude
involvement
thpre
and. brand
purchases Dre driven morp by
cognitive response.
Hypothesis
4
The constrl1cts nf hr.8nri
cognitive
Model."
port inn
of
the
i.nterest are those falling
scale
In
into the
the "Hierarchy of Effects
10
undergrA.dl1ates
Ball
State University
separate Ads:
fOll1'
Ford rorporation
high involvement,
image
2.
Ford Mercllr:;- Cougar -- high involvement,
~.
Texac0 rorporation --
4.
Texaco High Octane Gasoline -- low involvement,
After seeing
the ads
(llsing
fmnilla:c-ity,
the A.d
the
lo~
twj ce,
attached
'lttit1!dp,
purchase intentions.
-
showing i50
consisted of
Our me·thod
involvement,
henefit
image
benefit
the sllbjects were Rsked to
rat~~
questionnaire)
hrand
attitude,
brand interest,
And
11
to determine that the staterl itews leaded on the dimensions under
stUdy.
T.qblp 1 presents
loadings from
r('C",ltlts.
the
hrand interest
~'J()te
jh(~
th:a
"Expectancy" is a separate
loading from the other items.
~50
Table 1 - Factor Analysjs
Ball State r:n-iversity undergraduatJ' Student.s
ApriJ, J991
F1
F2
F3
.794
-1
.787
5
.645
.743
.704
.631
6
7
8
.A77
.842
.899
10
11
12
14
.795
. 729
1~
If)
17
18
.749
.502
.5SG
.612
.670
.772
19
20
21
E.9rd~
-
:l
.834
-+
.803
5
.727
.738
798
.837
6
7
8
10
11
12
14
15
18
17
separate
. ~q i
.891
.892
.833
.852
.841
.78f)
F4
-
12
.71:i
18
19
_u
21
.626
.694
?~
.85 ]
Texaco A
6
.894
.914
.913
.878
7
.843
8
10
.873
3
.:1
5
.873
.834
.920
11
12
14
15
16
17
18
.858
,8fil
.866
.812
.758
.792
.768
. 8~H
L ~1
20
21
TexA.co_B.
3
,1
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
14
15
16
17
J8
19
20
21
.899
.927
.891
.875
.745
.869
.941
• O"~
,,\; /j
.')38
.893
.866
.917
.790
.772
.806
.824
.876
11
Due to the nhove
the conCE'rr·
thl'tt
the
attitude measures,
R
separate loading
brand
j nteJ'e~ t
for brand
mf'Elsures
separate factor analysis
ma~-
loB0
Table 2 - Factor Anal~sis for "-.11 Measured Items
150 Ball State C"niversity Cndergrnduate Students
April, 1991
Ford A.
3
4
5
6
I
8
10
11
12
1 -1
15
16
17
19
20
21
F2
F3
.852
.822
.72h
.783
.790
.747
.668
.592
.687
.877
.768
.808
.654
.740
.752
.864
i
~~!
-1'1
was completed with
all measured items (see Table 21.
F1
h'
F4
14
Ford_B
6
7
.822
.815
.717
.600
.717
K
,748
J
.,
-.
5
.895
.863
.86:i
10
11
12
.701
.719
.657
14
15
]6
17
18
19
.595
.759
20
21
.664
Texaco --.ii
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
1]
12
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~."
• ( I
~j
.700
.820
. 775
.885
.767
.684
.829
.829
.818
.891
.686
.627
.602
.545
.804
.807
.671
.644
15
Texaco B
3
-1
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
1-1
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
.-
.851
.86t)
.876
.848
.68Q
.830
.779
.794
.814
.891
.864
.909
.749
.733
.78R
.794
.877
.-
16
Re 1j_~hiLt t y i3.t).<i.J!:1iJjdiix
F1' eli a b i 1 i t y ,q n d VA. li. (1 j t- Y '\ n a] y sis (A 11 ·1
i-\ d s j
15G BaJ 1 State Uni\-ersity Undergraduate Studellts
April, 1991
Items
Ford A
3
4
5
6
Subject
Alpha
Ad Attitudp
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
.94
Brand Attitude
.88
.853
.834
.719
.798
.784
.730
.822
.782
.h49
.803
.7R:i
.793
.740
.833
.784
.799
Brand Interest
1 ;:;
1h
17
18
19
20
.616
21
.8:14
.473
.721
.760
.728
Ford B
~
Ad Att i tude
4
5
6
7
8
.90
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
.-
Brand Attitude
.92
Brand Interest
.740
.697
.629
.640
.705
.778
.788
.845
.777
.780
.880
.816
• "'~1
{ ,5 .,.
.755
Hi
18
.75a
.698
.460
19
.56--1
17
20
21
. 71 1
.614.88
.7fl5
.738
17
Texaco A
.-\d Attitude
~
4
~
6
7
8
9
1_v
11
~
.95
Brand Attitude
12
1 :1
14
15
j
.91
Brand Interest
1
.93
:... L
Ad Attitude
4:
;:;
6
7
8
9
10
J1
12
.94
Brand At ti tudE'
.94
1J
14
Brand Interpst
1 ~)
16
17
18
19
20
21
.794
.793
.813
.745
.698
.739
.699
6
Texaco B
3
.845
.800
17
18
19
20
n
.843
.869
.872
.833
.792
.821
.883
.7hK
.fifi7
.860
.880
.94
• M ~-) ::)
.844
.880
.855
.837
.642
.818
.855
.880
.801
.903
.893
.817
.818
.878
.730
.709
753
776
.768
.819
.869
.
.833
.793
-
18
Frequenci~~
Brand fino Ad Familiarity (AJ]
Four Ads)
150 Ball State University Undergraduates
April,
Familiar]. tv
A.gre.t?ment
litatement --------- _____ _]_Fl:2 .. _---------Ford A
9~
Familiar w/brand
Fami] iar y.; I ad
54
1~91
\io
_~Lotal _
1
46
100
100
Ford B
Familiar w/brand
Familiar \\'; ad
98
<)
?~
73
100
100
Texaco A
Fami 1 i3 1:' wibrand
FamDiar w/ad
98
2
100
13
87
laO
97
9
3
91
100
100
Texaco B
Fcuni liar I.;' Ibrand
Familiar w/ad
~ (
<-
19
Ad Attitude - Ford A
150 HR.U State University t'ndprgraduutes
il..pril 1991
___________________________ 1-2.____ 3-4-=-5 ___ 6-7 _____ Iotal __tfearL_
Visual Effects
had/g()od
3
42
55
100
5.51
dislike/1 H:e
3
-17
50
100
5 33
,1
::l_
boring/int
44
100
5. 30
~?
Qual i t:J'
bad/good
dislike/like
boring/jnt
h
Or i g iJl;} LLty
bad/good
dislike/like
boring/Lnt
2
3
5
DialogUf:'
bad/good
dislikp/like
boringnnt
3
3
9
41
4
5
38
44
17
+0
46
50
:')8
51
·17
56
51
44
Ave_.,-,"lj~al}
5.38
100
100
100
5.46
S 30
;) 17
·
5 31
100
100
100
5.4G
c.~
32
5 15
5 .31
5.43
5.26
S .08
5 .26
·
·
48
56
4S1
4R
,Fi
100
100
100
3
:'if,
2
57
58
41
41
39
100
100
100
5. 10
5 .()2
S .08
fll
:16
~7
100
100
100
5.09
5 .06
4 .81
± .99
100
4 .84
l
Characters
bad/good
dj :::;li ke/lib?
bnring/int
3
Mu c; i..:;:,
Dad/good
dislike;'} i bOo
boring/int
:1
3
5
61
40
34
6
62
32
5 12
frlob~tLea~Jlre
Horst/best
n
a ra t i rH~. 01 1 i s
***
t, positive
is the
lEO S
.84
the Dl()st l'1egqt i \'P response and a rating of i
response
20
A dA_ t t i t u d e - - F 0 l'd B
150 R:--11l State l'nivf>rs:ity Undergri:1duates
April. 1981
1-2
Originality
bad/good
dislike/lihe
boring/int
1
2
2
8f)
78
79
100
100
laO
6.03
6.01
78
76
76
]00
100
100
6.09
6.01
6.07
77
76
:,:.)
100
100
100
6. 11
6.07
fi 99
6.06
100
100
100
;).89
5.9fi
5.95
fi.8h
6. 21
h.08
Charact~r~
22
24
bad/good
dislike/J ike
bodng/int
Visual Effects
badigood
rl i s I i 1, P.I 1 i ke
Qor-ing/int
24
22
1
?~
~i
1
21
(i!u c~~it_~~
badigood
_
(
6.12
dislike/like
21
?1
borin,::,:/int
2~
77
77
76
1
2
1
24
75
2h
72
fiR
100
100
100
6.01
5.80
5.77
1
1
59
54
56
100
100
100
5.64
5 54
1
40
45
'13
5 Sf)
2
41
57
100
5.44
MlI~
ic_
had/ ~?:o()d
dislike/likp
horing/'nt
Dialogue
had/good
dis 1 ike /] i k,C'
boring/int
Global ~[easure
worst/best
***
6.00
5.58
a rating of 1 is the most negative response and a rating of 7
is the most positive response.
21
Ad Attitude - Texaco A
150 Ball State Fndergraduate Students
April,1991
Visual Effects
7
7
R
50
had/good
14
dislike/like
16
8
41
44
55
45
40
4
9
40
61
:5h
30
11
62
bad/good
dislike/like
horing/jnt
54
55
4:3
39
37
100
100
100
5.05
4.91
4.84
4.93
Musi~
horing/int
Qualitv
had/good
dis]jkell:ike
bod ng/i nt
Characters
bad/good
-1
9
62
d:islike/] ike
10
6f,
29
24
bori ng/:i nt
11
64
Origina:Lity
bad/good
dislike/Uk::horing/int
100
100
100
lOG
JOO
100
4.83
4.hb
4.84
4.78
4 .91
4.61
4.51
4.68
100
4.:')2
4.47
22
100
100
4. 34
11
11
28
26
100
100
4.40
4.48
15
o~
<.(
100
4.31
4.34
4.34
~l
. 44
Dialogut~
bad/good
13
dislike/like
13
60
62
27
25
100
100
boring/int
14
R3
2·*
100
4.37
4.39
4.27
Global Jvfeasllre
h'orst/best
13
62
25
Ion
4.34
***
a rating of 1 is the most negative and a rating
most positjve
,.
of 7
is the
Ad Attitude -- Texaco B
150 Rall State TJniversity UndergraduAte Stllc1ents
I\pril, 1991
Qua1ity
badigood
dislikellike
horingiint,
QL~g
-
3
4
4
39
40
5
37
fiR
56
59
100
100
100
5.31
fi.40
;).!j
9
5.40
i n_~ LiJ:J':
hadh;ood
dislike/like
boring/int
5
4
84
39
37
Rl
56
Music
bad/good
dislike/l1kp
bori ngi tnt
4
4
5
38
39
40
:58
57
Visual Effects
bad/good
dislike/like
boringiint
3
3
5
46
51
10
10
6
35
38
55
43
7
11
11
10
Characters
had/good
dislike/like
bor~ngiint
Global Heasure
worst/best
100
100
100
5.42
5.43
5.39
100
100
100
5.33
5.30
5.22
5.28
100
100
100
~)
5. 14
5.22
51
100
100
100
5.20
5.19
5.25
5.21
47
46
100
5.22
5.22
13
56
44
100
45
44
4f)
4.90
4.9S
-L 95
4.93
51
f)0
55
50
46
44
~?
!)~
5.32
. 19
DialoguE~
badigood
dislike/like
horing/int
***
100
100
a
1 is the most negAtive rating Rna a 7 is the most positive
rat,ing.
23
Bremd :\ t tit ude (AI] Four Ads)
IS0 BaI] State Fndergr-aduates Students
April, 1991
_____.____________L--:2.. ___ ---ci .::.:l-=-.0_._ ....
Ford.A
Quality
poor/excellent
unfav/f'lv
bad/~o().j
Global Measure
poor/excellent
unfav/fav
bad/good
58
56
63
36
36
100
100
100
7
RI
62
24
31
100
100
R
~?
0_
30
100
9
8
3
, r:-
.L !.)
Cost-Benefit Ratio
poor/exceJlpnt
8
un fa ,. i fav
5
bad/good
5
Global Measure
poor/excellent
unfav/fav
bad/good
:13
P •
M ~ a D.
-t .67
4.75
it .83
4.75
4.26
.1.70
4.REi
4.54
4.29
4.45
18
100
18
15
100
100
18
100
100
100
4.20
4.47
4.48
7
4
100
100
4.64
4.96
4
100
i .9 G
100
100
100
4.79
-t.RR
·LR7
100
100
100
4.35
4.68
4.69
4.57
100
100
100
4.26
4.67
4.66
4.53
Rating vs. Competition
poor/excellent
13
unfavifav
9
7
bad/good.
Ford Ji
Quality
poor/excell2nt
unfavifav
bad/good
6 - 7_---.I <2.t.;;!.L .. _ji e--,-,a,-,,-n~---,-,'\ Y
69
67
-...,
I '-
12
6
R4
6
61
Rating vs. Competition
poor/excellent
8
Ilnfav / fp;v
5
bad/good
5
Cost-Benefit Ratio
poor/excellent
10
h
unfav/fev
"
hqd/good
4
24
21
60
71
21
(is
30
28
67
76
14
75
20
20
74
4 ..~ 6
4.38
1 .85
·1.35
2·}
Texaco -~
Quality
poor/excellent
unfav/fav
had/good
:II
35
7
4
62
61
5
65
:W
9
5
2
66
64
:n
66
Rating vs. Competition
poor/excellent
9
unfav/fav
6
bad/good
5
Cost-Benefit Ratio
poor/pxc('lJent
:5
unfa\' / fav
3
bAd/gooci
3
Global Measure
poor/excellent
unfav/fav
had/good
Texaco I~
Quality
poor / exce ll,?nt"
unfav/fav
bad/good
Global Heasure
poor/excellent
unfa\' /fay
bad/good
4.63
4.82
4.K"-
4. 7G
.'
"t')
't .
;12
100
100
100
4 .51
75
4.78
4.68
70
6f)
68
2j
28
27
100
100
100
4.35
·1.69
4.72
4.59
76
76
75
19
21
22
100
100
100
4.36
4.GO
4.:;7
4.51
4
3
:3
68
60
28
37
30
100
100
100
4.72
4.94
4.g]
~l
9
62
64
61
29
33
100
100
100
4.66
4.88
4.84
4.79
29
100
4.66
30
30
100
4.79
100
4.82
18
23
23
100
JOO
100
4.34
4.69
5
6
Rating vs. Competition
q
poor/excellent
:~
unfav/fav
bad/good
'1
Cost-Benefit Ratio
poor/p":cellE'nt
7
unfav/Ln:
8
bnd/~oocl
100
100
100
'\
67
62
67
fi6
75
69
74
25
:n
4.f)9
.86
4.72
4.::'7
***a 1 is the most
rating
-" d At t. i
hI
dp
negative rating and a 7
is the
most positive
& Bra n d At tit u d e
- - ;\ v era g ("0 Rat i n g s (.\] 1 F 0
150 Ball State Fnoergr8duat<:' Students
April, 1q~11
U
r
Ad Attitude
Originality
Characters
Vi sllfl1 ""ffects
QURU ty
'1usir
Dialogue
Glohal :1easure
***Order based on Ford R
:5
11.
5 08
5 ::18
5 21
1 99
5 26
t'")
::18
6 .08
6 07
6 Of)
S 95
5 8f)
5 58
5 H
·
·
~
13
4 4·1
4. 9::1
4. 68
4 78
4 34
:1 93
.
:5
3g
~)
21
::; 22
5 .40
5 28
·
·
4 93
S 22
Brand Attitude
QURli+y
Global ~1easure
Rating VS. rompetition
Cost-Benefit Ratio
***Order based on Ford B
:1 75
4 54
4 38
4 .40
.·67
4 85
.
-t
4 Hi
4 68
:1 57
4 53
4 fiq
4 51
,1
.86
4- 79
:1 72
-1
· 57
Ads)
26
jP)(,'
Brand Interest (All Four Ads)
State TJniver~ity Undergraclltate Students
April, 1991
_______________1..:: L_
;:1-_{:- 5 _
Ball
bad/good
sadicheerful
1
58
·11
27
di~qppojntpd/pleRseri
?
72
64
72
?~
75
22
56
73
58
60
upset/soothed
1
not evpectant/expectqnt
3
indifferent/curious
13
ignorant/enlightened
3
borediinterested
9
interest increased-no/yes
18
bad/good
sad/ che,?rfu]
disappointed/pleased
upsetisoothed
not expect.ant/expectant
indifferenticurious
ignorant/enlightened
hored/interested
interest increased -noiyes
1
1
4
4
4.8:3
-i • 5:1
4.50
·1.80
33
JOO
4.84
22
100
4 .25
37
64
32
46
68
71
60
68
53
31
25
36
38
63
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
5.90
5.54
5.05
4.75
5.04
5.08
5.64
60
3G
100
5.01
fiG
71
71
81
78
32
27
24
100
100
4.77
18
13
lOa
lOa
72
86
7
9
100
100
100
h2
4
Texaco A
bad/good
2
sad/cheerful
riisappointedipleased
R
upsetisoothed
1
not expectant/expectant
9
indifferent/curious
21
ignorant/enlightened
5
bored/jntel"ested
21
interest increased -noiyes
27
Tp08C_O Ii
bad/good
sad/cheerful
dlsappointedipleased
upsetisoothed
not expectant/expectant
indifferent/curious
ignorant/enlightened
24
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
3
1
3
1
8
8
3
:14
.. ,
::n
f)7
10r)
5 . 1 :.
4.87
4.97
0.7f)
4.73
4.52
1
-t •
~ ')
tl '<..-1
4.19
3.75
4.:10
4.04
GO
13
100
:i.7i
49
44
48
100
100
55
68
68
42
31
24
3.13
5.56
5.20
4.97
63
67
29
30
55
100
100
100
100
100
4.61
4.69
/1
.73
-
27
bored! interested.
interest increased
no!yes
l5C BaJl
~t_.<lj:_E:llfl_~ rLL
7
4ti
47
100
5.13
12
57
31
100
4.65
Past PurchFtsE's (All Four Ads)
State Univers i ty Undergraduate Shlc1pn t
April, 1991
"
__________ !\gI'p~J!1('n t ____________.To taL _._
yes
no
Have you ever purchased the
advertisert brand?
F°J'd..A
Ford B
]'~~>;;.acQ
:\
0t. I
73
12
57
-13
88
48
~?
Tex8,.G....o_fl
100
]00
100
100
!)-
1 .73
1 .88
1 .4·3
1. 50
Purchase Intentions (AJ1 Four Ads)
150 Ball State University Vndergraduate Students
April, 1991
Agreement
Statement
1-2
Ford A
If not, would you?
.
If yes, agaln:
')
Ford B
If not, would you?
If yes, agA.in?
Iexac.Q_A
If not, would you?
If yes, again?
Te,s.qcUl
If not, would you?
If yes, again?
21
22
3-4-fj
67
44
____ ~I 0 t a _1___--'''1 e an
6-7
11
34
100
100
3.88
4.52
20
16
100
100
4.27
4.2Ei
70
18
5f)
39
100
100
4.27
5.01
10
66
24·
100
6
51
43
100
4.49
5.05
1::1
h/
16
68
12
6
28
Test of
AA
-~
. I
,j
\.r
At ~
/'
.72
-.30
. 5 :i
B~
\.38 BE':;)
•Sj
p
p
1.
. HI
.35
I
.11
this hypoth'2sis
J
.50
p
interpst than
to drivo
(see correlation
.38
.48
~rT
Hypothesi s numher 1 stat,po that
drivp hrand
fA.!k
.,. 1
.44
.z;J
t
BI
.39
f~
n
Te'Ulro
Tex;,\("(' A
Ford B
Ford A
jF~
Hypot~e~_e§
.48
Fld at ti tude does more to
hrand attitude.
matrix ahove),
I'ie accept
This suppnrt:o:
the Machleit/Kent article which states that ad attitude does very
little to drive branri attitude,
2.
Hy?othesis 2 is rejerted as our results show
a relationship
involvement,
3.
showed r,o
between ad
attiturie lind
benefit ads.
Hypothesis 3
morE' of
8
is al"'o
again,
ollr r'esults
significA.nt relationship hE'th-epf1 ad attitude
anri brand interpst for low involvement,
4.
no less of
imFlge A.ds.
Hypothesis 4 is accepted as our validity tests
showed a
29
ve ry
relationship
s t ror,g
hetween
brand interpst and rognitive
responses.
These
results
signifirance
their
and
will
further
be
discussed cn the next section.
Rased
on
Ol1r
...,'e can drah' some very interest:i ng
fin<iings,
First of all, we see that
conclusions.
interest instead of brand attitude.
drive brand
that t.ht'" constructs of hrand
j
ndeed
AY-P
wOe
can a] so
SP"
those
into the cognitive zone.
rt
j
in this
s
area of
interesting things happened,
brand interest,
cognitive response.
Texaco A there was a split
and
coe;nitivp
emotion81
rationa'
benefit
.. ..,
.,
ad . •
remai ned,
there was
into what
we call
responses.
"Why
breqk-down
In
driven by
d j d thi s
in Ford Band
rational
these
in the
nds,
cognitive
only thE"
ad attitude.
ocrur 1n
The
an image Al"D
8
Our suggestions are broken down by ad as follows:
no split between the rational and the emotional
There
1S
ad.
This shows
that high-invo]vpment,
in this
image ads do nothing to
spark Rny rational response in thp consumer.
Ford B
a
Tn he more specific,
cognitive was shm·m te' be
quest i on th'2n
that some
contrnry to what was suspected.
Ke found that in two of the ads,
type of
hOh'evcr,
30
Here there is R definite
cogn i t i
\'1'>
responses.
split
This
hpcRuse the
is
and emotional
rational
between
ben(~fi
t
advert ispd
sparks more of a rational cognitive response 1n the ronSlimer
in high-involvernr:'nt products.
Texaco A
In this low-involvl'>ment,
the rational
image ad.
is also
emotional cognitive
and the
the opposite of high-involvement
involvement
there
pr0riucts
more
a
split between
response.
il.s
is JusT
for 1 0\'i--
products,
image
effective
in sparking rational
ads
responses in consumers.
Texaco B
This ad showed no separation in ratinnal and
response.
concent ]na t i ng
This
on
is
because,
benefit
responses from the consumer.
,.
for
rioes
emotional cognitive
] ow- invo 1 \-ement
nothing
to
evoke
products,
rntional
31
n L'icuS sj....Q...!.LilncL RecoID)11enda t_t on s
Perhaps the most important finding from this research is th0
This shows advertisers, while you can effectivply
discovered.
sell a benefit for high-invoJ\'ement
true
product
low- i n\'o Ivement
sell a
products.
Therefore,
Im.,r-invol vement.
fOT
has bpen
cognitive
fact tha.t this rRtionaliemotioflflJ
the most pffective way to
benefit
to
is
coneentrate
011
more of a rational cognitive response in
imFtge sparks
the consumer.
As far as recommendations,
to develoJ)
hrand
j
rGtional
a larger,
nte r'est.
as
further research needs to be done
more "'l'ecific
well
zone
list of these constructs of
rnnstrllcts
and
erna t. iona 1 cogni t i ve re sponsp .
which
fall
j
nto
fall
the
,nto the
re.qlm
of
Gardner, Meryl Paula.
"Do('s~ttj tude Toward the Ad Affect Brand
Attitude Linder a Brand E\'<!1n;~tion Set":'''
:To_l!I:D!lLof
t1s!1::~S'Jing Hesearcl:.
IYfay, 1985.
pp. 192 - 198.
& Terence A. Shimp.
.. At t i tude TOKard the
and Brand . \ttit'10es:
A ("l''1ssicnl C"onciitionino:
Perspective."
.Jollr:nal oL_,:\d~~rtis.LM.
1985. pp. 10 - 17.
Gresham,
L2rry G.
C\dvert j sement
Halstead, Diane.
"Cognitl"F' and Affecti\f> Determinants of
Consumer Satisfaction for a
DurAble Good."
lvfi chigan Stat,C'
TTniversity. East Lansing.
1988.
Kim,
John and Jeen-Su lim.
"The Dimensionality and Me('tSllrement
Farni1iarjt.y (·('nstr'Jct."
Tiniversit;;
of C'incinnati
and
University of Toledo.
1988.
Scott B. and RirhArd J. Lutz, and George F. Belch.
"The Role
of
Attitude
Toward
the
Ad
as
f1
Mediator of
C'omppt in,;
Advertising
Effectlvrness:
A
Test
of
Explanations."
JournaJ_Qf_M9rl:et:i ng B~searcb.
"fay. 1986 .
pp.
130 - HO.
~acKenzie.
Machleit, Karen
A. and
Hohprt .T.
Kent.
"What is thp Ef fpcot of
Attitude Toward the Ari
When t.hp
Consumer is
Familiar with
tHe Br;'1n<i?"
University of Cinrinnati, 1988.
KAren
A. and
H. Dale Wilson.
"Emotional Feelings and
the
Advertisement:
The
Roles
of Br8n<i
Attitllde Toward
FamiliArity and Repet i t ion. ..
Lc!-',lr!1~J_ ()_L_'\.~:tyec}::J~i_?j~!l.g:..
j 988.
pp..
27 - :1 fi •
~achlpi~,
Park,
C.
'~han
and
S.
:1ark Young.
"Cons11mer
Hesponse
to
Te:evision Commerrjals:
The
Tmoact
of
Involvement and
Bac:kgr(:lIJnd Husir
on Brand
At.titude Formation.
JOll.T}}£l-2.f
Mcu:k~_tJng Research.
Ff'b. 1986.
pp. i 1 - 24.
Smith, Hobert E. and l-iilJiam R, S"linyard.
"Information Response
Models:
An Tntegrated Approach."
JOl,lrnal of ~farketing.
Winter, 1982.
pro 84 - 92.
_____ . _ _ _ _
"Cognitive Hesponse to Advertising Rnd Trial:
Belief SLrength,
Bel ief Confidence, nnd Product Curiosity."
..Lo V rna 1 0 fAd v e r tis i:rr.g . 1 988 . p p. 3 - 1 4 .
Zikmund, WLL 1 iam G.
E~;pJ Qrj_Dg __ ~tl.!-rh~t.LDKJ.1t:::§earch.
Dryden Press, ~ew York.
-
1989.
The
)
Se0tiQD
1.
2.
)
FORD - B AD
HnN(;R?
-
49~
C.HJESTInNN~+
TPE
Familiarity
Are you familiar with the BRAND seen in the previous
ad?
___ no
_ _ _yo::s
Ad Attitude
Please
the following components of this
rat~
~d
4.
5.
6.
7.
s.
9.
10.
Quality
Bad
rieli}:e
B,:,ring
:::
1
r;.'
3
':)
2
4
4
4
[)
6
f'
t·
[.
I':
f
6
7
7
7
1
1
Boring
1
Characters
Bad
DislH:e
Boring
Dialogue
Bad
Dislike
Boring
Music
Bad
Dislike
Boring
2
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
Visual Effects
Bad
1
bislike
1
Boring
1
2
:::
2
2
:)
4
[,
:3
.;,
3
4
5
f,
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
3
3
3
4
4
4
3
3
3
4
4
4
3
3
4
4
4
~
c'
[,
5
5
f)
GCJ~d
I')
Like
Int8resting
6
6
6
7
7
7
Good
Like
Interesting
6
7
6
6
7
Good
Like
Interesting
7
7
5
7
Good
Like
Interesting
5
6
5
f)
6
7
7
7
Good
Like
Interesting
6
Quality of the br3.nd
Excellent
1
2
3
2
3
Unfavorable 1
2
3
Bad
1
4
5
5
5
4
4
6
6
7
7
Poor
Favorable
13
7
Good
Perceived c(Jet-benefit ratio for the brand
4
5
13
7
Poor
Excellent
1
2
3
Favvrab18
7
Unfavorable 1
:::
3
4
5
6
Good
7
4
Bad
1
2
3
5
6
12.
Rating against competition
234
Excellent
1
234
Unfavorable 1
234
Bad
1
Se0tion 4 - Brand Interest
7
6
6
6
5
5
)
A~.i",i.t.qd,..:..
13.
7
7
7
or-1ud
Good
Like
Interef:ting
:ri[iD~Jitl'
Bad
Dislike
-
11.
based on
the areas below them.
For example, if you feel the ad's
quali t.y it; extremely bad, circle a "1" or if you feel the
ad's quality i::~ extrenJely good, circle a "7",
If your
evaluation is some where in between a 1 and a 7, circle the
number t.hat. best. represents your evaluat.ion.
~.
Please rate your attitude toward this !)rand f,)r tile
following characteristics based on the areas below them.
Please circle your response.
Before today, had you ever seen the previous ad?
_ _ _no
_ _ _yes
Sec~ion?
3.
::;,:.,.-:t,;:-\~)
5
5
6
6
6
5
Overall attitude about the brand
Excellent
1
2
3
4
5
6
Unfavorable 1
2
3
4
5
6
Bad
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
7
7
Poor
Favorable
Good
~
Poor
Favorable
Good
I
7
7
Based on the ad you just saw, rate the following.
circle your response.
Did ad make you feel -
14
Bad
1
2
,.,
lS
Sad
1
16
Dis~pp,)int~d
1
Please
3
4
5
6
7
Good
.,)
4
5
6
7
Ch~erful
,.,
3
c.
i3
7
Fl~8.,:.~r:d
r,
3
4
!-\
n
"
7
.3.:'
)t.h~\~l
17
Ups8t
18
Not expectant 1
:::
.,'
~
4
:)
6
7
Exp8: ::tant
19
Indifferent
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Curiou.::.;
20
Ignorant
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Enlightened
21
Bored
1
3
4
5
6
7
IntereE:ted
22
The advertise~ tried to increase your interest in the
advertised brand.
Did helshe succeed?
Definitely No
1 2
3 4 5 6 7
Definitely Yes
"'"
T
How do you rate the ad compared to other ads for
automol,iles?
Worst
1
2
.,
c'
Part 5 - Pur0hasp Intentions
4
f}
6
7
Best
23
Have you ever purchased the advertised brand?
_____ yes
_____no
24
If not, would you?
Definitely No
1
25
2
3
4
5
6
7
Definitely· Yes
If yes will you again?
Definitely No
1 2
".J
4
5
o
~
7
Definitely Yes
Thank you for y()ur time and your effort.